There is No Such Thing as Apostle Designate

Biblical Order, Apostolic Calling, and the Witness of the Early Church

In recent years I have noticed an increasing number of announcements, flyers, and ceremonial

language using phrases such as “Apostle Designate” or “Apostle Elect.” While these expressions may

sound formal or impressive, they do not belong to the historic language of the apostolic office.

With respect and clarity, this must be stated plainly.

There is no such thing, historically or biblically, as a “designate apostle” or an “apostle elect.”

Those terms belong properly to the bishopric, not to the apostolic calling.

Understanding why requires returning to both Scripture and the earliest historical testimony of the

Church.

⸻

Apostles Are Called and Sent by God

The New Testament word for apostle is the Greek term ἀπόστολος (apostolos), meaning one who is

sent. The word emphasizes commission by the sender rather than appointment by a governing body.

In the New Testament the sender is God.

The Apostle Paul makes this distinction unmistakably clear when introducing his ministry:

Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father

Galatians 1:1

Paul deliberately distinguishes his apostleship from human appointment. His authority did

not originate from a council or vote. It originated with Christ.

Later Paul explains that his calling preceded even his public ministry:

When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his

grace

Galatians 1:15

Paul did not pursue apostleship through election or institutional appointment. He was

called, separated, and sent by God.The Church later recognized this calling, but the recognition did not create the

apostleship. It acknowledged what God had already done.

⸻

The Church Affirms Apostles, It Does Not Create Them

This principle appears clearly in the Church at Antioch.

The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called

them

Acts 13:2

Notice the order carefully.

The Holy Spirit declared that the calling already existed. The Church did not originate the

call. The Church responded to it.

After fasting and prayer the leaders laid hands on them and sent them out.

And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away

Acts 13:3

This is not an election. It is recognition and affirmation of divine commissioning.

The Church participates in the sending, but God initiates the calling.

⸻

Early Christian Writings Confirm This Pattern

The earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament confirm this understanding.

One of the oldest known Christian writings, The Didache (late first century), describes apostles as

traveling ministers sent by God.

The Didache instructs believers:

Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.

This instruction assumes apostles arrive already carrying divine authority. The local churchdoes not appoint them. It recognizes them.

Similarly, Eusebius of Caesarea, the fourth century church historian, describes apostles

as those sent with authority to establish churches throughout the world. Their authority

rested on divine mission rather than institutional election.

⸻

The Witness of the Apostolic Fathers

Early Christian leaders known as the Apostolic Fathers provide additional insight into the structure of

the Church.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) wrote extensively about the authority of bishops within the church. In

his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is,

there is the Catholic Church.

Ignatius consistently describes the church as structured around three offices:

• Bishop

• Presbyter

• Deacon

These were offices of governance and oversight, not charismatic callings like

apostleship.

Another early leader, Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), described how church leaders were

appointed through orderly succession to maintain stability and continuity in the church.

Clement explains that the apostles themselves established leaders and gave instructions

that these offices should continue through succession.

This is a key distinction.

The apostles appointed overseers, but those overseers were not themselves apostles.

⸻

The Apostolic ConstitutionsLater early church writings known as the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) also reinforce this

distinction.

These documents describe bishops as successors in oversight of the local church but clearly

distinguish them from the original apostolic mission.

The bishop was responsible for:

• teaching

• governing

• maintaining doctrine

• overseeing clergy

But the bishop was not described as being elected into apostleship.

Instead, the bishop functioned as an episcopal overseer within the structure established by the

apostles.

⸻

The Difference Between Apostolic Calling and Apostolic Succession

One of the most misunderstood areas of church leadership is the difference between apostolic calling

and apostolic succession.

These two concepts are related but not identical.

Apostolic calling refers to individuals whom God raises up and sends with apostolic authority to plant,

strengthen, and expand the work of the Church.

Apostolic succession, on the other hand, refers to the continuity of church leadership through the

office of bishop.

Early Christianity preserved apostolic teaching through the succession of bishops, not through the

election of new apostles.

This is why bishops were consecrated through the laying on of hands by other bishops, ensuring

continuity of doctrine and governance.

⸻

Early Church Councils Confirm Episcopal ElectionBy the fourth century the Church had formalized the process for appointing bishops.

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) established clear guidelines.

Canon 4 states that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province, or at least by

three bishops with the consent of the others.

This formal process produced the language still used today:

• Bishop Elect

• Bishop Designate

• Bishop Appointed

These terms describe someone chosen for the episcopal office before consecration.

This language applies to the bishopric, not the apostolic calling.

⸻

How Modern Language Drifted from Historic Apostolic Terminology

The emergence of phrases such as “apostle designate” or “apostle elect” is largely a modern

development. These expressions are not found in Scripture, nor do they appear in the writings of the

early Church Fathers or the early Church councils.

The shift in language appears primarily in the twentieth and twenty first centuries, particularly within

some charismatic and independent church movements that began restoring the language of the

fivefold ministry described in Ephesians 4:11.

As churches rediscovered the role of apostles and prophets in contemporary ministry, many

organizations attempted to structure apostolic ministry using the same administrative processes that

historically governed the bishopric.

In doing so, terminology from episcopal structures was unintentionally transferred onto the apostolic

office.

However, the apostolic calling is not an administrative office awaiting activation through ceremony. It is

a divine commissioning that precedes institutional recognition.

The Church may publicly affirm the calling, but the calling itself originates with God.⸻

How the Early Church Treated the Title “Apostle”

Another important historical observation strengthens this discussion even further. After the first

century, the early Church became extremely cautious about using the title apostle at all.

In the New Testament period, apostles were understood to be those who had been directly

commissioned by Christ and sent to establish the foundations of the Church.

Paul describes this foundational role clearly:

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being

the chief cornerstone

Ephesians 2:20

The imagery is important. Foundations are laid once. Once the foundation is established,

the structure continues to grow upon it.

Because of this understanding, the early Church treated the apostolic office with great

reverence and caution. While missionaries and church planters continued the work of

expanding the gospel, the Church rarely used the title “apostle” for later leaders.

Instead, the Church structured its ongoing leadership around three primary offices:

• Bishop

• Presbyter

• Deacon

This structure appears clearly in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch in the early second

century. Ignatius repeatedly emphasized the role of the bishop as the central overseer of

the local church and encouraged believers to remain united with the bishop, presbyters,

and deacons.

Likewise, the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea described the apostles primarily as

the original missionaries who established churches throughout the Roman world. After

their deaths, the continuity of the Church was preserved through the succession of

bishops, not through the election of new apostles.

Even when later Christian writers used the word apostolic, they usually meant something

different. The term referred to faithfulness to the teaching of the apostles, not the

appointment of new apostles.Churches spoke of maintaining apostolic doctrine, apostolic tradition, and apostolic

succession, meaning the preservation of the teaching and leadership structure

established by the original apostles.

This historical reality further highlights the difference between apostolic commissioning

and ecclesiastical office.

The apostles were understood to be foundational witnesses sent by Christ, while the

ongoing leadership of the Church was carried forward through the bishopric and other

ministerial offices.

Understanding this distinction helps explain why the language of bishop elect developed

in church history while the language of apostle elect did not.

The early Church simply did not treat apostleship as an office awaiting election or

designation.

It was a calling rooted in divine commissioning and recognized through the fruit of

ministry.

⸻

Restoring Proper Language in the Church

When phrases like apostle elect or apostle designate are used, two distinct categories become

confused.

The apostolic ministry is a calling and commission.

The episcopal ministry is an office of oversight.

The Church may elect someone to the bishopric, but the Church does not elect someone into

apostleship.

The Church recognizes and affirms those whom God has already called and sent.

Words matter.

Offices matter.

Order matters.When the language remains clear, the Church remains aligned with both Scripture and historic

Christian tradition.

For those who desire deeper understanding of apostolic affirmation, ecclesiastical order, and the

historic structure of the Church, I invite you to continue learning through the College of Sacred

Servants, where we remain committed to preserving both the biblical foundations and the historic

order of Christian leadership.

By

Reginald Delman Thompson