Does my Church need to be under an Apostle?

Pastor John, “is the Church in which you are a member under an Apostle?” He said that if it was not, it was not a legitimate Church and he would strongly urge me to leave my present Church and instead find one that looks to a present day Apostle as its head. What should I do with all this?

Thanks for your question. It sounds very much as if you are dealing with a teaching that was promoted some decades ago (the 70’s and early 80’s) in the USA by what was called the Shepherding Movement. There were five main men at the helm, Charles Simpson, Bob Mumford, Don Basham, Derek Prince and Ern Baxter. Judging by the question posed to you, this false teaching seems to be re-emerging here. It is also worth noting that this line of thought concerning present day Apostles is also propagated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and is central to their faith.

The passage usually quoted to support the concept of each local Church being under an apostle is Ephesians 2:19-21. Here we read, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.” (ESV)

Here we see that the household of God (the Church) is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. That much is clear. But what exactly does this mean?

To answer that question we need to engage in sound exegesis, drawing out of the text what is actually taught by the text. Failure to do this results in just the kind of false teaching that your questioner is espousing. It is a doctrine that puts people (and Churches) in religious bondage.

So what does the text actually teach? The first thing we should do is look at the context. We should note that the key phrase “built on the foundation of apostles and prophets” is immediately followed by words that shed light on its meaning. Here’s what I mean.

The church is built on a foundation. The word “built” is a translation of the Greek participle epoikodomethentes, which, properly syntaxed should be translated “having been built.” In koine Greek (the language of the New Testament), this is what is known as an aorist passive participle. It refers to an action in the past; something that has already taken place, or completed. Understanding this is vital if we are to interpret the text correctly. To teach the doctrine that we must continue to build the foundation of apostles and prophets in our day is to misunderstand and misinterpret the text.

I once heard a Bible teacher suggest that God’s primary means of communicating His message were the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New. He made the application that the text in Ephesians 2 was a reference to this – that the apostles in the New as well as the prophets in the Old, laid the foundation for the people of God (the household of God) pointing to Jesus Christ as the ultimate foundation of all. This interpretation certainly does make a great deal of sense.

Looking further, when we check the greater context (the rest of the New Testament), we see that it is Jesus Christ Himself who is identified as the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). The Church is built upon this foundation (Jesus Himself) and is continually growing into an “holy temple in the Lord” (v. 21).

This is what is clear. The foundation has already been laid. Think about that and then ask the question, “how many times does a foundation need to be laid?” I think the answer is quite obvious. Just once! In this passage Paul is referring to something other than a continuing office of apostles and prophets.

One more look at the original text. When we examine the phrase “of the apostles and prophets” we find that it is a genitive construction that can easily give the sense that the foundation of the apostles and prophets is Jesus Christ Himself. This idea would certainly be consistent with Paul’s use of the word foundation (the Greek word themelios) in his other writings.

The Ephesians 2:19-21 in no way teaches that each local assembly of Christians needs to have a living Apostle over it in order to be a legitimate Church. That is not something taught by the text in any way at all.

You ask me what I should do with all this? My answer would be, have nothing to do with it. Continue on your Christian life as if this question was never asked of you. Forget it… and continue to be a faithful member of your local gospel preaching Bible Church, pray for your local elders, and get behind the vision with your time, talents and treasure (finances).

One thought on “Does my Church need to be under an Apostle?

Leave a Reply