In their commentary on Second Corinthians, Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes wrote about the apostleship:
Suggesting that the office was not
meant to exist for only a short time is that, after the Resurrection again
personally commissioned the Twelve and gave them their assignments (Matt.
28:16-20; Acts 1:4-9). Thus, they took his place as earthly leaders of his
“kingdom” and pushed forward his work. It is clear from Acts that the Lord’s
intent was not for the Twelve to minister for a brief span of time but for the
whole period until his coming. Thus, the Lord cemented the calling’s place into
his Church. This requirement demanded the following of the vacancy left by
Judas (Acts 1:21-26) and, by extension, others. (Richard D. Draper and Michael
D. Rhodes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Brigham Young
University New Testament Commentary; Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2023], 75)
However,
it appears that the source they reference does not support the Latter-day Saint
understanding:
With the post-Easter situation, which
cannot be separated from the experience of the absoluteness of Jesus in the
circle of the disciples, there is linked the lasting character of the
commission which they are now given. The risen Lord does not now appoint His
representatives merely for a limited span but for the whole period, of unknown
duration, between Easter and His return. Yet He makes only the one
appointment, and therefore it is only logical that the apostolate should be
limited to the first generation and should not become an ecclesiastical office.
(Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ἀποστέλλω (πέμπω), Ἐξαποστέλλω, Ἀπόστολος,
Ψευδαπόστολος, Ἀποστολή,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols.
[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–], 1:432, emphasis in bold added)
On
October 24, 2023, I emailed Michael Rhodes querying this, asking Michael:
would I be correct that you view that
what Rengstorf writes supports LDS ecclesiology in light of the belief that the
earliest NT Christians (or at least, many) believed that the parousia
would be in their lifetime, so it was their position that “apostle” would be an
office until the second coming, so what Rengstorf writes is not at odds with
your referencing him//LDS ecclesiology? (this, btw, is not a “gottcha”
question—I am LDS, just want to be sure before citing your comments as well as
TDNT 1:432 if/when post-NT era apostleship comes up in a discussion with
non-LDS).
I
never got a response from Michael Rhodes.
I
am bringing this to people’s attention as I try my best to be careful with my
handling of sources, and I do call up critics when they are sloppy—all the more
so when it comes to those on my side of the debate.
