Apostles and Prophets

Today, we examine the relationship between apostles, prophets, and Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:20 describes the church as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone.

Notice the distinction. The messengers have an essential role, but Christ occupies a position no messenger can replace.

I thought apostles were simply the twelve disciples Jesus chose. How did Paul become an apostle when he was not one of the original twelve?

The word apostle means one who is sent. The twelve had a unique calling, but the New Testament also identifies others as apostles. Paul defended his apostleship because his authority was questioned. He did not claim to have appointed himself. He understood his calling as coming through the will of God.
His ministry was distinctive: he was commissioned especially to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

The important point is: God's calling, not human appointment or family inheritance, determines who would serve as an apostle or prophet.

But if apostles and prophets were both appointed by God, does that mean they had exactly the same function?

No. Shared divine authority does not mean identical responsibilities. Apostles were commissioned witnesses of Christ and foundational proclaimers of the gospel. Prophets communicated messages through the prophetic gift. Their ministries could overlap, but the terms were not interchangeable.

Ephesians 5 says that the mystery of Christ was revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. God used both in communicating His revealed truth.
And remember Acts 15:32: Judas and Silas are described as prophets who encouraged and strengthened the believers. The prophetic gift did not disappear simply because apostles were present.

Then why do we sometimes speak as though prophets belonged to the Old Testament and apostles replaced them in the New Testament? That sounds tidier than the biblical evidence.

That distinction can help us understand the broad historical pattern, but it becomes misleading when treated as an absolute rule. Prophets appeared in the New Testament church too.
The question is not which group deserves greater prestige. The question is how God used different people to communicate His will and establish His church.

Now consider something even more important. Ephesians 2:20 calls Christ the chief cornerstone. The apostles and prophets belong to the foundation, but Christ determines the building's alignment.

So, even though apostles and prophets were inspired, their importance must never overshadow Jesus?

Exactly. The messengers were important because of the message they carried. Their ministry pointed beyond themselves.
Read the New Testament. The apostles continually return to Jesus—His life, His death, His resurrection, His ministry for us, and His promised return. Paul did not build his ministry around making people admire Paul. He proclaimed Christ crucified and risen.

A messenger who draws attention away from Christ has lost sight of the heart of the message.

Question. If the apostles and prophets were foundational, and their writings carry divine authority, can a church's later interpretations automatically claim that same authority?

No. We must distinguish between the authority of God's revelation and our interpretation of it. A church may sincerely defend a teaching and still misunderstand a biblical passage. Sincerity, tradition, and institutional confidence do not make every interpretation infallible.
That is why we must return to Scripture—not merely to find verses that support what we already believe, but to allow God's Word to examine what we believe.

But if the Bible is our final authority, what happens when our cherished understanding of Jesus is challenged by what we actually read there?

Then we face a choice: defend our familiar understanding at all costs, or allow Scripture to correct us.
The Bible is the authoritative written testimony through which we receive the apostolic and prophetic witness to Christ. We must not place later claims, traditions, or personal convictions above that witness.

And this matters profoundly when we consider Jesus' death for us. We cannot allow human theories, religious traditions, or our own assumptions to redefine the cross. We must ask what Scripture actually reveals about His sacrifice, His saving work, and God's character.

Then perhaps the danger is not only rejecting the Bible. We can also claim to defend it while refusing to let it challenge us.

That is precisely the danger.
A church can honour the apostles, celebrate the prophets, and defend the Bible while quietly placing its own interpretations beyond examination.
The foundation matters. The messengers matter. But Christ remains the cornerstone, and our faith must continually be tested against the Word that bears witness to Him.