The Apostles’ Teaching

The role of the apostolic gift in the establishment and transmission of doctrine

JAMES AUBREY

Eucharisma 2, (Winter 2024), 25-36.

But what does “He ascended” mean except that He descended to the lower parts of the earth? The One who descended is the same as the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into a mature man with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness. (Ephesians 4:9-13)1

One of the most important, exciting and controversial issues to emerge in the last half century has been the recovery and subsequent recognition of Ephesians 4 gifts, especially apostles and prophets. Although there were precursors to the movements that have been led by apostles in recent church history, the sheer speed and proliferation of the awareness and acceptance of Ephesians 4 gifts since the early 1970s means it would be impossible, I think, to discuss the sources of charismatic theology without recourse to this development. 

The roots and heritage of what one author called ‘apostolic networks’ have been detailed in length elsewhere; however, it may serve our purposes here to briefly summarise them.2 There is little dispute amongst both eyewitnesses and subsequent historians of this movement (or movements) that a catalytic figure for all concerned was Arthur Wallis (1922-1988). Perhaps best known as the author of such books as In the Day of Thy Power (1956) and God’s Chosen Fast (1968), Wallis provided a forum for a younger generation of likeminded men to explore their shared conviction of the need for apostles and prophets in the present day church when he invited half a dozen of them to meet together in 1972 to discuss matters pertaining to the nation of Israel and the end times.3 The vast majority of subsequent acceptance and release of apostolic ministries can be traced back to men who attended those gatherings (and subsequent ones) over the next few years. A spiritual fervour soon gripped Christianity in the United Kingdom, as apostles and prophets preached to thousands at large summer conferences—colloquially known as Bible Weeks and often described by the geographical region they were held in, such as the Dales or the Downs—and disseminated their message even wider via cassette tapes and in magazines with titles like Restoration and Fulness. The influence of these Ephesians 4 gifts – not only apostles and prophets but also, as the passage itself makes mention of, evangelists, pastors (or shepherds) and teachers—led to a fresh wave of missional activity across the country, as evangelistic initiatives accelerated and new churches were planted and established. 

The message these ministries proclaimed was powerful, radical and inspiring: God’s purpose in the earth involved – as the titles of the magazines mentioned above attest – the restoration of all things (see Acts 3:21), which included the church coming to maturity, or fulness, in Christ (see Ephesians 4:16). The message was different in tone and approach from the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960s. According to Peter Hocken: 

The language of ‘Renewal’ has been used by those within the Charismatic movement who see this new impulse of the Holy Spirit as a grace for the spiritual renewal and revitalization of their own Churches. This conviction and hope led to the widespread use of the phrase ‘Charismatic Renewal’. The language of ‘Restoration’ was taken up by the groupings initially known as the ‘House Church movement’ and more recently as ‘the new Churches’. For them, the word “renewal” was insufficiently radical; Charismatic Renewal was seen by Restorationists as an attempt to put new wine into old wineskins. For them, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit required new wineskins; and the formation of new churches based on a new foundation, often seen as the fivefold ministry of Ephesians 4:11. This vision was expressed in the term ‘restoration’; the planting of new local churches with patterns of trans-local ministry and fellowship represented for them a restoration of the Church according to the pattern of the New Testament.4 

To paraphrase the likes of Wallis and, in turn, others such as Bryn Jones and Terry Virgo, God was not merely pouring out his Spirit in order to renew manmade denominations, but rather he was sending times of refreshing from his presence in order to restore his church. In Wallis’ own words: 

My heart was no longer sympathetic to denominational systems. Only in New Testament settings could I see God’s people coming into personal and corporate maturity. I could not consent to ecclesiastical traditions, however ancient, which made biblical principles of no effect.5 

Note that Wallis specifically refers to ‘denominational systems’ here, not the people within those denominations. It highlights what one author describes as:

the constant tightrope that Restorationists have walked over the years: how to maintain their radical opposition to perceived denominationalism while acknowledging the personal integrity and unquestionable faith of those within denominations and other traditions.6 

What was of vital importance for the likes of Arthur Wallis, therefore, was a deliberate return to specifically biblical principles in order to establish the church along biblical lines, putting into practice biblical values. Thus the New Testament was a blueprint for church practice in the present, not merely a history of church activity in the past. 

In turn, the role of apostles (and equally, at least for some, prophets) became vitally important. To quote Wallis once more: 

[Apostles and prophets] take a place of precedence in the leadership of the church because of the authority with which they have been invested by God for the founding and structuring of the church.7 

For the ‘Restorationists’, two passages from Ephesians underscore that point. First, Paul tells the Ephesians: 

For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with the saints, and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. The whole building is being fitted together in Him and is growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for God’s dwelling in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18-22).

Paul’s language here calls to mind Jesus’ own promise to build his church (see Matthew 16:18). The church is being built by God – all three members of the Godhead are mentioned here by Paul – and is being built together and built upon. The church is built together to be God’s dwelling in the Spirit and built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. With Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone, then, apostles and prophets provide the church with a foundation that the rest of the spiritual house can be constructed upon. (A point underscored by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:28.) And while some might say this passage in Ephesians refers to new covenant apostles and old covenant prophets, the fact that Paul mentions apostles first (as he does elsewhere as we will see shortly), suggests he is in fact pointing the way as to how the church as the house of God is to be built.8 

This leads Bryn Jones, one of the men to meet with Arthur Wallis in 1972 and subsequently recognised as an apostle, to write the following: 

Scripture shows the Church having both doctrinal and experiential foundations. Its doctrinal foundation is Jesus and the twelve. But, experientially, every emerging church needs to be in living fellowship with Christ and with a continuing apostolic and prophetic ministry. Paul said that the apostles are part of the foundation in which Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone. They are not joined simply by what He said or taught, but with Himself, the person—a living relationship with the living Christ. Paul speaks of the apostolic ministry as laying a firm foundation of the revelation of Christ in the Church.9

Jones would not be unique amongst his contemporaries in arguing that churches require not only historic relationship with the apostles of the New Testament but also ongoing relationship with apostles in the present day. Wallis, for instance, argues, ‘it is my conviction that recognizing apostles and prophets, and letting them function, will yet prove the most important restoration breakthrough of our time.’10 In fact, the consensus became that, as Ephesians 4 shows, Christ continues to give all the five ascension gifts to his church to continue to equip her for works of service and to bring her to maturity before his glorious return. While the church remains on earth before the coming of the Lord, there will be amongst her apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. 

Returning to Ephesians, a few verses on from the passage quoted above, Paul says: 

You have heard, haven’t you, about the administration of God’s grace that He gave me for you? The mystery was made known to me briefly by revelation, as I have written briefly above. By reading this you are able to understand my insight about the mystery of Christ. This was not made known to people in other generations as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Ephesians 3.2-5).

Here Paul sets out some helpful hallmarks of his own gifting and that of apostles and prophets in general. Paul explains that he has received revelation and insight and that one of the hallmarks of both apostles and prophets is that they are revelatory gifts to the body of Christ. This may be a controversial thing to suggest,  but the New Testament does give it credence: there were and are things that God in his sovereignty chose to reveal to apostles and prophets that he did not (and arguably still does not) to other gifts of Christ and other members of the body of Christ. It was, according to the passage, to apostles and prophets – and not to teachers, evangelists, pastors – that God chose to reveal his plan to unite Jew and Gentile in one spiritual body. A keen reader of the Old Testament would not have been surprised that Paul would say such a thing about prophets, for even in their old covenant context, this formed part of their function (see Amos 3:7). But the fact that Paul does the same for the apostles also is important for us to note and will inform the discussion throughout the rest of this article. 

Apostles are, according to the New Testament writers, revelatory gifts to the church. They share this role with prophets; however, what is unique to apostles, again according to the New Testament, is the responsibility to formulate doctrine and establish the churches under their influence and care – what Paul would describe as a sphere (see 2 Corinthians 10.13) – in the truth of that revelation. In so doing, then, apostles can measure the progress of each church’s maturity against the most obvious and yet far ranging matrix of Christian maturity: faith in God and love for one another (1 Thessalonians 3.6; 2 Thessalonians 1.3). Why was Paul so intolerant of the legalism amongst the church in Galatia? And why was he so patient and gracious with the licentiousness of the Corinthians? Both questions can be answered the same way: because of the revelation he had received as an apostle of Christ. And this was not unique to Paul in the New Testament—despite the fact that his written contribution and prominent role in the second half of Acts means we know a great deal more about what he thought and did than others.

The task of formulating doctrine was not delegated to any other group of people in the church in the New Testament: not to teachers, shepherds, elders or deacons. A teacher’s role was and is to equip the church through works of service by teaching apostolic doctrine (hence the teacher being listed after apostles and prophets in the order of function in 1 Corinthians 12.28). Elders and deacons, moreover, as delegated leaders in particular localities, are duty bound to keep the church moving forward in the purposes of God by keeping before them the apostolic doctrine entrusted to them.11 If at this point you think this all seems a little idealistic, stay with me. Because we need to consider the fact that, despite the proliferation of outstanding Bible teachers in the church and wonderful resources made available to us through the academy, the internet and a host of outstanding para-church organisations, there still remains a primary role in formulating doctrine in the church for the apostles Christ gave to us. 

The emergence of authentic apostolic ministry in the last half century has been a good thing for the church as a whole for its doctrine and practice.12 For theology to be truly charismatic—that is, of the Spirit—it needs to be biblical and it needs to be apostolic. And while some critics of such movements and the actual term itself would argue that there really is no such thing as charismatic theology, this claim is really no longer sustainable.13 The published writings of many considered apostles within and outside their own networks, as well as other Ephesians 4 gifts working alongside them, demonstrate that regardless of differences in how apostles relate to churches and what the particular emphasis of one apostle’s gospel may be in comparison with another, these networks are unashamedly biblical and, in most cases, rigorously theological. 

This should come as no surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the New Testament: the early church was led by apostles; these apostles all held a very high view of the Word of God and a radical devotion to the Old Testament Scriptures. These apostles determined what the early church believed and the early church devoted themselves to that teaching. Apostolic doctrine was orthodox; doctrine that had not been formulated by the apostles was heterodox. Where things were taught that were contrary to apostolic doctrine, those who taught them were severely rebuked or gently corrected, either by the apostles themselves or those who knew their doctrine well enough to explain it to others (e.g. Acts 18.24-28). When the early church faced its first major doctrinal crisis, over whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved, it was the apostles—along with their local delegates, the elders—who determined the matter. This was not left to prophets, teachers, evangelists or pastors; it was an apostolic task.

This poses a number of questions for us. Who, not only in theory but actually in practice, determines what you and I believe? In our post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation world, we can be unsettled and even offended at the notion that someone other than us and us alone ought to determine anything we might think, believe, or do. Is that really sustainable in the light of the Scriptures? Is it possible, in the twenty-first century, to be devoted to the apostles’ teaching? If so, how? And who even do we mean when we use the word apostles? 

There are no new Scriptures to be written; what’s more, no apostolic leader who has emerged in the last fifty years has, to my mind at least, ever claimed that they are writing new Scriptures. And yet one of the reasons why the emergence of apostles and prophets has been important, exciting and controversial is, as we established previously, that these gifts are described in the New Testament as revelatory. These leaders, as Aaron Edwards highlighted in Eucharisma, are often very charismatic figures, with a striking clarity of vision and a measure of faith that is the result of and inspires in others great confidence in God.14 Apostles and prophets are gifts with insight into the mysteries of God and wisdom with how to outwork such mysteries in everyday life. Therefore, if apostles are, as Paul says, first in the church, what does that mean for us in practice today?15 

The biggest threat to the early church were false teachers; two kinds in particular stalk the pages of the New Testament. First, those who insisted on some form of legalistic practice—most often circumcision—in order to be approved by God. Second, those who promoted a lifestyle of licentiousness that usually involved improper attitudes towards authority, food, and sex. Are there any false teachers at work in the world today? It would not take us long to identify some based on the criteria I have listed above. And yet who actually determines whether someone is a false teacher and who then deals with correcting their teaching? For it was not (good) teachers who warned against false teachers in letters to the churches, it was apostles who did that.16 Nor was it teachers who gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the matter of circumcision and salvation: it was apostles and elders. 

Those who have written extensively on apostleship in recent years have already well established what an apostle is and the basic facets of their ministry.17 The New Testament describes three distinct classes of apostles.18 First, there is the unique apostleship of Jesus himself (Hebrews 3:1). This is important and must not be overlooked: Christ himself is the pattern for all Christian life and service and that includes all the gifts he has given his church in his ascended state to equip them for works of service.  Christ Jesus is the paradigm for apostleship, not—with all due respect to them—Peter, Paul, James or John. The second class of apostles are the Twelve: those Jesus chose to be with him during his earthly ministry and referred to in the Book of Revelation as ‘the apostles of the Lamb’ (Acts 1:21-22, Revelation 21:14). The third category are apostles given by the ascended Christ, which include Barnabas, Paul and James (the brother of the Lord Jesus) and also, according to some, Apollos, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Andronicus and Junia.19 All three classes of apostles—Jesus himself, the Twelve and the most prominent examples of those mentioned in Ephesians 4, Paul, James and Apollos—displayed a strong affinity with and devotion to the Old Testament Scriptures throughout the New Testament. Let us consider this in more detail and reflect on how it pertains to the sources of charismatic theology. 

Unlike many arguments that sadly rage in theological circles today, Jesus never had a debate with any of his opponents as to whether the Old Testament Scriptures were divinely inspired. Both Jesus and his opponents agreed that the Scriptures were indeed the Word of God. Rather, their debates centred on the correct interpretation of those Scriptures; and before we go any further, we should say that Jesus was right every time! Throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus explained his work through the lens of the Old Testament, providing definition and clarity as to their meaning. He overcame temptation by quoting the Scriptures. He explained his own ministry, that of John the Baptist and that of his own disciples by using the Scriptures. He correctly interpreted and explained the Law and the Prophets; the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once remarked that the most important words Jesus ever said were ‘But I say.’20 But who would continue this aspect of Jesus’ ministry once he had returned to the Father? For the Scriptures would need to be still interpreted and explained; the Word of God would still need to be taught. According to Luke, this became part of the task of the apostles: they were, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to provide ongoing interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures; an apostolic hermeneutic, if you will. This begins in earnest, as we will see below, in the Book of Acts; however, there is an important precursor to this at the end of Luke’s gospel. 

He told them, “These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. He also said to them, “This is what is written: the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what My Father promised. As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high. (Luke 24.44-49)

Two things take place here that are vital for the future ministry of the apostles. Luke records that Jesus ‘opened their minds to understand the Scriptures’ and he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until they had received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. While the latter was a promise and an experience that affected not only the apostles but all who waited in Jerusalem (the 120 mentioned in Acts 1), the former does not seem to be. This opening of their minds to understand the Scriptures seems to be distinct to the apostles. 

This explains a vitally important moment in the life of the early church recorded for us in Acts 1. Having seen Jesus return to heaven, Luke records for us what the apostles did next. 

All these were continually united in prayer, along with the women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers. During these days Peter stood up among the brothers—the number of people who were together was about 120—and said: “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David spoke in advance about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was one of our number and was allotted a share in this ministry. […] For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling become desolate; let no one live in it; and Let someone else take his position.’ Therefore, from among the men who have accompanied us during the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning from the baptism of John until the day He was taken up from us—from among these, it is necessary that one become a witness with us of His resurrection. (Acts 1.15-17, 20-22)

The passage is worth quoting at length I think because here Peter does something that he had never done before and that no one else in the New Testament (other than Jesus) had done before either: he offers an interpretation of Old Testament Scriptures and explains recent events in the light of them. Many others had debated—with or without Jesus—about the meaning of various texts or certain events. But no one had said with such startling authority: this means that. But Peter does here in Acts 1. Now, whenever any of us read Psalm 69 or 109, we know they contain references to the death of Judas and his subsequent replacement by Matthias. There’s no alternative interpretation of those verses that we can offer and remain orthodox. Peter said, ‘this is what these verses mean’ and everyone else in the Upper Room accepted it and we accept it too. It is the first example of an apostolic hermeneutic: an interpretation of Old Testament Scriptures in the light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. It led, moreover, to a vitally important action: the replacing of Judas by Matthias. This was no academic or theoretical musing: it was a revelation that led to an action. It repaired a breach in the apostolate and restored balance to the leadership of the disciples meeting in Jerusalem, and it began with an apostle providing an interpretation of some Old Testament Scriptures. 

This continues, quite significantly, at Pentecost. To the crowd who gather in Jerusalem following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the sign of 120 men and women speaking in other languages, Peter explains this happening by, once more, quoting from the Old Testament. Again it is worth quoting his words at length: 

For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it’s only nine in the morning. On the contrary, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: And it will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. I will even pour out My Spirit on My male and female slaves in those days, and they will prophesy. I will display wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below: blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and remarkable day of the Lord comes; then whoever calls on the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2.5-21)

It sounds so unbelievably obvious to say it now, but we all know that in Joel 2 God is speaking about Pentecost. But we know it because Peter said it and Luke recorded it. There is no other orthodox interpretation of Joel 2: the apostolic hermeneutic of the New Testament tells us that this passage of Old Testament Scripture is concerning the Day of Pentecost. Likewise with the other Old Testament passage Peter quotes.

For David says of Him: ‘I saw the Lord ever before me; because He is at the right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced. Moreover my flesh will rest in hope, because You will not leave my soul in Hades, or allow Your Holy One to see decay. You have revealed the paths of life to me; You will fill me with gladness in Your presence.’ Brothers, I can confidently speak to you about the patriarch David: he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn an oath to him to seat one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing this in advance, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Messiah: He was not left in Hades, and His flesh did not experience decay. God has resurrected this Jesus. We are all witnesses of this. (Acts 2.25-32)

David spoke concerning the Messiah, Peter says. It is so simple, so obvious, so true. Which is a sign of a good hermeneutic: mysteries when revealed become clear, not more opaque. From here, then, we find 3000 people in the crowd that day accepting Peter’s message, repenting, being baptised and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, which leads to Luke’s famous summary of communal life in the early church in Jerusalem: ‘they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking bread, and to prayers’ (Acts 2.42). This summary from Luke is important: although it is only Peter we have heard from directly in Acts 1 and 2 (and subsequently in Acts 3), Luke records the believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, not the apostle’s teaching. 

This devotion to apostolic teaching continues throughout the rest of the Book of Acts and into the rest of the New Testament even as the apostolate expands and develops. Luke specifically refers to Barnabas and Paul as apostles and Paul himself refers to another key figure in the Book of Acts, James the brother of Jesus, as an apostle in one of his letters (Acts 14.4, 14; Galatians 1.19). These three become, alongside Peter, significant figures in the establishment of apostolic doctrine in the face of the first recorded example of contrary, what we might even call false, teaching. Acts 15 begins this way: 

Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses, you cannot be saved!” But after Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this controversy. (Acts 15.1-2)

The Council of Jerusalem takes place, attended by the apostles and elders. Luke records the testimony of Simon Peter and Paul and Barnabas—the former concluding his speech by saying, ‘we believe we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way they are’ (Acts 15.22)—before the discussion is summed up by James. Luke writes: 

After they stopped speaking, James responded: “Brothers, listen to me! Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name. And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: “After these things I will return and will rebuild David’s tent, which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins and will set it up again, so that those who are left of mankind may seek the Lord – even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does these things, which have been known from long ago.” Therefore, in my judgment, we should not cause difficulties for those who turn to God from among the Gentiles. (Acts 15.13-19)

James continues the practice we found Peter using earlier on: providing context for the ongoing development of the work of God following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by explaining events in the light of their prediction and promise in the Old Testament Scriptures. When we read Amos 9 now, we know that it refers to the ingathering of the Gentiles. We know that because James said it and because Luke recorded it. James, like Peter before him, like Paul and Barnabas—who explain their mission to the Gentiles by quoting Isaiah (Acts 13.47)—has received an understanding of the Scriptures as part of his apostolic call and task. The incident in Acts 15, moreover, also brings to the fore the person the central character in the Book of Acts: the Holy Spirit. In writing to the churches following their judgment on the issues, the apostles and elders make two telling observations. First, they make clear that the men who had come to Antioch teaching circumcision had done so without permission: 

we have heard that some to whom we gave no authorisation went out from us and troubled you with their words. (Acts 15.24)

Second, that this decision they had made had been done so not merely with human help: ’It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’ (Acts 15.28). This turn of phrase takes us back to the very beginning of Acts, where Luke records Jesus ‘had given orders through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen’ (Acts 1.2). The Lord Jesus’ methods for achieving his purpose in the earth are clear from then on: working through people he has chosen through the Holy Spirit.

At this point, however, we do have to stop and take account of some differences between the early church and us. First, it might not necessarily be assumed that the ministry of modern day apostles is outworked in the same way as those in the pages of the New Testament.21 For one thing, there are no apostles writing Scriptures today. Of course, there were plenty of apostles in the first century who likewise did not write Scriptures. 

Some, but not all, apostolic networks would not consider modern day apostles having the same authority towards their churches that, say, Paul exercised. Here, I think we can be helped by a few of the apostles who have put their understanding of such practices on paper. David Devenish, for instance, makes the case: 

It could be argued that all the necessary foundations were laid by the original apostles in the days of the early church, and that in our day these verses simply mean that we should be building the church upon the New Testament pattern. Now I would say a hearty “Amen” to building the church upon the doctrines and practices set out in the New Testament. However, as we have seen earlier, a family has fathers, and a community has founders. I would suggest that in this sense, an apostolic and prophetic foundations needs to be laid dynamically in every new church and, furthermore, that we need to ensure that each generation in an existing church is similarly built upon this foundation, a foundation that is both revelatory and relational: it consists of truth and those who bring the truth. Again, this does not mean that those bringing the truth are perfect or infallible – far from it. My suggestion is simply that the foundation needs to be laid in each church in each generation by those called and fitted of God to do so, that is, present-day apostles and prophets.22

One of the tasks, therefore, of each generation of apostles and prophets is to ensure that the church is devoted to the revelation of the first generation of apostles and prophets. And for the church in each generation, our task is to devote ourselves to the (present) apostles’ teaching that is itself devoted to the (original) apostles’ teaching. 

To sum this up in some practical ways, perhaps we can learn some lessons from those who followed on immediately from the apostles. The New Testament gives us two examples quite easily, although both of them only follow on from Paul: Timothy and Titus. Even if we assume that one or both men were apostles in their own right, their relationship to their own calling would have been vastly different from Paul’s. While Paul could claim that he did not receive his gospel from any man, Timothy and Titus most certainly did. What, then, was Paul’s expectations for them going forward? Here are some examples of instructions they receive from Paul:

Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who lives in us, that good thing entrusted to you.

What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

You must speak what is consistent with sound teaching.

Set an example of good works yourself, with integrity and dignity in your teaching. Your message is to be sound beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be ashamed, having nothing bad to say about us. (2 Timothy 1.13-14, 2.2; Titus 2.1, 7-8)

As Paul spells out to Timothy and Titus, he himself has set them an example they can follow. He has provided them with a pattern of sound teaching that they themselves are to teach. As the Holy Spirit has worked through Paul, the Holy Spirit will work through them. And, in perhaps the most significant of the instructions selected above, Paul shows Timothy that the key to continuity of revelation across generations is to pass it on to faithful men who can teach others also. 

What might that mean, then, for us today? Let me make three suggestions – an ABC to get us started, if you will. First, let’s be apostolic. Now by that I don’t mean let’s all call ourselves apostles and act accordingly; rather, let’s accept the fact and then apply the fact that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. GH Lang, himself an influence on Arthur Wallis, said, ‘every departure from apostolic details is pregnant with calamities.’23 What did the apostles in the New Testament emphasise? What do the apostles you may know and work with today emphasise? Are we devoting ourselves wholeheartedly to what they teach? Or do we see it as up for debate and ripe for deconstruction? For example, if the apostles emphasised baptism being (as the word itself implies) an act of full immersion, who are we to argue? If apostles such as Peter and John and Paul all sought to introduce new believers to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (see Acts 8.14-16, 19.1-7), who are we to deny its relevance today? Or, for that matter, if eldership is a role to be performed uniquely by men, why ought we to think we can change that? Finally, when Paul says that the act of men and women uncovering and covering their heads to pray and prophesy is a practice adopted universally – by ‘the churches of God’ (1 Corinthians 11.16), what gives us the right to dismiss it as merely a cultural issue? 

Secondly, let’s be biblical. This is closely related to my first point but worth mentioning specifically nonetheless. The apostles of the New Testament – and, it must be said in my limited experience at least, of the present day as well – were deeply devoted to the Scriptures and expected their people to be as well. Paul advises Timothy, ‘until I come, give your attention to public reading, exhortation, and teaching’ (1 Timothy 4.13). Let’s strive to maintain or, where necessary, adopt biblical practices in all we do, rejecting manmade religion and the subtle substitutions offered by the secular world. 

Thirdly and finally, let’s be charismatic. In other words, without the help of the person of the Holy Spirit, this will all remain theory or, worse, descend into drudgery. The early church and the apostles that founded it were men deeply dependent upon the Holy Spirit. Let’s be the same. In the words of Philip Greenslade: 

The Spirit is the only guarantee of a living continuity. Without him new leaders, while seeking to faithfully preserve their predecessors’ position, merely perpetuate a dead tradition. Principles soon become legalism when implemented by men of lesser gift and anointing than the originators of the vision.24

We began by saying that the (re)emergence of apostles and prophets was one of the most important developments of recent years. Now equally important is to continue to keep, to teach and to pass on what they have passed on to us. 

James Aubrey

James Aubrey is an elder at All Nations Church Cardiff. He is married with four children.

  1. This and all further references are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible. ↩︎
  2. See William Kay, Apostolic Networks in Britain: New Ways of Being Church (Paternoster: Milton Keynes, 2007). ↩︎
  3. The events surrounding these infamous meetings have been described at length not only by Kay but also by Andrew Walker in his book Restoring the Kingdom: The Radical Christianity of the House Church Movement (Eagle: Guilford, 1998). ↩︎
  4. Peter Hocken, Streams of Renewal: The Origins and Early Development of the Charismatic Movement in Great Britain (Paternoster: Carlisle, 1997), 207. ↩︎
  5. Arthur Wallis, ‘Springs of Restoration’, Restoration (July/August 1980), 22. ↩︎
  6. Roger Aubrey, Apostles Today: An Ecclesiological Enquiry in the Light of the Emergence of New Apostolic Reformations Groups, PhD Dissertation (UWCC, Cardiff, 2022), 159. The keen eyed reader may notice the surname: the author happens to be my father. ↩︎
  7. Arthur Wallis, The Radical Christian (Kingsway: Eastbourne, 1981), 183. He goes on immediately afterwards to say ‘It is impossible for them to function effectually in denominational structures and do the job for which they have been appointed without this involving a conflict of authority.’ ↩︎
  8. The only occasion in which apostles are not listed first when mentioned in the contexts of other gifts is in 2 Peter 3:1-2 – ‘Dear friends, this is now the second letter I have written you; in both, I awaken your pure understanding with a reminder, so that you can remember the words previously spoken by the holy prophets, and the commandment of our Lord and Saviour given through the apostles.’ ↩︎
  9. Bryn Jones, The Radical Church (Destiny Image: Shippensburg, PA., 1999), 120. ↩︎
  10. Wallis, The Radical Christian, 184. ↩︎
  11. There is not space in this article to explore this in detail but it is worth noting here that a developing practical difference between the ways different apostolic networks operate is how they define the ongoing relationship between apostles and elders. ↩︎
  12. I say ‘authentic’ because, as we know too well both from Scripture and from church history, the authentic is often followed by the counterfeit. ↩︎
  13. See Mark J. Cartledge, ‘Charismatic Theology: Approaches and Themes’, Journal of Beliefs & Values, 25:2 (2004), 177-190. ↩︎
  14. See Aaron Edwards, ‘Apostolic Leadership and the Spectre of Spiritual Abuse: Suspicions of Pioneer Authority as Hindrances to Pioneer Mission’, Eucharisma 1, (Spring 2024), 23-40. ↩︎
  15. Note, before we go any further, Paul neither says that in the church he is first—despite himself being an apostle—or that any one other apostle is first. It is apostles first, not apostle first. ↩︎
  16. We should note at this point, however, that two of the most significant leaders in the New Testament designated as apostles—Paul and James—also describe themselves as being teachers. (See Acts 13.1; 1 Timothy 2.7; 2 Timothy 1.11; James 3.1) That apostles function through another of the Ephesians 4 gifts is something that Bryn Jones observed. See The Radical Church (Destiny Image: Shippensburg), 129. ↩︎
  17. See, for example, Barney Coombs, Apostles Today (Sovereign World: Tonbridge), 15-19 and David Devenish, Fathering Leaders, Motivating Mission (Authentic: Milton Keynes), 38-9. ↩︎
  18. In demarcating apostles into three classes, I’m following in the footsteps of Jones in The Radical Church, among others. Paul, despite the spotlight placed upon him by his own epistles and by Luke in Acts belongs in the category of post-ascension apostles; he is not in a class of his own. I think it significant that he is released into his apostolic work at exactly the same time as Barnabas (in Acts 13:1-2), a clear sign that, though they may have functioned very differently as apostles, they were of the same type. To that end, I disagree with Andrew Wilson’s argument, despite the fact that his article raises important questions around the relationship between the apostles listed in the New Testament and those active today, that there are ‘Apostles’ and ‘apostles’ in the New Testament. See Andrew Wilson, ‘Apostolic Authority: How Does It Work?’, https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/apostolic-authority-how-does-it-work. ↩︎
  19. For a discussion of, in particular, Apollos’ apostleship, see Andrew Wilson, ‘Apostles Apollos?’, JETS 56/2 (2013), 325-35. ↩︎
  20. See Charles Moore, ‘The Three Most Radical Words Jesus Said’, The Spectator (30 March 2024). ↩︎
  21. This is the strength of Wilson’s short article I mentioned earlier. Though I take issue with his distinguishing between ‘Apostles’ and ‘apostles’—for example, which category is Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 12?—Wilson asks a series of important questions one must consider and answer about the exercising of apostolic ministry today. ↩︎
  22. Devenish, Fathering Leaders, 86-7. ↩︎
  23. G.H. Lang, The Churches of God (Paternoster: Milton Keynes, 1959), 39. ↩︎
  24. Philip Greenslade, Leadership (Marshalls, 1984), 21. ↩︎