Apostles & Prophets

[Wormwood]

Based on a discussion in another thread, I wanted to open a new thread to discuss the concept of the existence of modern day apostles and prophets. In my view, such roles do not exist today. I am not a cessationist, but I do believe gifts have particular functions in the life of the people of God, and it does not seem to me that those gifts are currently needed, but fulfilled a particular role in the past. I would like to explore those roles and the Scriptures that indicate that these offices had a temporary role in the life of the church.

First, I think it is important to define the term "apostle" and "prophet" as the NT defines these terms. This is where I find most of the problems arise in these discussions.

APOSTLES

An apostle is a "sent one." That is what the term means. It implies that someone has been specifically sent from another to proclaim a message or perform a task. We see that the Apostle Paul almost always speaks of his appointment to this special position by God as he introduces himself in his letters. For instance,

“Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—” (Galatians 1:1, ESV)

We see in Acts 9 how Paul was "chosen" and appointed. Jesus appeared to Paul and gave him a specific task: the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul recognized that his position as an Apostle is unique and that the way he became an Apostle was unusual. Why was it unusual? Because he did not follow Jesus during his earthly ministry.

“Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy 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 toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:7–10, ESV)

So what does Paul mean by "untimely born"? This word often conveys a "miscarriage" or an unusual birth at the wrong time. The qualifications for being an Apostle is clearly spelled out in Acts 1. The Apostles were specifically chosen by Jesus to advance his ministry. When the Apostles were seeking to replace Judas for the role of Apostle, these were the qualifications that were made:

“So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”” (Acts 1:21–22, ESV)

So, it seems Paul recognized this and saw his "untimely birth" as being due to his not following Jesus during his earthly ministry (but he did receive direct revelation from Jesus as confirmation of his being "chosen" for the specific task of being an apostle (Gal 1:12)).

Furthermore, the office of Apostles no longer exists because they were used to build the "foundation" of the church (Eph. 2:20). Anyone who has ever built something recognizes that you can continually add on to the structure, but you only build the foundation once. The foundation of the Gospel and the church has been laid by the appointed and chosen Apostles. There is no need for a new or added foundation. An apostle is one who was specifically chosen by Jesus Christ and audibly commanded to proclaim the hidden message of the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. These people were given miraculous gifts to confirm the message they had been appointed to give and all suffered immensely as part of their message and testimony.

This leads us to discuss the role of the prophet.
PROPHETS

What is a prophet and how should we define them? In my view, the role of the prophet is not much different than that of the Apostle. Most who think of prophets will think of the ability to foretell future events. Certainly, this is a characteristic of many prophets. However, their primary function was to forth-tell the message of God to a group of people. Sometimes these messages included future predictions (usually of judgment if they people did not repent), but not always. What is clear to me in the OT definitions of prophets is that they received direct revelation from God to proclaim to a group of people.

For instance, Samuel heard the voice of God. It was so clear that he mistook it for Eli calling him (1 Sam. 3:4). These individuals had visions and dreams where they received words directly from the Lord to proclaim to the people. In fact, this is how prophets are defined. They hear directly from God in a very clear way.

“And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”” (Numbers 12:6–8, ESV)

God made himself known to the prophets. He spoke to them in visions and dreams. They heard specifically what they were supposed to say and do to the degree that if they disobeyed they were punished or even killed (see Jonah and 1 Kings 13:20-25). Prophets did not simply have "gut feelings" or "instincts" about what God wanted them to say (as many define prophecy today). They are always defined as those who have heard directly from God or have seen Him in a vision of some sort (see Isaiah 6). In fact, the false prophets are defined as those who prophecy out of their imagination rather than hearing directly from God:

““Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, who are prophesying, and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts: ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’” (Ezekiel 13:2, ESV)

and again,

“Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you.’ ”” (Jeremiah 23:16–17, ESV)

Clearly, those who prophesy, do so out of direct revelation. But what about those who have insights into things they should not have known? I believe this would be akin to the "word of Knowledge" or "gift of knowledge." Just because someone has an insight into something you ought to do that comes from the Lord does not make them a prophet. Prophets, as we have seen, received direct revelation from God and were appointed to share that message to an individual or group. They too, were often equipped with miraculous gifts to confirm that God was speaking through them.

Why are these roles not functioning today?

I believe these roles are not functioning today because they are no longer needed. Both of these gifts were foundational for the church (see again Eph. 2:20). In the NT, the focus of the gift of prophecy is the revelation of Jesus (Rev. 19:10). The Apostles and prophets functioned in similar manner in the NT. That role was to get the revelation of Jesus to the people. I believe Apostles were specificially chosen men who followed Jesus during his earthly ministry and witnessed his resurrection. They were appointed for the ministry of sharing his message to the world. Paul was "untimely born" as one of these unique messengers to share the "mystery of the Gospel" that he received through direct revelation and was appointed to share it with the Gentiles.
Prophets were also foundational in the NT. In the absence of the Bible, many young churches did not have any authority or revelation to base their faith upon. There were only a handful of Apostles and if they ever did visit a church, usually it was either to start church or was just a short visit to encourage and build up the believers in that city. Prophets were gifts given to the early church to give supernatural revelation of Gods' message, similar to what we have in our NTs today. Now that the Gospel has been fully proclaimed and the message of God in Jesus fully revealed and available in the NT Scriptures, there is no need for further new revelation or messages from God. The message has been revealed, the Gospel has been proclaimed and the foundation of the church has been set. I believe the NT even indicates that these gifts would not be functioning throughout the life of the church.

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1, ESV)

I find this passage quite intriguing. Why does Peter not say, "false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you..." I think it is because the role of the enemy is now to try to dismantle the revealed truth of Jesus Christ, rather than bring false revelations. The revelation of Jesus has been made. He is the last Word. Now, the role of the enemy is to attack Jesus. We see this also in 1 John where John declares that "antichrists have come." It is the last time. The revelation of Jesus has been made and now the role of church is to grow in that faith, not add new messages to it. Thus, the role of the Apostle and prophet were foundational and the foundation has been built...once for all.

 

[pom2014]

In the terms you have used there really is NO need for apostles and prophets.

As for the spiritual gifts of God, there is much need for them and they are often falsely attributed by and to people.

But I agree that we no longer need apostles and prophets.

 

[HammerStone]

So what does Paul mean by "untimely born"? This word often conveys a "miscarriage" or an unusual birth at the wrong time. The qualifications for being an Apostle is clearly spelled out in Acts 1. The Apostles were specifically chosen by Jesus to advance his ministry. When the Apostles were seeking to replace Judas for the role of Apostle, these were the qualifications that were made:

I get what you are saying here, and while I am not comfortable saying that I fully refute or disagree with it, this verse has always had two perspectives for me. The first and probably lesser would be the temporal reference to Paul being born perhaps at not quite the right time, as in he was born a few years after Jesus in all likelihood and did not end up in sphere of Jesus until Stephen. The second piece of this also probably has more to do with Paul's own biographical account, as we don't have clear accounts of other key figures doing quite the same thing. The HCSB actually renders this "abnormally born" with a footnote "or whose birth was unusual" and not fitting like the remainder who followed after Christ often peacefully or simply.

It's hinting around Paul's own feelings of maybe being the bastard child haunted by the violence towards Christians prior to Damascus Road.


Clearly, those who prophesy, do so out of direct revelation. But what about those who have insights into things they should not have known? I believe this would be akin to the "word of Knowledge" or "gift of knowledge." Just because someone has an insight into something you ought to do that comes from the Lord does not make them a prophet. Prophets, as we have seen, received direct revelation from God and were appointed to share that message to an individual or group. They too, were often equipped with miraculous gifts to confirm that God was speaking through them.


See, I would say this level of division is more one of semantics. I think too often pop culture Christianity has left us with a wanting definition of prophecy. As you said, defining the term is most important. Prophecy refers not only to the prediction that XYZ will happen, but it often takes the form of pronouncements of condemnation, approbation, and other statements having to do with the truth of God (Revelation 19:10). I think a prophecy could be as simple as speaking the gospel when empowered by the Holy Spirit. I've been in the presence of others, but there is a certain time that a proclamation about something like the cross or whatever the topic may be has a certain intangible effectiveness to it. There are also people who when they speak -- which often is not often -- provide a voice of incisiveness that goes beyond just happening to be correct occasionally.

I suppose you could argue it is just knowledge, but then knowledge alone would not help one speak to the specific need. I'm a very knowledgeable person (in a few things ...) but for me to translate my knowledge to the spoken word is quite a chore sometimes. I'm much more effective with the written or typed word than I am speaking! So, there seems to be a distinction for me.


I find this passage quite intriguing. Why does Peter not say, "false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you..." I think it is because the role of the enemy is now to try to dismantle the revealed truth of Jesus Christ, rather than bring false revelations. The revelation of Jesus has been made. He is the last Word. Now, the role of the enemy is to attack Jesus. We see this also in 1 John where John declares that "antichrists have come." It is the last time. The revelation of Jesus has been made and now the role of church is to grow in that faith, not add new messages to it. Thus, the role of the Apostle and prophet were foundational and the foundation has been built...once for all.


Well, it could be an interesting and subtle point, but it also could stem from 1 Corinthians 14:22, and therefore I would think it would be a dig at the false ones not even deserving the title of prophet, as well as working towards the praxis of teachers being more common rather than the OT role of a national prophet type.

However, I think one has to tread carefully in all of this. The OT makes reference to predictions and events that would qualify as prophecy but were not recorded in the Bible. Therefore, there has be some level of inspiration where God speaks but it doesn't become Scripture, even though I would emphasize that both ways are in accordance with His eternal and immutable truth.

 

[Wormwood]

The HCSB actually renders this "abnormally born" with a footnote "or whose birth was unusual" and not fitting like the remainder who followed after Christ often peacefully or simply.

It's hinting around Paul's own feelings of maybe being the bastard child haunted by the violence towards Christians prior to Damascus Road.

For me, I think the "appearing" of Jesus is the emphasis that designated these individuals as "Apostles." Paul says, he "appeared" to James and then "Last of all, he appeared to me, as one untimely born..." Key phrases here are "Last of all" and "appeared to me." I agree that Paul is emphasizing that he is unworthy to be an apostle, but it seems that he is the "last" apostle who was designated as such by this "appearing" of Jesus to him. So, it seems an Apostle saw the resurrected Jesus, and it also seems that Paul was the "last" of these (I guess someone could argue that other apostles appeared after Paul wrote this...).

See, I would say this level of division is more one of semantics. I think too often pop culture Christianity has left us with a wanting definition of prophecy.

Yes, I think issues like "word of knowledge" or those types of gifts are some what nebulous. The Bible doesn't really define them. However, I do think the Bible defines prophecy quite explicitly. The OT prophets usually recount their encounter with God as proof of their designation as a prophet. Moreover, God condemns people for claiming to be prophets, but really uttering things from their own imagination. To me, this says, "Prophecy is not about your gut feeling or inner imaginations. If you claim to be a prophet, you are claiming to relay a message directly from God." I don't know why God would condemn false prophets so harshly if the lines were blurred between what is or isnt actually a prophetic statement. Perhaps the Holy Spirit could utter a prophetic statement through someone like the High Priest as we see in John's Gospel without him really being aware of it. However, I dont think that designates someone to hold the office of a prophet. Maybe we could say that somoene might utter a prophecy on occasion, just like someone may pray and the person they pray for may be healed as a result. However, to say someone has the "gift of prophecy" or "the gift of healing" is another matter altogether in my mind.

Well, it could be an interesting and subtle point, but it also could stem from 1 Corinthians 14:22, and therefore I would think it would be a dig at the false ones not even deserving the title of prophet, as well as working towards the praxis of teachers being more common rather than the OT role of a national prophet type.

Im not sure I am following you on this. Could you elaborate more?

However, I think one has to tread carefully in all of this. The OT makes reference to predictions and events that would qualify as prophecy but were not recorded in the Bible. Therefore, there has be some level of inspiration where God speaks but it doesn't become Scripture, even though I would emphasize that both ways are in accordance with His eternal and immutable truth

Yes, this is true. Not every prophetic statement or revelation made it into the Bible. Paul certainly had visions that he did not share, etc. Yet, I think we have all God intends for us to have. That does not mean God cannot work outside of the Scriptures, or that the HOly Spirit is on vacation. Yet, I do think that God's revelations of his plans for humanity are complete. In my opinion, the primary function of apostles and prophets proclaimed these revelations and that is why I think the foundation is finished. I agree we need to be careful on this. Id rather err on the side of caution when claiming to speak on the Lord's behalf. I think those who do so had better be very sure the Lord spoke to them or they could be bringing judgment upon themselves by claiming to speak for God when he has not spoken.

 

[aspen]

I think there are still people who act as prophets - not in the manner in which conservative Christians may recognize. Prophets in the OT spoke about hard truths - they were hated by kings and the established church because they often spoke against both. I am not sure Christ would even recognize people in churches/charismatic movements who claim to have the gift of prophecy - they really aren't part of the locust eating, desert wandering, schizotypal tradition. Today, we see people inside and outside the church speaking hard truths about how the established churches within Christianity operate.

 

[Wormwood]

Good point, aspen. I have read some books that refer to the need for a "prophetic voice" in the church. I think that's pretty good language. I think we need that hard truth (even if it isn't revealed truth as the prophets were known for). Many who claim to be prophets live quite different lives than the apostles and prophets we read about in the Scripture. It seems a key element of such significant roles was loneliness, intense suffering and often martyrdom...not shiny jackets and jet planes .

 

[pom2014]

Good point, aspen. I have read some books that refer to the need for a "prophetic voice" in the church. I think that's pretty good language. I think we need that hard truth (even if it isn't revealed truth as the prophets were known for). Many who claim to be prophets live quite different lives than the apostles and prophets we read about in the Scripture. It seems a key element of such significant roles was loneliness, intense suffering and often martyrdom...not shiny jackets and jet planes .

If you see prophets with the trappings of mammon, there is something foul going on.

 

[Axehead]

I still think there are apostles and prophets, but not the same as the apostles in the NT who penned scripture. Not the same level of authority when it comes to writing scripture, but definitely authority to start new churches (little "c") where no other men have labored (not building upon another man's work).

 

[Wormwood]

I appreciate your views Axehead. What Scripture do you see defining apostles as church planters? As I pointed out above, it seems to me that apostles were defined as those specifically sent by Jesus for a specific task. Thus, they were eyewitnesses who had a direct commission from Jesus to perform a task.