Link,

I would only affirm and also add to those who have already replied to you by saying that apostolos has both a narrow and a broader usage in the N.T. First, as we would all agree, it refers to the core group of men who were disciples of the Lord Christ and who were eye witnesses to His earthly presence, with the exception of Paul who was given a special manifestation of the risen Lord. These men were given special authority and gifts for the purpose of establishing the new covenant Church. Secondly, in the broader sense, there were those men called apostles who were commissioned to further the outreach of the Church through the preaching of the Gospel and the teaching of doctrine, but who were under the direct authority and supervision of the original 12/13. We see mention of such men as Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14, 27; Gal 2:9), James (1Cor 15:5-8), Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), and Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 2:6).

There is really no solid evidence that one who was an "apostle" was the equivalent of a "missionary". We can see that to be an "apostle" was more than being one who preached, (cf. 2Tim 1:11). All the disciples were supposed to be preachers but not all were apostles, (cf. 1Cor 12:29). It is interesting to note that during one period, they were all taken up with preaching except the apostles, (cf. Acts 8:4).

Lastly, it is vitally important to remember that the purpose of the Apostles was to establish the Church, thus the place of the Apostles and Prophets was temporary, (cf. Eph 2:20; 4:11) and disappeared after their function had been fulfilled. For a detailed excursus on this matter see here: Gaffin and Grudem on Ephesians 2:20 by R. Fowler White.

One may chose to call modern-day missionaries "apostles", but at best it is an accommodation of language but it has no biblical basis or relationship to those called "Apostles" in the New Testament.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]