because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.

We do not need to take too much from this passage, as if to mean there is something wrong with the church if there are no people parading about saying they are apostles and prophets.

This is my suggestion: we need to rest the title “apostle,” and expand what it means to be prophets, and not necessarily as titles. I believe that is what we see in the Scriptures.

The early church may have associated the need for such a high, hierarchical title with political recognition, such as that of a governor, and so on. And that kind of title gives the people the right to rule in a sphere. God does not want the church to mirror the world's political system. But some people insist that is the way.

Some people want to import world categories into the church and say the church similarly needs to be ruled, and that the rule must come from apostles and prophets who rule territories, geographies, or people groups associated with their networks. Notice the word “rule” rather than guide as in what a “sherperd” does.

I am speaking against a specific strand of teaching in which proponents argue that there must be, and is, an objective “restoration” to the rule of apostles and prophets in the church. But to stand that theory up, they have to borrow worldly categories we do not see in scriptures and force scriptures to validate what they do not, on the face of it.

But we have Jesus’ prohibition of borrowing the world’s categories into the church:

I want to say that there is a biblical warrant for distinguishing the apostle and prophet from others because of their foundational nature (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5). And even at that, I am advocating for the differentiation between apostle and prophet, because the use of the word prophet began with God calling Abraham a prophet (Genesis 20:7), and we have Paul advocating that everyone pray to prophesy, never saying anyone should pray to be an apostle (1 Corinthians 14:1).

And when it comes to “prophet,” people have said that we have the distinction between the office and the function/gift/grace. I believe that is jumping to conclusions. And it is with such jumps that we land in the ditch of error, in my opinion.

If we can get it clear in our minds that the priority is the work, not the prestigious title you are called, that would be better.

Apart from Paul, hardly anyone notable went about calling themselves by titles; they just did the work. And I am not begrudging anyone who goes by a title like pastor, which carries a structural undertone in our age, meaning it has to do with a church body. And there are other titles people bear that relate to denominational structure. I am not begrudging them of those.

While sanctioning the use of titles in a denominational structure, I believe the titles of apostles and prophets should not even be used there.

I believe, generally speaking, we should allow Paul's words to hold:

Look at what Jesus said:

I believe that is where we draw the line: do not call yourself an apostle. It is a distraction, in my opinion.

But what about “prophet”? We need to see how that has been democratized—how those who speak the word of God in truth are prophets.

I am saying: don’t use the title “apostles,” because it is too exclusive, and do not presume to be in that exclusive group. And do not call yourself a prophet, because, in a strong sense, everyone is potentially a prophet—or some sort of prophet—in some sense.

I am not saying don’t function as a prophet, but don’t label yourself as such. It is like a grain of sand in the ocean calling itself sand. It is like, “Duh—look around.”

For the apostle title, it is like a shining object calling itself a diamond; it is like, “Duh—you are not that special.”

“Prophet” has been commoditized, while “apostle” should be rested, in my opinion.

Some would say, “The apostle now is different from the apostle then.” They are just playing semantics games, in my opinion. We should not strain the truth to a breaking point.

Others say, “God is restoring the offices of the apostle and prophet to the church.” Why? The answer to that is where things start to break apart, since they might say the basis of their assertion is a revelation they saw or someone else saw.

They might also say, “but God restored the gift of tongues at the turn of the 1900s.” I believe He did, but that is why I say the prophet has been commoditized—do you get?—but not “apostle.”

Someone might say, “Have we been frozen at that point when it comes to the move of God?”

Again, by the words of Jesus in Revelation: He mentions some people “who call themselves apostles, but are not, and have found them to be false” (Revelation 2:2). That is one of the very few places apostles are mentioned in that book. In the same book, the word “prophet” and “prophets” appear several other times, often positively (for example, Revelation 10:7; 11:18; 16:6; 18:20, 24; 22:6, 9).

So we have God’s operation without title‑lation. And do we think God’s priority is titles—or hearts drawn closer to Him?

While Jesus sent out 72 people to represent Him and to heal the sick, with no stated distinction between the impact they had and the impact that the Twelve had when He sent them out (Luke 9:1–6; Luke 10:1–9, 17–20), that does not expand the title “apostle” to the seventy‑two, even though they were also sent with language very similar to what He used for the Twelve.

But for prophets, we have Paul saying he wants everyone to prophesy (1 Corinthians 14:1, 5, 31), and that two or three prophets can speak and the others judge (1 Corinthians 14:29). He is foreseeing multiple prophets, but not multiple apostles.

We see Jesus directly name twelve apostles (Luke 6:12–13), and we see Paul declaring that he is an apostle (Romans 1:1). We also see the word “apostle” used for other people in the sense of being sent out from a church—people like Barnabas (Acts 14:14), and those Paul calls “your apostle” or “our apostle” (for example, 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25 in Greek).

When someone wants to confer apostleship on us, we need to reject it, just as Jesus rejected those who wanted to make Him king by force (John 6:15).

“The foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20; 3:5) does not say we need apostles and prophets to speak into our lives now. It is about the historical origins of the church, rooted in the foundation of the apostles and prophets, who are the same people speaking forth the revelation of Christ in different places and writing it down as what we now have as Scripture.

Notice the pairing of “apostles and prophets” is a throwback to when verified apostles walked the earth - the apostles of Jesus. And the prophets (in that pairing) are a different caliber that exist at the formation of the church.

When you see the pair of prophets-teachers as we see in Antioch, it is a different flavor of reality.

Some will say I had a vision of Jesus declaring me an apostle. I do not begrudge your vision; I begrudge your use of the title. Another person says Jesus insists I use the title. Why? Note that there are alternative Jesuses and visions can be demonically inspired. So watch out.

My point is: I reject that Jesus appeared to you and said you should be the title of apostle. “Apostleness” is an objective truth of scripture, and cannot be devolved into your subjective dreams and visions. “Apostleness” is not candy to be handed out in dreams. Do you get?

For example, the identity of Jesus has been objectively laid out in scriptures and is not amenable to any subjective visions, dreams, or revelations. Something is subjective because it cannot be independently verified as true, meaning it exists in your subjective experience and nowhere else. Regardless of how strongly you feel about it or how convinced you are or the basis of that conviction, it is still subjective.

Because we regard the Bible as the word of God, Paul’s apostleship is objective. And since there is no updating the bible, that closes that chapter.

If I say I believe God wants me to do something. That is tied to a specific time and space and is subjective. But to ascribe to myself the title of apostle is to infringe, in my opinion, on what has been objectively determined. We need to back off.

Back to the focus verse: you cannot be members of the household of God and fellow citizens with the saints if you are not “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19–20).

It is past tense: “You have been built,” in the context of this verse. Even if you become a Christian today, Paul is not describing a process but a done deal for all believers.

It is a sense of spiritual insecurity that makes you want to seek out apostles and prophets to see visions for you, speak into your life, or oversee you. It is like the manna not being enough as you seek the cucumber and garlic of Egypt (Numbers 11:5), speaking figuratively.

People who say we need apostles and prophets to lay the foundation now are on a fast lane to error.

God may have a special call for you (meaning there is no prototype for you to follow). But a deep feeling of insecurity (that you may not even realize) may drive you to cover yourself with a title, as Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves (Genesis 3:7), again speaking figuratively. That insecurity can, in my opinion, generate a false “revelation,” where the need to be affirmed—an idol in the heart (Ezekiel 14:4)—begins to mimic the voice of God to you, ascribing to you high‑sounding descriptions.

In this Ephesian passage, we see “fellow citizens” (Ephesians 2:19), “members of the household,” and “being built with Christ as the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20–21).

Christ is the irreplaceable ingredient of the building. In a way, Christ laid the foundation before His ascension. Even Paul said that when he told the apostles who had been with him in Jerusalem about what he preached, they made no corrections (Galatians 2:1–6). So even before Paul came on the scene, the foundation had been laid.

We need to understand that there is a finality of truth.

The point is that every Christian has been laid on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. And even though they are not here now, we have their words recorded in the Bible we hold. So as we preach to people and they believe, they have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

Just as it is a mystery that we have become fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19), so also with being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Paul is not writing this portion of the letter to make you feel there is something you should be seeking—as if you should be looking for an apostle or prophets to submit to, and therefore expose yourself to the danger of deception.

He is saying this is your new state now. You are not going to be fellow citizens with the saints; you are already fellow citizens with the saints. You are not going to be members of the household of God; you are already members of it.

You are not going to be built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone; you are already built on that foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone.

Jews may want to talk about being unique as citizens of Israel. Paul is saying you are now fellow citizens with the saints (Ephesians 2:19).

Jews may want to talk about being children of Abraham. In Christ, we are members of the household of God, Paul says (Ephesians 2:19).

Jews (and many eschatologists in our days) may want to talk about the temple building. Paul is saying you are now God’s building (Ephesians 2:21–22).