Thank you, Doc.
This is what I think I see in Acts 12 -14 (you suggested 13-14):
1.) In Acts 12, Peter has an exciting and effective Jerusalem ministry. Though disciplined
by the state, he is released and miraculously returns to the congregation.
Apparently there are several "ministers" in the local area.
This is a contextual antecedent. Was he *sent?*
2.) In Acts 13, since there were several prophets and teachers (this
prior to the wider circulation of the Pauline doctrinal formulation regarding
prophets and teachers later in his epistles to other (non-Jerusalem) newly
established *Gentile?* congregations), and since they knew among themselves who
they were, it should be no surprise that during fasting and prayer, they would
agree on what to do with a couple of them, at least one of which had already
indicated his mission.
They knew Paul's story of conversion and commissioning by Jesus, and he was not
there for the purpose of remaining in Jerusalem,
and they all knew that his ministry was to the Gentiles not in Jerusalem. They agreed (apparently
unanimously) to cooperate in sending Paul and Barnabas where they (Paul and
Barnabas) knew they should be going.
"Set apart" includes the idea of releasing them from any limiting
responsibilities in Jerusalem
in order to *send* them. v13: apoluo means to free fully, literally to
relieve, release, dismiss. And so under those *conditions,* they were
"sent."
There is as much a *test* on the members of the sending congregation as there
is upon Paul or upon Barnabas.
3.) It is not as if Paul and Barnabas were told what to do and where to
go, and then sent in order to do what they were told to do where they were sent
to do it. Although some seem to *read* this in the text, I don't find it.
4.) No mention is made of "covering" at all. Where does
that idea come from? Is it extra-textual?
5.) In 13.5 it is distinctly indicated they were sent forth by the Holy
Spirit; it does not say they were sent forth by the congregation or by any
leaders. To recapitulate then, it would appear that virtually everyone
knew what was going to take place, and clearly it may have been no surprise or
*news* at all that Paul and Barnabas anticipated leaving, but in fact many were
looking forward to this commissioning and sending. So there came a moment
to "officiate" the already clearly indicated wish of the Holy Spirit.
6.) Prior (in time) to this Acts account of this mission, we understand
Paul's awareness that he was to minister to Gentiles elsewhere than in Jerusalem. It is
clear he did not go to Jerusalem
to get permission, nor to receive a commission, nor to be filled with the Holy
Spirit, nor to seek any favor. He went to identify, to minister, to
assist, to assure, and to give notice. They responded graciously,
together they received his instructional ministry, they enjoyed fellowship,
they agreed *in the Spirit* as to his calling, doctrine, and equipping and
readiness to minister, and finally in his (their) commissioning.
Similarly, we understand the old man's hearing of the Holy Spirit that this man
Saul would suffer and serve Jesus, probably not in Jerusalem nor among only Jews.
7.) So there was agreement among them all about the words of Jesus, the
ministry of the Spirit in each and among them in community of faith, and in
actions supporting what was first identified to Paul, then to the old man, then
to the others in the Jerusalem
congregation, and they were in agreement. So they acted in concert.
8.) Subsequently Paul returned with *Gentile* offerings for the Jerusalem poor saints and
an accounting of the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the effectiveness of the
logos and the rhema among the Gentiles who heartily supported and suffered for
their new cause. Paul then left Jerusalem
again, for further Gentile *road trips.*
My question is about how to support any claim regarding *covering* that is
clearly extraneous to the text? And what would be the motive for such a
claim?
It would seem that some question of *power* or *authority* is intended or
implied in claims regarding "covering." It just does not
usually seem simply to be a *common practice* issue on the part of the people
making the claim. There seems to be some interest in accountability
needing to have scriptural or doctrinal antecedence or precedence.
Perhaps fear of losing control? That would account for the urgency I seem
to read and hear in some conversations.
And of course it's very easy to *legislate from convenience,* due to results of
cases of distortion and error in practice. And of course, it's also
possible to assert "ostensive definition" claims requiring acceptable
standards of performance. Let's just call it that, if that's what it
is. Organizational requirements (alleged) seem to come out that way... we
have these rules for the good of everyone. OK, well let's just say
that. How does this get to be *scriptural covering?*
Prudence? Fine. Let's be prudent. But why
"contractualize" performance? To install built-in quality
control? To get ahead of the curve?
Worse would be a claim conditioning the apparent success of the Acts 13
ministries of Paul and Barnabas pro forma.
They were successful BECAUSE they did what we required. And we are right,
QED. Ironically, thinking something perhaps like, "The Holy Spirit
is surely very wise."
I am looking for a clear textual admonition. Failing that, I am concerned
about the cases in which congregations have mistakenly failed to support and
recognize the ones God is calling into activities away from the congregation,
especially if they are geographically distant. Is there's perhaps a set
of health and spirituality factors to address? I want to learn more about
this, too.
Of course the *other side* has an interest in prudent practice. Even
though no covering is considered. Being aware of one's call should not be
an extreme problem, should it? Prudent practice need not be predicated on
picturesque flourishes of emotional discourse.
There's more... enough for now. Blessings and cheers.