Apostles and Prophets – on the use of the terms, or, titles, versus the function

Written by George E. Markakis. Posted on Feb. 2, 2004, revised May 2008

Reproduction or copy for professional use is not permitted without permission of the author

 

Some people call themselves, e.g. “Apostle George”, others, “George, an apostle”, and others who may well be apostles choose to call themselves merely “George”. Then again, others who are apostles call themselves “Pastor George”, and there are those apostles who call themselves “Evangelist George”. Already we have identified 5 variations here, which appear to cause certain debates in the Body of Christ.

 

There is a school of thought that sarcastically bombards those who call themselves apostles in whatever context and manner of expression; there is another school of thought that places strong emphasis on the need to use the title term by which the Lord called us to minister in the world and the Body of Christ.

 

This debate on the use of name (or, title) of the divine ministry sovereignly imparted upon each one of us by the Lord’s unilateral choice is not new. There are existing strong arguments for and against using ministry titles, on which I will not expound much in this expose; instead, I will examine the mindsets through which such arguments come about, and propose what I believe is more appropriate than others.

 

Many of those arguments, whether for, or, against, are directly linked to cultural mindsets, shaped by the prevailing ethics of the nation/people group, or, local church/denomination, where our mind processes have been shaped through the years. Going to two extremes, the use of the term “apostle”, or, “prophet” is far more provoking and causing suspicion and reservation in a conservative UK, German, or Dutch environment, than in an African, or, South-eastern Asian nation. Likewise, traditional and conservative Evangelicals and old-school Pentecostals are far more reserved and opposing such terms, than contemporary Charismatics.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Also, there is the issue of global timing, which determines the degree to which the world as a whole is more or less prepared to accept an idea, a term, a concept, etc. As one of many examples, let us remember that when the term “Evangelist” was first used more than a century ago, it was considered almost a blasphemy. Public rage against the use of that term was far more than the present opposition to the term “Prophet”. In fact, once the world went past that challenge, and then the following challenge of use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the overall resistance to reference to divinely instituted names and concepts has considerably been reduced to mere expression of amazement, or concern. It was not always like that… opposition was far more severe in the earlier days, to the point of stoning, expelling, and even burning down churches! (that was apparently according to historical testimonies a widespread experience of the first Pentecostal churches about a century ago, when the speaking of tongues was received by the Evangelical churches as a demonic manifestation).

 

Interestingly, today the term “Evangelist” is as acceptable as the term “Pastor”, for which there seems to be no eye browse lifted in concern or reservation. It is a subject of serious examination, why would the world choose to isolate one of the 5 ministry names supplied by the Lord in Ephesians chp. 4, and tag it as an appropriate title by which to call all the church leaders, whilst tagging some of the other 4 names with a stigma as bad as that of leprosy… it is of equal worth to examine what have been the determining factors that supplied the term “Evangelist” with the freedom to be used with widespread acceptance and no questioning attached, even though it was initially received with violent opposition…! I will not delve into those examinations at this time, but I believe it would be fairly safe to conclude that the results of such examinations would most likely refer us back to cultural and habitual issues, as well as to personal ideas and concepts shaped by the frequency and broadness of societal use, or, lack of it, of the elements in question.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Why is the title “Pastor” acceptable, and the title “Apostle”, or, “Prophet” unacceptable? What is our source of opinion on the matter? Is the Bible a source out of which we are expected to renew our minds, so that we shall no longer think like the world, but as Christ would transform us? If indeed the Bible is the source, is it not true that the pastor is only one of 5 ministries unilaterally imparted upon the Body of Christ by the Head? Are apostles and prophets NOT equally ministries provided for from above?

 

There are 80 verses in the New Testament using the term apostle (or some derivative of it), with 78 uses referring to God-ordained ministers of the Gospel, and 2 references made to false, self-proclaimed ones. There is only one verse using the term pastor, and twice the verb “shepherd” is used in a context related to Christ’s ministers of the Gospel (which includes also the apostles shepherding). How is it then, that 78 times more use of a God-ordained name fails to drive home the message that it is a rather common term available within the Kingdom of God setting? What is it that elevated a once-only used term, to the place of commonplace applicability with no strings attached and no questions asked? We shall look into that question first, and then further down we shall examine: What is it that banned the use of a 78 times used term from any applicability at all?

 

Perhaps the answer comes easily through the development process through which the term evangelist became equally commonplace in the broader Body of Christ. Perhaps the answer is in names, such as Billy Graham, Reinhart Bonke, etc. In other words, when a term is widely used and repeatedly applied in commonly acceptable cases and circumstances, it is almost automatically classified as appropriate. That is understandable, but hardly justifiable in the context of need of our minds and vocabulary to be shaped by what we read in the Scriptures, as opposed to habitually forming our mind-processes after the circumstantial cultural and societal influences.

 

Let me say it again in a more dramatic expression to drive the point home; do we permit the mob-ruling processes of the majority of the sinners, lukewarm and compromising with the world religious mindsets that prevail in the broader Body of Christ to shape our thinking, or, shall we permit God (through His Holy Scriptures) to instill in us His own ideas, concepts, ways and vocabulary?

 

The case is similar to that of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Once upon a time, when the opposition to the speaking in tongues democratically prevailed in certain denominations, e.g. the Baptists, it was a totally unacceptable practice. Few decades later, after scores of Baptist Pastors and members became filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues, in increasingly larger % of the most conservative and old-school Evangelicals the tongues of the Holy Spirit has become a commonplace practice; as a result, a large number of congregations had to split up, and new sub-denominations had to be formed, to accommodate the resulting differentiation. Shall we not ever learn? … It is so unfortunate that humanity has to rediscover herself in every generation, having failed to learn from the mistakes of the past…

 

It is only a matter of few years, and a matter of increasing numbers of anointed servants of the Lord embracing the name God chose to call them by, before even the most provoking term at present, apostle, finds its commonplace use in the Church, as pastor. We see this process already in operation with the use of the term prophet. It began to be widely used about 30 years ago, and it naturally has grown in acceptance, along with the number of highly anointed, greatly appreciated and highly effective people of God who have ministered in that anointing for many years already. On the other hand, however, the use of the term apostle has not really entered yet its widespread use era, even though it has been going around for the last 5 years or so, as a concept that has been re-introduced in the Body of Christ after many centuries of lethargy.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

As we observe the gradual return of Biblical terminology restored to the Body of Christ, I believe we may equally observe the pattern of restoration of what used to be there, but was stolen away by humanism and human created religion. There was a time when all ministries were present in the Body, along with all the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Then, human flesh entered the scene, and the Church fell prey in the hands of secular power. Soon the Church of Christ became a Church that bore the name of Christ, but was the religious version of imperial Government, through which Satan expelled everything that Jesus had died for, out of the Church that bore His Name. The first thing that Satan expelled out of the Living Church through the secular powers that rose to the headship of the Church was the apostles of Jesus, who were also known by that time as “Bishops”, providing the corporate, hierarchical headship of the Church, chosen and appointed by the Holy Spirit, so that Christ could rule His Church through them. Once they were removed, Satan could take complete authority over the Church and deceive thousands and millions across several hundreds of years.

 

For centuries the “Church” was a tool in the hands of Satan to kill and destroy. Then, one man rose up from that “Church”, and re-discovered some foundational truths, which made him differentiate himself from the Church that was ruled by Satan. His name was Luther. He made great advancements, and caused the core of the “Church” to begin shifting into a new era. He restored fundamental truth back to the Body of Christ, which in fact began to be reformed after centuries that it had seemingly ceased to exist. As much as Luther’s contribution was as important as the roots of a tree, Luther only went so far as the roots can accomplish. After his era, more restoration was due to rise up in the newly re-born Body of the Lord; a new tree had to be born out of the fruitless soil of the past.

 

If Luther restored the concept of salvation by faith, what would be the immediately more important concept to be restored after faith for salvation? Baptism in the water it is, and so it was historically too. The Anabaptists rose up, and through as much opposition as Luther faced, they caused baptism in water to be gradually restored to the Body of Christ.

 

Alongside this process, one could identify that the teaching gift was the first one to rise up (Luther), which coincides with the last mentioned by Paul in Ephesians 4. After the teachers rose up to restore the true essence of the Body of Christ, the next from the last ministry gift needed to be restored, so that the Body could be formed into a living organism: the pastors found their place in the Body of Christ, gradually replacing the concept of the (Catholic) priest running the show by true pastors who would shepherd the people of God.

 

Now, observing the Biblical sequence of significance of God given ordinances for the Body, what would be the next most important element due for restoration in sequence? First we had faith for salvation, then baptism in water… what comes next? The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and so it was! The Pentecostals rose up, and restored the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ, presently amounting to some 600 million people in the world, the forefront of the developing church around the world, the largest part of the born-again Christian world, and leading all the further advancements and victories of the global Body of Christ. What next? Well, the power from on high (i.e. baptism in the Spirit) was given for the purpose of evangelism, and indeed the next great move of God was the spread of the evangelistic anointing, which also resulted in a return to the need for missions. The ministry gift of the evangelist was restored back to the Body at that time.

 

That took most of the 20th century, and was followed by what naturally is shown in the Bible to come along with evangelism: healing, signs and wonders, and miracles. The healing movement of the USA of the 50’s and 60’s restored to the Body of Christ one of the most foundational aspects of Christian faith: the supernatural, divine power of God to manifest in real, physical terms in our mortal bodies.

 

The 70’s found the global Church beginning to discover the intercessory aspect of Christianity, and as the prayer movement removed the doctrinal and theological mindset from the center of the faith, gradually restoring the spiritual relationship with the Lord, other non-intellectual elements of the Christian life began to be discovered… surely enough, prophecy rose up as the centerpiece of what God was doing in the 70’s through the 90’s. The prophets rose up to find their place in the Body of Christ, just like the evangelists, the pastors and the teachers had done earlier on, each group in its own global timing of the Lord’s process of gradual restoration of His Church. What then remains to be restored in our era, after the previous 4 ministries have become to some degree or other commonplace? Naturally, it is the ministry of the apostles. Paul said:

 

1Cor 12:28 (NKJV) And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

 

Apostles were the first to be appointed in the Church, the first that were removed by the secular Government of the imperially imposed Church leadership, by replacing them with secular leaders wearing special clothes and the Emperor’s favor and authority; now, they are the last to be restored back to their God ordained position, possibly because it has been the most fought ministry by Satan. Why? Perhaps the answer is again in Paul’s words:

 

Eph 2:20 (NKJV) having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[stone],…

 

If the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, and if the Church is not a faceless organization of secular corporation style, but a living organism that needs to be re-established as many times as a new Christian is born again, as a new leader comes in a place of ministry, and a new local church is founded, then, the living apostles and prophets are given by God to lay the appropriate foundations, which is the root foundation of Christian work and service.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Now, some view the terms apostles and prophets as titles, but if we are to be conformed to the spirit of the Bible, rather than the imperialistic, ambitious, self-centered and power seeking spirit of the world, we will view the ministry term more as a description of service and specialized work, than a title depicting domination, authority and calling for respect, submission, or, what have you. God has given many gifts to the Body, to serve one another, and to depend on one another. The issue is not one of titles of differentiation with a view to imposing upon others, but one of respecting, accepting, and releasing that which God has chosen to work in its fullness, with simplicity of heart and mind. Paul gives us a good example to follow after; he identifies apostleship as a gift that man cannot give on to another, because it is God ordained:

 

Gal 1:1 (NKJV) Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), … then, he also states that he is not a boss over others, but he is merely a servant of Christ:

 

Rom 1:1 (NKJV) Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called [to] [be] an apostle, separated to the gospel of God.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

There are those who believe that after the first apostles the gift of apostleship ceased. I will not spend too much time on this unbiblical heresy, as time and the work of Christ through other gifts that fell prey to this heretical teaching have proven it to be a false teaching that bears no relevance to reality. I will say however, that the ministry of the early apostles was unique, and not repeated ever since. The entire era of the Church of the 1st century was and remains unique. I don’t believe God has any interest in replicating Himself, by trying to re-do what He already did through the 1st century Church; He does not need to! He is a Creator, that always creates new things, albeit, only within the sphere of existing guidelines within which He chose to create us, and the world.

 

The uniqueness of the early apostles and prophets does not nullify the need for the present-day ministry of apostles and prophets, any more than the uniqueness of the Spirit-transported Philip does not nullify the need for present-day evangelists leading people to Christ; could Phillip ever preach to the Americans of the 1950’s to whom Billy Graham spoke? If there are evangelists needed today to lead people to salvation, pastors to shepherd them, and teachers to systematically educate them in the knowledge of the Lord and the Scriptures; if there is a need of the ministry of government in the church, and of the ministry of helps, and that of exhortation and other important contributions without which the Body cannot function in its fullness, then there is also an ever present need for apostles and prophets to lay the foundations of the Church in new territories, new areas of society, new aspects of ministry, etc. There are always new things happening where the Spirit of the Lord is in operation, and some of them fail to be properly rooted because they fail to see the need for cooperation with the other gifts, which the Lord has sent for their sakes.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Why doesn’t anyone get offended if an elderly lady says about herself: “the Lord has anointed me to minister with helps, and generous giving”…! Is that not a God ordained gift to the Body of Christ? If so, why would the same people get offended to hear another person say of himself: “The Lord has anointed me to minister as an apostle”? Is it not clear that the heart of the issue lies in the very nature of the calling of God, and in the subtle comparison on the basis of power? Could it be that the real issue is the same as that of the early disciples?

 

Mark 9:33 (NKJV) Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, "What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?" 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who [would] [be] [the] greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all."

 

The covered up issue, even though the offended ones may not even recognize it in themselves, is really a matter of comparison, and the resulting potential envy to some degree or another. No ones compares himself unfavorably to an elderly lady who helps others and gives away of her belongings; they do not even care to make the comparison! But when it comes to ministries that the Bible associates with powers, and divine manifestations following, then one begins to feel inferior if they do not enjoy the same perceived benefits. However, one point that is seemingly missing from those who are offended at the calling and anointing of another person that is perceived to be higher, is the words of Jesus in the same scripture above; He said, If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all. Therefore, if anyone desires to call himself an apostle, in full appreciation of the power and resulting responsibility that the office is carrying with it, then he must first be proven in his calling, through his desire to be the servant of all!

 

What I am therefore saying is that the titles of apostles and prophets do not go without challenge and testing. Very much like a pastor needs to be approved in his abilities to shepherd and lead the flock of God to the great Shepherd, in like manner apostles cannot merely call themselves titles, and expect to get away with it, unless their service and God’s power affirm the mandate. Paul wrote of himself:

 

2Cor 12:11 (NKJV) I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.

 

Paul was not ashamed to declare his calling, and when he had to, he also boasted in it, even though it was a political maneuver needed to stand up to his authority, when challenged. But he was not afraid to speak of himself, because God was on his side to affirm his calling with the signs of an apostle, as he called the supernatural affirmations of his anointing. Can anyone falsify those sings and wonders and mighty deeds through which God bears additional witness to the deeds of His servants?

 

If anyone is a true apostle of Jesus Christ, his calling and anointing will be proven through the fire of trial, the manifest service, the nature of Christ revealed through the fruit of the Spirit, and the presence of the signs of an apostle which are being accomplished by the Lord’s power.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

There are indeed those who call themselves apostles, and they are not. In fact, a sad phenomenon in the Body of Christ is that an alarming % of professing Christians are entirely out of mental balance, and go about spreading all kinds of rumors, teachings, and titles that bear no relevance to reality. Some of them are practically demon possessed, agents of Satan sent to destroy the Body of Christ, and some others are merely in need of professional help. Among them, many are those who need practical shepherding by loving pastors.

 

Such genuine, loving pastors who have God’s calling and anointing to help those in need seem to be far less than the number of people who call themselves “Pastors”. In our broader world Church environment it has become easier to call yourself a pastor, than to truly be one. To carry the title “Pastor” all you have to do is to choose theological training in College, rather than some other Art, or, Science. Upon graduation you can be appointed to the man-appointed position of the leader of a local congregation, and given the much sought after title of  “Pastor”, and the respective salary that goes along with it. Then all you have to do is use human training of Psychology, or, some other trained discipline to “pastor” your members, without even any regard or reference to divine anointing. We have created an educational and church hierarchical environment even in the Evangelical Church, where pastors are produced out of school, like the Catholic priests used to be produced even at the times when Satan was ruling the Church that bore the name of Christ.

 

This human-created and human centered ministry environment has replaced the calling and anointing of God by mere education and training. Naturally, the concept of God’s calling has been eliminated, because it cannot be tested through multiple choice questions, and it cannot be replicated as a subject of systematic teaching. This environment has also eliminated the option of God appointing His own apostles and prophets, whom He sends to build up and restore His Body, which suffers in the hands of humans who have no fear of God.

 

All that evil does not mean that all Biblical education is wrong, or, that we should refrain from formal Bible training. I have personally gone to Bible College, even though my main and initial education was in Economics. The issue is not that education is wrong – I believe in formal education, and I also teach occasionally in formal education settings. The issue is in humans producing “servants of God” who have not been called for the task, nor, anointed to carry it out. 

 

By observation, I propose that far more are the false pastors and teachers around than the false apostles. If anyone feels the calling of God to sort out the mistakes in the Body of Christ, let me suggest that you start where the greatest need is; I reckon that for every 20-30 false pastors and teachers there is 1 false apostle. So, go and sort out first the alarmingly great number of false pastors and teachers who rule the Body of Christ as a blind man leads another, folks whom God neither called for the task, nor anointed with His divine authority, and then concern yourself with the false apostles.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Modern day apostles can only be taught of the Bible how to live out their ministry in the Body of Christ; where/how else could they be taught about it? In public school? … The only source of their learning is the scriptures the Holy Spirit surrendered to us down the generations, and each apostle must examine themselves: “Is my life, ministry and even terminology in line with the Holy Scriptures”? Likewise, the other members of the Body of Christ who have the interest to examine the case should weigh how genuine an apostle is, on the same only basis that the Lord has supplied us with: the Scriptures, and even more specifically, Apostle Paul’s writings, which the Lord is also using for a number of other unique teachings concerning the New Testament economy.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

There are truly genuine concerns that the use of the title “Apostle” is out of order for a number of good and obvious reasons. I propose that such concerns be taken seriously into account, within the context of the culture and environment of a local church. The point is not to force a title in the face of the others, but to communicate a message. If I am an apostle of Christ, and I want to communicate it for good reasons, I will have to use the language and means of communication through which the recipient will receive the message I am sending.

 

In a conservative UK church, if I use the title “Apostle”, the chances are that people will become so suspicious of me that I will fail to minister the love of Christ to them. But if I use the title “Apostle” in a Nigerian church that is full of the fire of God, chances are that the Holy Spirit will fall upon the congregation upon the mere proclamation of the anointing which I carry. Wisdom in such cases and sensitivity to the environment is more important than the stubborn persistence on the use of a title. We need to be able to discern the times and the seasons in which we live, and equally sensitive to address the people we are sent to minister to, in language and context that can be received and produce good fruit.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Before I close it is good to identify myself and my personal choice on the use of terms/titles; by personal calling of the Lord Jesus Christ I am an apostle. The apostolic gifting manifests through the power of transformation, followed by signs, wonders, healings, distributions of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit that is the mark of the divine presence in certain projects where I am involved. My apostolic authority has been affirmed by the International Coalition of Apostles, who have invited me to be a full member (since 2002) and the Prayer Chain Network of Hellas, of which I am the visionary and a co-founder. In fact, P.C.N. was the primary environment where my apostolic gift and authority became manifest and produced the corporate body that developed out of a small prayer group. The pastors and churches that have asked me to be their spiritual father, and have positioned themselves as my spiritual sons, are further testimony to the Lord's calling, gifting, position and authority.

 

I do not choose to call myself “Apostle George”, even though I support the use of the title; I choose to call myself only by name, George, because I want to pass the message that I am a simple person, and I do not want people to shy away from me. However, I make sure to honor the gifts and ministry responsibilities which the Lord has entrusted me with, following the example of Apostle Paul. He did not quite call himself “Apostle Paul”, but when he identified his name, Paul, he also explained his ministry identity: an apostle, a servant of Christ. Nine times he starts an epistle as by describing his identity: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ”.

 

Following the scriptural example, I call myself George, and when I am asked I respond that I am an apostle of Jesus Christ. When I write or publish something, where I cannot be asked, I make sure I let the readers know that I operate in the ministry gifts of the apostle and prophet, without however placing undue emphasis on the title. In fact, I do not use the TITLE, but I employ the TERM for purposes of MINISTRY IDENTITY.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

I will close with the following concept: a servant of the Lord may be used in different environments under different anointings. I find myself operating as apostle in certain environments, as a prophet in others, as a pastor in regard to my personal disciples, as a teacher when the Lord uses teaching to edify His Body, and as other forms of a servant when the circumstances call for it. E.g. I am often a prayer warrior and an intercessor, and I often operate as a prayer watchman. I have also been used on occasions as an evangelist, and have seen dozens of people giving their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ, and receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

If I were to employ a TITLE depicting a different anointing than the one operating through me under a certain environment, I would be doing a foolish and presumptuous use of the ministry terminology. Even though I am an apostle by calling, I am NOT an apostle to certain people, just like any pastor is not the pastor of all the Christians – he is only the pastor of certain Christians. When I operate in an environment that despises the prophetic gifting, I am not a prophet in that environment; likewise for the apostolic. I am an apostle within the P.C.N. group of churches and people. I am also an apostle to the churches and pastors that voluntarily and happily position themselves as my spiritual sons and daughters. But I am not under an apostolic mandate outside of the sphere of authority that the Lord has granted me.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Therefore, I propose that the use of the ministry terms is appropriate for identification of the anointing, and office, where that is applicable. However, the indiscriminant use of the title under all circumstances runs along a risky line of presumption that the Lord’s anointing may operate beyond the given spheres of authority granted us by the Lord.

 

On the other hand, it would be totally inappropriate to completely hide the mantel in which we operate, especially n the sphere of responsibility that the Lord has entrusted us with. If to some churches and people I am indeed an apostle, sent to them for the purpose of ministry, then it is appropriate for them to know who I am in the Lord, and appropriate for me to stand in the divine authority granted by the Head for the purpose of edification of the Body.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

In conclusion, I would say that the use of ministry terms and titles is a rather complicated and multifaceted issue, that is best left up to each individual to handle as they deem appropriate; it is best for the rest of us to refrain of a critical spirit that seeks to impose upon the others our own perspective on the matter.

 

Romans 14:4 (NKJV) Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems [one] day above another; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

 

6 He who observes the day, observes [it] to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe [it]. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

 

10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. ... 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in [our] brother's way. 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that [there] [is] nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him [it] [is] unclean.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

George E. Markakis (ordained “Reverend”)

Christian Development & Revival Ministries, P.O.Box 66519, 15610, Papagou, Greece

Shalom Christian Center, floors 3 & 4, 8 Akominatou street, Athens, Greece

Tel/Fax + (30) 210.520.1952  Email markakis.g@cdrm.org

Website www.cdrm.org

 

Reproduction or copy for professional use is not permitted without permission of the author