One Biblical Qualification For An Apostle

One of the qualifications to being an apostle is to have seen the resurrected Christ. Hence they are witnesses to his resurrection. This is similar to the doctrine of the trinity in that the word is not found in the bible but you are forced to come to conclusions based off of a number of verses.

The apostle Paul writes that he has seen the resurrected Christ:

1 Corinthians 9:1 - 1Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

The apostle John writes that he has seen Christ (both pre and post resurrection). Also who are the "we" and who are the "ye/you" in the following passages?:

1 John 1:1-4 - 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

The apostle Peter writes to all believers reading his epistle (that includes everyone alive today or else who are the "ye" in the following verses?) that they have not seen Jesus Christ:

7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

More verses.

The replacement to Judas Iscariot had to be a witness of the resurrection:

Acts 1:21-26 - 21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Paul describing again about he and the other apostles had seen the resurrected Christ:

1 Corinthians 15:3-9 - 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Going back to 1 Corinthians 15 to reinforce the point:

1 Corinthians 15:7 - After that, he was seen of James: then of all the apostles.

Note the phrase "all the apostles". So all the apostles had seen the resurrected Christ. Who can make that claim today? Considering what Peter said in his first epistle that you have not seen him. If someone has then Peter is a liar or he made a mistake but scripture cannot be broken.

Another verse (which goes along with the one from 1 Peter):

John 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

http://artkatzministries.org/articles/apostolic-and-prophetic-foundations/

http://artkatzministries.org/articles/apostolic-conversion/

If you open to a different view 🙏🏻

Quote - One of the qualifications to being an apostle is to have seen the resurrected Christ. requirements that can be gathered are as follows:

Your basing that on the requirement to find the replacement for Judas.

1. That the candidate was required to be someone who followed Jesus during his entire earthly ministry, beginning from Jesus’ baptism by John to Jesus’ ascension into heaven 1:21”“22

2. The candidate was required to have seen Jesus after His resurrection 1:22

3. The candidate needed to have been appointed by the Lord Jesus himself 1:24”“25

But then that means there can never be an Apostle but yet we find that Paul was a Apostle he certainly didn't follow Jesus during his entire earthly ministry?

So surely the basis that you are called to be a Apostle is that you have to be chosen for that role?

The Bible does not limit the use of this term Apostle to Jesus' innermost twelve followers or even to Paul.

Barnabas was also given this designation by Luke in the Acts 14:14 Paul, defending himself against those critical of his ministry, asserts to the Corinthians that both he and Barnabas have the same right to be financially supported as the other apostles 1 Cor 9 Barnabas was considered "one sent" by God to preach the gospel even though as far as the Biblical record is concerned it does not state he was personally taught by Christ or saw him after his resurrection.

So for me the main and only reason why one is an Apostle is if you have been appointed by the Lord Jesus himself.

Hi Colin,

Some of the objections you made in your post are not ones I opposed in my previous posts. I agree with most of what you say.

I agree there are other apostles than the twelve. That is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15. I agree that Barnabas is an apostle which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9. I did not mention that every apostle had to follow the earthly ministry of Christ. That seems specific only to the choosing in Acts 1. That is why I'm only focusing on only one thing that all the apostles mentioned in the new testatment had in common (see title of this thread).

You wrote:
"Your basing that on the requirement to find the replacement for Judas."

I am not basing it on that passage in Acts alone. It is based on all the passages I provided.

1st and 2nd Corinthians Paul is defending his apostleship against so called "super" apostles who were discrediting him.

1 Corinthians 9:1-2 - 1Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

Look at verse 2 and the phrase "If I be not an apostle unto others". Clearly his holding the office of an apostle was under attack and he asks rhetorical questions in verse 1 to defend his apostleship. One of those questions is "have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" In other words he is saying one of the proofs I am an apostle is that I'm a eyewitness to the resurrection.

Go onto 1 Corinthians 15 and he mentions the name of several apostles and writes the phrase "then all the apostles" (so all other apostles alive at the time of his writing). The common denominator is that they all saw the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15 is a defense of the resurrection of Christ). Let me restate this. All the apostles mentioned in the bible saw the resurrected Christ. Ponder that.

Peter closes the door in 1 Peter 1:8 and also Jesus at the end of the gospel of John (see previous posts) for any further seeing of Christ.

I discovered this through my own bible readings but this should be what you will find in most systematic theology books, the historic belief of the church, and many of the past great saints.

You wrote:
"So for me the main and only reason why one is an Apostle is if you have been appointed by the Lord Jesus himself."

Agreed that is one of the requirements and by the same standard you should have no problem adding the requirement of being an actual eyewitness to the resurrected Christ because that is mentioned in all the passages as well.

I like Art Katz but I have to stick with the what I am clearly seeing in the bible on this one.

Quote: Agreed that is one of the requirements and by the same standard you should have no problem adding the requirement of being an actual eyewitness to the resurrected Christ because that is mentioned in all the passages as well.

Thats all well and good but it ignores

James, the half brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church””Galatians 1:19

Barnabas ”“ Acts 14:14

Apollos ”“ 1 Cor 4:6-9

Timothy and Silvanus ”“ 1 Thess 1:1; 2:7

Epaphroditus ”“ Philippians 2:25

Two unnamed apostles ”“ 2 Corinthians 8:23 this is translating apostolon as "messenger" rather than "apostle”

There are then potentially two more in Romans 16:7, Andronicus and Junias

Now, obviously the initial Twelve were special in their calling as they were the ones Jesus specifically chose to start everything with. Especially considering that in Revelation 21:14 they are mentioned as being the foundations of the new city.

Strongs says it this way

Apostle - a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders

a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ

b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers - of Barnabas, - of Timothy and Silvanus

So there is a distinction between "the twelve apostles of the Christ" and all of the other apostles that came post -resurrection.

Yes I have no problem with what you posted. I don't think you read the passage or may be misunderstanding what I pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15. It includes all the apostles.

Here is the passage again:

1 Corinthians 15:3-9 - 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Look at the phrase "then all of the apostles" in verse 7 from above. Basically he is saying and all the remaining apostles (not mentioned by name). So all of the apostles you mentioned are included in that phrase. 1 Corinthians 15 is about all the apostles. Every single one of them. The twelve, Paul, James, his brethren, Barnabas, etc. One thing all (every new testament apostle) had in common was that all were witnesses.

Also in verse 5 the first is Peter and in verse 8 the last is Paul. Every other apostle in the new testament is in between. Pay attention to the word "last" and the structure of the passage. What is Paul the last of?

As far as foundation goes here are another set of passages:

Ephesians 2:19-20 - 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Cross reference to above passage -
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 - 10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Paul (who is not part of the twelve) describes himself as one who has laid a foundation and then goes onto mention what every man (believer) can do. They can only build on top of it. You can't lay the foundation more than once you can only build on top of it as from the above passages.

Quote: What is Paul the last of?

He wasn't the last Apostle thats for sure, because Timothy comes alongs as Pauls protege, who is called a Apostle by Paul himself in 1 Thess

So this is Paul putting himself last, not seeking pre-eminence and humbling himself as the last or least of the Apostle.

This is the verse you are using to prove Timothy is an apostle:

1 Thessalonians 2:6 - 6Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.

Back up to beginning of the chapter:

1 Thessalonians 2:1-2 - 1For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not in vain: 2But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.

If you remember in Acts 16 it was Paul and Silas who were jailed in Philippi.

Go to the next chapter:

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 - 1Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; 2And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

Who are the "we" in verse 1 above keeping in mind it was the "we" that sent out Timotheus in verse 2?

In my opinion, God chose twelve apostles to represent the twelve tribes of Israel, and Paul to represent the Gentiles. The twelve had a special role to fulfill; being eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and resurrection from the dead. Jesus also said they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28.)

I personally don't believe there have been any apostles since the first century, after John's death. It seems to me that anyone that lays claim to the title seems to have dubious credentials. Even men like Wesley, Finney, Moody etc did not say they were apostles.

Can anyone show me a modern day apostle?

I realize Barnabas, Andronicus, Junia etc were called "apostles" but I don't think it carries the same meaning as the twelve plus Paul. Albert Barnes said: "Barnabas is called an apostle because he was sent forth by the church on a particular message (Acts 13:3; compare Acts 14:26), not because he had been chosen to the special work of the apostleship."

Hi Drifter,
How does Albert Barnes show this?
"Albert Barnes said: "Barnabas is called an apostle because he was sent forth by the church on a particular message (Acts 13:3; compare Acts 14:26), not because he had been chosen to the special work of the apostleship."
urs staff

Hi All
The qualification for being one of the Twelve Apostles is listed in Acts 1

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

1 He had to have been baptised by John
2 Had to be with them when Jesus was taken up.
3 Had to be able to be a witness of his resurrection

Now I know this does not answer the broader question but it clearly shows that Paul could not be one of the Twelve as he didnt qualify but we also know from Paul himself that he considered that his Apostleship was equal to that of the Twelve.So their were Apostles after the Twelve at the very least Paul .It also shows that the qualification to be an Apostle is of Gods choosing and that qualifying to be one of the Twelve is different to qualifying to an Apostle after the Twelve.
More importantly the person nominated to take Judas place were not qualified because of their deeds or because they were special only because they qualified to the above guidelines.In reading the passage it appears that their were more than just the two men nominated who would qualify but why they werent brought to the front it doesnt say.
urs staff

In regards to Andronicus and Junia (or Junias, an alternate spelling), the best current Greek rendering of the text would be something like "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and fellow prisoners, who are well known to the apostles." There is no consensus of opinion as to what gender Junias was, among church fathers or even scholars today. In my opinion, it would be irrelevant as it does not follow from the text that he (or she) was an apostle. This single verse is often touted by proponents of the continued office if apostleship. The term "apostle" can be used in a wider sense, e.g. as one "sent out," where Christ was not preached before, the proper use of the term would apply in the modern era to someone like C.T. Studd or Hudson Taylor. However neither of these men, nor anyone else, would have the "office of an apostle."

In Ephesians 2:20 Paul says that we "are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." How many times do you lay a foundation when you build a building? It's pretty clear that when he refers to the prophets he means the Old Testament prophets; they were used of God to write sacred scripture. I believe there are prophets today, but they do not operate in the same capacity as the OT prophets in establishing canon; they would be analogous to "apostles" today. Their role was finished with the death of John the Baptist.

I think the term "apostle" should not be used as it is confusing, and no one today has the authority of Paul or the rest of the apostles. Remember one of their functions, like the OT prophets, was to write or oversee the writing of scripture.

I reiterate my question: can anyone show me a modern day apostle, and his credentials to back up his claim?

Hi Drifter
This is an important point .Their is no reason why we cant have Apostles today like in Acts but we just dont have them.
The main thing Apostles bring to the table is Authority and it is clear that we dont have anyone with Apostolic Authority in the Church today.Its just not there.

However you miss the point of the Twelve Apostles.Without the full Twelve Apostles Pentecoste could not happen.Their had to be Twelve and they had to be baptised by John and they had to have witnessed the ressurection and Jesus leaving the Earth.So nobody could be the Twelve after the Twelve ,that was it they were a one off deal ,the foundation as you said but Paul was on top of the foundation ,not part of the foundation.Paul was part of the building not the foundation.
So the point of being built on the foundations is null and void as it concerns whether we can have Apostles after the Twelve.Paul was not part of the foundation but he did have the Authority "we are built",Paul is including himself.

"I think the term "apostle" should not be used as it is confusing, and no one today has the authority of Paul or the rest of the apostles"
urs staff

I think you may have misunderstood my post. The Greek word for apostle in the New Testament is "apostolos", literally meaning "one who is sent." In a broader sense, a person can "be sent" by God to go, for example, into a foreign land where Christ has not been preached before. I believe calling that person an apostle would be erroneous. In the strict, specific sense, an apostle is someone who knew Jesus personally when He was on the earth (the exception being Paul), was specifically chosen by Him for that office (only twelve spots were available; again, with the exception, or inclusion, of Paul), witnessed His death and resurrection, and was commissioned to preach the gospel, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out devils, and write scripture.

It isn't just that there are not modern day apostles, or that we don't know of any; it's that no one today could possibly meet those standards.

To my point earlier about the twelve apostles being analogous to the twelve patriarchs, the tribe of Joseph was split into two, Ephraim and Manasseh, thus making thirteen. Interesting, no?

It's interesting that anyone calling himself (or herself!) an apostle nowadays tends to come from one heretical, cult like sect which is spreading like a virus throughout christendom. (Naming names is redundant; you probably know who I am referring to.)

Hi Drifter,
If the qualification is that an Apostle is "one who is sent" then we can have the term Apostle but we dont have the Twelve Apostles or Pauls type of Apostle.We dont have the Twelve Apostles because they are the foundation.We dont have the Paul type either but not because its not possible to have the Paul type .
Their are no standards to meet to be an Apostle except that God sent you as an Apostle,you have the gift is the only qualification.Its not that it couldnt exist or that their is a theological reason why it couldnt exist ,their is not ,we just dont have them.We would function correctly if we did have them but its clear we dont have them and we dont function correctly or in order because of their absence ,
urs staff

Brother, this is where I respectfully disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I see the office of an apostle as being restricted to the first century, under a very specific set of parameters.

As you may know, the New Apostolic Reformation (a name which they vehemently deny, even though it was coined by one of the pioneers of that movement, C. Peter Wagner) claims they have hundreds of apostles in their ranks. They claim that every church must be under the authority of one of their "apostles", or it cannot function properly. They claim new revelation and also hold to many heresies, such as the prosperity gospel, the "born again Jesus", guaranteed healing no matter what etc.

They sound like many heretical sects that came before them, like the Irvingites, the Mormons, the followers of William Branham (who the NAR claims to hold in high esteem). They all sound the same: you can't be saved (they say) unless you follow our denomination, don't criticize the leaders or you are standing against God, etc. They are using the reasoning that God is restoring apostles to cow people into submission and to spread their message.

Hi Drifter,
So I believe its scriptural to say that the Twelve Apostles are a category of Apostles that unique to all other Apostles including Paul.

The Twelve qualifications are listed in Acts clearly.
Paul came after the Twelve which shows that their could be Apostles (with Authority) after the Twelve.

I think its heresy to say that their cant be Apostles after the first century.No where is their scriptures to say that their wont be any more Apostles.In fact its clear in the listings of the gifts that without Apostles the Church will not function properly.How could it without the leading gift.

Do I think we have Apostles today?
Absolutely no we dont.The proof is in the pudding .If we had Apostles today at the head of the Church their would be no denominations,
urs staff

We are led by the apostles through their writings. Even though they are dead they are still speaking to our generation (Hebrews 11:4). Their authority is not diminished. Remember also that the first century church was not perfect. We have a tendency to romanticize the early church. It's clear to me when I read Acts and the epistles that they had all the same problems we have today. There were people that were schismatics, believers separating themselves into groups by what church leader they followed (1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4), antinomianism, antitrinitarianism, etc.

It is clear to me that God still hand picks men of God who lead the church in every generation, and true believers recognize their authority.

Brother, if God meant for the apostolic office to continue, there would BE apostles.

Also, in regards to denominations, many times they are formed after genuine movements of God, and people form them out of good intentions, wanting to continue the revival that group of people experience. Human nature is to try to reduce things to neat formulas. I think many denominations have far outlived their usefulness and original goals and should be disbanded.

Hi Drifter,
If its a case that we are led by the Apostles through their writing then
We can say the same for teachers ,pastors etc.
All writings in the bible speak to future and present generations but it doesnt negate in anyway that gifts are needed in the here and now.If you negate Apostleship or the possiblity of Apostleship then you have to negate all the other gifts .
Its not a romantic view of the past to say that the Church functioned better in the first century than it does now.

The office of Apostle has always existed but without Apostles this is the problem.Why we dont have Apostles has nothing to do with Apostles stopping in the first century.Their is not one scripture to support that view.

Also schisms happened but Paul had the Authority to counter that.
On denominations :Denominations are not from God full stop.Its where we are at fair enough but none of them are from God.Alot of them have Christian leaders but the structure is not from God.
You are in my opinion adding 2 and 2 together and getting 5.
You are using experiential doctrine to explain the absence of Apostles.You are saying that because we have had no Apostles since the first century then it must be in the bible which it is not.Its totally fair to say that we have had no Apostles (to the best of our knowledge) since the first century but its not fair to say we cant have or dont need Apostles in the present Church because its all written down.No where in the bible does it say that because its written down we dont need the Church gifts,urs staff

Guys like John Wesley, William Booth or A.B. Simpson didn't start their particular denominations with bad intentions. Wesley, for example, did not see the living word being preached, a lot of the preaching then was dead letter with no life in it, people were not being born again by and large, so, because most of the churches kicked him out and would not have anything to do with him, he started a new group. I'm sure if he was given the opportunity, he would have stayed in the church of England. He accepted believers of any denomination, so long as they were born again. In many cases, people who started new denominations had no choice if they wanted to be faithful to God.

Brother, what do you think the reason is that there are no apostles today?

Drifter:
Brother, if God meant for the apostolic office to continue, there would BE apostles.

Hi Drifter,
I dont know is the only answer I can give.Maybe in the future God will reveal the answer.The only thing that harbours in my mind is that maybe its like the silent period before Jesus came the first time when Prophets were not around,

"Brother, what do you think the reason is that there are no apostles today?"

urs staff

Lysa, can you show me one? And as I stated earlier, said apostle can't have dubious credentials, make false prophecies, hold to erroneous doctrine, support and promote known heretics like William Branham (who was affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Jones and denied the Trinity) like some of the the NAR leaders. Anyone can SAY they are an apostle, it doesn't make them one. Even amassing a huge following and gaining acceptance among evangelical leaders doesn't lend to one's credibility.

Acts 13 1-3 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

So Acts 13 So a group of teacher and prophets worshiping and prayed and the Holy Spirit said - "set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Now, when they were sent out they were prophets and teachers but if you read on in the next chapter of Acts, chapter 14, about the same two men, it says at one point: The multitude of the city was divided. Part sided with the Jews and part with the apostles. In verse 14 it says: When the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard this... So they had become apostles.

How had they become apostles?

By being sent out from a church through the direction of the Holy Spirit. You see, the meaning of the word apostle is ‘one who is sent out.’ If you’ve not been sent out you’re not an apostle. So, here are two men who are not in the original twelve, Paul and Barnabas are now called apostles.

How did they become apostles?

By the appointment of the Holy Spirit.

Hi Drifter,
I am not sure are you talking about someone specific but I think most people would agree with your statement below.
It doesnt negate though the fact that it is still possible for their to be Apostles.I cant see any but it doesnt mean their cant be any ,urs staff

"And as I stated earlier, said apostle can't have dubious credentials, make false prophecies, hold to erroneous doctrine, support and promote known heretics like William Branham (who was affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Jones and denied the Trinity) like some of the the NAR leaders. Anyone can SAY they are an apostle, it doesn't make them one. Even amassing a huge following and gaining acceptance among evangelical leaders doesn't lend to one's credibility."

I'm referring to the New Apostolic Reformation; they say they have restored the office of apostle to the church. They also say every local and regional church must be under the authority of an apostle (it "just happens" to be them) or they are living in disobedience to God. The main leaders of this movement are people like the late C. Peter Wagner, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner, Che Ahn, and Heidi Baker.

Here is a good article summarizing their movement:
https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Apostolic-Reformation.html

1 Thess 1:1 This letter is from Paul, Silas, and Timothy. We are writing to the church in Thessalonica, to you who belong to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. May God give you grace and peace.

Who is the letter from - Paul, Silas, and Timothy.

1 Thess 2:6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

Who are the Apostles - Paul, Silas, and Timothy

That was Paul, Silas, and Timothy writing about a previous time they were there.

If you look at verse 1 Thess 2:9 they ask them to remember how they were there. So all this up to this point was looking at the first time they were.

Timothy was sent to them 1 Thess 3:2

Timothy returned from them to Paul with an encouraging report Timothy was sent to them 1 Thess 3:6

If you the take the time to read it correctly.

Timothy was an Apostle.

Paul wasn't the last Apostle.

Quote: How do you KNOW that there are not apostles?

Apostle is a greek word it comes from apostolos which comes from apostelleum - meaning "sent off"

Today we are more influenced with Latin

Missionary - missio - missus - meaning "sent off"

So for me an example of Apostle today would be Jackie Pullinger the work in Hong Kong being testimony of how God has blessed it.

Hi Murrcolr,
I agree Paul was not the last Apostle ,that the Apostles come first on the gifts and that their is no reason we know of that their should not be Apostles in the Church today.
We just dont have any like the Twelve or like Paul who have Apostolic Authority.
Another point that has not come up which looks small but is not is that people today call themselves by their gifts.Paul said I am an Apostle ,he didnt say I am the Apostle Paul.The difference is that one is decribing his gift and another is creating a clergy class.We know that Jesus died so their would be no divisions in the Church such as a clergy and laity,
urs staff

You wrote:

"If you look at verse 1 Thess 2:9 they ask them to remember how they were there. So all this up to this point was looking at the first time they were.

Timothy was sent to them 1 Thess 3:2

Timothy returned from them to Paul with an encouraging report Timothy was sent to them 1 Thess 3:6

If you the take the time to read it correctly."

You interpret that as Timothy being sent to them and not sent out. Why does the chapter outline in my bible say "The apostle sheweth that out of his great care for the Thessalonians he had sent Timothy to comfort and strengthen them in the faith;"? In verse 6 the chapter outline says he comes back with the report.

If you take all the godly saints in church history I don't think there is one that believed that the office of apostleship continued outside of the early new testament church. You are actually in the minority.

Keep in mind this is 2022. We are at a low point in most every facet of society (both secular and church). And when it comes to the church that would include bible literacy. Keep that in mind.

From the Berean study bible (another translation):

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 - 1So when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left on our own in Athens. 2 We sent Timothy, our brother and fellow worker for God in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith,

https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_thessalonians/3.htm

Hi Platy
The question is not whether the Godly saints in Church History believed but how did they show what they believed through Scripture.If they couldnt show it through Scripture then it doesnt matter how Godly or Saintly they were,
urs staff

"If you take all the godly saints in church history I don't think there is one that believed that the office of apostleship continued outside of the early new testament church. You are actually in the minority."

Hi staff,

Read through my posts on this thread as that should be the same reasoning used by others (more or less). Anyway I don't have anything else to contribute to this topic so that is it for me here. Thanks for the discussion.

Hi Platy,
Thanks for the discussion.
I guess where my understanding on the subject of Apostles is more related to the "Twelve Apostles".
What I see almost all the time is that most Christians dont understand Acts and Pentecost and how it relates to John the Baptist.
urs staff

Firstly, Thank you for raising this issue as it’s a strategic one 🙏🏻
Secondly, it’s appreciable the way you’ve stayed focused on topic, maintaining your position.
Thirdly, (you wrote) you didn’t believe there has been an apostle since the first century.... (you've established why you don’t)

However, believing something doesn’t make it true or false... the truth is the truth wether we believe it or not 🤷🏽”â™‚️

We would do well to remember that the gifts are without repentance, which is to say that the Lord doesn’t take them away even if they fall into disuse.

One way to approach this is to look at the current situation and how we got here,... an example of what I’m hoping to (Lord willing) bring to light is that we (the church) stopped making disciples of Jesus and instead make converts to religion . Which is to say, that most of our "converts” don’t follow Jesus but rather follow the "church doctrine” as such we have perpetual divisions (flesh) and virtually zero corporate spiritual authority, this is evidenced by the denominations and worldliness of the current iteration of the "church” where at this point we have tansvestite drag queens (mentally ill-demonically possessed) in the pulpit....

The Father of our Lord Jesus instituted the five fold ministry within His body as the strategic (spiritual) military operation for the body’s work to advance His kingdom.
The same Father Instituted marriage between a man and a woman to advance the "body” of humanity.... so if people stopped following this pattern established by the Father does that mean it is revoked??? God forbid !
The same Father ordained the strategic administration of the in house management of the local church- ie; elders, deacons, etc..

These two are not the same in purpose or function tho we seemed to forgo one in favor of another at the peril of the former... no elder or deacon has real authority outside the body but every office of the five fold do.
One is management and administration of church resources while the other is for outreach and development.
Tho nowadays (and for quite a while) the ministry of the five fold has come under the jurisdiction of the church structure rather than (as God intended) the other way around, where the apostles and prophets were the expression of Gods authority on earth. Gods authority on earth has been (again very early on) supplanted by "Church authority” which is itself not under the direction of God but of "board meetings” most of which are far more influenced by the things of this world rather than the person Jesus.
How many board meetings do we see in scripture..... exactly 0 🤔
As a result of the "tares” or " grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" .... We (not God) abandoned the five fold because of the deception and or ignorance of the "leadership” of the aforementioned tares and wolves- this is (for me) readily observable.
A very clear example of this is missions in the modern church where we send literal children, who themselves aren’t disciples but at best converts to a religious scheme, to go out and make disciples...🤔
Not only is this a mockery of Gods established pattern but is wholly ineffective to His ends, namely advancing the kingdom... however it’s been wildly successful to the ends of establishing the influence and profitability of the "church”,... which at this point seems far more concerned with its own business rather than our Fathers business.

Side note; has anyone else noticed that most (not all) modern "missions” just happen to be to honeymoon destinations in some exotic locations which are really just church funded "working” vacations for staff and kids all while there are multitudes in their own cities and communities that know not the Lord of grace 😳 but going to your local areas isn’t nearly as enticing as an exotic locale and if done locally it would require a commitment to see it through to the end whereas when they go on a week or two mission they accomplish little to nothing and then leave it never to think of it again except to reminisce over the experience our flesh had in the opportunity to travel to an exotic location for free -

Scripturally speaking, an apostle is one whom has been discipled (3yr), matured and sent or anointed with the authority of God, by His spirit, to do the work of that particular office. God gives to whom He will but you can’t give something you don’t have and the "church" has little to no authority from God to give rather using its own authority, it sends its members according to its needs or aims. This too is clearly observable in this age-

Because this has ran longer than intended, it behooves me to answer your question and reserve the remaining portions for sake of brevity.
You asked who are the apostles since the 1st century ? (or something similar)

To which I would answer there have been many apostles, prophets, preachers, teachers and evangelists- some within the established church structure and some without, God will work where He can but will not force us to comply...as such there are times when He will raise up one from outside the church walls to do the work that no one within would or could do. This is often due to the simple fact that those inside the church walls are quite comfortable and have been taught that is evidence of Gods blessing on their lives so they don’t feel compelled to "go out” to often where their comfort decreases and even when they do, it was not under the direction of Holy Spirit and rarely lasts more than a week or two.

Apostles are anointed with authority which manifests itself in their ministry and is evidenced by God standing behind it. This requires a level of devotion that is rarely seen in today’s world but (for me) an easy example is the late Keith Daniels - the humble boldness and authority of word and deed demonstrated the office of apostleship. An apostles life will be soaked in prayer with their very movement and words directed by the Lord Himself and the anointing will be evidenced by the effectual authority demonstrated by their ministry- (this doesn’t mean they don’t at times misunderstand or fall short of His grace as ALL but Jesus has and will)

I’would ask that you listen to the testimony he gives of a church he visited and the subsequent "Annanias and Saphiras” event that took place shortly after, and his (KD’s) response to the news of such - and I challenge you (everyone) to find a (NT) scriptural example where this level of authority was welded by anyone other than an apostle 😇

http://ia800801.us.archive.org/6/items/SERMONINDEX_SID25078/SID25078.mp3

In any case, again I (for one) appreciate you raising this matter and pray that we are all open to the truth and not simply seeking to "be right”

In faith 🙏🏻
Fletcher

The title of this thread is one qualification (which is having seen the risen Christ) for being an apostle and one of the key texts I used was:

I Corinthians 9:1 - Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

John Wesley's comments on the above passage:
"And, 1. He asserts his apostolical mission and character: Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? To be a witness of his resurrection was one great branch of the apostolical charge."

Matthew Henry's commentary (Wesley's note is from MHC just as Whitefield's sermons were from MHC):
"Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? To be a witness of his resurrection was one great branch of the apostolical charge."

John Gill:
"He begins with his office, as an apostle, and proves it; partly by his independency on men, not having his call and mission from them; and partly by his corporeal sight of Christ, and the authority which he in person received from him; and also by the success of his ministry among the Corinthians."

Jamieson Fausset Brown:
"have I not seen Jesus--corporeally, not in a mere vision: compare 1Co 15:8, where the fact of the resurrection, which he wishes to prove, could only be established by an actual bodily appearance, such as was vouchsafed to Peter and the other apostles. In Ac 9:7, 17 the contrast between "the men with him seeing no man," and "Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way," shows that Jesus actually appeared to him in going to Damascus. His vision of Christ in the temple (Ac 22:17) was "in a trance." To be a witness of Christ's resurrection was a leading function of an apostle (Ac 1:22). The best manuscripts omit "Christ."

Barnes NT:
"These objections seem to have been,

(1) that he had not seen Jesus Christ; and, therefore, could not be an apostle, 1Cor 9:1.

(2.) That he did not live like the other apostles, that he was unmarried, was a solitary man, and a wanderer, and was unlike the other apostles in his mode of life, not indulging as apostles might do in the ordinary comforts of life, 1Cor 9:4,6."

Family Bible Notes:
"Seen Jesus Christ; seen him personally, and received from him my commission as an apostle. He mentions this to show that he is not behind the other apostles in regard to his apostolic office."

Kingcomments:
"The next question is: "Am I not an apostle?” In the salutation of this letter he calls himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ”. The word apostle means: messenger. Such a person has to carry out the order of his sender.
Could Paul call himself an apostle just like that? There was bad talk of Paul going on among the Corinthians that he pretended to be an apostle. To be an apostle someone should fulfill the condition that he had seen the Lord Jesus, after His resurrection. In Acts 1 you read about choosing another apostle to replace Judas. Peter speaks there about someone who "[must] become a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:22). Paul fulfilled this condition. Therefore his third question: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” It is not that he was one the twelve apostles who travelled through Israel with the Lord Jesus, but he saw the Lord Jesus on his way to Damascus when he persecuted the church. In Acts 9 you find this history (Acts 9:1-7). So he really was an apostle."

Cambridge Bible:
"have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?] One distinction drawn by St Paul’s opponents between him and the other Apostles was that they had seen and associated with Christ, while he had not. He rebuts this in the form of a question. He had seen the Lord (1) in the way to Damascus (Acts 9:3; Acts 9:17);"

Those are just a few but for more see below:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/9-1.htm

The opportunity to see is closed in 1 Peter 1:8 and John 20:29. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Or as Job once said when he stood before God as we all will one day:

Job 42:5 - I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jackie Pullinger; two books every christian should read are Chasing The Dragon and Crack In The Wall, both written by her.

However, I don't think she would call herself an apostle if you asked her.

Brother, I love you and very much appreciate what you’ve brought to discussion here and whole heartedly agree with not only your considerate presentation of the matter as well as the above passages quoted from Saints.

I’m only objecting to the hyper-specificity of the conclusion and while I don’t want to become a "Cervantes” , how can I not object, when "IF” your point were 100% accurate then it would by extension negate itself as another "qualifier” gets tabled because now that also means they were all not only corporeal witnesses to the resurrected Christ but they were all also Jews...
so there’s a second one....

There’s a clear sequence in scripture- first to the Jew,... then to the gentile.

That’s how the whole development of the body of Christ took place with the Jews being a "first fruits” of sorts, and that same sequence has naturally played out in regards to the gifts (five fold) given to exercise the body in the mission of advancing Christ’s Kingdom (advancing is a military maneuver)
To say the five fold wasn’t in effect today would be to say that the "church” today, (the body of Christ) was not only sedentary and inactive but wholly ineffective at the task of advancing Christ’s kingdom (not the church kingdom) and ultimately impotent to that end and that is it’s current testimony....
today there many good and godly people in churches all over the world, sincere believers, full of faith, but when there is no Apostle then you have none of Gods foundational authority and it inevitably turns into a bureaucracy which wholly incapable of facilitating something it’s not equipped for .... that’s where the five fold are a necessity, without which the body would be brought under the headship of the church and that is where this idea was canonized ... in the papacy-

That’s where there was not just a split but a quiet divorce where the church now was it’s own head and had "reset” ... this was all under the "media cover” of the church no longer being persecuted but instead promoted and it was celebrated as a blessing from God... they got their "king” but was this king from God 🤔
There would be no reason to persecute the body when the mature disciple makers had been martyred,.... why kill the sheep when you now own the rights to the "name”?? Anyone with any authority to object were already departed to Christ... to say "rights to the name” is to say the "church” had been formally recognized by the state and there was a mutually beneficial agreement between the two, but this was an affront to Christ, the true Head of His body....
why was this an affront?? because The church now became dependent on the "state” for its strategic operations no longer being "founded” on the Apostles and Prophets other than ornamentation. Now the five fold had been replaced with papacy, bishops, cardinals, etc... all of whom were under the direction of themselves and merely posing as ambassadors.
That doesn’t mean that a catholic can’t be sincere in their faith towards God, it just means they were birthed and raised in "Egypt” and because they were born i(spiritually) captives the they were kept from growing to full maturity in Christlikeness because they were being grown in churchlikeness ....
the Protestants are no different but that they simply adopted a different structure, still the result was the same... governing bodies no where mentioned much less ordained and anointed for the work of Christ’s body, rather these are ordained and anointed by the governing bodies of the church to do the work of the church .... hence "narcissistic christianity” which is what we mostly have backslidden into today.

It takes the five fold active to keep the body healthy because God ordained it and never revoked it (as a legal matter would require) not to mention the inherent (currently vacant)) authority that comes with said ordination and anointing.
The result is a lowering of the standard set by God in Christ Jesus to the current promotion of the "church”. It’s no different than as in the time of Jesus, the once beautiful church had become a den of thieves, a whitewashed sepulcher filled with dead men’s bones.... there’s nothing new under the sun -

But God has already (this year) united His body under His headship, and it’s a testimony against the church that He had to do it.
As He liveth, the five fold has always equipped the body of Christ.... in spite of the church which is also observable by the reformation alone 🙏🏻

not coincidentally you quoted from Job a very dear passage but you left off my favorite part,...the evidence that he had "seen” God
...6: Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

When the prodigal church does that ☝🏼 then the world will be a better place
That’s about the only thing that could change anything other than God Himself intervening due to our failure to carry out the mission He gave His life for ✝️

Quote: You interpret that as Timothy being sent to them and not sent out.

Man you just ignore the scripture that I pointed out and that's the second time you have done that.

1 Thess 1:1 This letter is from Paul, Silas, and Timothy. We are writing to the church in Thessalonica, to you who belong to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. May God give you grace and peace.

Who is the letter from - Paul, Silas, and Timothy

1 Thess 2:6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

If you read 1 Thess you'll that 3 men were sent to them. Then Timothy was sent and then returned to Paul.

I doubt you'll be able to see it...

From the Berean study bible (another translation):

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 - 1So when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left on our own in Athens. 2 We sent Timothy, our brother and fellow worker for God in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith,

https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_thessalonians/3.htm

All your confirming is that Timothy was sent - what does that prove only that he is one who has been sent (Apostle)

As I said and will keep saying - 3 men were sent, then Timothy was sent and the return with a good report.

But you keep ignoring that.

Quote: However, I don't think she would call herself an apostle if you asked her.

I don't think she would either - but she would call herself a missionary.

If you look at the root word meaning for Apostle in greek and missionary in latin both means "sent off"

In scripture there is no "missionary" that's a catholic thing and I think the Jesuits were the first "missionaries"

I had a better experience than reading a book, not long after I started going to church some Triads came to a fishing town in the North East of Scotland and I was set free form drugs after being prayed for not right away in the church it was once I was at home that night.

The Love of Jesus just swept over me like a wave and engulfed me all that I could do was weep I was set free.

I went back and reread some of your previous posts and I misread what you were trying to say. I see what you were saying.

The problem still remains that Paul uses the word "we" inconsistently. As I mentioned before in 1 Thessalonians chapter 2:

1 Thessalonians 2:2 - 2But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.

It was Paul and Silas who were beaten in the book of Acts. I know you said it included Timothy but that is not what the text says in the book of Acts in the verses below.

From Acts 16 -
Paul and Silas in Prison

16And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. 19And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers, 20And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. 22And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. 23And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

The Conversion of the Jailer

25And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. 26And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. 27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The other verse:
1 Thessalonians 3:1 - 1Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; 2And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

In the book of Acts it was Paul who was left alone at Athens. There may have been some others with him but it was not Timothy or Silas. So who is he referring to in the above verse and where are they referenced to in 1 Thessalonians?

From Acts 17 -

13But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. 14And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. 15And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.

Paul at Athens

16Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. 18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)