Does Ephesians 2:20 Prove Cessation of Apostles and Prophets?

[Paul Christensen]

Here is an analysis of the verse:

Cessationists use Ephesians 2:20 to show that the work of Apostles and Prophets were just for the initial founding of the church, and once the church was established and the canon of Scripture was revealed, the work of Apostles and Prophets, along with the "sign" (not mentioned by Paul) gifts ceased.

Let's look at the verse, and I will include the noun from the last verse.

"...the household of God built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets; Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone."

The sentence structure in English
Household - Nominative noun
of God - genitive noun qualifying the household
upon - preposition
the foundation - dative noun
of the Apostles and Prophets - genitive noun qualifying the dative noun
Jesus Christ - new subject noun
being - verb
chief - adjective qualifying the object noun
the corner stone - object noun.
Let's now look at the same first phrase in the Greek, including the subject noun from the previous verse to complete the sentence.
οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν,

Oikeioi (nominative subject) tou Theo (genitive noun qualifying the subject noun) epoikodomethentes (verb) epi (preposition meaning "upon)) toe themelioe (dative noun ) tone apostolone kai prophetone (genitive noun qualifying the previous noun).
"toe themelioe" is the Greek word for "the foundation" in the sense of the foundation of a building. The founding of something in the sense of "establish", as the cessationists read the verse is the Greek word "anorthoe". The Greek word meaning to lay a foundation is "kataballoe".
The verse could be written the following way and still retain its meaning:
God built the household upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets; Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.
God (subject noun)
built (verb in Aorist tense)
the household (object noun in the accusative)
upon (preposition)
the foundation (noun in the dative)
of the Apostles and prophets (plural nouns in the genitive, qualifying the dative noun).
This is what it looks like in modern Greek (using Google translate)
Ο Θεός έχτισε το σπίτι πάνω στα θεμέλια των αποστόλων και των προφητών.

What the cessationist does to interpret the verse is to say, "The apostles and prophets were used to build the initial foundation of the household of God. But if we translate that into Greek, we get:
Οι απόστολοι και οι προφήτες χρησιμοποιήθηκαν για να χτίσουν τα αρχικά θεμέλια του σπιτικού του Θεού.

(Of course there are some word changes in modern Greek as compared to NT Greek, but I think you get the idea.)

What they do is to make the apostles and prophets the subject and the foundation as the object and God's household qualifies the foundation. In this way they have the apostles and prophets as the nominative, the foundation as the accusative and the household of God as the genitive. They would have the verse reading:
" hoi apostoloi kai hoi prophetoi eisin kataballon tou oikou tou Theou"
(forgive any grammatical errors. I am still learning the Greek)
"The apostles and the prophets are to lay the foundation for the household of God"
It could also say "laying the foundation for the initiation of God's household".
The Greek would then read:
...eisin kataballon tes teletes tou oikou tou Theou"
"...are for the laying of the foundation for the initiation of the household of God".

But as you can see, that is not what the verse actually says.

Therefore the cessationist has completely altered the original meaning of the verse and adapted it to fit their theology. I call that eisegesis, not exegesis.

 

[Enoch111]

Therefore the cessationist has completely altered the original meaning of the verse and adapted it to fit their theology. I call that eisegesis, not exegesis.

Not at all. Without getting into a lot a grammatical discussion, Scripture as well as the history of the Church both confirm that the apostles (the NT) and the prophets (primarily the OT prophets since all the writers are regarded as prophets) are indeed the pillars of the foundation, Christ Himself being the foundation itself, as well as the Chief Cornerstone.

We know from the Bible as well as Church history that the apostles laid the foundation for Christianity throughout the world, and that there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb. After the apostles passed on the complete Bible became the sole authority for Christians. We also know from the apostle-prophet John in Revelation that all genuine prophecies ceased with this book, and that John put up a barrier against adding to those prophecies. So now where do we go for the Gospel and Bible doctrine? To the Bible itself.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Not at all. Without getting into a lot a grammatical discussion, Scripture as well as the history of the Church both confirm that the apostles (the NT) and the prophets (primarily the OT prophets since all the writers are regarded as prophets) are indeed the pillars of the foundation, Christ Himself being the foundation itself, as well as the Chief Cornerstone.

We know from the Bible as well as Church history that the apostles laid the foundation for Christianity throughout the world, and that there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb. After the apostles passed on the complete Bible became the sole authority for Christians. We also know from the apostle-prophet John in Revelation that all genuine prophecies ceased with this book, and that John put up a barrier against adding to those prophecies. So now where do we go for the Gospel and Bible doctrine? To the Bible itself.

Although I have doubts as to modern apostles and prophets, one cannot change the meaning of verses of Scripture to support a particular theology. To make Ephesians 2:20 mean that the apostles and prophets were involved in the initial founding of the church and once the church was established those ministries disappeared, is to change the meaning of "foundation" which is a noun showing the foundation of a building, to "founding" which is a verb meaning to set up or establish. While it is true that the apostles and prophets were used to establish the early church, and that their work was foundational to it, the verse does not use a verb, but a noun. Because a foundation is permanent and remains an important part of the building, that foundation is still there today. Therefore the foundation of the apostles and prophets could very well imply that apostles and prophets are still an integral part of the foundation of the modern church as well, and quite consistent with Ephesians 2:20. Paul did not use the words, "initial founding" in the verse, as he would have it he was wanting to show that the apostle and prophet ministry was limited to the initial establishment of the church and then would disappear once the church was firnly established.

Also, if we read church history, we see that the church was not fully established during the 1st Century, in fact after the 1st Century it had lost its cutting edge and was rapidly descending into the confusion of heretical teaching, increasing formalism and ceremony, decreasing dependence on the Holy Spirit and increased dependence on the authority of the bishops. Even before the end of the 1st Century Jesus showed John that there were corruptions within seven of the prominent Christian churches of the time.

I have argued that because of the division of the Church into many denominations, breaking up the unity of the Christian churches, and because the ministry of apostle and prophet requires total church unity, it is impossible for those ministries to function in our present day. If a person wants to call himself an apostle or a prophet, all he can claim is to be one within his own denomination and not transdenominational. Therefore he cannot be a true apostle or prophet in New Testament terms.

So, I presented my analysis (although flawed because I am still part way through my learning of NT Greek and had to use modern Greek in a couple of direct translations), to show how the meaning of a verse of Scripture can be changed by the alteration of one word (a noun to a verb) to suit a particular theology. When a theologian has to fiddle around with verses of Scripture to prove a point, it weakens his argument.

Some Pentecostals have done the same. For example this idea of commanding things into being. They use the Scripture: " Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me" (Isaiah 45:10) This implies that we can command God. But is this what the Scripture is really saying? The problem is that the context involves a series of questions, and the last sentence should have been a question as well. So if the sentence is a question then it should read: "Do you ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me?" Just changing a question to a statement has changed the meaning of the verse to the point where the Word Faith movement is using it as a central doctrine of naming, claiming and commanding God to being it to pass. But the true sense of the verse is: "Who do you think you are asking me of things to come concerning my sons and concerning the work of my hands, and giving commands to me?" This is quite consistent with "Does the clay tell the potter why have you made me thus?" The Scripture is really dealing with the arrogance of people who think they can control God according to their own will.

So, cessationsts are not the only ones who adapt Scripture to suit their theology.

 

[Faithbuilders]

Just a good example of people taking one scripture out of context without looking at the whole: the foundation of the apostles and prophets that is talked about here, is their teaching that has been given to them by the Holy Spirit, and some of it written down so are faith could also grow by it. There teaching building walls, and pillars on a foundation that is the rock, Jesus the Christ. Also not to miss mentioning Peter, who's obedience to God laid the foundation, and paved the way for non-Jews to get saved.

 

[Faithbuilders]

Just changing a question to a statement has changed the meaning of the verse to the point where the Word Faith movement (truth) is using it as a central doctrine of naming,

Not to get into anything here; but now you are talking about thing you know nothing about. Paul, and the other apostles preached Word of faith - that is the foundation that they preached....

(Rom 10:8 [KJV])
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

(Rom 10:9 [KJV])
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus (word), and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead (of faith), thou shalt be saved.

(Rom 10:10 [KJV])
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (faith); and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (and word)

Also, there are many, many scriptures that WoF use, but there main one is not the one you talk out but rather this one....

(Mark 11:22 [KJV])
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

(Mark 11:23 [KJV])
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

(Mark 11:24 [KJV])
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Also this scripture (among many others)

(Rom 4:17 [KJV])
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (that IS Word of Faith)

Like one preacher said, "if you believe it, it will work; if your don't, it won't!"

 

[Paul Christensen]

Not to get into anything here; but now you are talking about thing you know nothing about. Paul, and the other apostles preached Word of faith - that is the foundation that they preached....



Also, there are many, many scriptures that WoF use, but there main one is not the one you talk out but rather this one....



Also this scripture (among many others)



Like one preacher said, "if you believe it, it will work; if your don't, it won't!"

My point wasn't about the modern occurrence of apostles and prophets. I don't think those ministries are possible today because for them to work there has to be a totally unified Christian church, which there isn't. The ministries are for the whole body of Christ, not just for a particular faction of it. Therefore a WoF apostle or prophet cannot be compared to a NT one because the WoF movement is just one faction of the body of Christ, and therefore such a ministry would not be recognised by the vast majority of the other denominations. Also there are specific criteria for an apostle - seeing the risen Christ in the flesh, being specifically appointed by Christ in person, performing authentic signs and wonders to support their preaching of the Gospel. So along with the recognition by the whole (not just a small part) of the body of Christ, the ministries of apostle and prophet cannot exist in today's divided church.

But that wasn't my point, My view concentrated entirely on the wording of Ephesians 2:20 and how it is used to show that the apostle and prophet ministry existed only at the initial formation of the early church and then disappeared once the church was firmly established. Of course there are other references (as you have quoted, that support the continuation of the five fold ministries in the church. These show that the Lord's intention was that the apostolic and prophetic ministries were to continue throughout the church age until the Gospel was preached throughout the whole world. But, it was the church that let itself down and ceased being the true body of Christ that would have enabled those ministries to continue.

What I wanted to show was that to show that if God intended for the ministries to exist just for the initial formation of the church, the Greek word for "foundation" would not be one that means a permanent foundation, but the combination of the adjective "initial" and the noun "foundation", and would have made the apostles and prophets the nominative subject of the verse instead of the genitive qualifying the dative noun "foundation". To support the cessation of the ministries the verse would have read:
"The apostles and prophets were for building the initial foundation of the household of God".
But the verse actually reads:
The household (nominative subject) of God (genitive noun qualifying the subject) is built (verse in the passive form) upon (preposition showing what the subject is built on) the foundation (dative noun) of the apostles and prophets (genitive plural nouns qualifying the dative noun).
Therefore the true sense of the verse would be:
"God built the household [of God] on the foundation of the apostles and prophets."
God now becomes the nominative subject, while the household becomes the accusative object while the foundation remains the dative noun with the apostles and prophets remaining the genitive complement to the dative noun.
It has all to do with basic English and Greek structure.

I am not trying to prove that apostles and prophets exist today. All I am saying is that cessationists cannot use Ephesians 2:20 as a proof verse to show that they ceased at the end of the Apostolic Age.

And by the way, I do know what I'm talking about. I have an M.A. in English, plus a certificate in teaching English as a second language, so I know something about English grammatical structure. I also have a M.Div, which shows that I know something about Scripture and how to interpret it, and I have a workable knowledge of NT Greek grammatical structure and the meaning of the Greek words in the verse.

 

[GTW27]

At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou has hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will."

 

[Deborah_]

Were there any missionaries in New Testament times, in addition to the Apostles? Yes - and they were also called "apostles". For example - Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). So we do still have apostles today, only we call them "missionaries"! (Both "apostle" and "missionary" have the same meaning: someone who is "sent")

Were there any prophets in New Testament times who did not prophesy to the whole church and did not write Scripture? Yes - for example Agabus (Acts 11:28), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8,9). In that sense, we still have prophets today (I admit that we also have a lot of people who claim to be prophets, but probably aren't!)

I've read somewhere that there are two kinds of apostle in the NT - Apostles (with a capital A) and apostles (with a small a). And two kinds of prophets - Prophets (with a capital P) and prophets (with a small p). Ephesians 2:20 is talking about Apostles and Prophets; they are the foundation of the Church, and there are no more of them. But that doesn't mean there can't be apostles and prophets today.

 

[marks]

But as you can see, that is not what the verse actually says.

No one seems to have the same issue with "pastor/teachers". Or evangelists. Why pick on apostles and prophets?

Were there any missionaries in New Testament times, in addition to the Apostles? Yes - and they were also called "apostles". For example - Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). So we do still have apostles today, only we call them "missionaries"! (Both "apostle" and "missionary" have the same meaning: someone who is "sent")

Were there any prophets in New Testament times who did not prophesy to the whole church and did not write Scripture? Yes - for example Agabus (Acts 11:28), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8,9). In that sense, we still have prophets today (I admit that we also have a lot of people who claim to be prophets, but probably aren't!)

I've read somewhere that there are two kinds of apostle in the NT - Apostles (with a capital A) and apostles (with a small a). And two kinds of prophets - Prophets (with a capital P) and prophets (with a small p). Ephesians 2:20 is talking about Apostles and Prophets; they are the foundation of the Church, and there are no more of them. But that doesn't mean there can't be apostles and prophets today.

Thanks for writing this out!

I think maybe what trips people up is the function of these people, as you've talked about here. Just because we recognize someone is sent, that doesn't mean we're expecting them to write Scripture, and I think this is what people get concerned about. Or there is a local pastor who calls himself an apostle, and if you don't wash his car when he tells you that's a needed spiritual discipline, he may put you out of the church for your lack of belief. I've heard him say this very thing with my own ears!

But real apostles, real prophets, certainly! Just like the evangelists and pastor teachers.

Much love!

 

[Paul Christensen]

Were there any missionaries in New Testament times, in addition to the Apostles? Yes - and they were also called "apostles". For example - Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). So we do still have apostles today, only we call them "missionaries"! (Both "apostle" and "missionary" have the same meaning: someone who is "sent")

Were there any prophets in New Testament times who did not prophesy to the whole church and did not write Scripture? Yes - for example Agabus (Acts 11:28), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8,9). In that sense, we still have prophets today (I admit that we also have a lot of people who claim to be prophets, but probably aren't!)

I've read somewhere that there are two kinds of apostle in the NT - Apostles (with a capital A) and apostles (with a small a). And two kinds of prophets - Prophets (with a capital P) and prophets (with a small p). Ephesians 2:20 is talking about Apostles and Prophets; they are the foundation of the Church, and there are no more of them. But that doesn't mean there can't be apostles and prophets today.

The original meaning of the word "ἀπόστολος" is "messenger" or "sent one". it comes from the Septuagint word "apostolein" meaning "one who is sent". When we consider this meaning of the word, the term certainly fits anyone who is sent to be a missionary to preach the gospel and to plant churches. The twelve Apostles of Christ were special "sent ones", personally appointed by Christ. It is logical to assume that there are none of these today, because they don't meet the criteria. There are some who claim "apostolic succession" but that is a figment of the imagination. But as you have stated, there were other "sent ones" who were not directly appointed by Christ, and there is the equivalent today. But I don't concur with those with the grand title of "Apostle" implying that they are somehow "superChristians" who have a status higher than the common believer. "Apostle" is not a title or status within the church. It is a ministry to the unsaved and the role is to preach the gospel in unchurched areas, plant new churches and appoint elders to manage them. But on pyramid structured churches where the big guy right at the top calls himself "Apostle" the term does not fit what an apostle actually is. Putting on an Apostle badge doesn't make one a true apostle.

 

[marks]

Although I have doubts as to modern apostles and prophets, one cannot change the meaning of verses of Scripture to support a particular theology.

If I'm understanding you rightly, this agrees very nicely with Peter,

1 Peter 2:4-8 KJV
4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

My point wasn't about the modern occurrence of apostles and prophets. I don't think those ministries are possible today because for them to work there has to be a totally unified Christian church, which there isn't. The ministries are for the whole body of Christ, not just for a particular faction of it. Therefore a WoF apostle or prophet cannot be compared to a NT one because the WoF movement is just one faction of the body of Christ, and therefore such a ministry would not be recognised by the vast majority of the other denominations. Also there are specific criteria for an apostle - seeing the risen Christ in the flesh, being specifically appointed by Christ in person, performing authentic signs and wonders to support their preaching of the Gospel. So along with the recognition by the whole (not just a small part) of the body of Christ, the ministries of apostle and prophet cannot exist in today's divided church.

But that wasn't my point, My view concentrated entirely on the wording of Ephesians 2:20 and how it is used to show that the apostle and prophet ministry existed only at the initial formation of the early church and then disappeared once the church was firmly established. Of course there are other references (as you have quoted, that support the continuation of the five fold ministries in the church. These show that the Lord's intention was that the apostolic and prophetic ministries were to continue throughout the church age until the Gospel was preached throughout the whole world. But, it was the church that let itself down and ceased being the true body of Christ that would have enabled those ministries to continue.

What I wanted to show was that to show that if God intended for the ministries to exist just for the initial formation of the church, the Greek word for "foundation" would not be one that means a permanent foundation, but the combination of the adjective "initial" and the noun "foundation", and would have made the apostles and prophets the nominative subject of the verse instead of the genitive qualifying the dative noun "foundation". To support the cessation of the ministries the verse would have read:
"The apostles and prophets were for building the initial foundation of the household of God".
But the verse actually reads:
The household (nominative subject) of God (genitive noun qualifying the subject) is built (verse in the passive form) upon (preposition showing what the subject is built on) the foundation (dative noun) of the apostles and prophets (genitive plural nouns qualifying the dative noun).
Therefore the true sense of the verse would be:
"God built the household [of God] on the foundation of the apostles and prophets."
God now becomes the nominative subject, while the household becomes the accusative object while the foundation remains the dative noun with the apostles and prophets remaining the genitive complement to the dative noun.
It has all to do with basic English and Greek structure.

I am not trying to prove that apostles and prophets exist today. All I am saying is that cessationists cannot use Ephesians 2:20 as a proof verse to show that they ceased at the end of the Apostolic Age.

And by the way, I do know what I'm talking about. I have an M.A. in English, plus a certificate in teaching English as a second language, so I know something about English grammatical structure. I also have a M.Div, which shows that I know something about Scripture and how to interpret it, and I have a workable knowledge of NT Greek grammatical structure and the meaning of the Greek words in the verse.

@Paul Christensen Today we indeed have 'the faith once delivered to the saints' (Jude) which is recorded in Scripture, rather than a line of so called Apostolic Succession....

 

[theefaith]

Matt 28:19-20

Christ to his apostles: behold I am with you till the end

so the apostles must remain until Christ returns!

Jn20:21-23 as the father sent me, I send you,
Same mission power and authority

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Not at all. Without getting into a lot a grammatical discussion, Scripture as well as the history of the Church both confirm that the apostles (the NT) and the prophets (primarily the OT prophets since all the writers are regarded as prophets) are indeed the pillars of the foundation, Christ Himself being the foundation itself, as well as the Chief Cornerstone.

We know from the Bible as well as Church history that the apostles laid the foundation for Christianity throughout the world, and that there are only twelve apostles of the Lamb. After the apostles passed on the complete Bible became the sole authority for Christians. We also know from the apostle-prophet John in Revelation that all genuine prophecies ceased with this book, and that John put up a barrier against adding to those prophecies. So now where do we go for the Gospel and Bible doctrine? To the Bible itself.

The obvious problem with your logic is that Revelation hasn't been completely fulfilled yet. Just because it was written last doesn't prove cessation. That is a half-baked argument with no truth to it whatsoever, especially because such an ignorant position doesn't consider the fact that the prophets' office also consists of warning about what the scriptures show about the future. There is no better example of this than Christ Himself, since much of His ministry consisted of reinforcing what the OT says about the future.

The sheer absurdity of cessationism lies in the fact that Paul used a present active tense to describe God's activities in regards to where He places certain converts. Just because cessationists haven't seen a prophet, it doesn't mean that this office has ceased to exist. It does however, mean their brand of Christianity is false. As Amos wrote, God does nothing in this world without revealing it to His prophets first. It is just as true now as it was back in Amos' day because God has never changed between then and now.. In fact, i would say it's even more true now that Christ will return in the very near future.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Were there any missionaries in New Testament times, in addition to the Apostles? Yes - and they were also called "apostles". For example - Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). So we do still have apostles today, only we call them "missionaries"! (Both "apostle" and "missionary" have the same meaning: someone who is "sent")

Were there any prophets in New Testament times who did not prophesy to the whole church and did not write Scripture? Yes - for example Agabus (Acts 11:28), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8,9). In that sense, we still have prophets today (I admit that we also have a lot of people who claim to be prophets, but probably aren't!)

I've read somewhere that there are two kinds of apostle in the NT - Apostles (with a capital A) and apostles (with a small a). And two kinds of prophets - Prophets (with a capital P) and prophets (with a small p). Ephesians 2:20 is talking about Apostles and Prophets; they are the foundation of the Church, and there are no more of them. But that doesn't mean there can't be apostles and prophets today.

I don't know that there are two different categories of apostles, but we do agree that there were clearly more than twelve. Paul identified Timothy and Silas as apostles with him as well (1 Thessalonians 2:6).

That said, while I allow for the coming of apostles and prophets again in the end-times (some prophets are already now), I think the apostles being referred to in Ephesians 2 were clearly the apostles of the New Testament era. Only that would fit the context, as Jesus was included as the Chief Cornerstone, and this cements his references (all of them) to the 1st century:

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The original meaning of the word "ἀπόστολος" is "messenger" or "sent one". it comes from the Septuagint word "apostolein" meaning "one who is sent". When we consider this meaning of the word, the term certainly fits anyone who is sent to be a missionary to preach the gospel and to plant churches.

Ick!

Greetings Paul, and hope you are blessed. I have a problem with this definition, because it is being used by many today (especially in this country. I don't know about yours) to justify calling oneself "an apostle," and in some circles they just LOVE titles; makes them sound like greater authorities in Christ, you see. So what you do is, you found a church in one city, and then tell everyone in your congregation that God has called you to start a second one in an adjacent city, and Presto! You're an "apostle," and you can add it to your religious credentials as a powerful "man of God."

I know that's likely not what you endorse either, I'm just telling you why I don't like that definition of an apostle.

 

[marks]

Ick!

Greetings Paul, and hope you are blessed. I have a problem with this definition, because it is being used by many today (especially in this country. I don't know about yours) to justify calling oneself "an apostle," and in some circles they just LOVE titles; makes them sound like greater authorities in Christ, you see. So what you do is, you found a church in one city, and then tell everyone in your congregation that God has called you to start a second one in an adjacent city, and Presto! You're an "apostle," and you can add it to your religious credentials as a powerful "man of God."

I know that's likely not what you endorse either, I'm just telling you why I don't like that definition of an apostle.

Meanwhile, he's right on the money about what the word means.

Like so many words in the Bible, it has a dual use. It means any number of people who were sent out, including Barnabas, and Junia, and Andronicus. And it also is used for those original apostles, the 12 to Israel, and Paul to the Gentiles.

I agree with you about this modern movement of proclaiming one's self an apostle or a prophet, and taking up that mantle of authority, expecting then to rule over the church.

But even so we should interpret the Bible according to how it uses the words, and that's how.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Were there any missionaries in New Testament times, in addition to the Apostles? Yes - and they were also called "apostles". For example - Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). So we do still have apostles today, only we call them "missionaries"! (Both "apostle" and "missionary" have the same meaning: someone who is "sent")

Were there any prophets in New Testament times who did not prophesy to the whole church and did not write Scripture? Yes - for example Agabus (Acts 11:28), and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8,9). In that sense, we still have prophets today (I admit that we also have a lot of people who claim to be prophets, but probably aren't!)

I've read somewhere that there are two kinds of apostle in the NT - Apostles (with a capital A) and apostles (with a small a). And two kinds of prophets - Prophets (with a capital P) and prophets (with a small p). Ephesians 2:20 is talking about Apostles and Prophets; they are the foundation of the Church, and there are no more of them. But that doesn't mean there can't be apostles and prophets today.

Agreed.

There are apostles, some named, the term left general, and their are "the 12", and, "Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles", exclusive language. Only these 12. Only this one. And generally speaking "apostles", including those sent out today.

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

But even so we should interpret the Bible according to how it uses the words, and that's how.

I'm saying I think the definition needs to include more, as Paul referred to manifesting the "signs of an apostle."

11 I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:11-12)

Surely this has got to mean more than driving 30 miles away and starting another church, for "signs and wonders and mighty works" generally meant far more than this during New Testament times.

 

[marks]

I'm saying I think the definition needs to include more, as Paul referred to manifesting the "signs of an apostle."

11 I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:11-12)

Surely this has got to mean more than driving 30 miles away and starting another church, for "signs and wonders and mighty works" generally meant far more than this during New Testament times.

That there are or are not signs that accompany being an apostle doesn't change the meaning of the word. It's like saying a pedestrian is someone on foot, and someone protests, No, a pedestrian is much more than that, with rights and privledges at intersections and all, but the rights that accompany being a pedestrian don't change the meaning of the word pedestrian.

Can we understand and show our doctrines without either embellishing or removing from the meanings of the words?

The thing is . . . if you assert that being an "apostle" will necessarily mean that you will have miraculous powers, then you deny the customary meaning of the word itself, in favor of a "technical use" meaning just that one thing.

I happen to think that Jesus is still sending people out, directly, and through assemblies, although there isn't a predominance of "signs and wonders".

By the lack of signs and wonders, are you thinking there are no true apostles today?

Much love!