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.