Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today?

But, as has been elsewhere stated, a new principle was introduced in and even before the apostolate of Paul, on the dispersion of the order of the Church at Jerusalem — individual agency according to the energy of the Spirit, according to its measure, the operation proving itself and its own efficacy. So even the apostle of this owns: "The signs of an apostle were wrought in me"; "Make full proof of thy ministry"; "Let no man despise thee." Hence, though subsisting not in authoritative revelation of the will of God, nor power in the Church, in a subordinate sense, it seems to me that the gift of apostle and prophet has not passed away. Barnabas was an apostle: Junius and Andronicus were of note among the apostles: and it was praise to a church that they had tried certain whether they were apostles, and they were not, but liars. Doubtless, these pretenders set up for the highest form of apostolate. But the Church could not have been commended for trying them, if there had been question only of the twelve and Paul. In truth, the word 'apostle,' though now of definite force, has it not properly; it just amounts to one sent, a missionary. The messenger of the Church is called "your apostle," in the original.

That which seems to designate the character of apostle, is the being directly sent of Christ, raised up to act on his own personal responsibility to Christ; not merely a gift exercised on such or such occasion subject to church rules, nor the going forth with good tidings to sinners; but as one sent by Christ, acting from Him on his own responsibility to Christ, having a given errand and sphere in which to exercise his commission. In this sense, while the authoritative primary revelation of God's will, gathering and regulating the Church, has clearly closed in the scriptural record to apostolic ministry, I do not see but that apostolic service may still subsist, and probably has been exercised, though the name may not have been attached; men raised up and sent by God for a certain mission, to effect a certain result in the Church, or on sinners, though with no fresh revelation, but with a special energy in which to fulfil it, beyond the bounds of mere circumscribed gift as members within, but special in its relation to Christ. The faithfulness of its accomplishment, the mixing of other things with it, or the failure in clearly following in particular instances, does not, it seems to me, touch this question. In the same way, prophets, who were associated with apostles as the foundation, because they revealed the mind of God, may, it appears to me, in a subordinate sense, be believed to exist. It is not that they now reveal fresh truths not contained in the word (or the foundation would not be completely laid — this, I hold, never can be touched), but that there may be those who not merely teach and explain ordinary and profitable doctrine — truths, and guide by the Spirit into present truth, but who by a special energy of the Spirit can unfold and communicate the mind of Christ to the Church where it is ignorant of it (though that mind be treasured up in the scripture) — can bring truths, hidden previously from the knowledge of the Church, in the power of the testimony of the Spirit of God, to bear on the present circumstances of the Church and future prospects of the world, shewing the things to come; only that these things are all actually treasured up in Scripture, but they can give them present application and force according to the mind, intention, and power of God, and thus be practically prophets (though there be no new facts revealed, but all are really in the word already), and thus be a direct blessing and gift of Christ to the Church for its emergency and need, though the word be strictly adhered to, but without which the Church would not have had the power of that word.

224 We have here enumerated apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The first two, in the exercise of their highest functions, have laid the foundation of the church, either by revelation, or by the authority of Christ, which was committed to them; for it is by this last that the apostles were distinguished from prophets. A prophet revealed the mind of God, and his work was, in this respect, finished. An apostle was sent direct, as an architect, authorised by Christ to build His church. They ordained, put in execution, took the oversight, governed, established authorities in the churches, and took cognisance, as having authority, of everything that went on in them, in order to regulate it; in a word, they were authorised, on the part of Christ, to found and to build, and to establish rules in His church. In this sense there are no longer apostles. Paul knew that after his departure grievous wolves would come in. Peter takes care, by his epistle, to remind them of what he had said to them. But it appears to me, that, in a lower sense, there may be apostles and prophets in all ages. Barnabas is termed an apostle. Junius and Andronicus are called apostles, and it is said of them that they were "of note amongst the apostles" (Rom. 16:7-8): so that there were others who were not named.

As regards the revelation of God, it is complete; as regards any authority to found the church, it no longer exists: neither the twelve nor Paul have had any successors. The foundation cannot be twice laid; but one may act under an extraordinary responsibility as sent by God, and by a faith which depends upon communications made only to him who enjoys them (although there can be no new truth, which would not be found in the word) - a line of conduct which is only vindicated in the eyes of others, by its resulting in blessing to the children of God. This may still exist. We may cite as examples, without pretending to justify all that they did, a Luther, a Calvin, a Zwingle[-i], and perhaps others. So for prophets; although there be no new revelations of truth, there may be, as proceeding from God Himself, a power of applying to the circumstances of the church, or of the world, truths hidden in the word; such as, in practice, might render the ministry prophetic. Moreover, all those who expressed the mind of God "to edification" were called prophets, or, at least, prophesied. But the apostles never speak as if the church would last long; or, as if the faithful would have to wait long for the coming of Christ.

Nothing is said about the continuance of these gifts, and we must look at them separately to see how far they were meant to be permanent or only temporary. As to the apostle, the distinguishing feature was his ability to bear testimony to Christ's resurrection. Thus in the case of the new apostle chosen by lot, the object, as explained by Peter, was that he might "be a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:22.) And even Paul, who had never seen Jesus either during His life or in the forty days before His ascension, rests his apostleship on the same ground. "Am I not an apostle?" he asks. "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1.) And afterwards, speakiug of Christ's resurrection, he says, "Last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle" (1 Cor. 15:8-9), thus again associating his apostleship with his having seen the risen Christ. Since this, then, was a condition of apostleship, it is clear that no one who has not seen Christ risen could be an apostle; or, in other words, that apostles were only temporary gifts. But again, apostles and prophets were, so to speak, the foundation course of the Church; for we are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone." No doubt the foundation is permanent, and in this sense the gift is permanent. But this very fact precludes the thought of a succession of apostles; for how could there be a succession of foundations to the same building? The idea of a succession or revival of apostles is therefore a mere fancy of the mind of man, entirely opposed to Scripture, and subversive of all that is there taught concerning apostolic qualifications and functions.

The prophet was also a foundation gift. It was to prophets as well as to apostles that the mystery which had before been hidden was revealed by the Spirit. In certain cases too the prophet foretold future events. In all these characters the gift of a prophet was only temporary. On the other hand, that part of the prophetic gift which consists of speaking "unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort," and in this way "edifying the Church" (1 Cor. 14:3-4), has never been removed, though whether those possessing it are prophets, in the scriptural sense of the word, is at least doubtful.

The prophets too had a unique position in the early Church. 1 Corinthians 14 informs us of the character of their gift. Apparently in those days when the Scriptures were not complete, the prophets were chosen of God and inspired by Him to make revelations of truth—such revelations being now found within the covers of the Word of God. Anyone now pretending to an extra-Scripture revelation, to something beyond and in addition to the Scriptures, may be put down at once as an impostor, and severely shunned. At the same time whilst the apostles and prophets have passed away, yet the Lord’s servants may have an apostolic and prophetic character in a very secondary sense. A brother may have such an all-round and deep knowledge of the truth and may be so gifted, that the exercise of his gift may have an apostolic or prophetic character in that way, but he is not and cannot be an apostle or a prophet.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets." I apprehend that the apostles and prophets are clearly what might be called the foundation gifts, such as God used for the purpose of laying a broad and deep platform on which the Church was to be built. This was done by those whom God empowered in a special manner. The apostles and prophets were the two classes that first of all entered as instruments into the calling of the Church of God. Evangelists were at work from early days, also pastors soon after. But the first two, apostles and prophets, were peculiar in their full force to the original laying down of the Church of God. There is no ground to suppose that, in the strict sense, apostles and prophets were meant to continue, or do so in fact, though something analogous to an apostle may be raised up at fitting times. Take Luther, for instance. There was a partial recall of the saints of God generally to fundamental truth, which had been long lost sight of. This answers, in a little measure, to what an apostle did. A prophet, again, was one who not merely expounded the Scriptures, but who so brought home the truth as immediately to connect the soul with God.

The gifts for edification were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Elsewhere it is said that "God has set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers;" after which the sign gifts are named. (1 Cor. 12:28.) The chief gift, then, was that of apostles. They were to testify of Christ's resurrection and to lay the foundation of the Church. It seems to have been an essential qualification, therefore, that they should have seen Jesus after He rose from the dead. Thus, Peter, speaking of the appointment of another apostle in Judas's room, says that he "must be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection" (Acts 1:22). Accordingly on the day of Pentecost, "Peter, standing up with the eleven," declares to the Jews that "this Jesus has God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32). We read afterwards that "with power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 4:33). And still later, speaking to Cornelius, Peter says that God raised Jesus up "the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead" (Acts 10:40-41). The only persons who ate and drank with Jesus after His resurrection were the apostles. Though others saw Him, therefore, these were the chosen witnesses of the resurrection. Paul, himself, though not one of these, owns the same thing, declaring that Jesus had been raised up "from the dead, and He was seen many days of them which came with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses unto the people" (Acts 13:30-31). Paul's own apostleship is connected with the same evidence, and required the same qualification, though the place where he saw the risen Christ was not on earth, but in glory. Thus Ananias says to him, "The God of our fathers has chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth; for thou shalt be His witness unto all men, of what thou hast seen and heard" (Acts 22:14-15). Accordingly Paul, when asserting his apostleship, asks — "Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1). And afterwards, speaking of the witnesses of His resurrection, he says — "And last of all, He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time; for I am the least of the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:8-9). The apostles, then, were to be eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection, an important fact, inasmuch as it shows the office to be temporary in its character, and incapable of revival in after times.

But besides being witnesses of Christ's resurrection, they were foundation gifts, the Church being "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2:20). The mystery of the Church was revealed "unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3:5), and they were thus made responsible for laying the foundation of this wondrous truth. Such were the two great functions of the apostles. When the testimony of those who had seen the risen Christ was finished, when the whole ground-plan of God's truth concerning the Church had been marked out, this gift had done its work, and no renewal of it is shadowed forth in God's Word. We do, indeed, hear of false apostles, for the Ephesian Church is commended because it had "tried them which say they are apostles, and are not," and had "found them liars (Rev. 2:2). But there is nothing to indicate that true apostles would again exist. The nature of their functions forbade the thought.

Prophets, like apostles, were entrusted with the mystery, and laid the foundation of the Church. Some, like Agabus, foretold future events, but this was not their chief characteristic. The most striking feature was the address to the conscience. "If all prophesy," says the apostle, "and there come in one that believes not, of one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest" (1 Cor. 14:24-25). In an age when the Scriptures were not completed, moreover, special revelations, probably on other matters, but certainly connected with the "mystery," were made to the prophets; for it is said — "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge; if anything be revealed to another that sits by, let the first hold his peace" (vv. 29, 30). Some of the prophetic gift in reaching the conscience may still survive, but when God's Word was completed, all that He meant prophetically to reveal was already brought out, and the foundation part of the prophetic gift necessarily disappeared.

In the New Testament we have seen the principle: no ordination without apostles or their delegates. What should happen then in the time when the apostles would no longer be on earth? Do the Scriptures contain a procedure to choose or to ordain new apostles? It will be clear that this is not the case. God Himself was the giver of the apostles whose main characteristic was that they had seen the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1) and whose service was connected with signs and wonders and works of power (2 Corinthians 12:12). They had laid, together with the New Testament prophets, the foundation (Ephesians 2:20) and in their teaching the saints persevered (Acts 2:42). For the future the assemblies were not to be dependent on successors of the apostles. The apostles themselves pointed another way: the Word of God. When Paul left the elders of Ephesus he committed them to God and to the Word of His grace and not to a new apostle (Acts 20:32). Peter did the same: the believers should, after his departure, "call to mind these things" (2 Peter 1:15). With an eye on a dark future he tells them "to be mindful to the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Saviour by your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2). Also John said similar things: "As for you let that which ye have heard from the beginning abide in you" (1 John 2:24).

(2) As to the character of ministry, it is most varied and complete, taking in its range all manner of service needed for the Church. In the list already quoted from Ephesians 4, we have apostles and prophets: these are connected with the foundation. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2:20). We need hardly say that these are New Testament prophets, not Old — men who spoke directly for God, often indicating in a supernatural way His mind as to the present or future. Were they Old Testament prophets, they would have been mentioned before, not after, the apostles. The apostles occupied a unique position in the establishment of the Church, which could not be transmitted to others. There can therefore be no "apostolic succession," upon which all Episcopal churches, along with Rome, base their claim. This claim is prevented by the fact that apostles were special witnesses of our Lord's resurrection. See Acts 1:22 with 1 Cor. 9:1; 1 Cor. 15:8-9. Of the absurd assumption of Irvingism that a new list of apostles has been made, it is scarcely necessary to speak. The scripture cited in support of it (Isa. 1:26) does not refer to the Church but to Israel. This new "college of the apostles" has all passed away, and still the restoration has not been effected, nor has the coming of the Lord taken place.

143 This makes, I trust, this point, and the sense in which there may be, in a subordinate and inferior sense, apostles and (in a nearer sense to their original character) prophets, now clear. Revelation of new, unknown, and unrevealed truths being quite excluded, prophets, as expressing the mind of God, could speak, and did, to exhortation, and edification, and comfort, in thus applying the mind of God to the saints. So did the prophets of highest character of old.

But a moment’s reflection will show that this is only a part of their ministry. A large part of the Old Testament prophet’s ministry was given to bringing the mind of God in relation to the state of the people and calling them to repentance. It was not only foretelling but also forth-telling. So it was with the New Testament prophets. But apart from special revelation, which has completely passed away with them, we have the prophetic character of their ministry, and “he that prophesies speaks unto men to edification [building up], and exhortation [stirring up] and comfort [binding up]” (1 Cor. 14:3). How much of this may be sought today to real profit.