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 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 types of apostles. Foremost 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). This first group consisted of the spiritual heavy-weights. They were the norm for doctrine and practice in the early church. It was they who authored or approved all books now in the NT canon of Scripture. Whereas this first type of apostle was prepared and sent out by Jesus, the second type of apostle was prepared and sent out by the church and carried much less authority (see Acts 13:1-3, 2 Co 8:23, Phlp 2:25). Not having been trained by Jesus, the second type of apostle merely studied and repeated what the first type of apostle taught (see 1 Co 4:16-17, 1 Tm 3:14-15, 2 Tm 2:2, Tit 1:5).

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.

Thus, while there are not likely to be anymore of the first type of apostle, modern missionaries certainly do correspond to the second type of apostle; that is, they have been sent out by the church to evangelize and to establish churches. Missionaries are truly apostles in the secondary sense. 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 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 you 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).

A major difference between a pastor and an apostle is that a pastor's sphere of service is permanently concentrated in one local church, whereas an apostle's is universal and temporary. Once an apostle has trained and appointed elders, he moves on. From then on it is up to the elders to teach the church and train future elders.

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!

In conclusion, it is not likely that we shall ever again encounter an apostle in the sense that "the Twelve" were apostles. However, 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.