Were Andronicus and Junia apostles?

[tonychanyt]

Jn 13:

16 I tell you the truth, slaves are not greater than their master. Nor is the messenger more important than the one who sends the message.

Strong's Greek: 652. ἀπόστολος (apostolos) — 80 Occurrences

a messenger
ἀπόστολος (apostolos)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 652: From apostello; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ.

G652 had a few nuances. BDAG:
① of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger
② of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy
ⓒ but predominately in the NT (of the apologists, only Just.) of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys.

ESV Romans 16:

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to [ἐν] the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

ESV wasn't so sure they were apostles.

NIV:

They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

NIV was more sure.

The Greek preposition was ambiguous. Berean Literal Bible:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, and who were in Christ before me.

Was Junia a woman?

John Chrysostom (347-407 CE) thought Junia was a female apostle.

Wiki:

All others in the first millennium of the ancient church also took the name to be feminine.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Paul calls them apostles, not that the apostles that knew Jesus personally, the remaining 11, all came together to talk about the many thousands of Christians at that moment. They had an ancient postal service between them in Rome and Russia and Greece, Jerusalem, India and Egypt... it could not work that they took "note".

 

[David Lamb]

Paul calls them apostles, not that the apostles that knew Jesus personally, the remaining 11, all came together to talk about the many thousands of Christians at that moment. They had an ancient postal service between them in Rome and Russia and Greece, Jerusalem, India and Egypt... it could not work that they took "note".

Paul doesn't say that Andronicus and Junia are apostles; he says that among the apostles, they were of note, in ither words, the apostles counted them as noteworthy. As John Gill wrote in his commentary on the verse concerned: "they were well known by, and in great account with the twelve apostles, though not of their number." Barnes gives a more lengthy comment: "This does not mean that they were apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For,

1. there is no account of their having been appointed as such.

2. The expression is not one which would have been used if they [had] been. It would have been, "who were distinguished apostles." Comp. Ro 1:1 1Co 1:1 2Co 1:1 Col 1:1.

3. It by no means implies that they were apostles. All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before he was himself converted. They had been converted before he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honoured with the friendship of the other apostles.

4. The design of the office of apostles was to bear witness to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ. Comp. Mt 10 Ac 1:21,22 22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been witnesses of these things, or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office,

5. The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25 2Co 8:23.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Paul doesn't say that Andronicus and Junia are apostles; he says that among the apostles, they were of note, in ither words, the apostles counted them as noteworthy. As John Gill wrote in his commentary on the verse concerned: "they were well known by, and in great account with the twelve apostles, though not of their number." Barnes gives a more lengthy comment: "This does not mean that they were apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For,

1. there is no account of their having been appointed as such.

2. The expression is not one which would have been used if they [had] been. It would have been, "who were distinguished apostles." Comp. Ro 1:1 1Co 1:1 2Co 1:1 Col 1:1.

3. It by no means implies that they were apostles. All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before he was himself converted. They had been converted before he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honoured with the friendship of the other apostles.

4. The design of the office of apostles was to bear witness to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ. Comp. Mt 10 Ac 1:21,22 22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been witnesses of these things, or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office,

5. The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25 2Co 8:23.

In the early days the young Andronicus and Junias were not yet distinguished and mentioned in Romans about 65 AD then they had become so. There were 11 surviving apostles, James had died. And the apostles could only confer through the ancient postal system. And there were ten thousand believers to sort through, across Russia, Greece, India, Egypt and Rome. We alive today should be able to bear witness to the fact of the resurrection. So I disagree.