The Latter Rain revival of the late 1940s was a protest against the more formalized Pentecostalism of the time, particularly within what its followers saw as the lack of emotional and spiritual life in denominational churches. It emphasized mystical and subjective experiences (prophecies, intuition and directives straight from God) over the written Word, the Scriptures. One of the beliefs of the Latter Rain movement was that the roles of apostles and prophets would be restored to provide leadership in the church, preparing the world for the return of Jesus Christ. Although they saw their revival as a sure sign the end times were imminent, by 1952 the Latter Rain movement had begun to fade.
In The Violent Take It by Force, Matthew Taylor noted the belief that modern apostles and prophets would emerge to lead the church “had been circulating in eddies” around what he called Independent Charismatic churches. These were churches who embraced and pursued supernatural expressions of Christianity, while rejecting the bureaucracy and constraints of denominations. He referred to them as the “Wild West of the modern church.” And he also noted they were “the fastest-growing segment of Christianity in America.” Until very recently, these Independent Charismatic churches were thought of as “marginal, ostentatious, and kooky.”
By the 1980s, there were some Independent Charismatic leaders who called themselves “apostles,” and others who identified themselves as “prophets.” Excited by these new ideas and what he saw as the potential of a de-institutionalized, modern church, Peter Wagner developed a theory about what he initially called “the postdenominational church.” In 1996, he organized the National Symposium on the Postdenominational Church, that would give participants “a penetrating insight into what many believe will be the cutting-edge of world Christianity.” Part of what made a church “cutting-edge and postdenominational” was they generally “speak openly of God restoring apostles and prophets to the church.”
The phrase “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) emerged during a luncheon discussion held during the National Symposium on the Postdenominational Church. When Jack Hayford expressed his concerns with his “postdenominational” language, Wagner proposed they change the name. By the end of the luncheon, the leaders had agreed the postdenominational church was better called the New Apostolic Reformation. “No one in attendance—including Wagner—could have known at the time what it would become.”
Taylor thought Peter Wagner was an organizational genius. “He excelled at gathering highly talented, like-minded leaders into shared projects.” Charismatic believers from the time of the Latter Rain movement had been talking about apostolic and prophetic governance concepts. But Wagner was the first person to build an architecture that could hold together networks and leaders while maintaining their independence. “He brought coherence and superstructure to what had previously been fragmentary and disordered.” Wagner’s organization of NAR institutions was developed around “the idea that churches and ministries should be governed primarily through apostles and prophets.”
At the very least, this is an alternate explanation of how the idea of apostles and prophets governing churches and ministries was transferred from the Latter Rain movement to the NAR. But Wagner went further, even claiming this change in church leadership was “biblical,” supported by Scripture.
The apostle Peter tells us that “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). He knew from Scripture and personal experience that “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). Peter had just described how the prophetic word about the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was not a cleverly devised myth, it was described in Scripture and was confirmed by him as an eyewitness to His majesty. Peter heard God the Father say: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” His experience on the Mount of Transfiguration was confirmed by the Scriptures.
In Apostles Today, Wagner said a modern apostle was a gifted Christian leader sent by God “with the authority to establish the foundational government of the Church within an assigned sphere of ministry.” And if the Spirit was truly speaking to the churches about this change in doing church, then it must be biblically clear. Here Wagner glibly presumed that what was described above and in Part 1 of this article was from the Spirit of God. But was it? We can test the legitimacy of Wagner’s assertion about modern apostles by examining the three Scriptures he said were “the primary proof texts for recognizing the gift and office of apostle.” See Part 1 for a more complete discussion of Peter Wagner on apostles in today’s churches.
The “Biblical” Support for Apostles?
In Apostles Today, Peter Wagner said the three Scriptures serving as the primary proof texts for recognizing the gift and office of apostle are Ephesians 4:11, Ephesians 2:20, and 1 Corinthians 12:28. In A New Apostolic Reformation?, Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec confirmed that Wagner considered these three verses to be the key supporting texts. Ché Ahn, who was mentored by Wagner and a key successor to Wagner after his retirement, also commented on the importance of these three verses in his book, Modern-Day Apostles.
Ephesians 2:20: “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”
Ché Ahn mentioned the verse referred to the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone—and then moved on. Wagner seems to misinterpret the building metaphor Paul used here when he said: “The foundation of the Church through the ages is to be made up of apostles and prophets.” They both failed to acknowledge, as Geivett and Pivec noted, that the verse has been traditionally understood as referring to first-century apostles and prophets who jointly established the first churches of the Christian era.
Wagner correctly interpreted the significance of Christ as the cornerstone, but inexplicably referred to apostles and prophets as a foundation through the ages. Paul said the Ephesians were members of the household of God, built on the foundation—the supporting base of a structure— of the apostles and prophets, “in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:21-22). Paul said his readers were fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, whose foundation was the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone. Wagner inserts his view of the continuation of apostles and prophets into the text.
In his commentary on Ephesians, Peter O’Brien said the best way to understand the verse was as saying (as do most interpreters), the foundation consisted of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. O’Brien said: “To assert, then, that these Gentile believers are built upon the apostles and prophets is to state that their membership in God’s people rests on the normative teaching that arises from divine revelation. They have the right foundation.” Grant Osborne said something similar in his commentary on Ephesians, seeing Paul metaphorically referring to the apostles and prophets together as the foundation of God’s church. Osborne added: “The ‘chief cornerstone’ of this new building is Christ Jesus, meaning that the entire edifice rests upon him.”
Referring to the first-century apostles and prophets in Ephesians 2:20, Geivett and Pivec remarked: “Notably their activity included the writing of New Testament Scripture, thereby establishing foundational doctrine of the church.” Therefore, this view does not understand the verse “as prescribing ongoing offices in church government.” This interpretation of Ephesians 2:20 is significant as we turn now to Ephesians 4:11, which is the most cited passage used by NAR leaders to affirm the present-day offices of apostles and prophets.
Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,”
Again, Ché Ahn briefly mentioned the verse as he described Ephesians 4:8-11, saying, “Paul tells us that when Jesus ascended He gave gifts to men and women, beginning with apostles and including prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.” Ahn’s intent was to focus on “the authority God has given apostles, because, of course, apostles move in signs and wonders, too.” Notice his failure to distinguish modern apostles from the Twelve and Paul, who even cessationists agree did move authoritatively in signs and wonders. It seems his intent was to focus on how God has given extraordinary authority to apostles in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and continues to do so today.
Peter Wagner seems to agree with Ahn that the primary difference between how churches operate in traditional denominations and the New Apostolic Reformation has to do with this authority. He thought apostles were as different from other members of the Body of Christ as eyes or ears were from other members of the human body. He said: “By far the major difference between the two [traditional churches and the NAR] is ‘the amount of spiritual authority delegated by the Holy Spirit to individuals.’” Wagner had more to say about Ephesians 4:11, stating that Jesus gave gifted people to the Church on two levels.
As the verse indicates, the five foundational, governmental, equipping offices are apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. The “He” is Jesus, who gave gifts to His people when He ascended into heaven after rising from the dead and spending 40 days with His disciples (see Eph. 4:8). He subsequently gave gifted people to the Church on two levels: (1) the foundational or governmental level (see Eph. 4:11), and (2) the ministry level through the saints (see Eph. 4:12).
Notice that Wagner just assumes the five offices or gifts were governmental, as well as foundational and equipping. While there is textual evidence for their foundational and equipping sense, the idea of the apostolic governmental office is imposed on his discussion of the primary proof texts, including Ephesians 4:11. Remember Wagner was attempting to organize churches for a “postdenominational” transition into what he saw as the emergence of the Second Apostolic Age.
Wagner said these five offices were often referred to as “the fivefold ministry,” but he thought of them as ascension gifts, “because Jesus first gave them at His ascension.” He does not think they should be called the fivefold ministry, because ministry was mentioned in verse 12 as the role of all the saints, “while apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are those who equip the rest of the saints to do their ministry.”
Peter O’Brien noted in his commentary on Ephesians there are five lists of ministers of the Word through whom the gospel was revealed, declared and taught in Scripture (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:8-10, 28-30; Eph. 4:11-12; 1 Pet. 4:10-11), totaling more than twenty gifts/ministries. “Each list diverges significantly from the others. None is complete, but each is selective and illustrative, with no effort to force the various gifts into a neat scheme.” Here, O’Brien seemed to elaborate Wagner’s point, but doesn’t make Wagner’s distinction between foundational or governmental gifts and ministry gifts.
Grant Osborne said there was no evidence for the cessation of the offices of apostles and prophets in the New Testament, but he also didn’t hold that those offices continued into the modern era. He said the apostolic office held by the Twelve and Paul did not continue. However, “apostles,” referring to those “sent” (the meaning of apostolos) to establish churches and proclaim the gospel, did continue in the first century and afterward. “While the apostolic office as held by the Twelve and Paul did not continue, ‘apostles’ continued both in the first century and afterward, referring to those ‘sent’ to establish churches and proclaim the gospel.”
Wagner thought a major stumbling block to many who first heard of the Second Apostolic Age was the assumption that apostles and prophets had completed their work of laying the foundation of the Church in the first couple of centuries. “That ended the divine assignment of apostles on Earth—as if they were no longer needed.” He said this notion cannot be biblically sustained, “given the statement of Ephesians 4:11.” Wagner thought apostles and prophets would be needed “until we all attain to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the fullness of Christ.” He then said “Who in their right mind can claim that we have arrived at that point? The only reasonable conclusion is that we are still in need of all five offices.”
Above we saw that Wagner assumed, without supporting biblical evidence, that these “offices” (apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers) were governmental ones within the church, and here he adds that verse 4:13 means they were to continue until we attain to mature manhood, to the fullness of Christ. However, this list is unique to the five lists of ministers noted by O’Brien! If they were as important and significant as Wagner said they are to church government, why are they only articulated here in Ephesians 4:11?
Ephesians 4:12 said these five ministries were for the building up the body of Christ. Paul continued using the body metaphor, saying we are to grow up into him who is the head of the body, Christ. These ministries were functional, for building up the body of Christ, the church (Ephesians 4:13-16). We see this more explicitly in Romans 12:4, where the members of the body “do not all have the same function.” In Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Peter 4, Paul and Peter refer to varieties of gifts or service, not to governmental offices needed within the church.
Geivett and Pivec said a common Protestant understanding of Ephesians 4:11 was that apostles and prophets were foundational and temporary, while evangelists, shepherds (or pastors) and teachers were ongoing. They acknowledged that NAR leaders weren’t the only ones who challenged this standard interpretation. Citing Clinton Arnold from Talbot School of Theology, they noted Arnold’s belief there was no exegetical basis for drawing a line between apostles and prophets, and evangelists, pastors and teachers. Paul was addressing the church’s “present and ongoing structure” in Ephesians 4:11. However, “Arnold argues that Ephesians 4:11 supports the continuation of apostles through church history. But, in contrast to Wagner, Arnold denies that these apostles have the same level of authority as the Twelve or Paul.”
1 Corinthians 12:28: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.”
Wagner said in the verse, first, second and third should be interpreted as an order of sequence, not necessarily as in importance or hierarchy. This follows the BDAG lexicon, which said this verse was referring to sequence, not hierarchy. Then Wagner made a puzzling statement that had nothing to do with the text or his discussion of it. “To put it simply, a church without apostles will not function as well as a church with apostles.” This statement does not logically follow from the text or its context and seems to be a thought Wagner is imposing on the text.
He then said the traditional Protestant understanding thought the offices of apostles and prophets were tied to the First Apostolic Age and didn’t continue throughout church history. If that was true, he reasoned, “then teachers, who are next in line according to 1 Corinthians 12:28 would now be first in order. Obviously, this is not so.” He proceeded to claim, without support, that consequently, Protestant denominations over the past 500 years have been primarily governed by teachers and administrators, assuming 1 Corinthians 12:28 lists offices.
He disregarded that Paul changed from nouns referring to groups of people (apostles, prophets, teachers), to the giftedness of others who worked miracles, or healed the sick, or spoke in tongues. Paul is thinking of all these things as giftedness in the body of Christ. After asking in turn, are all apostles, or possess gifts of healing, he said in 12:31, “But earnestly desire the higher gifts.” Wagner imposed his sense of apostolic office onto the text.
Immediately after Wagner’s discussion of what he sees as the meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:28, he pointed to how God began to open doors for “the emergence of the apostles of the Second Apostolic Age right after World War II.” He said these leaders were true pioneers. And their “apostolic movements were clearly initiated by God Himself.” Given the discussion of the Latter Rain movement above and in Part 1 of this article, Wagner seems to be implying that God has been attempting to bring about this so-called Second Apostolic Age at least since World War II.
Ché Ahn thought when studying 1 Corinthians 12:28, it was clear God gave extraordinary authority to apostles, because apostles were appointed first. He was correct in saying Paul meant apostles were first in the sense of sequence, but the lexical meaning given in BDAG says nothing about authority. He appealed to Matthew 28:18, where Jesus said all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth, and then concluded “God has delegated that authority first to apostles.” This was because in 28:19 Jesus commanded the eleven to go and make disciples. But Matthew said Jesus was given authority to commission the eleven disciples; he didn’t give that authority to them.
Roy Ciampa noted in his commentary on 1 Corinthians how Paul moved abruptly from nouns indicating groups of people (apostles, prophets, teachers) to abstract nouns indicating spiritual gifts or activities (miracles, healing, helping, administrating, tongues). He thought there was probably a correlation between the first three gifts that are needed to establish a church and the three of the more valuable gifts functioning within the church.
Paul does not seem to have a “hierarchy of authority” in mind here, but the reference to the “greater gifts” in v. 31 probably relates back to the order given here, which reflects not a hierarchy of authority but a hierarchy of value or profitability, with value or profitability measured in terms of the ability to (establish and) edify a church.
Thiselton said in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that Paul uses the term apostle to indicate that he writes as one who was specially commissioned by God to perform an apostolic ministry (1 Corinthians 1:1). This assertion entails a witness to Christ, not just in terms of knowledge or doctrine, ‘but also in living out Christ’s death and resurrection in practice.” In regards to verse 12:28, he said it was an exegetical and lexicographical minefield with questions on sequence, and the meaning of the gifts other than apostles, prophets and teachers. “The apostles are first not least in the sense that the church does not ‘raise up’ its apostles, but responds to the apostolic witness.” It was an essential qualification for the apostolate to have seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1-2).
Upon closer examination, these three verses do not seem to clearly support the call to reorganize the church under the office and authority of the apostle, and by extension, though we didn’t discuss it here, the office and authority of the prophet. Peter Wagner and Ché Ahn were imposing their sense of the authority and office of apostle onto the texts they discussed. While there is some support in Ephesians 4:11 for the possible modern influence of apostles in the sense of being delegates or messengers (apostolos) of Jesus Christ, they cannot be equivalent to those of the early church, who were witnesses to Christ. And they don’t have the same extraordinary authority.
Peter Wagner was trying to support his theory of a de-institutionalized, modern church that he initially called “the postdenominational church.” In the process of his efforts, he helped birth the New Apostolic Reformation. He said it was the most radical change in the way of “doing church” since the Reformation. Apostles were said to be sent by God with the authority to establish the foundational government of the church within an assigned sphere of ministry. But there have been problems holding off-the-rail apostles accountable.
Attempts by Peter Wagner and Ché Ahn to justify their attempts to biblically support this new way of doing church were shown to be wanting; a product of their reading into the texts what they believe about apostles. Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec demonstrated in A New Apostolic Reformation? that the role of modern-day apostles with extraordinary authority was biblically unfounded.
Scripture indicates that apostles of Christ—including the Twelve, Paul, and the other apostles to whom Christ appeared and specially commissioned following his resurrection—do not continue today. Other apostles—the apostles of the churches—have an ongoing role, but they do not govern. Their functions are similar to those of today’s missionaries and church planters. Since the scriptural evidence indicates that the New Testament governmental office of apostle no longer exists, NAR leaders who claim to hold this office must first demonstrate that the office is ongoing. This they have failed to do.
