Were Apostles Limited? What about self-proclaimed 'Apostles' today?

Apostles had special qualifications which set them apart from common people 2 Cor. 12:12, they laid down the foundation Eph. 2:20( Foundation were Apostle, we dont build foundation after 4th floor) The qualifications of this type of apostle were: (1) to have been a witness of the resurrected Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1, Acts 1:22), (2) to have been explicitly chosen by the Holy Spirit through 12 apostles(Acts 1:21-26) (Acts 9:15), and (3) to have the ability to perform signs and wonders (Acts 2:43; 2 Corinthians 12:12). There are some others who are not part of 12 but were considered apostles like 'Barnabas is referred to as an “apostle” in Acts 13:2 and 14:4. Andronicus and Junias are possibly identified as apostles in Romans 16:7. The same Greek word usually translated “apostle” is used to refer to Titus in 2 Corinthians 8:23 and Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:6–9), Timothy and Silas (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6). So, there definitely seems to be more than 12 apostles being personally chosen by Apostles themselves like 'Matthias' Acts 1:25. Namely, James (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:6), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), possibly Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:7).

[1] Some say, Just because there were more than 12 apostles , this proves the idea that Apostles are not limited and that even today apostles exist.

However, we see these few others called Apostles , but these were only close associates 'considered as Apostles'. Subsequent group of apostles were given special ministry gift with original Apostles through common agreement between 12 Apostolic authority (12 were the ones who choose those who would be as Apostles with them Acts 1:25), not everyone else on their own could be considered Apostle. Even within the 1st century Group of Apostles , they were limited , " I saw none of the other Apostles (Gal. 1:19)" Apostles had this special right and office to choose other apostles (Acts 1:25, Acts 6:6 'Stephen and Philip were laid hands by apostles themselves whom Lord later used as miracle workers to authenticate his messengers), only they were called apostles not everyone else (Gal 1:19). Apart from 12 there were other apostles, this latter group had the gift of apostleship but not the apostolic "office" conferred upon the Twelve and Paul. Those who had the gift of the apostle, then, were those who carried the gospel message with God’s authority. The word "apostle" means "one sent as an authoritative delegate." This was true of those who held the office of Apostle (like Paul) and those who had the spiritual gift (like Apollos). Scripture provides past tense for Apostolic office, should also be noted that Scripture refers to these men in the past tense. 2 Peter 3:2 and also Jude 3-4, state that the people should not stray from the message the apostles gave (past tense). Hebrews 2:3-4 also speaks in the past tense of those who performed (in the past) signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. If 1st Century scripture demands Apostles as something unique even within the 1st Century this gives us important distinction on why Original writers confined apostolic office. - The term apostle is used in a more general sense of other men in the early church, such as Barnabas (Acts 14:4), Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 2:6), and a few other outstanding leaders (Rom. 16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). The false apostles spoken of in 2 Cor. 11:13 no doubt counterfeited this class of apostleship, since the others were limited to thirteen and were well known. The true apostles in the second group were called “messengers (apostoloi) of the churches” (2 Cor. 8:23), whereas the thirteen were apostles of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; etc). The New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, is an unbiblical religious movement that emphasizes experience over Scripture, mysticism over doctrine, and modern-day “apostles” over the plain text of the Bible. Of particular distinction in the New Apostolic Reformation are the role and power of spiritual leaders and miracle-workers, the reception of “new” revelations from God, an over-emphasis on spiritual warfare, and a pursuit of cultural and political control in society. The seeking of signs and wonders in the NAR is always accompanied by blatantly false doctrine. Those who teach the restoration of the office teach that the men who claim to be apostles and prophets should never be spoken against, should never be questioned, because the person who speaks against them is speaking against God.

2] Purpose of Signs and Wonders:-

Just because some other men performed same signs, doesn't prove that the office of apostles falls apart. Because, Apostles in both groups were authenticated “by signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Cor. 12:12), but neither group was self–perpetuating like today. In neither sense is the term apostle used in the book of Acts after 16:4. Nor is there any New Testament record of an apostle in either group being replaced when he died. The prophets were second to the apostles, and their message was to be judged by that of the apostles (1 Cor. 14:37). Stephen or Philip performed these same signs and wonders but was obviously not called an apostle. For this kind of instance, we need to understand how God used Apostles and their core associates to do 'unusual signs and wonders' in order that their message was beyond 'human skepticism' and was divinely authenticated. (Acts 2:43, 4:16, 5:12) It says, 'Apostles performed', and the result often was divine authentication without questioning (Mark 16:20). Lord often confirmed the Apostles' message for the production of the Scripture and the doctrines that whatever they said was divinely approved (Acts 14:3 'Lord bore witness....granting signs' , 15:12 ;19:10-12). - Interestingly Stepehen and Barnabas who were not part of 12 were included in this authenticating purpose because they were undoubtedly close associates of Apostles and authenticating their message would inevitably give approval to the group of apostles as a whole. Jews had no other clue how to defend Apostles because God was working tremendously amazing work through their hands, for Jews believed if they were not from God these miracles could not be performed (John 3:2),. Even Christ was affirmed in this way' (Hebrew 2:4, John 3:2; 10:25, John 20:31 'Miracles are written so that you may believe'). Barnabas is called an apostle and did miracles as well. Whatever his role may have been, his ministry was not exactly the same as the Twelve or Paul. Authentication of the Apostle was so powerful that no one dared to copy them otherwise God would expose such counterfeit miracle workers like seven sons of skeva. - Paul was refuting those who falsely called themselves apostles and How Paul defended? When Paul says, 'Signs of True Apostle as signs and wonders in 2 Corinthians 12:12' pause there for a moment and think in Acts do we see all people running around with their handkerchief and do unusual miracles? If that was the case, how come Paul's specific words 'Signs of a true apostle' were validated if there was no distinction between Apostle and common believer? Acts 6:7 says, So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly. Notice it doesn't say 'number of Apostles increased rapidly'. The reason Apostles were considered by the Lord distinct was because their message was revelatory and God needed to divinely give approval to their message being infallible. Today we do not have any new revelation in an infallible sense, because there are no more apostles today. - Moreover Miracles do not alone stand as right to apostleship, but exponential Acts 2:43, 5:12, 19:11-12 , 28:9, without delay instantly Acts 4:30; 4:16, regular Acts 14:3, exceptional Acts 6:8, 19:11, Ro 15:19. Apostles never seem to wait with fasting for some healing in Acts in all the verses we read, unlike we pray long hours today for answers to healings and miracles, even though Miracles happen today but none of us can claim 'signs and healing' by instant proclamation like apostles, none of our handkerchiefs work like theirs. Our miracles today are simply answers to persistent sometimes short-time prayers, so miracles are possible without having the gift of apostleship or being an apostle. But, we will not be working like apostles today, going all around and healing people in instant at will. Today many so-called Apostles first of all give wrong doctrines, and secondly unverified miracles. Unlike real apostles of Acts, today many people claim healings that are often without any need for authentication of their message because most of such meetings are often done among those who are already saved. - Instead of Apostle, New Testament gift of 'Evangelist' applies today in the Church. (Eph 4:11), Philip was called Evangelist in Acts 21:8, instead of Apostle. - The fact that the gift of Apostleship has ceased is an important factor in any discussion regarding the current status of other Scripture and sign gifts. Dr. Carson states the obvious that: As long as "Apostles” are understood to refer to a select group whose positions or functions cannot be duplicated after their demise, there is a prima facie [obvious] case for saying at least one of the charismata [spiritual gifts] passes away at the end of the first generation. Therefore, there is a precedent for asking if there were other spiritual gifts in Paul's day that cannot be operative in our day. it is clear that the gift of Apostleship that Paul mentions in this text [1 Cor 12:28] is not transferable to persons living in our day. ____DA Carson, A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14,(Baker ,1978), 88,91. ● I have explained in my book why Gift of Healing and Wonders and Miracles are limited to 'Apostles' , 2 Co. 12:12 answers that question, even though Paul mentions **list** of Gifts for Church in 1 Co. 12, but among those gifts, ____ Miracles, healing, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues were temporary sign gifts limited to the apostolic age and have, therefore, ceased. Their purpose was to authenticate the apostles and their message as the true word of God, until God’s written word was completed and became self-authenticating. ___ MacArthur , 1 Co 12. ● Paul mentions 'gift of healing with other normal gifts in the list 12:9, healing. It was temporary sign gift used by Christ 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1), the seventy (Luke 10:1), and a few associates of the apostles, such as Philip (Acts 8:5–7). This ability was identified as a gift belonging to the apostles (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12). Although Christians today do not have the gifts of healings, God certainly still hears and answers the faithful prayers of his children. The reason why Paul is listing special Apostolic gifts along with other normal gifts is because 'Paul is making the point that *all work out in one body* - Apostles being part of the body were included in the list. Not all Corinthians were Apostles , but Paul is making the point that 'Do not fight against each other, 'Eye Do not say to foot I don't need you' ...So to make the point of Unity, all gifts including apostolic are mentioned there. ● Spirit gives to 'each' one is not to be confused with 'all gifts mentioned are given to each' , but that 'All believers have atleast one gift each'... However that word doesn't prove the point of 'Apostolic gifts'. For that our next point, ● Background question is 'Whether Apostles were limited or are there Apostles today? If Apostles were limited, the signs that attached Apostles were also limited. If Apostolic gifts were still active today that would include 'Tongues, Healing, Miracles 'Then How can Paul distinguish between Apostle and common man' ? In that case , the distinguishing mark of the Apostle is lost. Because their peculiar gifts are now general in Church. ● 2 Co. 12:12, states that, The purpose of miraculous sign gift was to authenticate the apostles as God’s messengers (cf. Acts 2:22; 43; 4:30; 5:12; 14:3; Rom. 15:18–19; Heb. 2:3–4). And that, Apostles had special authentication from the Lord for such gifts. Gift of tongue is also called 'Apostolic' because it was miraculous in nature. Please refer to this article. https://www.gotquestions.org/miraculous-gifts.html

[3] What about Barnabas? David Huffstutler( Phd, SBTS) states in what sense Barnabas was an apostle?

In Acts 14:4, Luke refers to “the apostles” who, in context, are Paul and Barnabas (cf. Acts 13:50). Ten verses later, Luke is more explicit and refers to “the apostles Barnabas and Paul” (Acts 14:14). Barnabas was clearly an apostle. But in what sense? Was he an apostle like the Twelve? Was he an apostle to the Gentiles in the same sense as Paul? Could the term apostle mean something else in this context? Part of the difficulty in explaining Barnabas as an apostle lies in the fact that Paul, too, is called an apostle in Acts 14:4, 14. If Paul was an apostle in much the same way as the original Twelve, to call Barnabas an apostle alongside Paul seems to color Barnabas with the same apostolic hue as Paul. But this reasoning does not necessarily follow. Luke typically describes Barnabas as an individual who was distinct from the twelve apostles (Acts 4:36; 9:27; 15:2, 22). These verses and others demonstrate that Luke consistently used the term apostle to refer to the Twelve. Luke’s use of the term apostle with reference to others such as Barnabas and Paul is exceptional. ____F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 271; John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 312 This is not to say that Paul was not an apostle, but it is to say that whether Paul, Barnabas, or anyone else, Luke did not typically call these men apostles. More likely, Luke used a more generic use of the term apostle, albeit with reference to two notable individuals. One scholar refers to Acts 14:4, 14 and explains this use of apostle as follows: “In this broad usage, then, an apostle was a first-century evangelist who bore witness to the resurrection of Christ, an itinerant missionary sent by Him to make disciples of all nations.” Barnabas was an apostle in the sense that he was sent to proclaim the gospel with Paul (cf. Acts 13:1–3). To get even more technical, Luke’s order of names in Acts 14:14 (Barnabas and Paul vs. Paul and Barnabas) could suggest the exceptional nature of this use of apostle as well. Unless referring to Paul by his Jewish surname Saul, Luke usually referred to Paul first and Barnabas second (Acts 13:43, 46, 50; 15:2, 22, 35; cf. 15:12, 25). If Luke was copying an irregular order of these two names from some external source, it could be that he also copied the term apostle along the way, explaining why Luke would have used the term with reference to someone other than the Twelve. (FF Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 276.) Another suggestion for the unusual order of names is that this order corresponds to the order of the gods Zeus and Hermes mentioned in Acts 14:12. ( Andrew F. Falls, “Apostle,” NBD, 123.) In short, Luke described Barnabas as someone distinct from the Twelve. He was sent with Paul to proclaim the gospel, and in this sense, he was an apostle. (I have no problem with someone who does describe him as an apostle in this sense, but sadly this is not the sense in today's apostolic circles, it is all about miracle workers, and new revelations when generally this title tag before the name is given) That example cannot be used as an example of someone who received an apostleship that was the same as the Twelve or Paul and thus be used as precedent for anyone to claim a similar apostleship today. Analogical usage of the word as a 'sent ones' is not the problem, I went as a missionary, so analogically I am 'sent one' , in that sense everyone of us in one way or other are 'sent one' if we are indulged in mission activity, but that is not the case with NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION. I am drawing this distinction because it is always mixed up, with New revelatory , self-proclaimed , prophecy maker, miracle claiming charismatic people who come up with this 'tag' called Mr. Apostle XYZ , and very rarely true evangelists call themselves 'apostles'.

[4] What about Paul?

- When we look at these requirements, we wonder – how was Paul able to claim that he, too, was an apostle? He met only the last two of these three requirements. He saw Jesus after the resurrection (Acts 9:1–9; 1 Cor 15:8), and Jesus appointed him to be apostle (Acts 26:16–18; cf. 9:15–16). However, Paul was an unbeliever who persecuted the early church (Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2) and could obviously not have been one who followed Christ during His earthly ministry (cf. Acts 1:21–22a). Was the first requirement really not all that necessary? Could this apostolic appointment of Paul set a precedent to open the door for others to later say that they, too, had somehow seen Jesus and been appointed to be apostles as well? - The answer is no because Paul describes himself in terms that imply he was an exception to the rule. Twice in 1 Corinthians he describes his apostleship in correlation to when Jesus first appeared to him (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–9). In the second of these descriptions, he notes that Jesus appeared to him “as to one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8), a phrase that describes one of the primary ways in which Paul’s apostleship was distinct from the Twelve. Apart from other ways this phrase could be taken, it seems Paul used the picture of a premature birth to imply that his apostleship was something that came about rather abruptly as opposed to something that had been developed over a longer period of time.1 Teasing out the picture further, one could say that the Twelve underwent the full development of apostolic nurture in being discipled by Christ during His earthly ministry.2 In contrast, Paul’s apostleship came about rather suddenly and apart from such a process. Putting this all together, the Twelve were the Twelve in part because they were with Christ from His baptism by John to His ascension into heaven (Acts 1:21–22a). Christ chose Paul to be an apostle apart from such a process, but even Paul knew this type of apostleship was out of the ordinary (1 Cor 15:8). Moreover, if Paul’s apostleship was unexpected for such a reason, it seems all the more unlikely that we would see apostles today.

[5] Apostleship in the early Church is characterized by divine revelation and infallibility in communication. :-

- Clear BIblical reference is 1 Thess 2:13 , where Paul characterizes his own preaching as 'Word of God', the same term Jesus used for Old Testament 'Word of God' in Mark 7:13. (cf. Acts 4:31, 6:2; 11:1, 13:5, 19:10)

- A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. The English word "canon" comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". Christians became the first to use the term in reference to scripture, but Eugene Ulrich regards the notion as Jewish. - There are five criteria on deciding canon : Inspiration, Apostolicity, Antiquity, Orthodoxy and Catholicity (or “universal usage”). Apostolicity is a historical word, Defined as 'Apostolic Authority in decision of Canon making'. Apostolicity means, by which is meant that a work was either written by an Apostle, authorized by an Apostle, or preserved faithfully the teaching of the Apostles by those who personally knew them. As Jesus left no writings, the authority of the Apostles as interpreters of his message was crucial for the Christian community. Therefore, the criterion of apostolic authority was of especial importance. ____Thomas J Farmer, THE POWER OF THE CANON IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNAL IDENTITY What about other Criterias ?

• Inspiration: By which it is meant that the work was written under the influence or operation of the Holy Spirit. As none of the canonized NT works (except Revelation) claim inspiration for themselves, however, this criterion falls fully within the scope of the sensu ecclesia. ___C. R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005], 585-588 - Antiquity: It was Integrally connected with the criterion of apostolicity is the notion of antiquity. Those writings which were determined by the early Church to have been composed within the 1st century enjoyed the possibility of genuine ascriptions to Apostles (and thus carried apostolic authority), which simply could not be claimed by works written in the 2nd century. - Orthodoxy The term “Orthodoxy” is today a loaded term, but here it refers simply to a minimalist threshold for what can be agreed upon by the greatest number of Christians as regards what constitutes Christian belief. By which is meant, a reflection of what the Church has preached at all times and in all locations throughout its history. Therefore, books which meet this criterion are those which reflect “core” beliefs held to be a part of the universal expression of the “great Church.” - Catholicity : Catholicity (or Universal Usage) Refers specifically to the functional authority and privileged status already gained by the “Recognized” books of the NT. The criterion of universal usage, therefore, treats as suspect any work which cannot be demonstrated to have been regarded as Scripture by the majority of Christians throughout the history of the Church. If you combine all the criteria and decide upon infact which traceable proof that all other criteria hinge around and makes it possible for Church fathers and early church to widely accept the writings as Scripture, you will find their connection is heavily build around 'Apostolicity'. - Canon is considered by adherents "closed" (i.e., books cannot be added or removed), reflecting a belief that public revelation has ended and thus some person or persons can gather approved inspired texts into a complete and authoritative canon, which scholar Bruce Metzger defines as "an authoritative collection of books". In contrast, an "open canon", which permits the addition of books through the process of continuous revelation. Some of the Quotation about Apostolicity in the decision of Canon:- - Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets."[ Martyr, Justin, First Apology, 67.3.] A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly [ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3.11.8. ] One writer says that the Muratorian canon, which was an important document for the early church, adds that John was written by the Apostle John and then reviewed and approved by all the other Apostles. It is notable that the author ascribes all he says about Luke to anonymous „received opinion (ex opinione). The list also claims Hermas was written 'recently' (unfortunately, we cannot trust that the author was correct about this), and is to be regarded highly and read privately but not held in the same esteem as the other books. ____Richard Carrier, Ph.D. in ancient intellectual history from Columbia University, Formation of NT Canon,18. [The essay is a summary of the consensus of scholars on the formation of the New Testament, drawn from the far more detailed survey of the subject, viz., Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987)] - The New Testament canon was heavily based on the apostles of the Church. Thus the canon was not only complete but also fully and finally accepted by the end of the fourth century. In an article originally published in 1892 Warfield writes: "In every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts about it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity". - Eusebius (ca. 260-340) With him we reach a very important landmark in the history of the canon. He provides us with a full statement in which he explains the position taken up in the Church at large. He makes an important distinction between homologoumena ('recognized books') and antilegomena ('disputed books') as follows: i) The recognised books are the Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John, and "perhaps Revelation" (if written by the apostle). (ii) He divides the disputed books into two sub-classes: (1) those that ought to be included in the canon - James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. (2) those that ought not to be included - the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, Barnabas and "perhaps Revelation" (i.e. if not apostolic) ____ Eusebius, "Church History", A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, volume 1, edited by P. Schaff and H. Wace, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, 133-35. [ The bracket if not apostolic is in the Original quotation] - So we see one factor in rejection of Apocrypha was mostly based on whether the authortship can be validated from the Apostle or not. If Apostolic office continued after the 1st century, how would the church determine 'Canon', since every century people could claim apostleship and claim new revelations to be added as the scripture. - Some say, Apostles were not at all the factor for canon, it was just general 'acceptance as Church body testimony' that gradually was called 'Canon', but is this true?

● Canonicity :- Here is an important quote from The Canon Debate, "Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD." ___ Three forms are postulated, from Gamble, Harry Y, "18", The Canon Debate, p. 300, note 21, (1) Marcion's collection that begins with Galatians and ends with Philemon; (2) Papyrus 46, dated about 200, that follows the order that became established except for reversing Ephesians and Galatians; and (3) the letters to seven churches, treating those to the same church as one letter and basing the order on length, so that Corinthians is first and Colossians (perhaps including Philemon) is last. ● Why Luke? And Hebrews? If authorship is not by the Apostle?

The Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. ___de Jonge 2003, p. 315. Don Stewart, a well-known author says, Some Books May Not Have Been Authored By Apostles, It is not necessary that every writer of a New Testament book had to have been an Apostle. A writer of a New Testament book may belong to the larger apostolic circle. While the books authored by the apostles were immediately accepted as authoritative, there were a few works that were not written by apostles. Decisions had to be made concerning which ones would be accepted and which ones would be rejected.

The Non-Apostolic Writings Were Written Under Apostolic Guidance If we include books written not by the apostles themselves but by people who wrote under their guidance and supervision, then all the New Testament books could be in this category. For example, the gospel of Mark was written under the influence of Peter. Luke, the traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Someone from that apostolic circle wrote the Book of Hebrews - though his present identity is unknown. James and Jude were also apostles in the wider sense of the term and, depending upon their identification, could actually have been two of the twelve Apostles. Therefore every New Testament book has some type of apostolic connection.

There Would Have Been Guidance From The Apostles In Determining The Canon There is also the likelihood that all of the present New Testament books received endorsement by the living apostles. Many of the apostles were still living when most, if not all of, these books were written and circulated. They would have been in a position to give guidance to believers concerning which writings were divinely authoritative and which were not. We have one example that it was being done. Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15,16).

After recognition of this apostolicity, it was than that Church widely accepted and circulated those letters. There has to be something on the bases of which 'it was widely accepted', we can not simply say, 'It was vaguely distributed and widely accepted' without considering 'apostolic connection' for it was the main reason Canonisation was easy for later generation.

Another writer says, exception for Hebrews , "The criterion of apostolic authority was of especial importance. This is partially why there were initial reservations about the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as The Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation; the latter two being difficult to determine which James and John to identify as their respective authors." (Here we can see the inclusion of Hebrews in the canon was primary issue because of Apostolicity) later on the Church accepted it written through the guidance of apostles or someone close to apostles wrote it under the 'dictation of apostle themselves'. And today we have Letter to Hebrews included in the New Testament. ● Here are Some statements that prove early fathers emphatically distinguishing 'Apostles as something past and not present' and distinguished from common leaders:- In the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr (whose writings span the period from c. 145 to 163) mentions the "memoirs of the apostles", which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament. ___First Apology, Justin, 67.3 The Epistle to the Hebrews was included in the collected writings of Paul from a very early date. For example, the late second-century or early third-century codex, a volume of Paul's general epistles, includes Hebrews immediately after Romans. ___Comfort, Philip W (2005). Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism. pp. 36–38. ISBN 0805431454. Clement of Alexandria, saying that "the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher", as quoted by Eusebius. ___Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11–14. (Notice the Past tense of Clement's statement, there is no sense if Apostles still existed Clement could have spoken with 'Apostles in past tense') Jerome, aware of such lingering doubts,included the epistle in his Vulgate but moved it to the end of Paul's writings. Augustine affirmed Paul's authorship and vigorously defended the epistle. By then its acceptance in the New Testament canon was well settled. ___129.3, Jerome Ad Dardanum. So we believe that 'Luke and Hebrews are exceptions to the rule' because early Christianity already affirmed these both to be part of their scripture in God's providence. But this argument doesn't disapprove of the fact that 'Early Christianity still considered Apostolic authority as an important factor in considering most of writings to be considered as scripture'. If Apostles were unlimited, they could have even given the right to some other apocrypha as well to be considered part of scripture, and many later Apostles themselves after 1st Century (if any) could have claimed their writings to be considered at par with '1st Century' Apostles. - The New Testament clearly tells us that the apostles were identifying Scripture as it was being written (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Peter 3:14-16; cf. 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7 ). The New Testament books were being distributed by the apostles to the various churches to be read (Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 3:14). By the time the apostles died, the New Testament had been written and its books were known. The Muratorian Fragment and several of the early fathers have left us a list of books that were identified as belonging to the New Testament. Thus, in Conclusion Apostolic Authorship Would Have Guaranteed Authority. One criterion would have been, "Was the author an apostle or did he have the endorsement of an apostle?" The issue of authorship was important because of the special promises that Jesus made to His specially chosen Apostles. They were given divine authority. If a particular writing came from an apostle, then its authority was guaranteed. This means that most of the New Testament books would have been immediately accepted.

[6] Impossibility of impartation of Holy Spirit and Gifts just like apostles:-

- This is another area in which Apostles starkly distinguish themselves and are almost impossible to exist today. That is the very peculiar happenings we see in the book of Acts done by Apostles' laying of hands. There are two meanings of 'laying of hands in book of Acts and elsewhere in Bible.':- 1) First meaning comes out is 'miraculous laying on of hands' which was specifically done by Jesus and Apostles:- Jesus :Jesus’s most common practice in healing is touch, often described as “laying his hands on” the one to be healed (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:22–25; Luke 13:13). Apostles: Paul’s hands, in turn, become channels of extraordinary miracles (Acts 14:3; 19:11), including the laying of his hands on a sick man on Malta to heal him (Acts 28:8). In 1 Timothy 4:14, Paul charges Timothy, his official delegate in Ephesus, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you." (Notice Gift was given 'when' elders laid their hands on you. Elders could here refer to Apostles themselves or associates in the presence of Apostles. "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of **my hands***, (2 Timothy 1:6, ESV) ,this means Paul was present when this gift was imparted through prophecy.

Rom 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established Act_8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Act_28:8 And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.

Thus when Apostolic laying on of hands was so different than normal that, When Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money.” Hmm, he offered them money. Consider if something unusual was not going on, how come a sorcerer began having interest in this activity? That's why we say, Apostolic laying on of hands was miraculous in nature and impartation of gifts and healings were undoubtedly connected to it. But I will argue later this kind of miraculous impartation is not working today. 2)Second sense of 'laying of hands' is commissioning that can continue today:-

While the majority of Old-Testament mentions involve priests and first-covenant ceremonies (passing the curse to the substitute), two texts in particular (both in Numbers) anticipate how “the laying on of hands” would come to be used in the church age (passing a blessing to a formally recognized leader). In Numbers 8:10, God’s people lay their hands on the priests to officially commission them as their representatives before God, and in Numbers 27:18, God instructs Moses to lay his hands on Joshua to commission him formally as the new leader of the nation. In NT , when the church responds to the Spirit’s directive, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2), then “after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off” (Acts 13:3). Like Acts 6:6, this is a formal commission performed in public, with the collective request for God’s blessing on it. - Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. (1 Timothy 5:22, ESV) here also Paul in context is discussing commissioning an elder too hastily for the ministry. This is what we call 'commissioning laying on of hands' which is the general sense in which a person is set aside by elders for ministry which continues today.