Thread: How many apostles? And what were apostles?

How many apostles were there in the NT?

And what were apostles exactly?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How many apostles were there in the NT?

And what were apostles exactly?

Q1. 14.

Q2. Those appointed by our Lord to bring forth His Gospel with His authority and power.

Theognome

i always thought of it as being twelve and the other places where it named apostles were lower case apostles or church planter types

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

it seems the number is pretty consistent

Originally Posted by Repre5entYHWH

i always thought of it as being twelve and the other places where it named apostles were lower case apostles or church planter types

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

it seems the number is pretty consistent

So where would that put Paul?

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How many apostles were there in the NT?

And what were apostles exactly?

Q1. 14.

Q2. Those appointed by our Lord to bring forth His Gospel with His authority and power.

Theognome

I would have said 13. Who am I missing. (I have the original 12 plus Matthias)

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How many apostles were there in the NT?

And what were apostles exactly?

Q1. 14.

Q2. Those appointed by our Lord to bring forth His Gospel with His authority and power.

Theognome

I would have said 13. Who am I missing. (I have the original 12 plus Matthias)

Paul?

Original 12, Paul, Mattias.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

Original 12, Paul, Mattias.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How many apostles were there in the NT?

And what were apostles exactly?

Q1. 14.

Q2. Those appointed by our Lord to bring forth His Gospel with His authority and power.

Theognome

Can you elaborate on Q2? Is there a special distinction between the 14 and others?

Romans 16 has 2 more apostles.

Apostle or apostle, the issue is "who" is the commissioning agency.

Christ made a limited number of HIS Apostles. The criteria seems set forth in Acts 1, to have been with Christ from the beginning (i.e., chosen and taught by him in person for a full period of instruction), and eye-witness to the resurrection.

Matthias was chosen as a replacement for Judas, by the Spirit's leading, and to fulfill prophecy.

Paul describes both his calling and office as profoundly legitimate, speaking of himself as if untimely born. By his own testimony he received a full, personal instruction from Jesus (bodily or in a vision, he could not say), and this AS from the risen One himself.

Others, spoken of as apostles, are sent by the church on a commission.

Is James (Gal.1:19) an Apostle (of Christ)? Presuming for a moment the question of this one's identity is fixed as a half-brother of Christ, writer of the letter James, and not one of the previously named Apostles James (there were two original disciples by that name)--items which are in fact disputed--this would seem to be name-by-association, and not according to an office.

What do we do with those who call themselves apostles today? Citing their office rather than the criteria of Acts 1.

Originally Posted by ewenlin

What do we do with those who call themselves apostles today? Citing their office rather than the criteria of Acts 1.

Call them false apostles. It is that simple. Many times we would call the heretics as well; and I do not use that term loosely or lightly in any sense.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Romans 16 has 2 more apostles.

If so, we would expect a partitive genitive construction, instead of ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Romans 16 has 2 more apostles.

If so, we would expect a partitive genitive construction, instead of ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Romans 16 has 2 more apostles.

If so, we would expect a partitive genitive construction, instead of ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

If it were that clear, wouldn't it be that clear to a greater number of scholars and commentaries, which speak of these 2 in Romans 16 as apostles also?

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

I have favored this interpretation as well.

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

Nor are Thomas, Bartholomew, the other Judas, or any of the other Apostles apart from "the big ones" mentioned again. The role of Paul is clearly a different role than that of the other apostles as the apostle to the Gentiles (cf., Gal. 2). We have no indication that the 12 acted improperly in replacing Judas with Matthias, and should not impute wrongdoing to them without such indication. So while the theory may be interesting, I'm not sure it's the best way to interpret the facts.

Interesting? Maybe.
Wrong? Definitely.

The account of the choosing of Matthias in Acts 1:15-26 is set forth as among the first acts of faith by the earliest Christians, and the leading of the Spirit under Old Testament forms prior to Acts 2, the outpouring of the Spirit in New Testament fashion.

The seamless transition from obedience under OT form followed immediately by the introduction of NT form and quality (Pentecost) could hardly have been demonstrated in a clearer way. The Scripture is quoted twice, approvingly, and the saints act in obedience to the Word and God's ministers.

Surely Calvin nailed it when he wrote:

This was very orderly done, that the disciples should present unto God those whom they thought to be the best; and he should choose to himself whom he knew to be most fit, so that God, by the fall of the lot, doth pronounce that he did allow of the apostleship of Matthias. But the apostles might seem to have dealt very rashly and disorderly, which laid so great and weighty a matter upon a lot; for what certainty could they gather thereby? I answer, that they did it only as they were moved thereunto by the Holy Spirit; for although Luke doth not express this, yet, because he will not accuse the disciples of rashness, but rather doth show that this election was lawful and approved of God; I say, therefore, that they went this way to work, being moved by the Spirit, like as they were directed in all the action by the same Spirit. But why do they not pray that God would choose whom he would out of the whole multitude? Why do they restrain his judgment unto two? Is not this to rob God of his liberty, when as they tie him, and, as it were, make him subject unto their voices and consents? But whosoever shall quietly ponder the matter shall plainly perceive, by the drift of Luke, that the disciples durst do nothing but that which they knew was their duty to do, and was commanded them by the Lord. As for the contentious, let them go shake their ears.

comm in loc

The Apostles did realize that there was a "place" to fill. And so they filled it.

Other thoughts,
--if God cared so about the special number "12" he didn't wait long to reduce the number to "12" again, after calling Paul to the office, taking James Bar-Jonas away, Acts 12:2.

--Not even the 12 Tribes of Israel always neatly fit the "original" model
*Ruben
*Simeon
*Levi
*Judah
*Gad
*Asher
*Issachar
*Zebulon
*Naphtali
*Dan
*Benjamin
*Joseph
--Ephraim
--Manasseh

That's fourteen names, and thirteen families... But still it's "the Twelve tribes of Israel."

Let's not do theology "by the numbers," but by faith.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

Nor are Thomas, Bartholomew, the other Judas, or any of the other Apostles apart from "the big ones" mentioned again. The role of Paul is clearly a different role than that of the other apostles as the apostle to the Gentiles (cf., Gal. 2). We have no indication that the 12 acted improperly in replacing Judas with Matthias, and should not impute wrongdoing to them without such indication. So while the theory may be interesting, I'm not sure it's the best way to interpret the facts.

Yes, but who instructed them to cast lots? It's clear from the verses that they cited in Acts 1 that the position should not be left vacant. But just as Christ had called all his other apostles, it stands to reason that He, himself, should call the remaining apostle to fill the vacant position. And thus Christ's unique appearance to and conversion of Paul.

Plus, 14 or 13 (if you exclude Judas) seems an odd number. What about Revelation 21:14:
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Reading through the book of Acts many times recently, I can't believe Paul wouldn't be counted among the Twelve.

It seems to me that there are 12. The original 12, less Judas, who gave his place to another (Acts 1:20). I believe (as stated above) that Matthias was hastily chosen by the 11. Matthias is not only never mentioned again, he is the only Apostle of Christ not chosen directly by Christ. The other 11 are (Mark 3:16), as well as Paul (Acts 9; 1 Tim 1:1, etc.).

Put this together with Revelation's description of the Twelve (not 11 or 13 or 14) Apostles in Revelation 21:14, and I believe that 12 is the correct number.

The reason that there are other Apostles, is that the word in addition to referring to the office of Apostle of Christ, can also mean "the one sent." There can be Apostles (for example) of the Church. Such a one was Ephaphroditus in Phil 2:25, where almost every translation translates (properly, in my view) the Greek word for apostle ( ἀπόστολον) as "messenger."

So "Apostles" as we commonly understand the word, are those who were chosen by Christ and sent out by Christ to lay the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20).

Of course, it can be said that Christ chose Matthias. His manner may have been different--via His Spirit--but how does that change the fact, if indeed He chose by that means?

Which names out of the fourteen (each, of tribals or disciples) are on the "Twelve gates" and "Twelve foundations" of Rev.21? Text doesn't say...

Rev.7:4-8 lists
*Judah
*Reuben
*Gad
*Asher
*Naphtali
*Manasseh
*Simeon (who received no separate territory, but was in Judah)
*Levi (who also was scattered in Israel)
*Issachar
*Zebulon
*Joseph
*Benjamin

Where are Dan and Ephraim? Even if we say "Joseph" is put for Ephraim, we still require explanations.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Originally Posted by ewenlin

What do we do with those who call themselves apostles today? Citing their office rather than the criteria of Acts 1.

Call them false apostles. It is that simple. Many times we would call the heretics as well; and I do not use that term loosely or lightly in any sense.

That's hard to evaluate without specific references to these commentators and their interaction with the Greek. It's certainly not the most natural reading. I'll have to search the TLG to see if such a construction is ever attested. But as it's Saturday, I don't have time to do so now.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Romans 16 has 2 more apostles.

If so, we would expect a partitive genitive construction, instead of ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

If it were that clear, wouldn't it be that clear to a greater number of scholars and commentaries, which speak of these 2 in Romans 16 as apostles also?

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of course, it can be said that Christ chose Matthias. His manner may have been different--via His Spirit--but how does that change the fact, if indeed He chose by that means?

Which names out of the fourteen (each, of tribals or disciples) are on the "Twelve gates" and "Twelve foundations" of Rev.21? Text doesn't say...

Rev.7:4-8 lists
*Judah
*Reuben
*Gad
*Asher
*Naphtali
*Manasseh
*Simeon (who received no separate territory, but was in Judah)
*Levi (who also was scattered in Israel)
*Issachar
*Zebulon
*Joseph
*Benjamin

Where are Dan and Ephraim? Even if we say "Joseph" is put for Ephraim, we still require explanations.

Bruce, I think you are most likely correct on Matthias being chosen by God to make up the twelve, Paul being a bit different in that he was called "the apostle to the Gentiles". And I think, as you said, we mistake when we take numbers too literally, though they do symbolize spiritual realities; the recurring numbers in Revelation are a good example. But I don't think there is any harm in the view that Peter acted his usual impatient self in this matter, and perhaps after receiving "power from on high" at Pentecost he may have received a new impetus to work on this flaw in his character. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

I dont think so. That idea is not really supported by any text but the contrary position is pretty wekk done. In Acts 1:20 Matthias fuffiled the prophecy "let another take his office". Therefore the office that was held by Judas belongs tto Matthias and we are not told that he vacates it. I would say your interperitation is incorrect.

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 04:34:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by asc

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

Nor are Thomas, Bartholomew, the other Judas, or any of the other Apostles apart from "the big ones" mentioned again. The role of Paul is clearly a different role than that of the other apostles as the apostle to the Gentiles (cf., Gal. 2). We have no indication that the 12 acted improperly in replacing Judas with Matthias, and should not impute wrongdoing to them without such indication. So while the theory may be interesting, I'm not sure it's the best way to interpret the facts.

Yes, but who instructed them to cast lots? It's clear from the verses that they cited in Acts 1 that the position should not be left vacant. But just as Christ had called all his other apostles, it stands to reason that He, himself, should call the remaining apostle to fill the vacant position. And thus Christ's unique appearance to and conversion of Paul.

Plus, 14 or 13 (if you exclude Judas) seems an odd number. What about Revelation 21:14:
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Reading through the book of Acts many times recently, I can't believe Paul wouldn't be counted among the Twelve.

I don't see why not. Paul is not a direct disciple of Jesus as Matthias was. Paul was chosen by Jesus after His ascension but Matthias was a follower of Christ on Earth which was one of the criteria for the !2.

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

I dont think so. That idea is not really supported by any text but the contrary position is pretty wekk done. In Acts 1:20 Matthias fuffiled the prophecy "let another take his office". Therefore the office that was held by Judas belongs tto Matthias and we are not told that he vacates it. I would say your interperitation is incorrect.

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 04:34:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by asc

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Nor are Thomas, Bartholomew, the other Judas, or any of the other Apostles apart from "the big ones" mentioned again. The role of Paul is clearly a different role than that of the other apostles as the apostle to the Gentiles (cf., Gal. 2). We have no indication that the 12 acted improperly in replacing Judas with Matthias, and should not impute wrongdoing to them without such indication. So while the theory may be interesting, I'm not sure it's the best way to interpret the facts.

Yes, but who instructed them to cast lots? It's clear from the verses that they cited in Acts 1 that the position should not be left vacant. But just as Christ had called all his other apostles, it stands to reason that He, himself, should call the remaining apostle to fill the vacant position. And thus Christ's unique appearance to and conversion of Paul.

Plus, 14 or 13 (if you exclude Judas) seems an odd number. What about Revelation 21:14:
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Reading through the book of Acts many times recently, I can't believe Paul wouldn't be counted among the Twelve.

I don't see why not. Paul is not a direct disciple of Jesus as Matthias was. Paul was chosen by Jesus after His ascension but Matthias was a follower of Christ on Earth which was one of the criteria for the !2.

So are you saying that Paul was not one of the Apostles? He seems to go out of the way to prove that he is an Apostle in the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

I don't see why not. Paul is not a direct disciple of Jesus as Matthias was. Paul was chosen by Jesus after His ascension but Matthias was a follower of Christ on Earth which was one of the criteria for the !2.

In terms of the criteria, these are outlined by Peter. And while they seem like appropriate criteria, we're never told that they were instituted by Christ. We're also never told that Christ instructed them to call a replacement apostle at all. None of the other apostles were commisioned by an apostle. Since Matthias had seen the risen Christ (Peter's criteria), Christ could have called him forth as an apostle then. So why didn't He? Given the focus on Paul's ministry from Acts 13+ and that his writings make up the majority of the NT, I don't think it's surprising that some would considered him Judas' real replacement (sorry Matthias).

Don't mean to be contrary, but what is the possible spiritual benefit of holding to one view or another on this theme, or what is the use arguing about it? I suppose we all agree there are not apostles in our day like the first apostles, whoever they may have been in particular and that is the main point to hold with regard to this topic. I've been reading Hengstenberg's commentary on the Revelation in which he argues against most of the views held by Bengel (an earlier commentator). But toward the end of his two volume commentary he had this to say about things of seemingly (at least to me) greater importance than this and many other fine points argued on this forum: "It (Revelation) has thus proved a blessing even to many who but very imperfectly understood it. For it is wonderful, how the edifying power that resides in the book, forces its way even through the most imperfect understanding of it contents, if only the soul that applies to it is hungry and thirsty, weary and heavy laden, if it only stands in living faith on the divinity of Scriptures and on the glorious consummation of the kingdom of Christ. Bengel's example may render this quite manifest. In nearly all the leading points he has failed in obtaining the right view; and yet what rich nourishment has he derived from this book for his own inner man and for many thousands besides!"

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

Originally Posted by dbh

An old theory I read about was - original 12. minus Judas = 11. Plus Paul = 12. Matthias is never mentioned in the NT after lots were cast for his replacing Judas. This may be due to Peter's impetuosity in wanting to quickly replace Judas, but God had planned to add Paul later instead. Interesting, yes?

I dont think so. That idea is not really supported by any text but the contrary position is pretty wekk done. In Acts 1:20 Matthias fuffiled the prophecy "let another take his office". Therefore the office that was held by Judas belongs tto Matthias and we are not told that he vacates it. I would say your interperitation is incorrect.

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 04:34:38 EST-----

Originally Posted by asc

Yes, but who instructed them to cast lots? It's clear from the verses that they cited in Acts 1 that the position should not be left vacant. But just as Christ had called all his other apostles, it stands to reason that He, himself, should call the remaining apostle to fill the vacant position. And thus Christ's unique appearance to and conversion of Paul.

Plus, 14 or 13 (if you exclude Judas) seems an odd number. What about Revelation 21:14:
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Reading through the book of Acts many times recently, I can't believe Paul wouldn't be counted among the Twelve.

I don't see why not. Paul is not a direct disciple of Jesus as Matthias was. Paul was chosen by Jesus after His ascension but Matthias was a follower of Christ on Earth which was one of the criteria for the !2.

So are you saying that Paul was not one of the Apostles? He seems to go out of the way to prove that he is an Apostle in the Scriptures.

Not at all! Just saying that he was not one of the 12 and that he did not replace Matthias.

In both the case of the Tribes and the Apostles, the number moved up to thirteen because of sin.

Because of the sin of Reuben in sleeping with his father's concubine, the right of firstborn was taken from him and given to Judah. The double portion was taken from Reuben also, and given to Joseph, which meant that Joseph's two sons both had a portion as tribes.

Because of the sin of Judas, he was replaced by Matthias and Paul, who was the only Apostle specifically given a commission to reach the Gentiles.

In both cases, Satan's attempt to undermine the foundations of the OT and NT churches, was thwarted.

The Book of Revelation is very symbolical. There are good symbolical reasons why Ephraim and Dan are left out in chapter 7, and why the wall of the Holy City has twelve gates and twelve foundations.

If we wanted to confuse people, we could like some Pentecostalists, call missionaries and church-planters, "apostles". But God is not the author of confusion, and neither should His church be.

Okay, I searched the TLG. While I didn't read every hit with equal intensity, it seems that if the intent were to include Andronicus and Junia in the number of the apostles, then the adjective ἐπίσημος should be in the attributive position. However, I don't see why it COULDN'T mean the same thing as a substantive. But I'd want to point out a few things.

1) The natural construction for this would be, as I said, a partitive genitive.
2) The particular adjective used seems a strange one for this idea. Do we seriously think that Andronicus and Junia are the apostles that stand out as famous? Some fame -- apart from this enigmatic verse, we wouldn't have even known of their existence. And yet, we're to believe that these are the noteworthy ones among the Apostles!
3) How would Junia being an (big "A") Apostle square with 1 Tim. 2:12?
4) Given the other NT data on the apostolate, even if the two ways of construing the syntax were otherwise equal (which I do not believe they are), we either have to take the ἀποστόλοις, as little more than "missionaries", or we have to take the construction ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις as "well known to the apostles" -- (my preference) which, I believe, is how the ESV renders it.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

It seems to me that there are 12. The original 12, less Judas, who gave his place to another (Acts 1:20). I believe (as stated above) that Matthias was hastily chosen by the 11. Matthias is not only never mentioned again, he is the only Apostle of Christ not chosen directly by Christ. The other 11 are (Mark 3:16), as well as Paul (Acts 9; 1 Tim 1:1, etc.).

Put this together with Revelation's description of the Twelve (not 11 or 13 or 14) Apostles in Revelation 21:14, and I believe that 12 is the correct number.

The reason that there are other Apostles, is that the word in addition to referring to the office of Apostle of Christ, can also mean "the one sent." There can be Apostles (for example) of the Church. Such a one was Ephaphroditus in Phil 2:25, where almost every translation translates (properly, in my view) the Greek word for apostle ( ἀπόστολον) as "messenger."

So "Apostles" as we commonly understand the word, are those who were chosen by Christ and sent out by Christ to lay the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20).

Thanks, you answered that which I was asking about. These apostles of the churches.

A further question: These 12 apostles expired, but how about these apostles of the churches, these "messengers"? Are they still around?

-----Added 8/15/2009 at 06:26:27 EST-----

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Okay, I searched the TLG. While I didn't read every hit with equal intensity, it seems that if the intent were to include Andronicus and Junia in the number of the apostles, then the adjective ἐπίσημος should be in the attributive position. However, I don't see why it COULDN'T mean the same thing as a substantive. But I'd want to point out a few things.

1) The natural construction for this would be, as I said, a partitive genitive.
2) The particular adjective used seems a strange one for this idea. Do we seriously think that Andronicus and Junia are the apostles that stand out as famous? Some fame -- apart from this enigmatic verse, we wouldn't have even known of their existence. And yet, we're to believe that these are the noteworthy ones among the Apostles!
3) How would Junia being an (big "A") Apostle square with 1 Tim. 2:12?
4) Given the other NT data on the apostolate, even if the two ways of construing the syntax were otherwise equal (which I do not believe they are), we either have to take the ἀποστόλοις, as little more than "missionaries", or we have to take the construction ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις as "well known to the apostles" -- (my preference) which, I believe, is how the ESV renders it.

Thanks, so can we say that missionaries fulfill a function similar to these apostles rather than similar to pastors?

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

Not at all! Just saying that he was not one of the 12 and that he did not replace Matthias.

Oh sorry. I misinterpreted. I'm with ya!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Thanks, so can we say that missionaries fulfill a function similar to these apostles rather than similar to pastors?

If we take Andronicus and Junia as little "a" apostles, then yes, I suppose so. Again, I'm in favor of reading Rom 16.7 as "well known to the apostles" or something like that -- in which case I'm speaking of the office of the apostle, big "A" apostle. But the little "a" apostles -- sent ones -- would surely be somewhat more analogous to the modern missionary than to the modern pastor.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Thanks, so can we say that missionaries fulfill a function similar to these apostles rather than similar to pastors?

If we take Andronicus and Junia as little "a" apostles, then yes, I suppose so. Again, I'm in favor of reading Rom 16.7 as "well known to the apostles" or something like that -- in which case I'm speaking of the office of the apostle, big "A" apostle. But the little "a" apostles -- sent ones -- would surely be somewhat more analogous to the modern missionary than to the modern pastor.

So, when I tell churches that I am not called to "pastor" a church overseas, but to plant churches..and when I tell churches that I am not a pastor, but a missionary, and when I am assertive to maintain a distinction between the two roles, would you recommend that I mention this "apostolic function" that a missionary has, or would that cause many to misunderstand me and label me as a charismatic nutcase for calling myself an Apostle?

Missio comes from apostellos, a "sent-out one" and as such, missionaries in my thinking are sent-out ones (little a apostles) trying to establish the church where one is not a church, rather than trying to pastor a church already in existence.

What would most churches think if I explained my role in that way?

I think you will be misunderstood as a money-hungry nut job if you call yourself an apostle, because that is the common use of the word today.

I'd stick with "missionary." (By the way, that also means "sent out one" - the difference is Greek (apostello) and Latin (mitto, mittere, missi, missus)

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

I think you will be misunderstood as a money-hungry nut job if you call yourself an apostle, because that is the common use of the word today.

I'd stick with "missionary." (By the way, that also means "sent out one" - the difference is Greek (apostello) and Latin (mitto, mittere, missi, missus)

Thanks. Yes. Language has changed. You would agree that the function, however, is the same, rather than a pastoral role?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

I think you will be misunderstood as a money-hungry nut job if you call yourself an apostle, because that is the common use of the word today.

I'd stick with "missionary." (By the way, that also means "sent out one" - the difference is Greek (apostello) and Latin (mitto, mittere, missi, missus)

Thanks. Yes. Language has changed. You would agree that the function, however, is the same, rather than a pastoral role?

Yes. Not every servant if Christ is called to be a pastor (Eph. 4:11)