Apostles and Modern Preachers 

Apostles and preachers are both “gifts” God has given to His people (Eph. 4:11). Both are very important to the work that God has authorized upon this earth. Apostles were God’s special servants, chosen by the Lord Himself, for the purpose of being His eyewitnesses and agents through which truth would be revealed and delivered (Jn. 16:13; Acts 1:21-25). Therefore, apostles filled a very special role. There are no successors to their position today. Their work is enduring through the revelation of God’s will to all ages.

Preachers have an important role also. They are like apostles in that they are to teach the truth of God’s revealed word. They are proclaimers, as were the apostles. But there are some significant differences between preachers and apostles. First, preachers are not inspired to speak for God; apostles were inspired by the Spirit to speak the truth (Jn. 16). A preacher is limited to preach what the Book teaches; nothing new is revealed through the preacher, so his authority is quite limited only to teach what the Word of God teaches. Second, preachers are not chosen and commissioned in the same exact way as apostles. For example, Paul was specifically chosen and commanded to preach. Though he voluntarily did his work, he still would have been under compulsion; God had laid on him an obligation to do it (1 Cor. 9:16-18). Preachers today are not “called” in any special sense, and though they may feel a certain “compulsion” to preach, it is not by command to them specifically. A man today could choose not to preach, and it would not necessarily constitute a sin. Third, preachers do not fill a “brotherhood” role; they work with local congregations in a limited position. Apostles were God’s agents to all the churches; what an apostle taught by revelation had transcendent value for all congregations (unless otherwise stated; and even then a principle may stand for all). While what preachers teach may be of value to all Christians everywhere, no preacher has the right to interject himself into the work of a congregation of which he is not a member. He would be violating the autonomy of a congregation if he pushed his way in as if he had some special authority. An apostle had the right to work in the congregations as they were revealing truth. They could interject themselves, since their God-given role sometimes necessitated it. And there may be more differences to consider we’ll pass up here.

It is alarming the way I’ve heard some compare themselves with apostles. A preacher may try to justify doing something by asking, “Can I do what Paul did?” The answer to that question depends upon the action. If one is talking about interjecting himself into other congregations where he has no business, the answer is “no.” Apostles had a special role. There are no such creatures today as “brotherhood preachers,” even if someone were to fancy himself as such. If a man wants to do this, then let him show the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12); if he can’t do this, he is only showing the signs of an apostate who takes too much on himself. As an apostle, Paul had special authority to tell a congregation what actions to take, whom to withdraw fellowship from, and whom to receive. John had the right to call Diotrephes to the carpet because he rejected the authority of the apostles (3 John). These were things apostles could do in their role. But what right does a preacher today have to do these things as if on par with an apostle? Dare we consider ourselves to be in the same category as apostles?

A preacher is to preach the word, reprove, rebuke, and exhort (2 Tim. 4:2). That’s what he has authority to do. But he, like any other ordinary Christian (as he is and should rightly think of himself), is a part of a local fellowship of believers, and this is where his work is. Frankly, from what I sometimes read, I don’t know where some find the time to know what’s going on all over the country in other congregations. I don’t know how they know all about other churches, their work, their teaching, and their business. I have no idea how they know what preacher’s all over are or are not preaching (as is evident in broad generalizations about how most preachers today are soft, etc.). It’s tough enough to keep up with one’s own local work; and I can’t imagine that someone who spends so much time figuring out what churches and preachers all over are doing is going to be of much help to a local work.

My dad preached in California for over 40 years. An article appeared in a magazine a few years back telling everyone where all California churches (non-institutional) stood on a controversial issue. My dad’s comment was, “I’ve been here over 40 years and couldn’t begin to tell you all of this.” How does someone know this, especially after only a limited time in an area? And what were the criteria used? And why is it the business of the “brotherhood”? Who has such authority today?

If an apostle were alive today, I would have no problem with his moving among the churches and giving appropriate instructions about a host of matters (e.g., fellowship). I have no issue with a preacher stating and teaching his convictions about any Bible issue when asked to do so. But to make it my work to know the business of congregations all over is quite another matter. A congregation may invite me to teach or to help them in a special way. But it is not my business to nationalize local problems and try to create a philosophical pressure on a church to line up and divide the “brotherhood,” as if such could actually be done from a biblical standpoint.

While apostles were preachers, a preacher today is no apostle. The apostles have long since gone and preachers have a limited position with no more authority than any other Christian who is supposed to be standing for truth. Let’s keep to that business as Christians and preach the word.

-- Doy Moyer