cont...
b. Who Were Apostles? The initial group of apostles numbered twelve—the eleven original disciples who remained after Judas died, plus Matthias, who replaced Judas: “And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). So important was this original group of twelve apostles, the “charter members” of the office of apostle, that we read that their names are inscribed on the foundations of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).
We might at first think that such a group could never be expanded, that no one could be added to it. But then Paul clearly claims that he, also, is an apostle. And Acts 14:14 calls both Barnabas and Paul apostles: “when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it....” So with Paul and Barnabas there are fourteen “apostles of Jesus Christ.”
Then James the brother of Jesus (who was not one of the twelve original disciples) seems to be called an apostle in Galatians 1:19: Paul tells how, when he went to Jerusalem, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”6 Then in Galatians 2:9 James is classified with Peter and John as “pillars” of the Jerusalem church. And in Acts 15:13–21, James, along with Peter, exercises a significant leadership function in the Jerusalem Council, a function which would be appropriate to the office of apostle. Furthermore, when Paul is listing the resurrection appearances of Jesus he once again readily classifies James with the apostles: Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor. 15:7–9)
Finally, the fact that James could write the New Testament epistle which bears his name would also be entirely consistent with his having the authority which belonged to the office of apostle, the authority to write words which were the words of God. All these considerations combine to indicate that James the Lord’s brother was also commissioned by Christ as an apostle. That would bring the number to fifteen “apostles of Jesus Christ” (the twelve plus Paul, Barnabas, and James).
Were there more than these fifteen? There may possibly have been a few more, though we know little if anything about them, and it is not certain that there were any more. Others, of course, had seen Jesus after his resurrection (“Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,” 1 Cor. 15:6). From this large group it is possible that Christ appointed some others as apostles—but it is also very possible that he did not. The evidence is not sufficient to decide the issue.
Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.” Because there are several translation problems in the verse, no clear conclusions can be reached. “Men of note” may be also translated “men noted by” (the apostles). “Junias” (a man’s name) may also be translated “Junia” (a woman’s name).7 “Apostles” here may not mean the office “apostles of Jesus Christ,” but may simply mean “messengers” (the broader sense which the word takes in Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23; John 13:16). The verse has too little clear information to allow us to draw a conclusion.
Others have been suggested as apostles. Silas (Silvanus) and sometimes Timothy are mentioned because of 1 Thessalonians 2:6: “though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” Does Paul include Silas and Timothy here, since the letter begins, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy” (1 Thess. 1:1)?
It is not likely that Paul is including Timothy in this statement, for two reasons.
(1) He says just four verses earlier, “we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know” (1 Thess. 2:2), but this refers to the beating and imprisonment which happened just to Paul and Silas, not to Timothy (Acts 16:19). So the “we” in verse 6 does not seem to include all of the people (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) mentioned in the first verse. The letter in general is from Paul, Silas and Timothy, but Paul knows that the readers will naturally understand the appropriate members of the “we” statements when he does not mean to include all three of them in certain sections of the letter. He does not specify “—that is, Silas and I—had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know,” because the Thessalonians will know who the “we” are that he is talking about.
(2) This is also seen in 1 Thessalonians 3:1–2, where the “we” certainly cannot include Timothy:
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you. (1 Thess. 3:1–2)
In this case, the “we” refers either to Paul and Silas, or else just to Paul alone (see Acts 17:14–15; 18:5). Apparently Silas and Timothy had come to Paul in Athens “as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15)—though Luke does not mention their arrival in Athens—and Paul had sent them back to Thessalonica again to help the church there. Then he himself went to Corinth, and they later joined him there (Acts 18:5).
It is most likely that “We were willing to be left behind at Athens alone” (1 Thess. 3:1), refers to Paul alone, both because he picks up the argument again in verse 5 with the singular “I” (“When I could bear it no longer, I sent that I might know your faith,” 1 Thess. 3:5), and because the point concerning extreme loneliness in Athens would not be made if Silas had stayed with him.8 In fact, in the previous paragraph, Paul means “I,” for he says, “We wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18). Apparently he is using “we” more frequently in this epistle as a courteous way of including Silas and Timothy, who had spent so much time in the Thessalonian church, in the letter to that church. But the Thessalonians would have had little doubt who was really in charge of this great mission to the Gentiles, and on whose apostolic authority the letter primarily (or exclusively) depended.
So it is just possible that Silas was himself an apostle, and that 1 Thessalonians 2:6 hints at that. He was a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), and could well have seen Jesus after his resurrection, and then been appointed as an apostle. But we cannot be very certain.
The situation with Timothy is different, however. Just as he is excluded from the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 2:2 (and 3:1–2), so he seems to be excluded from the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 2:6. Moreover, as a native of Lystra (Acts 16:1–3) who had learned of Christ from his grandmother and mother (2 Tim. 1:5), it seems impossible that he would have been in Jerusalem before Pentecost and would there have seen the risen Lord and come to believe in him, and then suddenly have been appointed as an apostle. In addition, Paul’s pattern of address in his letters always jealously guards the title “apostle” for himself never allowing it to be applied to Timothy or others of his traveling companions (note 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...and Timothy our brother”; and then Phil. 1:1: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus”). So Timothy, as important a role as he had, should not rightly be considered one of the apostles.
