In a sermon delivered yesterday, I referenced my understanding that the role of apostle as seen in the New Testament (NT) does not exist in the church today. Because I have heard from a few people about this teaching already, I want to provide a fuller explanation.

I asserted…

“Paul and a few other men were specifically commissioned by Jesus to fulfill a special office in the 1^st century church and men are no longer called to fill this office.”

The Greek word for apostle is used a few ways in the NT. As a verb it means “to send” and as a noun it means “a sent-one” or messenger. So using everyday Greek, I might ‘apostle’ someone to go to the store and buy milk for me. Or I might ‘apostle’ my ministry assistant to deliver a message on my behalf to someone in the church. In many places the NT writers employ the word in this common way.

For example, in Mark 6:27 Herod ‘apostles’ an executioner to cut off John’s head. In Luke 7:3 a centurion ‘apostles’ some Jewish elders to get Jesus. In Luke 14:32 Jesus uses the term to speak of kings ‘apostling’ a delegation to ask for peace from another king. Again, this term is not specifically ‘Christian’ or special.

In other places, however, the NT uses the word to refer specific men who were specially-commissioned by Jesus to take the gospel to a particular place or to a particular people (i.e. Jesus ‘apostled’ the 12 disciples in Mark 6:7).

Therefore, I contend that the NT teaches that certain men were called by God and sent by Jesus to fulfill an office of authority in the church and referred to as Apostles. My understanding of the office of apostle comes in part from Acts 1:21-26. In this text the (now 11) apostles are selecting a replacement for Judas. Note (through my italics added below) how they describe themselves and their calling.

²¹So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, ²² beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us-one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” ²³And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. ²⁴And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen ²⁵to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” ²⁶And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Their calling was based on seeing the risen Lord in bodily form and carried with it a special authority in the church. This authority in the church was evidenced (as we see in 2 Corinthians 12:12) by the power to perform miraculous signs.

With an understanding of the office of apostle in place, why do I apply designation to Paul? Two texts that help me interpret Paul’s apostolic calling as similar to the 12: 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:7. In these texts Paul affirms that a special delegation of men who had seen the risen Christ had been specifically commissioned to spread the gospel. And he includes himself in that group.

With Paul having affirmed both the reality of an office of apostle in the church and his own apostleship, I read his self-designation as an apostle in Romans 1 in this light. I understand him to be referring to himself as a specially-commissioned “sent one” by the risen Jesus to the Gentiles.

Therefore, because Jesus no longer appears in bodily form to commission men for this type of service, I understand this role to have ceased with the death of these men in the 1^st century.