I include this post in Theology 101 and Ecclesiology because people need this teaching now due to an off-balanced and misguided movement called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).

Many of us Renewalists believe apostles exist today. If so, who are they? Are there different levels of them with differing authority and commissioning? Should there be restrictions on them?

There is a movement commonly called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) or the Second Apostolic Age, circulating around the global Renewal churches. Let’s analyze it, as we move along.

I also discuss elders, overseers, pastors, evangelists, and other leaders, in relations to the new apostolic revolutions.

I.. Introduction

A.. Word study

The New Testament indicates that it is important to divide apostleship into various classes or groups. What are they? The evidence for these other apostles comes mostly comes from Paul’s writings, and his definition of apostles is very broad. There are 80 occurrences of the Greek noun apostolos (apostle, pronounced ah-poh-stoh-loss) in the NT, not counting the verb apostellõ (ah-poh-stehl-loh), which appears 132 times. The noun basically just means “messenger” or “commissioned one” or “sent one.” The verb most often means “send.” And for the record, the noun apostolē (pronounced ah-poh-stoh-lay) appears 4 times and means “apostleship”) (Acts 1:25, Rom. 1:5, 1 Cor. 9:2, Gal. 2:8).

B.. Scriptural foundation

In Luke 11:49 Jesus proclaimed that the wisdom of God decided to send to the ancient Israelites prophets and apostles. Moss is singled out as being sent from God (John 1:14-18; 2 Cor. 3:6-18). More generally, OT prophets were messengers sent from God but do not rise to the level of the twelve or the apostles of Christ in the New Covenant, nor does Moses. The New Covenant is superior to the Sinai Covenant. The OT forms the roots or the beginnings of identifying who NT apostles (and prophets) were. But the NT apostle guides Christ’s church.

Paul wrote: “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). If the latter three gifts are still going strong, why not the first two? After all, their purpose is seen in vv. 12-13: ¹² […] “to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ¹³ until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12-13). Christ is distributing those five gifts to build up his temple, the church, until the “building project” is completed. The job is not done yet, even in our generation.

C.. Jesus in a class by himself

Since God sent and commissioned Jesus to go to earth and complete his mission, Jesus is called the apostle […] of our faith (Heb. 3:1). This context confirms that Jesus fits into the biblical history of a long line of “sent ones.” However, since his status as being sent from heaven as the Son of God is beyond anyone’s reach, let’s look only at how the term applies to people in his church.

II.. The Twelve Apostles

A.. In a class by themselves

Let’s quote from the Gospel of Luke.

¹² One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. ¹³ When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: ¹⁴ Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, ¹⁵ Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, ¹⁶ Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Luke 6:12-16)

In Luke’s account, this passage appears early in Jesus’s ministry and movement. All apostles were disciples, but not all disciples were apostles. Jesus designated them with this title. Many disciples were already following him (v. 13). From them he selected only twelve. The door to apostleship is not wide open.

The twelve apostles correspond to the names of twelve tribes of Israel and patriarchs, just by virtue of the same number and leadership capacity (Num. 1-2, 26; cf. Acts 26:7). They shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Their names will be written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). In that verse in the Revelation, they are called “the apostles of the lamb.” This special gift role, filled only by the twelve, can never be replicated.

B.. Eyewitnesses

Three of the twelve were eyewitnesses to the glorious majesty on the Mount of Transfiguration:

¹⁶ For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” ¹⁸ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. (2 Peter 1:16-18)

This does not mean that the eyewitness accounts of the other nine were substandard, for they too witnessed Jesus’s ministry. It merely shows that the twelve have no rivals.

John proclaims his eyewitness status:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ² The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. ³ We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard […] (1 John 1:1-3)

Of course many people at the time of Jesus’s ministry were eyewitnesses, and their stories were very important in the Christian community, like the testimony of Mary Magdalene, who appears at the resurrection scene in the four Gospels. But Jesus invested more authority in the twelve as the official tradents (transmitters) of his ministry and message.

C.. Apostles from the beginning

Not even Paul the apostle could be numbered among the twelve because Peter said:

²¹ “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, ²² 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)

So Judas’s replacement must have known Jesus’s ministry first hand, as an eyewitness from the very beginning, all the way back to John’s baptism of Jesus—very far back indeed—or close to that time. Luke also makes much of his researching those who knew Jesus from the very beginning (Luke 1:2; Acts 1:1). Paul was never with Jesus from the very beginning. Therefore, even Paul, who affirmed that he was called to be an apostle (Gal. 2:6), recognized this distance by calling himself abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:8). He even referenced the twelve, almost automatically, for he had just named Cephas (Peter), so he seemed to have placed the twelve in a special category, all together, especially including Peter (1 Cor. 15:5).

The Meaning of the Names of the Twelve Apostles

III.. Other Apostles

A.. Paul’s list

In 1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul wrote that “God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, leadership, different kinds of tongues” (my translation). There are two ways to interpret the list of first, second, third. (1) It is hierarchical, so apostles come first and must lead the church. (2) Or it is simply a list without a hierarchy.

The second interpretation seems better because he also includes “leadership,” which is a personal title, while the intervening gifts are manifestations listed in vv. 8-10. Paul seems to be just numbering a list and stops at teachers, without a hierarchy in mind. We should not demand from him what he does not number in Ephesians 4:11. Paul seems to create his list of gifts in an ad hoc and incomplete manner without a hierarchy in mind, though I cannot categorically disagree with the first interpretation. In any case, lists do not matter in isolation. What matters is how one defines the term apostle in contexts throughout the NT

Paul also writes that saying Jesus appeared to many disciples:

⁵ He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.  ⁶ After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles […]. (1 Cor. 15:5-7)

The term apostles here includes the twelve, of course, but these two passages also opens the door to other kinds, because of how easily Paul shifts to other gifts in his quick list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11. They are the apostles of Christ and then the apostles of the churches.

B.. Apostles of Christ

Recall that Christ himself gave the gift of apostle to the churches (Eph. 4:8, 11). Now let’s find out who they may be, other than the twelve.

Paul: though it may be shocking to some readers, it was argued in section IV that he could not be numbered among the twelve, because he never followed Jesus from John’s baptism to the ascension, though this does not mean Paul considered himself inferior to any influential person in Jerusalem, not even Peter, in the least (Gal. 2:6). Paul considered himself an apostle of Christ, called by Christ himself (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1).

James: the Lord’s brother was possibly an apostle of Christ. After spending fifteen days with Peter, Paul wrote: “I saw no other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19). In other words, James was numbered among the apostles of Christ in Jerusalem. Or, maybe he was distinguished from the apostles and placed in a separate class of “the Lord’s brothers,” as noted next.

The brothers of the Lord: Paul seems to put the Lord’s other brothers with the apostles and Cephas / Peter (1 Cor. 9:5). However, he may also distinguish the apostles from Jesus’s brothers, per a close reading the verse. Also, in his epistle, Jude says he was James’s brother (v. 1), but he too seems to set himself outside of the apostleship, when he reminds his readers of what the apostles of the Lord Jesus foretold, as if they were a different group (v. 17). But maybe he was not excluding himself. It is unclear.

Barnabas: he was called an apostle of Christ (Acts 14:4, 14), though the record never says he received his commission from a post-resurrection appearance, unless he was one of the more than five hundred, a possibility that cannot be excluded, since he was an early and generous disciple (Acts 4:36-37; 14:14; 1 Cor. 9:6). The twelve apostles marked him out from the rest, so he was active in Jerusalem (Acts 4:36), assuming that this is where Jesus appeared to the large number, and not Galilee.

Silas: he was probably an apostle of Christ, since Paul says, “even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority…” (1 Thess. 2:6-7); “we” would include Silas (1 Thess. 1:1). He did travel with Paul on his second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-18:). Since Silas and Judas were sent by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:27), they may have lived in Jerusalem for a long time and had seen the risen Christ with the more-than-five hundred (1 Cor. 15:6), but this is not known to us. But Silas went on missionary journeys with Paul (Acts 15:18) and probably Peter (1 Peter 5:12), and he helped Peter write his epistle, which would give him extra-authority and endorsement from Peter himself. His role was also a prophet (Acts 15:32).

Andronicus and Junia: They were apostles of Christ, because the Greek says they were “noteworthy” or “prominent” among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). This is confirmed by the Greek-speaking church fathers who had no problem in saying Andronicus and Junia (a female name attested about 250 times) and not Junias (a male name never attested). They were not merely “well known to the apostles” (Rom. 16:7). They appear to be missionary-church planters or at least worked hard in missionary endeavors.

Yes, Junia Really Was a Female Apostle: A Close Look at Roman 16:7

Here are two men whose apostleship may be questioned.

Apollos: he was possibly an apostle of Christ (1 Cor. 4:6, 9), though he was surely not part of the more-than-five hundred since he may have lived so far afield in Alexandria, Egypt (Acts 18:24). Paul refers to himself and Apollos in 1 Corinthians 4:4 and then says “we apostles” in v. 9. If those verses are interpreted correctly, then Paul considered Apollos to be an apostle. But he could be moved to the so-called “church apostles” (see below), since he does not appear to be a missionary-church planter.

Timothy: he may possibly be considered an apostle, since Paul names him in 1 Thessalonians 1:1. and then he went on mission trips with Paul and may be included in Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 2:6, which says “as apostles we” […]. Paul sent him to Corinth to strengthen and handle the reaction to the rebuke of the church, by Paul, with Paul’s full authority (1 Cor. 16:10-11). But he was more likely part of the so-called church apostles (see below). He does not seem to be a missionary-church planter doing pioneering work, so I exclude him as an apostle of Christ. He seems to be a messenger, but with Paul’s authority.

To sum up, what everyone on the above list have in common is that they were itinerant missionaries, except James, who remained in Jerusalem, according to early church historian Eusebius (AD 260/265 – 30 May 339) (Church History, Book II, Chapter 1). Some were called and commissioned by the risen Lord. So it seems they had various levels of authority and commissions.

C.. Apostles (messengers) of the churches

Some see another class of apostles, the “apostles of the churches” (2 Cor. 8:23). Major translations correctly say “messengers” (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NET), “representatives” (NIV, NLT), “delegates” (BLNT) or simply “are sent” (NCV, CEV). But I like the term “apostles of the churches,” as some translations say (NABRE, NCB, WEB, WYC, YLT). “Emissaries” is also correct.

They are church apostles who were sent by the more prominent apostles or other leaders. To be sent is the root meaning of apostle, but they do not seem to have the same authority and power as the others named above, like Paul and Barnabas and the twelve.

Certain brothers: they were called apostles of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23).

Titus: he could be a member of the “certain brothers” in the previous paragraph (2 Cor. 8:23). He had Paul’s permission and authority to appoint elders on Crete (Titus 1:5-9). It seems he was a messenger or delegate, but he had to exercise authority to appoint elders, yet his authority came from Paul who commissioned him, not Jesus himself.

Epaphroditus: he was an apostle of or to the Philippians (Phil. 2:25). Though the Greek reads “apostle,” the major translations have “messenger” (KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, NLT, ESV, NET), “sent” (NCV, CEV). Epaphroditus was an apostle of this particular church because he was sent. But his authority came from Paul, not from a vision and commission from Jesus (as far as we know).

Pricilla and Aquila: they were a husband and wife team and may be placed here, since they traveled and exercised authority, when, for example, they taught Apollos (Acts 18:2, 18-26), but their apostleship is far from clear. Paul called them his co-workers, but he distinguished them from apostles (Rom. 16:3, 7). They seemed to host churches (1 Cor. 16:19), more than plant them. More likely they were businesspersons and teachers and shepherd (pastors) of sorts. But they may have been apostles of a church and so may be placed in the previous category. They may even have been missionary church planters, if they are the ones who planted a church hosted in their house. But they never saw the Lord and received a commission from him.

John Mark: he traveled with Paul and Barnabas and helped to plant churches in new territory (Acts 12:25), so maybe he should be placed in the list of apostles of Christ. But he abandoned them (15:37). His cousin Barnabas, however, believed in him and traveled with him to Cyprus (15:39), Barnabas’s home island (4:36). He associated with Peter and wrote his Gospel based on the lead apostle’s preaching. He made it all the way to Rome. So could John Mark be an apostle-missionary and church planter or a co-church-planter with Paul and Barnabas? He may have seen the Lord as a member of the more than five hundred who saw the Lord. But this is unknown.

Apollos and Timothy: it is probable that they should probably be placed here. The church in Ephesus sent Apollos to Achaia with a letter to welcome him. So he was sent or commissioned by the church, not the risen Lord. And Timothy was sent by Paul to strengthen the church in Ephesus, even with two letters (1, 2 Timothy), containing Paul’s authority.

In this entire section, Paul has a broad definition, even including messengers or delegates or representatives, who do not seem to be commissioned by Christ himself, but by churches. But as we shall see, next, other criteria must be met before anyone can claim the title of apostle.

IV.. Criteria of Apostleship

A.. Brief intro.

These criteria are true for the twelve, and nearly all of the criteria also apply to some of the apostles of Christ, but not to the messengers, except an itinerant lifestyle.

B.. Seeing the Lord Jesus and being commissioned by him

In 1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul writes, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Some scholars say that the clause “Am I not free?” indicates that this verse is not about defining apostles, because every believer is free in Christ. But in the rest of the long passage Paul defends his apostleship. Every disciple is free, but not every disciple has seen the Lord or is an apostle. And so seeing the Lord is most likely a mark of the apostle. Then he commissioned them. Maybe some of the believers who were part of the more than five hundred to whom Jesus had appeared (1 Cor. 15:6) were commissioned by Jesus. If so, then they could be considered apostles. But this is speculation from silence, so caution is needed.

C.. The Holy Spirit can commission mature disciples.

In Acts 13:1-3, the Holy Spirit spoke a prophecy that Paul and Barnabas should go out into the mission field. Their prayer team confirmed this and laid hands on them and sent them out. (Note that they did not remain in Antioch and claim their new apostolic authority over the existing church there, as the super-apostles evidently did in Corinth, which they did not plant.) So today assuming that a local church or even a denomination is doctrinally sound and not given over to false prophecies and charismatic excesses, churches can confirm a mature disciple’s genuine calling by the Spirit and commission him to be a missionary.

D.. Signs and wonders and miracles

Signs, wonders, and miracles also mark an apostle.

¹² I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles.  (2 Cor. 12:12)

When I check the Greek and grammarians, the NIV translates it correctly with the word “including.” However, men who were not numbered among the twelve could do them, like the seventy (Luke 10:9). Even Philip, who was a deacon and an evangelist, could work them (Acts 8:4-13). Surely other men and women, whose ministries went unrecorded, could also work them (Mark 16:17-18). (Even if you consider those latter verses in Mark as not original, they still reflect the churches’ beliefs.)  So maybe it is best to say that all apostles have to be able to work signs and wonders and miracles, but other disciples were unable, unless God distributed the gift to them (1 Cor. 12:10). Those manifestation by themselves were not sufficient to claim apostleship. The other factors in this list have to be present.

E.. Apostles were called to suffer (Matt 10:16-39; Mark 6:8-9; Luke 9:3-4; 10:3-4; 11:49; 1 Cor. 4:9-13; 2 Tim. 1:11-12; Rev. 18:20).

⁹ For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. […] ¹³ when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment. (1 Cor. 4:9, 13)

In other words, the original apostles sacrificed everything, even their reputation. Then why the insulting terms? Probably because they disrupt the religious status quo. Paul and Barnabas disrupted Judaism and paganism. Apostles were also itinerant, which brings its own deprivations.

F.. Planting churches in unevangelized territories

In the same passage, Paul wrote a polemical question, “Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!” (1 Cor. 9:2). In his day, super-apostles had been claiming they had authority, while Paul was supposed to take a back seat to them (1 Cor. 3:10; 2 Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11). In reply, Paul said that he may not have been an apostle to other churches (like the one in Rome), but he was surely an apostle to the Corinthians, in whose city he was the first to plant a church (v. 2; cf. Acts 18:1-18a). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 9:2 teaches that this requirement of being an apostle is to be a church planter by breaking brand-new territory (Rom. 15:20).

G.. Scriptural support for apostles being missionaries

There are other Scriptures than 1 Corinthians 9:2. In Acts 13-14, as noted, Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to be missionaries. Paul on his personal missionary philosophy:

²⁰ It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. (Rom. 15:20)

Those are the words of a true, biblical missionary-apostle.

Here the eleven are commissioned to go into all nations, proving that apostles are missionaries:

¹⁶ Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. […] ¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” […]. (Matt. 28:16-19)

In Acts 1:8, Jesus is commissioning the apostles (v. 3) to go to the ends of the earth, after they wait and minister in Jerusalem first:

⁸ But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

Where did some of the apostles go? We know where Paul and Barnabas and Silas went because the book of Acts describes their missionary travels. In the list of names in the section Apostles of Christ (III.B), we observed that they were all itinerant, except James, the Lord’s brother.

Further, church historian Eusebius writes:

Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. Parthia, according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia to Andrew, and Asia to John, who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. (Church History, III, chapter 1, qtd. in “Dispersion of the Apostles” Wikipedia).

I do not know whether this excerpt has been confirmed by modern historians, but it shows that some church fathers believed the apostles moved outside of Jerusalem after they finished their mission there. It shows some church fathers believed apostles were missionaries.

H.. Replies to objections

Then why did the twelve apostles remain in Jerusalem?  They don’t seem to be missionary church planters.

First, because Jesus told them to remain there. But why did he tell them that? Jerusalem was the epicenter. The apostles evangelized people there with the message of the resurrection, which Jesus did not often preach in the city because he had not yet experienced it. The Father sent the Spirit to empower his people to do this (Acts 2). So Jerusalem was an unevangelized area, before the post-resurrection gospel.

Also, the apostles were called to establish the mystery of the ages, namely, that Gentiles could be saved and join God’s biblical, historical family. This was confirmed in Acts 11:1-18, in Jerusalem, where Peter had to give an account of his meeting with the first Gentile convert, Cornelius, in Acts 10. Jerusalem was central for this new message, for it challenged Judaism and the temple, which were eventually judged and destroyed, just as Jesus had predicted (Luke 19:41-45; 21:20-24; 23:26-31; Matt. 21:33-45). Now faith in the Messiah was the path of salvation, though the Jerusalem and temple establishment had rejected him during his life. The apostles remained in Jerusalem because they were, in effect, planting a major church there, which would influence the entire church around the globe. Call it a global church plant in one city! They were establishing the most important doctrine of salvation. Eventually, however, the apostles left Jerusalem and became missionaries to foreign lands.

And what about the apostle John who, Eusebius says, settled in Ephesus, where a church had already been planted? He does not seem to be a missionary who planted churches in unevangelized areas.

John had been a pioneering missionary and fulfilled his commission from the Lord in Jerusalem and no doubt elsewhere, as seen in those quoted NT verses. He went to Samaria to approve of Philip’s evangelistic campaign. The apostles in Jerusalem commissioned him and Peter to check it out (Acts 8:14). He probably settled there after Paul died, or else we would see a mention of John in one of Paul’s prison epistles.

Here is John writing to the church at Ephesus:

[…] I know that […] you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. (Rev. 2:2)

As a true apostle, who fit the bill of qualifications, after he had served in Jerusalem, John must have seen the need to help out because heresy was rampant in Ephesus, particularly due to the huge temple of Artemis – Diana. A true apostle is better equipped to spot the false ones. He did not plant a new church in Asia Minor (that I am aware of) but oversaw the one already there. In any case, he ended up as a prisoner on the Island of Patmos, as yet another step in his mission, to suffer persecution and to be considered “scum” and “garbage” (1 Cor. 4:13).

And finally what about Peter? Reports say he lived in Rome, where a church had already been planted. The same answer about John can be applied to Peter. He completed his missionary journeys in Jerusalem and the other regions listed by Eusebius, and then went to the capital. There were enough unevangelized synagogues in the huge city itself and its outskirts that he could find new areas to evangelize, being the apostle to Jews. And he could also help lead the church in Rome. Before the age of modern media, there were plenty of places in the huge capital and outskirts that had never heard the gospel.

I.. Summary

All the criteria have to work together, as a whole, in order to say that a NT person was an apostle. But when not all of them do, the main ones are to be commissioned by Jesus or the Spirit. Then they became, sooner or later, itinerant, pioneering missionary church planters in unevangelized territory, like Paul and Barnabas were (Acts 13-14).

V..  Two Restrictive Verses

A.. Scriptures

Ephesians 2:20 says that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).

And Ephesians 3:4b-5 says, “… the mystery of Christ … has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” (Eph. 3:4b-5).

Those verses put some of the apostles of the first century in such a high and exclusive class that this apostolic ministry and calling no longer exists today because the foundation had been laid in that century. Others see these foundational apostles are out of reach, true, but the kind of apostles in 1 Corinthians 12:28 opens the doors to others.

B.. Who formed the foundation?

For sure the twelve are included (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 21:14). Paul should be in the foundation because of his abundance of revelations and epistles, and along with other NT authors. Or one could place only the twelve and Paul in the foundation. Some interpreters could also include any of the seventy because they were with Jesus early on and were sent out by him. Interpreters could include others who were with Jesus from near the beginning, like Joanna and Susanna. All women who proclaimed the resurrection right after it happened could be there, for they revealed the mystery of Christ as the glorified Lord (see 1 Tim. 3:16). They proclaimed the gospel and told their stories about him.

An important passage is the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The apostles and elders decided on the interrelations between redeemed Jews and redeemed Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas were there. Silas and a certain Judas attended and delivered the letter explaining the council’s decision because they were prominent leaders. They themselves were prophets (15:32). Agabus was a prophet, along with his team, and was acknowledged by the Jerusalem church, so he was probably at the council. Is it possible that many of the more than five hundred men and women who saw the risen Jesus were also in attendance?

In any case, the Jerusalem Council is an illustration of many foundational apostles and prophets establishing crucial, timeless doctrines, like salvation. The council is not the only foundational source of authority. Recall Peter’s meeting with the apostles and believers from Judea and circumcised believers in Jerusalem, who ratified Peter’s decision to eat with Gentiles and proclaim that Gentiles too could be saved (Acts 11:1-18). How many other (unrecorded) discussions took place, to establish doctrine? The epistles have to be factored in. If Barnabas wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, then he is definitionally foundational.

VI.. Elders, Overseers, and Pastors

A.. Brief intro.

In the NT, those three ministry gifts seem to be synonymous, since they have the same function of caring for and leading the churches. I do not have a separate post in Theology 101 about church leadership and denominations today. I see a plurality of leaders (but not necessarily their total equality) as clear and decisive in the NT for local churches and denominations today. How churches work this out in detail is up to them, though. What follows is the Scriptural evidence.

B.. Pastoral and other epistles

In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus we have a prolonged job description of church governance, particularly in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Those two chapters spell out the moral and social qualifications.  Further, in 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul commends above all the elder who works hard at preaching and teaching, or, more literally, he works hard in the word and doctrine.

¹⁷ The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)

In no place in the pastoral epistles do we read that apostles or prophets led the church. Paul was the church planter in Ephesus, so as their apostle he oversaw the church, but he did not instruct Timothy to appoint apostles. He was to appoint elders of the highest character. And the elder who works hard at preaching and teaching are singled out.to receive double honor. The term apostle appears only five times and apply only to Paul. The pastoral epistles are about establishing elders or overseers.

Paul commissioned Titus to complete what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town on Crete (Titus 1:5-9). It is safe to assume that Paul appointed elders in every church he planted in places other than Crete. He commissioned Timothy to do the same in Ephesus, including male and female deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13).  Overseers (= elders) and deacons governed (that is, served) the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1).

Be warned about permitting apostles to come into your church and taking over. Tell them no.

C.. Acts

In Acts 20:17-38 Paul summoned the leaders of Ephesus. Did he call for any apostle or prophet? No, he asked the elders to meet him southward, along the Aegean Sea, in the city of Miletus. During Paul’s and Barnabas’s first missionary journey, they appointed elders to lead their church plants (Acts 14:23).

D.. Objection and reply

But Paul did not establish elders in the Corinthian church. The word “elder” never appears in his letters to Corinth.

In reply, for all we know, maybe the Corinthians did not have very many mature, homegrown believers. But who were the leaders there at various times? Paul, Prisca and Aquila, Peter-Cephas, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, Silas (who seemed to stay along time; Acts 18:5), Crispus, Stephanus and his household, Erastus, Quartus, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Chloe and her household, and additional persons who are unnamed. Even a woman named Phoebe was a deacon in nearby Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1). These names are just the tip of the iceberg because Paul does list apostles, prophets, teachers, helpers, and leaders in 1 Corinthians 12:28.

And Clement (c. 35-99 A.D.), in his epistle to the Corinthians, told the Corinthians not to allow one or two persons to rebel against the presbyters or elders (47.6). Evidently either Paul appointed elders even though he did not write about it (the title may be in one of the lost epistles), or he did this later and did not bother to mention it in one of the surviving epistles, for appointing elders was simply done by standard practice. Or the list of men (and Prisca and Chloe) named above were the elders. Clement does mention Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, who seem to function as an early team of elders (47.1-2). Or maybe later on the Corinthians saw the wisdom in appointing elders, modeled on the practice Paul did and wrote about in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Therefore, during Paul’s lifetime he had a de facto team of elders or leaders at Corinth. And he personally oversaw the assembly for a long time. Just because a term (elder) is missing in an epistle does not mean an equivalent function or the role itself is absent.

VII.. New Apostolic Movements

A.. The new movements

They promote the ministry gift of apostle. Its leaders define apostles very broadly. Some call it the NAR, the Second Apostolic Age, or the Apostolic Revolution; they are a variety of apostolic movements and revolutions. The goal is simple. When apostles take their rightful place, the church can progress in the gospel.

B.. One key definition

Dr. C. Peter Wagner, a main proponent, defines apostle, as follows:

The gift of apostle is the special ability that God gives to certain members of the Body of Christ to assume and exercise general leadership over a number of churches with an extraordinary authority in spiritual matters that is spontaneously recognized and appreciated by those churches. (Churchquake! p. 105, emphasis original)

Review of C. Peter Wagner’s Book ‘Churchquake’

However, in reply, the definition is too vague. It seems apostles are disembodied from their original NT context and can therefore include anyone. Pastors and other leaders cannot just form, for example, a network out of already existing churches, and exercise “extraordinary authority” over them and call themselves apostles. But if various churches want to form an association because they share the same doctrine and ministry practices, then it seems best for the leader of the network to just encourage the other leaders in the other churches, but not exercise “extraordinary authority” over the other churches. That latter term is also too vague in comparison with what an apostle really is. Paul exercised authority only over the churches he planted, because his new converts needed guidance and instruction. “Spontaneously recognized” is again too vague because it takes hard work to plant churches in unevangelized regions. All of these ambiguities can lead to many sorts of abuse of power. No wonder apostles are popping up everywhere today.

C.. New Testament criteria for apostleship

As noted under IV, only those who have seen the Lord and are commissioned by him or the Spirit, break new ground with evangelism, found churches that last, work signs and wonders, live an itinerant lifestyle, and are willing to bear the burden of suffering for the Lord can claim the title “apostle” today.

D.. Additional analysis of the restrictions on modern-day apostles

First, 1 Corinthians 12:28 opens this door to modern apostles, but only if they are missionary church planters and conform to the other criteria, while, as noted , Ephesians 2:20 and 3:4b-5 close the door to modern apostles having the same authority as the earliest ones. Specifically, today’s apostles are excluded from writing Scriptures and laying a new doctrinal foundation that was settled in the first century, when the original apostolic community lived and were specially called to lay it. Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the foundation, and if modern apostles and prophets were to lay down another foundation, then they would need another cornerstone. But Jesus would not accept their invitation. He does not like presumption. Thankfully, by my observations, todays apostles do not see themselves on the same level as foundational Scripture writers.

Second, for those Renewalists today who claim the title of apostle by virtue of their working signs and wonders and miracles, these manifestations of God’s power are not sufficient by themselves to establish their claim. Many or anyone may potentially work them by the Spirit distributing them as he determines (1 Cor. 12:10). Even false disciples or preachers can do them (Matt 7:22-23).

Third, some of my fellow charismatics claim that they saw a vision of Jesus who commissioned them to go tell everyone that he is coming soon and everyone must get right with God. So they have seen the risen Jesus and been commissioned, but are they apostles?

Fourth, signs and wonders are important elements of apostleship, but other factors are decisive, namely, being missionaries to unevangelized regions. We can add another one: suffering from abuse and the itinerant, unsettled lifestyle.

To sum up the third and fourth points signs and wonders and a vision and commission from Jesus are not sufficient to earn the title apostle. We are all commissioned to tell the world about Jesus, with or without a vision or heavenly commission or signs and wonders.

Fifth, to build on the point about suffering, today’s self-styled apostles seem unwilling to suffer, though the original ones were willing and did. Do men (or women) who call themselves apostles today, evidently so they can lord it over churches (exercise “extraordinary authority”) or enjoy extra status, want to be considered garbage and scum? Do they really want to go through the same itinerant lifestyle as Paul and Barnabas did? Suffer persecution as they did?

Think of a Christian missionary today going to a Japanese city, where the gospel is unknown and Shintoism is dominant. Think of areas in India where Hinduism is widespread, but Christ is unknown. Consider Africa, where satanic witches lord it over people, where Christianity is unknown. Even “peaceful” Buddhists sometimes attack Christian missionaries. In those extreme circumstances missionary-apostles could (wrongly) be called scum or garbage. Do men (or women) who call themselves apostles today in America, evidently so they can exercise “extraordinary authority” or enjoy extra status, want to be considered garbage and scum? Do they really want to go through the same itinerant lifestyle as Paul and Barnabas did? Suffer persecution as they did, in Acts 13-14?

Sixth, true apostles are not interlopers or usurpers. They do not come after churches were already planted in an unreached area and claim the same apostolic authority. Men came to Corinth to lure disciples away from Paul and his foundation and towards themselves (2 Cor. 10:12-16; see Rom 15:20). Paul accused men like these of being super-apostles and then called them false apostles (2 Cor 10:12-16; 11:12-13). This is possibly what the apostles were claiming in the church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:2). They were boasting and claiming authority, but instead they were asking for money and laying their foundation on top of the first foundation (evidently done by Paul himself). They may have been luring disciples towards themselves, with clever words.

Seventh, true apostles do not travel to a region where churches already exist and plant yet another church. This person is probably an evangelist who goes into already-evangelized areas to win the lost, for not everyone is saved there. People still need salvation and better instruction. (There is some overlap between an evangelist and apostle, but the distinction is that evangelists are not necessarily missionaries who go into unevangelized areas, but apostles are.) Planting a church (or churches) in Los Angeles or New York or Dallas or Atlanta, for example, does not count to make a man or woman an apostle, because Christianity is well known in those cities. Many are not saved, true, but they have plenty of churches to go into, to hear the message about Jesus. Other cities in the Western world and many regions in Africa, to cite more examples, are also covered with Christianity. Instead, apostles go into uncharted territories where the gospel is completely unknown. There are 3.2 billion people who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Plant churches in those areas, and then come back home and claim your title of apostle.

E.. Fatal flaws in modern apostolic movements

First, one major fatal flaw is that the promoters define the ministry gift of apostle or apostolic leader so broadly that just about anyone with good character and some leadership abilities can become one. Sometimes the promoters actively recruit them too.

Second, another fatal flaw is the methodology of jumping from the study of Scripture to the title. For example, just because I study and copy King David’s kingship principles does not make me a king of Israel or even literally royal. Just because I study Paul’s apostleship in the epistles and Acts and emulate it does not make me an apostle or apostolic. Studying and implementing numerous leadership principles in Scripture does not confer the literal title king or apostle or governor (Nehemiah), maybe except leader, broadly defined. For apostleship, which I define narrowly (and I believe biblically), other factors have to come into play; the main one is actually being a pioneering missionary and church planter in unevangelized areas, just like Paul and Barnabas were on their first missionary journey and met the other criteria.

Third, in my view, the apostolic promoters do not have a mandate from God to push the NAR or other apostolic revolutions on to the global church. These newfangled movements do not come from God, but from the minds of innovative men, big dreamers and visionaries (terms that are found throughout these new apostolic movements). They are looking for yet another novelty, the latest fad and trend. Of course, the movement leaders would say their motives are to be helpful and clarifying, and maybe so, but I say novelties are a major (and dangerous) obsession in American Christianity today.

We live in the land of Disney, various smaller amusements parks, Artificial Intelligence, NASA, Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and hundreds of thousand business startups. They are called to innovate, and we should support them in the main. In contrast, we the church are called to follow Jesus and the teachings of the original apostolic community in their writings. It is one thing to innovate by dimming or brightening up the lights on Sunday morning, but it is quite another to gin up apostolic movements that have no deep roots in the NT.

F.. Better terms

If a movement or network or denominational head is not an apostle or apostolic, then which term should we use to describe him? The answer is leaders in Romans 12:8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28.

As to Romans 12:8, BDAG defines the term leader as follows (edited to fit this format): (1) “To exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of)“; (2) “to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid.” The first definition fits v. 8 here. Nearly every translation says leads or leader or leadership. One says administrative ability. Older ones say ruleth or rules and another older one even says sovereign (!).

In 1 Corinthians 12:28 the Greek word has been translated as follows: guidance, guides, administrators, administrating, administrations, governors, government, organizers, organizational gifts, managers, and of course leaders and leadership. Pick one of those terms and not apostle.

Therefore, let’s narrow down and reserve the terms apostle and apostolic only for pioneering missionaries who plant churches in unevangelized regions. Heads of networks or movements or organizations or denominations in America or other gospel-saturated regions are not apostles or apostolic. You can pick the terms listed in Romans 12:8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 to apply to them leaders. We must not casually dismiss the terms Paul offers us and claim the confusing title of apostle or apostolic.

Maybe the names of the new movements or networks which the NAR promoters are looking for are something like these: the New Leadership Reformation or the New Leadership Revolution or the Global Leadership Movements, but not the Global Apostolic Movement. (Just drop the title apostolic altogether.) The problem is that in their books they denigrate these roles as nothing more than administrative or managerial paper shufflers who get in the way, in their view, even though the roles are perfectly biblical and fit the roles better.

Gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and 12:28

Gifts of the Spirit in Romans 12:6-8

G.. Danger

I see all of the movements to restore apostles in a Second Apostolic Age as a danger to the church. The rapid growth of apostles and apostolic leaders sows confusion and deception and self-promotion, because the promoters do not do sound exegesis and therefore do not base their definitions on the strict and narrow biblical view of apostle and apostolic (see IV, above). Maybe if they did proper exegesis, they would have to renounce their apostleship or the adjective (I would hope).

Worst of all, today’s apostles are setting themselves up without a commission from the risen Lord and without reading Scripture more carefully. They have “extraordinary authority” without earning it, biblically. They are in danger of deceiving themselves and large swathes of the church.

H.. Word of exhortation

If anyone belongs to the International Coalition of Apostolic Leaders or the US Coalition of Apostolic Leaders and does not fit the strict NT definition of apostle, he must unsubscribe immediately. Leave the newfangled dot orgs. Leave 5f (five-fold) churches.

Review of C. Peter Wagner’s Book ‘Churchquake’

Review of C. Peter Wagner’s Book ‘Apostles and Prophets’

Review of C. Peter Wagner’s Book ‘Apostles Today’

Review of C. Peter Wagner’s Book ‘Churchquake!’

Review of Joseph Mattera’s Book ‘The Global Apostolic Movement and the Progress of the Gospel’

VIII.. Application

A.. Here is a summary list of the kinds of apostles:

1.. Jesus: he is the sent one from heaven and commissioned by the Father. He is the Apostle of his church.

2.. The twelve: they form an exclusive class. They were foundational. They became itinerant, after leaving Jerusalem. They are also called the “apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14)

After their time in Jerusalem, establishing doctrine and planting the church there, they became missionaries. Even Peter traveled outside Jerusalem to preach the gospel (Acts 9:32-10:48). No doubt other apostles did too, even much like evangelist Philip did (Acts 8:5-13; 26-40), even though their travels were unrecorded in Acts.

3.. Apostles of Christ: Some of them were foundational; Paul, Barnabas, James (Lord’s brother), and Silas?, Andronicus and Junia. They were itinerant, possibly except James

4.. Messengers of the churches: they were sent out by the churches to deliver messages and letters and establish order, under apostles and the sending churches.

The first three are out of reach for anyone today. The fourth one may not appeal to modern apostles because it takes away their “extraordinary authority.” “Apostles” today. must also meet the additional criteria under IV and avoid the bad criteria under VI.C and D. Fulfilling these stringent requirements is extraordinarily rare. They must not see themselves as foundational, either.

The one factor that unites all of them is that they were on the move. Even Jesus crisscrossed Israel, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, building his early movement (“The Son of Man has no place to lay his head”; Matt. 8:20). Do apostles today want to be itinerant missionaries and plant churches, living in discomfort and deprivation that comes from an unsettled life? Do they meet the other criteria?

B.. Dying to self

Paul wrote: “We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the sphere of service God himself has assigned to us” […] (2 Cor. 10:13). Jesus assigned Paul to his apostleship, and Paul did not exceed his limits by claiming authority over churches he did not plant. When men and women today misjudge God’s call and think more highly of themselves than they should, they open themselves to God himself judging them (see the next section). He opposes the proud and exalts the humble.

C.. Warning Scriptures for today’s self-appointed apostles

It is better to be safe than sorry: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit” (Phil. 2:3).

Take the humble path:

³ For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (Rom. 12:3)

Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because Peter writes:

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”

⁶ Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. (1 Peter 5:5b-6, citing Prov. 3:34)

Today’s self-styled apostles should be free and mature enough not to use the noun (apostle) and even the adjective (apostolic). Self-denial is mature and humble. Choose this way. Renounce those titles if you do not meet the strict NT criteria.

D.. Who appoints apostles?

In the ministry of Jesus and the early church, the believers did not self-appoint to this gift. Jesus appointed the twelve and Paul. Paul got the seal of approval from the apostles in Jerusalem and the elders, though he claims he did not need it (Gal. 2:1-10). He brought up their endorsement possibly because others could claim the apostolic mantle by a vision or a word from the Lord. For example, some called themselves “super-apostles” (or Paul called him by this label), but he debunks them, saying they were masquerading (2 Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11). Apparently, they were self-appointed and became enamored with their power and position.

Pastors or elders can appoint a mature disciple, if they confirm that the Spirit genuinely called him. Then they lay hands on them and send him out to unreached territories, like states in India or the people who live by the Amazon River. After a long time of work, these missionaries can return and claim the title of apostle, if they also meet the other criteria. But by my observation, true missionaries are humble and do not even think about claiming it.

Also, a missionary can go on short trips in unevangelized areas. And a church can send out a team to evangelized areas to do supportive work (for example, at an orphanage in Africa or Mexico), but they are not apostles because they do not meet the other criteria.

E.. Test all self-proclaimed apostles

As we already saw, above, in John the Revelator’s day, the church in Ephesus tested those who claimed to be apostles, and they were proven false (Rev. 2:2). It is interesting that Paul had written to the Ephesian church and laid out church gifts (Eph. 4:11). It is probable that this epistle helped the Ephesian leaders to spot the false ones. Therefore, let’s learn a lesson. It is best to test those who claim an apostolic ministry, just as the Ephesians did in John’s time. Apostles today may not pass the test; they may not even want to go through a test!

F.. Safety and balance

The preacher today who claims to be an apostle is not one. I urge caution about following someone who gives himself or herself the title, even if their ordination happened on the platform of a church. Just for safety and balance in the church, church leaders should avoid the title. We need to attract, not distract, new converts to our churches and keep the long-time church goers, not mislead and confuse them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited