Many teachings on the topic of the apostolic within the charismatic church are done with a sympathetic audience in mind. By that I mean an audience who are already comfortable with the concept of a modern-day apostle.
But given the rise in prominence of the cessationist school of thinking online, I am encountering more skepticism regarding the apostolic even within charismatic circles. With this in mind, I have written this article on modern-day apostles with a skeptical audience in mind, both to respond to the skeptic and for us, as charismatics, to understand the strong biblical basis there is for what we believe.
To the modern cessationist skeptic, the idea of a ‘modern-day apostle’ is seen as an existential threat to Christianity itself because to call yourself an apostle, in their mind, is to say that your words carry the same authority as Scripture itself!
We can grant that if this were the case, their skepticism and alarmism are warranted. No person or ministry should ever carry that kind of authority. That would inevitably lead to deception and great harm to the body of Christ.
Revelation 21:14 describes the New Jerusalem as having twelve foundation stones, with each of them having the names of the Twelve Apostles written on them.
In Ephesians 2:20 we are told that God’s household (the church) is founded upon the ‘apostles and prophets’. And so, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the Twelve Apostles had a foundational role within the founding of the church which was unique in some way – and unrepeatable.
But is it reasonable to conclude that the Twelve Apostles were the only apostles ever appointed by God in the church? Were there other genuine apostles ministering in the New Testament church? What do the Scriptures say? If there were other apostles, what was their role? How were they similar and how were they distinct from the Twelve?
As we examine the Scriptures, we will discover that there were, in fact, genuine apostles in the New Testament church who were not among the Twelve. After looking into the role that differing apostles played in the early church, we will go on to explore what role modern apostles have to fulfil in the church today.
Chapter 1: Apostles Ministering New Testament Church
One of the harmful and probably unintended consequences of the cessationist critique regarding modern-day apostles has been a deafening silence on the topic of apostles referenced as such in the New Testament who are quite obviously not among the Twelve. The Twelve were appointed by Christ to be eyewitnesses to his ministry and resurrection. The other apostles don’t seem to fulfil this same function.
As we will shortly see, these references to ‘apostles’ outside of the Twelve are quite conspicuously sprinkled throughout the New Testament, and yet most prominent teachings and discussions on the topic of the New Testament apostles tend to completely ignore or downplay any mention of them. These other referenced apostles become the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one seems to know what to do with.
But is it reasonable to conclude that the Twelve Apostles were the only apostles ever appointed by God in the church?
I think the reason for this is that the role and qualifications of the Twelve are clearly defined in Scripture. But what do we do with these other apostles? What qualifies them? What is their role in the church? This is not so clear. This murkiness can make us uneasy and therefore want to shy away from exploring the topic.
But let’s have a look at what Scripture quite plainly says about apostles ministering in the New Testament.
The Twelve & Paul
We begin with the clearest and most uncontroversial:
“Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” – Mark 3:13-19, NIV
These twelve were designated to continue the ministry of Christ. They are named and their ministry thereafter is well attested in the New Testament.
When the church chose another to replace Judas, it is insightful what language they used regarding this ministry:
“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
– Acts 1:21-22. NIV
One of the requirements for this apostolic ministry was that they had “been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,” and this is because the role was essentially to be a “witness with us of his resurrection.”
Later on in the story, Paul is introduced as a significant apostle in the early church. This is how he described his apostleship:
“Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.” – 1 Corinthians 15:7-10, NIV
Paul was therefore not an ‘eyewitness’ to the life and ministry of Christ in the same way as the Twelve. Christ appeared to him, but this was a post-resurrection appearance. At the time of Jesus’ resurrection, Paul was not yet a believer or a part of the early Christian community.
Nevertheless, God appointed Paul to an apostolic ministry which was incredibly significant in the early church. Two-thirds of our New Testament Scriptures were written by this apostle who was ‘abnormally born’.
For the Twelve and, to a certain extent Paul, we can think of these apostles as having a ‘foundational’ ministry within the church. These Apostles were unique in the sense that their teachings were regarded as being a faithful representation of the teachings of Jesus. Their ministry was foundational in the sense that they were custodians of the true teachings of Jesus. Their teachings therefore ensured that the church was built upon the truth of God’s word as revealed through Christ.
For the Twelve and, to a certain extent Paul, we can think of these apostles as having a ‘foundational’ ministry within the church.
It is for this reason that ‘apostolicity’ was an important criterion for whether certain books were included in the canon of Scripture or not. If a certain book had been authored by one of these Apostles or sanctioned by them, then it was considered for inclusion in the holy Scriptures.
For most evangelicals, this is safe territory so far. But what other apostles are referenced in the New Testament?
Apostles Other than the Twelve
James, the Brother of Jesus
“Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.” – Galatians 1:18-19, NIV
This is a quotation from Paul describing his visit to Jerusalem and his consultation with the apostles there. Notice his wording, “I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” There were Jameses among the Twelve Apostles: James, son of Zebedee and James, son of Alphaeus. But the man Paul is referencing is an apostle called James who is neither of these. This is James ‘the Lord’s brother’.
Later in Galatians 2:9 (NIV), Paul refers to James as one of the ‘pillars’ in the Jerusalem church: “James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars”. That James is mentioned alongside Peter and John is quite remarkable, and yet he was not one of the Twelve.
At the Jerusalem council described in Acts 15:13 (ESV), we find that James’ voice is decisive in the discussion: “After they finished speaking, James replied …”
And his is the final word on the discussion. This is very significant given that the Twelve were present in this discussion. Clearly James carried immense authority within the New Testament church.
This is significant for our discussion because it broadens the New Testament category of ‘apostle’ beyond the Twelve and even beyond Paul.
It muddies the waters because how do we categorise James as an apostle? What qualified him to be an apostle? Was it because he witnessed the resurrection? But how many others did the same and yet were not called apostles?
Why did Jesus not appoint this James to be among the Twelve? Was he ‘foundational’ in the same way that the Twelve and Paul seem to have been for the church that Jesus had established?
Barnabas
“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd …” – Acts 14:14, NIV
In this passage describing Paul and Barnabas’ exploits in Lystra, the text references both Barnabas and Paul as apostles. How is it that Barnabas came to be an apostle? It is not referenced anywhere in the New Testament that he witnessed either Jesus’ ministry or his resurrection. It is also not stated anywhere that he witnessed any post-resurrection appearances of Christ. In Acts 13:2 we get some insight into how he came to be in this ministry:
‘While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.’ – Acts 13:2-3, NIV
The setting for this scene is in the church at Antioch, where God spoke by His Spirit to the church regarding Barnabas and Saul. Intrinsic to the etymology of the word ‘apostle’ is the meaning ‘sent one’. In this church setting, there was a witness among them that God had in mind to set Barnabas into the ministry of an apostle.
Although Barnabas fulfils many of the functions of an apostle, he does not appear to be of the same class of foundational apostles that the Twelve and Paul seem to be. For example, we have no record of any of Barnabas’ teachings being distributed among the churches or included within the canon of Scripture.
Although Barnabas fulfils many of the functions of an apostle, he does not appear to be of the same class of foundational apostles that the Twelve and Paul seem to be.
Once again, we find an example that messes with our categories. Here we find an apostle who is not only not one of the Twelve, he also does not seem to be of the same category as Paul.
Apollos
“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another … For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men.” – 1 Corinthians 4:6&9, ESV
The context of this passage is Paul addressing divisions within the church. When we read in the preceding chapter (chapter 3), Paul is referencing those who are in the ‘Paul camp’, the ‘Apollos camp’, and those in the ‘Cephas camp’, and exhorting them to stop idolising leaders and be united in Christ.
He also references that, “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.” – 1 Corinthians 3:6, NIV
If we had not already observed this kind of reference to apostles who were not among the Twelve, we could easily have missed this indirect reference to Apollos as being an apostle alongside Paul. Apollos and Paul seem to have a similar partnership in the ministry to the one Paul shared with Barnabas, except that Apollos is noteworthy for his teaching and debating skills.
Yet again we find that Apollos falls into an unfamiliar category because there is no explicit reference to how he became an apostle and what qualified him to be one. There is, however, a reference to his early years of ministry in Acts 18: “Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.” – Acts 18:24-28, NIV
Here we find an apostle being discipled in the ways of Christ by a humble couple in the church at Ephesus. He went on to have a translocal ministry, powerfully witnessing to and debating the true identity of Christ.
Timothy
“For our appeal does not arise from deceit or ulterior motives or trickery. Instead, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, not in order to please men but God, who examines our hearts. As you know, we never used words of flattery or any pretext for greed. God is our witness! Nor did we seek praise from you or from anyone else, although as apostles of Christ we had authority to demand it.” – 1 Thessalonians 2:3-6, NIV
Once again we find a plural reference to apostles – ‘as apostles of Christ we had authority to demand it’. Who is the ‘we’ being referenced here? It is Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy who are partners with Paul in the apostolic ministry that is happening into the Thessalonian church.
This is not an isolated reference. Later in the same letter, Paul says regarding Timothy, “We sent Timothy, who is our brother and co-worker in God’s service in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith …” – 1 Thessalonians 3:2, NIV
Notice how similar the language for Timothy’s ministry is to the language used to describe Paul and Barnabas’ ministry:
“Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith.” – Acts 14:21-22, NIV
Timothy would often be sent in Paul’s stead to carry out the same functions he himself fulfilled, such as:
- teaching
- bringing correction
- appointing leaders
- ensuring doctrinal integrity (1 Corinthains 4:17 and 16:10-11, Philippians 2:19-24, 1 Timothy 1:3).
Timothy had a translocal ministry typical of the apostolic role.
‘Then to All the Apostles’
“… and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve… Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
– 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, NIV
Even the name ‘the Twelve’ seems to imply a category marker which demarcates them throughout the New Testament as having a unique function as ‘foundational apostles’.
We have in this text an example of the Twelve Apostles mentioned in the same context as another group, also named apostles, but not specified. Many Bible commentators make reference to this other unspecified group of apostles – they are referred to as apostles, and yet they are clearly of a different class from the Twelve.
Even the name ‘the Twelve’ seems to imply a category marker which demarcates them throughout the New Testament as having a unique function as ‘foundational apostles’. This seems to be the pattern which emerges – there are apostles other than the Twelve who fulfil a certain function that is slightly different to the ‘eyewitness to the resurrection’ function that the Twelve had.
The Twelve were also distinguished for their role as custodians of the true teaching of Christ (Matthew 28:20), which uniquely qualified them in their role of verifying the canon of the New Testament.
Testing Apostles
“I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” – Revelation 2:2, NIV
The significance of this commendation of the Ephesian church is that, at the time it was written, history tells us that only John of the Twelve was still living! This adds to the cumulative case I have been making for another category of apostle.
The context strongly suggests that the ‘testing’ for true apostles was more complex than simply identifying whether a man was the surviving John (the last of the Twelve).
Discernment in the early church must have involved a criterion other than simply ‘Are you a member of the Twelve?’ The weight of this argument gets even stronger when taken along with a section contained in the Didache on ‘How to discern a true apostle’.
The Didache
The Didache is a historical document regarded as an early Christian handbook written in the late first or early second century (approximately 70-130 AD) which was circulated among the churches. In chapter 11, it has instructions on how to recognise if an apostle is false and simply taking advantage of the good grace of local Christians:
“Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.”
The warnings are mostly to do with false apostles abusing churches financially. Sound familiar? Nothing has changed 2 000 years later.
So, it is not only the Ephesian church who needed to be discerning regarding those who claimed to be apostles. It seems fairly compelling that this discernment was regarding a separate class of apostles who were quite distinct from the Twelve, but no less legitimate.
Hopefully I have established beyond reasonable doubt that there is strong evidence for a class of apostles which are referenced in the New Testament that play a similar yet distinct role from the Twelve.
… there is strong evidence for a class of apostles which are referenced in the New Testament that play a similar yet distinct role from the Twelve.
This leads naturally to the next question: What role were these second-tier apostles called to play within the church?
Chapter 2: Functional Apostles & Foundational Apostles
Ephesians 4
‘Now to each one of us grace has been given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. This is why it says:
“When He ascended on high, He led captives away, and gave gifts to men.”
And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for works of ministry and to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming.’ – Ephesians 4:7-8 &11-14, NIV
This passage is very illuminating regarding the second class of apostles we have been exploring. Firstly, notice when these ‘gifts’ are given to the church – ‘When He ascended on high’. This means that these apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc., were appointed by Christ after Jesus went up to heaven.
Therefore, we refer to these apostles as ‘post-ascension apostles’. Clearly, they cannot be among the Twelve because the Twelve were appointed while Jesus was still on earth. Their role (along with the other gifts mentioned) is to:
- Equip the saints
- Build up the body
- Enable the church to ‘reach unity in the faith’
- Bring unity ‘in the knowledge of the Son of God’
- Bring about maturity in the body
- Enable the body to grow into the full measure and stature of Christ
- Maintain doctrinal integrity within the church
- Guard the church against deception
Notice how similar this language is to the language used earlier about the ministry of Paul, Barnabas and Timothy:
“Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith.” – Acts 14:21-22, NIV
“We sent Timothy, who is our brother and co-worker in God’s service in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith …” – 1 Thessalonians 3:2, NIV
Also notice that all of these things are not achieved by apostles alone. It is as they function in team with the other gifts that all this is done.
Something else that is noteworthy, considering the cessationist objection that these gifts have ‘ceased’, is that the passage says, “to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ.”
“When He ascended on high, He led captives away, and gave gifts to men.”
And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers …
These gifts will be needed in the church until the return of Christ. And if Scripture is to be believed, they are indispensable to the growth and maturity of the church.
A Cessationist Objection to Ephesians 4
The Cessationist argues that Ephesians 4 should be interpreted in light of Ephesians 2, and in Ephesians 2 it says that apostles and prophets are foundational:
“Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. In Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” – Ephesians 2:19-21, NIV
So the question is: Are the apostles described in Ephesians 4 of the same class as the ‘foundational’ apostles described in Ephesians 2?
We have already broached this distinction in our discussion thus far. The context of Ephesians 4 is when Christ rose to heaven; therefore it cannot be a reference to the Twelve. The context precludes the idea that Christ gave (more?) foundational apostles and prophets.
There is no dispute over the foundational role of the Twelve, and even Paul. But if Christ is giving apostolic and prophetic ‘gifts’ to the church after his ascension, clearly this cannot be of the same class as the Twelve.
We have already established that there is another group of apostles referred to in the New Testament that are not ‘eyewitness apostles’. They are not custodians of the original teachings of Jesus in the same way as the Twelve were. Apostles like Barnabas, Apollos and Timothy were not foundational, but rather functional apostles.
The cessationist objection is based upon an either/or argument: Either apostles are of the same kind as the Twelve, or they are false apostles.
The truth is more nuanced. This is a both/and situation. We can acknowledge both that the Twelve and Paul were foundational and unrepeatable in their role in founding the church and that there is another class of apostle that plays a similar but distinct role.
This is the role described in Ephesians 4 and modeled by the second-tier apostles that we have been describing.
1 Corinthians 12
“Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, and those with gifts of healing, helping, administration, and various tongues.”
– 1 Corinthians 12:27-28, NIV
The key phrase here is that God has appointed these gifts ‘in the church’. Taken in the context of the rest of Scripture, we can understand this to mean that this is how God has ordered these ministries to be in the church. This is the ordinary way in which these gifts function within the church for her health and growth.
Something else that is significant is that being appointed ‘first’ likely signifies importance. Not that people should be raised on a pedestal, but that the gift itself is a very important role given by God for the ongoing health and well-being of the church.
Both in Ephesians 4 and here, it is quite striking how these gifts are described as ordinary and necessary rather than exceptional, occasional, or temporary. There is no hint anywhere given that apostles are temporary.
Some people dissect the list of gifts given in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 and classify some of the gifts as ongoing, like teachers and pastors, but others as exceptional and temporary. But the context of the passages themselves gives no indication of distinctions between temporary and perpetual gifts. Therefore, this is cherry-picking and bad exegesis.
In fact, we get rather the opposite impression, that apostles are vital and necessary for the ongoing health of the church.
Chapter 3: How Modern Churches Incorporate the Apostolic Ministry
My purpose in writing this chapter is to address a common false dichotomy that I often encounter among Cessationists, which is that people either accept or reject the idea of a ‘modern-day apostle’. Charismatics are generally typecast as being the only Christians who believe in modern-day apostles. This is a gross misrepresentation and shows a lack of awareness about how broad the spectrum is when it comes to churches’ views about the modern-day apostolic function.
Apostolic Function Without an Apostolic Office
Even among very Reformed thinkers who believe that the early Apostles of the first generation were the only apostles Christ ever gave, it is common to assume that whilst we no longer have apostles, there are still ministries within the church that play an apostolic function.
For example, modern-day missionaries who are breaking open new ground with the gospel and planting new churches. This ministry is often considered among Cessationists to be fulfilling an apostolic function.
Leaders or ministries that have a translocal influence are also regarded as having an apostolic function, whilst not being called apostles. We will observe later when we discuss some of the High-Church traditions that this kind of thinking is more clearly defined.
Occasional Apostolic Restoration
“According to this interpretation, which appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three functions were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist.” – John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 4
Many Cessationists would be horrified to discover that whilst Calvin held to the view that apostles were an exceptional gift which was given primarily for the early church, God could ‘occasionally’ raise up apostles when needed. Calvin regarded Martin Luther as an apostle whom God had raised up in his time to restore the true ‘apostolic’ gospel to the church.
The same goes for the Methodists. Neither Wesley nor the Methodists regarded modern-day apostles as being an ordinary, ongoing ministry. However, many prominent Methodist historians regarded Wesley as an apostle for his time. He earned the title ‘the apostle of England’ by some [1], and when you consider how similar his ministry was to those of the early apostles, it is hardly surprising.
Both Luther and Wesley did not call themselves by the ‘apostle’ title, but others recognised the apostolic function which they fulfilled within the church.
Bishops Continue the Apostolic Function
Within the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church traditions, bishops are seen to continue the apostolic ministry within the church. That does not mean that they think of bishops as modern-day apostles; it means that they see their bishops as successors of the apostles who together fulfil the same ministry as the apostles.
Practically, it means that the bishops have a responsibility to:
- Teach the same apostolic message
- To ordain ‘priests’ within the church
- To guard doctrinal integrity within the churches they oversee
- Maintain unity between the churches in their diocese
- Govern the churches in their care by exercising pastoral oversight.
The word ‘bishop’ originally was synonymous with ‘pastor’ or ‘elder’, but it evolved over time to refer to a leader who was responsible for all the churches in a region. Together, all the bishops are responsible for the government of the whole church globally. This serves a very practical purpose, which is to ensure the unity of the church.
But when you study the role of the apostles in the New Testament, it is very difficult to distinguish the function of these bishops from the function that the early apostles had in the church.
Another interesting parallel is that in 2 Corinthians 10 Paul refers to his God-assigned ‘area of influence’. In the Greek we find the phrase ‘metron kanonos’. Directly translated, it means:
Metron – measure
Kanon – rule, standard, boundary
It is a reference to the sphere of influence God has assigned to Paul. A boundary line.
The concept of the ‘diocese’ correlates directly to this ‘sphere of influence’ which Paul believed that apostles had. In other words, apostles had a particular group of churches which God had assigned to their responsibility.
Apostles by Another Name
When you study the ecclesiology of modern churches, it becomes apparent that whilst many churches are uncomfortable with the title ‘apostle’, the role that certain leaders play within their particular network of churches is very apostolic in character.
Many translocal leaders within the modern church either carry a particular apostolic function (for example, missionaries or church planters) or their gift and function are virtually indistinguishable from the function that the second-tier apostles played, whom I have been highlighting in the New Testament.
When you consider the vital role that apostles are described to have in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12, it is not surprising that this gifting still operates in the church, even when called by another name.
The second class of apostles carried a similar function, but they were not foundational in the same way as the Twelve.
Why Not Call Apostles What They Are?
The question naturally arises, ‘Why are Christians so averse to simply calling apostles what they are?’ I’m sure Christians have various reasons for this aversion, but let me address a few:
Foundational vs Functional
All Christians are in agreement that the Twelve Apostles carried a unique authority. When the false dilemma is posed that either modern apostles carry the same authority the Twelve had or they are false apostles, we are forced to disavow any leaders of the ‘apostolic’ title.
Christians worry that to call any living person an ‘apostle’ is to invest too much authority in that person. This is a sensible concern, I think. But as we have discovered, even within the New Testament there seems to be a distinction made between the authority that the Twelve had, and the authority that the second-tier apostles have.
The second class of apostles carried a similar function, but they were not foundational in the same way as the Twelve.
If we can make this distinction clearer, perhaps it would diminish the hesitancy many have with classifying people as apostles.
Extra-Biblical Revelation
The Twelve Apostles were unique in that they were instrumental in determining which books of the Bible were authoritative and authentic to the true teachings of Christ. They were custodians of the ‘apostolic message’ in a unique way.
There is a modern concern that any person invested with the title ‘apostle’ is going to be received by the church as having equal authority as the Twelve to introduce new doctrine into the church.
I believe this is also a valid concern. The responsibility of second-tier apostles is not to formulate new doctrine but to consistently realign churches within their sphere with the apostolic doctrines already revealed in Scripture.
Self-Aggrandisement
For the skeptic, the use of the title ‘apostle’ is viewed as an attempt at shameless self-promotion. Unfortunately, we can all agree that this does happen more often than it should. A needful correction to the trend toward self-appointment is to get back to the biblical pattern.
Notice that when Paul and Barnabas were ‘sent’ (apostle means ‘sent one’), this was the context:
‘As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.’ – Acts 13:2-3, NKJV
This call to the function of apostle was not a self-appointment. It was a God appointment that was recognised by the church.
At the same time, it seems counter-productive when certain individuals are clearly recognised by churches as having an apostolic calling to not simply call them what the Bible calls them – apostles. False modesty may make individuals averse to the title, but if ‘apostle’ is a Bible word, then we should not be afraid to use it.
Chapter 4:
Missionaries & Messengers
Surprisingly, I have discovered even very reformed resources acknowledging a second category of apostle for all the reasons I have given thus far, but then offer a very modest definition and role for these non-foundational apostles.
The role often attributed to this second-tier of apostles is as ‘missionaries’ and/or ‘messengers’.[2] There is a scriptural basis for believing that this was one of the ways the ‘apostle’ designation was used in the New Testament. Epaphroditus is a good example of this:
“I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need …” – Philippians 2:25, ESV
“Messenger” is a valid definition for the word apostolos used in this context. Within the cultural context of the time, apostolos was sometimes used to describe a political delegate, ambassador, or messenger. It is clear that the word does sometimes carry these meanings within the church context.
But here again we must be careful not to fall into the error of defining the word too narrowly. Does this definition fit the usage of the word when applied to James, the Lord’s brother? In what way was James a ‘messenger’ or ‘missionary’? His role and responsibility were for the church in Jerusalem. We don’t see any record of him being sent out to plant churches or deliver messages to other churches.
And what of Apollos? He was a powerful defender of the faith, a public debater, one who was used of the Lord to reason with people and provide biblical evidence for the true identity of Jesus. There are no reports of him planting churches. He certainly wasn’t a messenger.
This call to the function of apostle was not a self-appointment. It was a God appointment that was recognised by the church.
The same can be said of Timothy; he was commissioned by Paul to maintain doctrinal integrity within the church, “correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” – 2 Timothy 4:2, NIV
Paul says to Timothy, “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine …” – 1 Timothy 1:3, NIV
Timothy was also responsible for appointing elders in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Timothy 5:22-25). These are all very governmental responsibilities.
Ephesians 4
When the role of Ephesians 4 gifts are described, the description is very reminiscent of the kinds of things Timothy, Barnabas, James, and Paul were doing. And so a few things become clear: post-ascension apostles don’t carry the same authority as the first Apostles (sometimes called capital ‘A’ apostles), but they do carry governmental authority within the sphere of influence that God has given them. This is an authority that is not demanded but rather is recognised by the churches themselves. The churches recognise the apostolic gifting upon the individual and therefore partner with them as such.
It falls upon local churches to discern between true and false apostles and partner in a healthy way with those apostles upon whom they recognise a true apostolic grace.
Conclusion
I began this study by addressing the skeptics who are very uncertain or fearful of the idea of a modern-day apostle. After this journey through the New Testament, hopefully a few things have become clear:
- The term ‘apostle’ was used to describe a variety of roles that extended beyond the Twelve.
- The Twelve had a unique and foundational role in the establishment of the church.
- Other second-tier apostles are frequently mentioned in the New Testament and played a similar but distinct role from the Twelve.
- Ephesians 4 gives us a summary of the kinds of things that modern apostles will do, along with other gifts that God gives the church.
- Modern apostles carry legitimate authority within the church, but it is of a different kind from the authority that the Twelve were given.
- Modern apostles are not called to bring new doctrine or revelation to the church but rather to realign churches within their spheres of influence back to the apostolic foundation laid by Christ and the Twelve.
I am sympathetic to modern concerns about calling any modern person ‘apostle’. The fear is that this would somehow undermine the authority of Scripture by placing someone on the same level as the Twelve. But this fear is unwarranted when the distinction between the Twelve and second-tier apostles is clearly made.
There is also another danger that needs to be addressed – given how the Scriptures emphasise how important the role of apostle is in the church, why do modern Christians disregard this gift as no longer relevant or needed in the church?
If apostles are given to strengthen and unify the church, to guard the church against deception and false doctrine, to bring maturity, to appoint leaders, to facilitate church planting and gospel expansion, what will become of the church if this ministry is disregarded?!
Could the neglect of this ministry be at least a part of the reason why churches get isolated, immature, waylaid, led astray, inward-focused, and impotent in their gospel mission?
Therefore, the real safeguard for churches against the abuse and excesses of the apostolic ministry is not to avoid the title or disregard the ongoing ministry or minimise the role – the real safeguard is to properly define the role of the second-tier apostle within the modern church. We need all the gifts God has given the church, not least the precious gift of the apostolic ministry.
References:
[1] https://www.christianitytoday.com/1963/04/aldersgate-epoch-in-british-history/
[2] https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-an-apostle.html
