The Glorious Church


In choosing a replacement for Judas, Peter stated (Acts 1:21, 22) that the selected one “must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Paul stated, “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (1Co 15:8)

The Bible states that Barnabas was an apostle also. (Acts 14:14)

What are the requirements in order to be an apostle? Is it one of the requirements of an apostle to have actually seen the risen Lord?

Views: 52

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Acts 1:21, 22 has to do with the twelve apostles of the Lamb. There are the twelve apostles of the Lamb and other apostles not part of the twelve.
Good point, Brother must be sitting at the front of the class!
The way I see it, since the word "apostolos" means one who is sent, the only requirement today for being an apostle is to be sent out by both the church and the Holy Spirit. Paul and Barnabas, for example, were not called apostles until after they were sent (see Acts 13:1-3, 14:4, 14). This is not to say that just anyone can be an apostle. The Holy Spirit would not send someone who is unprepared for the task. God first qualifies, then sends. Some of the attributes God would want to see in place are: 1) the ability to present the gospel, 2) the ability to teach doctrine, 3) the ability to win people to the Lord, 4) the ability to build people together into a local assembly, and 5) the ability to raise up and develop leaders. This may not be everything, but it seems to me that these are some of the primary tasks on an apostle.

I agree with Jim that there were the Twelve, the apostles of the Lamb, and there are all the other apostles from Act 13 on up through today.
Well said, Brother Dave. I really like 4 and 5…especially number 5. What intrigues me is the statement of Paul, seemingly declaring his apostleship, emphasizing that he had seen the risen Lord also.
I agree that an apostle (not of the original twelve) must not be self-appointed, but sent of the Holy Ghost and the church. But there seems to be a distinction between the 12 apostles of the Lamb (the ones directly discipled by Jesus) and those from Acts 13 onward. The former having requirements 1) to have been with Jesus from the baptism of John...and...2) to have actually seen the risen Lord. (Acts 1)

To me, Paul seems to be sort of a “transitional” (lack of a better description) apostle (sort of a “link” between the twelve and those to come later) in that he seems to connect himself with the original twelve in that he stresses the fact that he has seen the risen Lord also..."as of one born out of due time." (1Co 15:8) Yet in another place (I Cor.I:17), he seems to make a distinction between himself and them by saying that Christ didn’t send him to baptize – though He Definitely did the originals Matt 28:19.

Any thoughts?
Some more considerations for discussion concerning apostles:

(2Co 12:11) … for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
(2Co 12:12) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

1) Should signs, wonders and might deeds be in the equation for defining an apostles?

2) What would be the defining difference between an apostle and an evangelist?

Reply to Discussion


© 2024   Created by David Huston.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service