Modern Apostles!

by Steve Atkerson

Most evangelicals reject outright the idea of there being apostles in today's church. This is because "the Twelve" were personally hand-picked by Jesus to represent Him and were instructed by Jesus directly. On one occasion Jesus told the twelve, "He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me" (Mt 10:40). During the Last Supper, Jesus exclusively promised the twelve that "the Holy Spirit---will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" (Jn 14:26). Interestingly, after Jesus' ascension, the early believers devoted themselves not to what Jesus had said but rather "to the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42); this is because the apostles' teaching was identical to Jesus' teaching.

When Paul visited the brothers in Galatia, they welcomed him "as if [he] were Christ Jesus Himself" (Ga 4:14). Indeed, the apostles consciously realized their unique authority as Jesus' representatives. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul "pulled rank" and said, "if anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command" (1 Co 14:37). Speaking directly to the twelve, Jesus said, "if they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also" (Jn 15:20b). Aside from an occasional false prophet such as Joseph Smith, it is no wonder that few have been bold enough to claim the mantle of modern apostleship!

However, a problem arises when one examines the NT data on the apostles. Paul wrote that our resurrected Lord appeared to "the Twelve" and later to "all the apostles" (1 Co 15:3-8). How are "all the apostles" different from "the Twelve"? Mt 10:2-4 gives a listing (by name) of the "twelve apostles" and yet 1 Ths 1:1 and 2:6 also refer to Paul, Silas and Timothy as "apostles"! Romans 16:7 evidently refers to two more apostles, Andronious and Junias. In Acts 14:14, Luke awarded Barnabas the title of "apostle." Finally, James (the Lord's brother) certainly seems to have been grouped as an apostle in Ga 1:18-19 and 2:9. In what sense were these other people "apostles"?

In Scripture there were two generations of apostles. There were those apostles who had physically seen the resurrected Lord Jesus, who had been personally chosen by Jesus to represent Him, and who had been trained directly by Jesus for the job (cp. 1 Co 15:8-9 Ga 1:11-2:10). They were the norm for doctrine and practice in the early church. Whereas these first apostles were prepared and sent out by Jesus, the second generation apostles were taught by the Holy Spirit (Who was sent in place of Jesus) and they were sent out by the church (see Acts 13:1-3, 2 Co 8:23, Phlp 2:25). Not having been trained directly by Jesus, the second generation apostles studied and repeated what the first apostles taught (see 1 Co 4:16-17, 1 Tm 3:14-15, 2 Tm 2:2, Tit 1:5).

In the case of Paul we see that the second wave of apostles also were chosen by God through the Holy Spirit, received fresh revelation, established Church doctrine, and penned some of the Scriptures. The twelve occupy a unique place, having their names written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem, but Paul remains our standard and prototype for the modern apostle by virtue of the more abundant information available concerning his apostolic ministry. The second generation apostles are not second class. They simply occupy a different equally unique place in time.

However, fundamental Christianity is in agreement that there will be no more books added to or taken away from the Bible (Rev 22:18-19); it is not for present day apostles to add to the Scriptures. In that aspect, they are different from Paul. The Scriptures are a gift from God to us through the vehicle of prophecy. Since neither we nor the writers have done anything to earn this free gift, we are not to put the first century apostles on a pedestal. They were the men available for that hour to record the words of God in His timing. Although the inspired words Paul recorded in the Bible have a timeless universal authority, his apostolic ministry had a regional authority for a season. At the regional level Paul preached multitudes of sermons that were never recorded. The same can be said of the other first century apostles. Modern apostles also have regional authority. They can speak the specific prophetic word of God from God to man for a particular time and place and purpose.

The word "apostle" in our English Bible is a transliteration of the Greek apostolos. The actual translation would be something like "envoy, ambassador, messenger, sent one" (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Brown, Vol I, p. 126). The verb apostello carries the notion of "to send with a particular purpose," thus, apostolos would mean "one commissioned" or "accredited messenger" (New Bible Dictionary, Davis, pp. 57-60). Jerome, in translating the NT from Greek into Latin, rendered apostolos as the Latin root missio (the basis for our word "missionary"). Did you ever notice that the word "missionary" is nowhere to be found in an English Bible? And yet virtually every modern church believes in "missionaries." This is because "missionary" is the dynamic equivalent of apostolos. The justification for the existence of contemporary missionaries lies in the NT patterns of and teachings about the existence of apostles.

Modern missionaries can correspond to the second generation of apostles; that is, they have been sent out by the church to evangelize and to establish churches. Inasmuch as holy Scripture does not shrink back from calling missionaries "apostles," why should we (especially if the two-fold distinction is maintained)?

Granted that there is indeed a NT pattern to justify the existence of missionaries in today's church, how should our modern apostles carry out their ministries? Looking again to the NT, it becomes obvious that near constant movement characterized most of the first apostles. They toured, itinerated and traveled, preaching the Gospel and organizing churches. Never did they settle down permanently in one place. This is far different from what typically goes on in contemporary missions!

Occasional training stops were made in strategic locations, but then the circuit continued. For instance, Paul spent one and a half years in Corinth (Acts 18:11), two years in Ephesus (19:8-10), and two years in Rome (28:31). He managed to resist the temptation of staying any longer. Similarly, Paul told the apostle Timothy to "stay in Ephesus so that [he] might command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer" (1 Tm 1:3); but once that job was done Paul wrote for him to, "do your best to get here before winter" (2 Tm 4:21). Despite what is commonly supposed, Timothy was an apostle to Ephesus, not a pastor there. Another example is Titus, left in Crete to "straighten out what was left unfinished" and to "appoint elders in every town" (Tit 1:5); once this was accomplished Titus was to join Paul at Nicopolis (Tit 3:12).

What objectives did the early apostles have that motivated their travels? One was evangelism. In discussing the rights of an apostle, Paul wrote that "those who preach the gospel should get their living from the gospel." Timothy was charged to "do the work of an evangelist" and to "discharge all the duties of [his] ministry" (2 Tm 4:5). Even a cursory reading of Acts will show this to be an important function for apostles.

Another objective of those sent out by the church was to organize and strengthen those newly converted. This was partially the reason for the one or two year layovers. Ephesians 4:11-13 tells us that God gave some to be apostles "to prepare God's people for works of service." Paul planned a visit to Ephesus, but in case he was delayed he wrote instructions so that "you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household" (1 Tm 3:15). Timothy's job was to "entrust" the truth to "reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Tm 2:2).

Apostles are of two different types:

1. The "Antioch" paradigm

2. The "Jerusalem" paradigm

A major difference between a typical pastor and an "Antioch" apostle is that a pastor's sphere of service is more often permanently concentrated in one local church, whereas an "Antioch" apostle's sphere is universal and temporary. Such an apostle is sent forth from a parent church, trains and appoints elders, and moves on, eventually returning to the parent church. He oversees the "daughter" church(es), and then releases the daughter church(es) into autonomy. From then on, it is up to the local elders to teach the mature daughter church and to train future elders, which she will in turn send out to teach and propagate new churches.

On the other hand, the "Jerusalem" apostle is sent as an apostle to one locale from which he administers universal influence through sound judgment and sound doctrine which is promulgated by means of messengers sent with a portion of his apostolic anointing to local churches.

Both the Antioch paradigm and the Jerusalem paradigm are sent by God, but the one type of apostle is itinerant. The other is stationary.

Under the Holy Spirit's guidance, no words recorded in Scripture are accidental or without importance. All written there is for our profit. Just as we ignore NT patterns for ecclesiology to our peril, so too to disregard NT apostolic practices is unwise. Let us concentrate our financial support on those apostles who most closely follow recorded NT principles. May God raise up such people from our midst!

The church always has had and will continue to have apostles in the sense that Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus were apostles. That is, "missionaries" sent by the church to evangelize, start churches, train and appoint leaders, and then move on to another location.

Although on the average, traveling is part of the apostle's ministry, there are some apostles such as James the Lord's brother, who was the resident apostle in the city of Jerusalem; it is not recorded that he had a mobile ministry. Apostle James was of the Jerusalem "residential" paradigm, whereas the Apostle Paul was of the Antioch "trans-local" paradigm. Apostles have a home church from which they are sent and to which they report. They are not "lone rangers."

All missionaries are not apostles, though apostles do missionary work, just as all evangelists are not apostles, though apostles are involved in evangelism.

An apostle should call himself, "apostle". He should not hide behind a more 'politically correct' title.

Apostles should meet the criteria insomuch as possible as laid down in the article www.ezekielwar.com/traits.htm. An apostle should evidence the prophetic and the miraculous in his teaching and application. Many missionaries teach against apostolic truth; such missionaries are certainly not apostles as yet.

One of the reasons we accept the reality of modern day apostles is due to the fact that Paul only saw a vision of Jesus. Unlike the twelve, Paul did not walk with Jesus during the earthly ministry of Jesus. Furthermore, we should not even require that an apostle see a vision of Jesus; Stephen, a deacon, saw a vision of Jesus; Stephen may have been an evangelist, but it is not recorded that he was an apostle. From a negative standpoint, many false Christians claim to have seen visions of Jesus--so it is not the vision itself that validates a ministry, but it is the fruit of the vision. If one man can manifest the same godly fruit without any vision at all, then his ministry is just as valid. Some say Matthias is the twelfth apostle. --Others say Paul was. It seems the Lord left some discrepancy here so that we would not become overly dogmatic about the original twelve, creating some sort of apostolic caste system. Who are we to say that a modern apostle who has not seen a vision of Jesus is not an apostle, if he has the fruit of an apostle? Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed [Jn 20:29].

Cannot God call a man in any manner that God chooses to call him? END