Derived from the Greek verb apostello, meaning 'to send,' the noun is used in classical Greek infrequently and impersonally, and simply refers to someone or something which is sent, and its use eventually included a fleet (of ships) and even an admiral. The word, however, finds a unique usage in the NT, where it always implies someone who was sent as an authorized emissary. Jesus, e.g., was "the apostle" who was "faithful to the one who appointed him" (Heb 3:1). Jesus spoke of the "prophets and apostles'" God sent Israel and whom they killed and persecute (Lk 11:44). Jesus appointed the twelve and "gave them authority" (Matt 10:1; see esp. v. 37, "he who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me"). In commending Titus to the church in Corinth, Paul spoke of him and the unnamed brother accompanying him as "representatives of the churches," literally, apostoloi ekklesion. This is probably the sense in which Barnabas and Paul were to be understood when they were referred to as 'apostles' in Luke's account of their exploits in Iconium (Acts 14:4 & 14); they had been sent officially by the church in Antioch.
At the same time, the NT also seems to understand the noun as referring to a specific band of persons into which membership is not ordinarily granted; i.e., the Twelve. They were first appointed apostles—the first time the noun is used in the NT—by Jesus and authorized to speak and work miracles in his name (Matt 10; Mk 3:14-19, and Lk 6:13-16). Immediately after the ascension of Jesus, however, they gathered together and, after much prayers, chose Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26). In doing so they recognized that the calling and band of apostleship was restricted and special. Why else would Barsabbas have been excluded since he—evidenced by the fact that his name was put forward—seemed equally qualified. Was it because of this that Paul—who was not one of the twelve—was so insistent that he too was called and appointed as the twelve were (Cf. Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1, & esp. 15ff.). Though he had not been "one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us . . . witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22), he did meet with the resurrected in his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6).
In addition to these usages, the term 'apostle' is also used even more broadly to refer to persons who pioneered and advocated particular way of doing things or way of doing things. E.g., William Perkins have been described in the title of a paper as an "apostle of practical divinity." In these cases, of course, the context will indicate sufficiently that the word is not meant to carry the more technical senses noted above.
Background & Origin. Most scholars today believe that the concept of apostleship in the NT sense, has probably a Jewish background in the Jewish custom of the shaliach, a accredited representative who is sent on a mission. Rabbinic literature would speak of the envoy's authority with the expression "a man's shaliach is as himself." In the LXX the verb apostello is used more than seven hundred times to speak of such a commission. Many scholars now see the NT concept of apostleship as originating with Jesus against this Jewish background. The case fot this understanding is strengthened by the fact that the term apostellos occurs only infrequently outside the NT, it occurs 79x in the NT alone. In the NT, in other words, Jesus—as the one who sends—is the defining center of our understanding of apostleship.
Are there still Apostles today? As we have seen, the term is used in a broader, looser sense of someone who is sent, as Barnabas and Paul were sent by the church in Antioch. But the term is also a technical one, referring specifically to the band of twelve and Paul. Paul speaks of himself as the last to whom the resurrected Christ appeared, suggesting that membership into this special band of authoritative witnesses and agents is closed. Those of us who are sent out by our churches to work for Christ on their behalf would not be wrong to speak of ourselves as "apostles" in the looser sense of the term. For the sake of clarity and charity—of not stirring up confusion—we should not. There is no motivation for it except our pride and flesh.
But are there still apostles today in the stricter sense of the term, like Peter or Paul were? One dares not say what God cannot do. His sovereignty certainly permits Him to appoint apostles today as He did in the early church. On purely theological grounds, then, it is possible for there to be apostles today. The only reason to deny such a thing is the bias caused by our interpretation of particular verses of the NT, such as 1 Cor 13:10, suggesting that such spiritual gifts have ceased with the closing of the NT canon. Now, let us suppose—just for the sake of clarifying our thoughts for the moment—that there are apostles today. This raises some important questions. First, how should we expect these 'apostles' to authenticate their apostleship? What purpose/s would these apostles serve in the modern church? What advantages does the fact of their existence confer on the church? Are we expected to accept their teachings as authoritative as Scriptures are? None of those who advocate the presence of apostles today, or claim themselves to be apostles today, have attempted to answer these questions satisfactorily. It appears like there are no positive answers to any of these questions. Almost all the uncertainties, even consternation, that the modern church has faced, and continues to face, regarding apostles today has to do with these questions.
Perhaps the best thing anyone who believes he is an apostle can do for the church of Christ today is to say nothing about his apostleship and to do for the church what he is meant to do (and testify to the fact of his calling) by the quality of his teaching and of his life. To be sure, Paul defended his apostleship on more than one occasions. But Paul was defending his apostleship because critical doctrines was at stake. Can anyone see such a need in the modern church? If not, then any claim to being an apostle only creates "lack of clarity" (= perplexity, even confusion) that easily degenerates (though it need not) into animosity, neither of which leads to the church's edification. Aside from the powerful boost to the personal ego and political power of the "apostle" involved (and his followers) no advantage, it seems, is accrued to the Kingdom of God by such claims.
The Twelve Apostle
The first number in the brackets indicate the number of times the apostle appears in the four Gospels and Acts while the second indicates its occurrences in the entire NT):
Simon - Peter (167/171/, plus 9x as Cephas: 1/9).
Andrew (14/14)
James, son of Zebedee (6/6)
John, son of Zebedee (6/6).
Bartholomew (4/4).
Thomas (10/11).
Matthew, the tax-collector. (5/6)
Thaddeaus (2/2)
Simon the Zealot (3/4)
Matthias (replacing Judas Iscariot (7/10)).
Paul (176/206)
©ALBERITH
250719lch