One of the big moves during my lifetime has been from a situation where it would be considered at best “fringe” to refer to some Christian leaders as apostles to it being fairly normalised. This came up significantly in my deep dive into Bethel, Redding. The New Apostolic Reformation has a particular view of apostles and prophets being the ones who capture a vision of heaven in order to provide the blueprint so that we can have Heaven on Earth. The idea of apostles or apostolic leaders is also found in new church or neo-charismatic movements in the UK and within some African majority networks and denominations. It does seem though that different things are meant by the label in different contexts.
However, the starting point for the idea of apostles in the contemporary church seems to be common to the different movements. In Ephesians 4, Paul talks about the risen Christ giving gifts as he ascends. Then he lists them as follows:
“1And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[c] and teachers,[d] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,”[1]
This has been referred to as the “Five-fold” ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers although there is a consensus that we should bracket the last two together as “pastor-teachers.” The argument is that the Church today needs all of these gifts and if they are not all present, it won’t flourish so that we won’t grow into maturity.
There are two problems with taking this approach. First of all, throughout the New Testament, Paul makes a number of lists of spiritual gifts. Each differs slightly. This suggests that we are not meant to treat any list as exhaustive. So, we should not assume that because a gift isn’t listed that it isn’t a gift, nor that every gift is expected in every church at every time. Rather, we can trust God to give us the specific gifts we need in our time and place for the specific things he has called us to. The one gift that seems to be different is that of pastor-teacher because it comes with particular instructions regarding who is to be called and how they are to go about their work. Further, as we will see later, it is the gift that seems to both connect other gifts, particularly the gift of apostleship and being a prophet to people so that they are equipped to serve with their own gifts.
The second problem is that it doesn’t fit with the context. You see, Paul’s letter would have been read aloud in the churches in one sitting. That means that anyone listening will have heard Paul say “he gave the apostles and prophets…” less than a few minutes after he has said that the church is being
“the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone “[2]
A believer in the first century would have been clear from this that the apostles and the prophets together formed the foundation of the church with Christ as the cornerstone holding everything together. You only lay one foundation, so this doesn’t sound like a gift likely to continue and needed to be given again and again.
So, who were these apostles? Well the term seems to have been a common, every day term describing messengers and ambassadors. The twelve chosen by Jesus were designated as apostles and this seems to have indicated a special role for them. They were to be his representatives, bearing his image to the world, just as Adam and Eve were meant to be God’s image bearers. I guess in that sense, we are all apostles. We are sent to represent Jesus. However, the twelve seem to have had a special designation as “The Apostles”. Paul will go to great lengths to justify his, after the event, special inclusion in their number.
The Twelve had a particular responsibility then, it came with being eye-witnesses of Jesus’ life and especially his resurrection. They were the ones that the Spirit would lead into all truth. So, they were meant to reveal truth about Jesus.
What about “The Prophets”? Well, there seem to have been quite a few prophets in the early church. However, this also seems to refer to a specific category. This may refer to those who alongside the apostles helped to proclaim the good news to give us Scripture. Some have suggested that this is shorthand for the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, often referred to as “The Law/Torah and Prophets.” I am sympathetic to this take. Remember that Christ is the cornerstone, the one that holds everything together and that they centre on. In other words, the point about The Apostles and The Prophets is that they are the ones bringing the revelation of Jesus and his Gospel. That means that they were uniquely placed to bring that message. It also means that we have that gift today, in every church because we have Scripture. And it also means that it is pastor-teachers we need to ensure that this gift is honoured and heard in every church until Christ returns.
So, where does that leave us in terms of the idea of contemporary apostles? Well remember first of all that the word applied to the twelve and to Paul was an everyday word. So, it is possible that we could think of it as a word we can use carefully to describe other ministries in the church. It’s important if we do, that we make it clear that we are not talking about “The Apostles”.
Secondly, whilst elders or pastor-teachers seem to have specific responsibilities for just one church, we do see in the New Testament that there were those who seemed to have a wider remit, most notably Timothy, Titus, Silas and Barnabas. Further, the term “apostle” is used at least in one other context. In Romans 16:7, we are told that Andronicas and Junia were outstanding, esteemed or of note among the apostles. Now, if these were apostles themselves then that would mean that there would have been others beyond the 12 who held the name but that would make them a different kind of apostle. However, we need to tread cautiously here. A number of interpreters take the view that these were of outstanding reputation or noteworthy among, meaning to the apostles rather than as apostles. Further, it is possible that Paul thought in terms of apostolic bands or teams which might include apostles but also a wider group of connected leaders.
This should give us a little caution about how much weight we give to the concept. Certainly, I would not be making too big a thing of an office of apostle sitting within a rigid hierarchy and certainly not atop it.
However, it does seem to me that there has long been a recognised role, even amongst independent evangelicals for those who labour beyond their local church. The idea of someone who because of their relationship to specific churches, especially as the initial planter, having an “invited in” authority seems fitting. The term “apostle” may be as good as any to describe them. However, it doesn’t seem like a title to take on yourself, certainly not as an honorific prefix. We need also to be very careful to show that we do not mean anything resembling the Twelve.
Wherever you land on the “modern apostles” question it is important that you don’t use Ephesians 4 for your argument. The passage has nothing to do with the question. But why does this matter? After all, I’ve argued consistently that it doesn’t really matter too much as to what you call a gift and I’ve indicated that there is a type of gift that is about having invited authority into churches that transcends responsibility for one local church. Here’s why it matters.
First, we cannot afford to take short cuts. It’s important that we consistently handle Scripture correctly and model that handling. If we reach the right answers but from the wrong places then it sets a precedent for how we engage with God’s Word which may lead to more serious issues later on where a Bible passage is used to argue for something that is wrong.
In fact, we see an example of that here. You see, Ephesians 4:11 is being used to argue for a type of apostle that is actually anti-Biblical and anti-Gospel. The New Apostolic Reformation form of apostleship is not only absent from Scripture but goes against what it teaches. It creates a hierarchical structure and puts the focus on a form of mysticism. It creates an alternative source of revelation and it diminishes the role of pastor/teacher. Secondly, it diminishes the crucial gift of God’s Word itself because the Bible verse concerned is no longer allowed to speak about the very gift it intends to honour, the gift of Special Revelation.
Throughout history we have seen what happens when these two things come together, a diminishing of Scripture and a raising up of alternative revelation. We end up with the weird Christ denying heresies of Gnosticism and the corruption of the medieval church. We’ve seen this in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. As my e-book Bethel: The Deep Dive shows, we are seeing the same kinds of problems emerging again. This is why it matters that we not only get our conclusion right but the working out too.
So, if you wish to use the label, then use it with care. Personally, my inclination is not to use it. Indeed, do we need labels and titles for everything that happens in the life of the church?
[1] Ephesians 4:11.
[2] Ephesians 2:19-20.
Faithroots 