Peter In Rome: A Historical and Scriptural Examination

Peter In Rome: A Historical and Scriptural Examination​

​

The question is simple: Is there any recorded instance, anywhere, that Peter ever visited Rome, outside of later Roman Catholic self‑written history?
The answer, when examined through Scripture, the testimony of the early churches, and the historical record of the first centuries, is equally simple.

No. There is no recorded instance that Peter ever even visited Rome.

The only claims that he did arise from later Roman tradition, not from the apostolic era.

Scripture never places Peter in Rome. Not once. Paul’s letters written from Rome mention many believers by name, yet Peter is never among them. The book of Acts records Paul’s entire journey to Rome in detail, but Peter is absent from the narrative. Even Peter’s own letters never claim he was in Rome.

The silence is decisive.

The early churches closest to the apostolic age, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, never wrote that Peter traveled to Rome. No first‑century or second‑century writer from those churches makes such a claim. Their testimony is consistent: Peter’s ministry was centered elsewhere, and nothing in their writings suggests a Roman visit.

Even the earliest Roman bishops did not claim Peter as their predecessor. The earliest lists of Roman bishops, preserved by writers such as Hegesippus and Irenaeus, do not describe Peter as bishop of Rome, founder of the Roman church, or holder of any monarchical office there. They simply acknowledge that Peter and Paul taught in various places, not that Peter governed Rome or established Roman primacy.

The narrative of Peter in Rome appears only in later Roman tradition. By the third and fourth centuries, Roman writers begin asserting that Peter died in Rome, that he was bishop of Rome, and that he founded the Roman church. But these claims do not come from Scripture, nor from the early churches. They arise from Rome’s own developing institutional history, written long after the apostolic era and shaped by the growing claims of Roman authority.

Even respected Roman Catholic historians acknowledge the thinness of the evidence.

Catholic Historians on Peter as Pope

Even Roman Catholic scholarship acknowledges the thinness of the claim that Peter ever served as bishop of Rome. John P. Meier, Catholic priest and historian, notes that Peter’s supposed Roman episcopacy is not supported by any first‑century documentation, and that the tradition develops only after the apostolic era. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., in From Apostles to Bishops, states plainly that there is no early evidence Peter ever served as bishop of Rome, no first‑century record placing him in the city, and that the idea of Peter as Rome’s first bishop is a later theological construction. J. N. D. Kelly, the Oxford patristics scholar frequently cited by Catholics themselves, writes that the tradition of Peter in Rome is not grounded in early historical sources and that the earliest claims are late and inconsistent. Even Oscar Cullmann, though Lutheran, remains heavily relied upon in Catholic seminaries, and he concludes that Peter’s Roman episcopacy is not historical; the evidence is late, theological, and not documentary. These scholars defend Roman tradition as part of Rome’s developing theology, but they do not pretend it is apostolic or historically attested.

The conclusion is straightforward and historically defensible:

There is no recorded instance anywhere, in Scripture, in the early churches, or in the historical record, that Peter ever even visited Rome. The claim arises only from later Roman tradition.

This conclusion is textually grounded, historically consistent, and aligned with the witness of the early assemblies.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2026 -

Free to use with proper attribution.

My understanding is that Irenaeus was the first to write of Peter being in Rome in his work Against Heresies. I understand that this was more than a century after Peter's death, but it is long before the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

Martin Marprelate said:

My understanding is that Irenaeus was the first to write of Peter being in Rome in his work Against Heresies. I understand that this was more than a century after Peter's death, but it is long before the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

Click to expand...

Martin, I am familiar with the work of Irenaeus, I have Against Heresies on my bookshelf and have read it, I do not have his work Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, but have read it, as I have read most of the early church leaders and writers. You are correct, Irenaeus does mention Peter and Paul in connection with Rome in Against Heresies. But it’s important to be precise about what he actually says, and what he does not say.

Irenaeus never claims Peter was bishop of Rome, never claims Peter founded the Roman church, and never claims Peter exercised monarchical authority there. His statement is simply that Peter and Paul “preached” in Rome and “laid the foundation” of the church, a phrase that can mean teaching, strengthening, or contributing, not necessarily physical presence. It is a theological description, not a travel log.

And yes, Irenaeus wrote this more than a century after Peter’s death, which means:

• he is not an eyewitness
• he is not quoting Scripture
• he is not quoting earlier documentary evidence
• he is repeating a tradition that had begun circulating in his time

That is why historians, including Catholic ones, treat Irenaeus’ statement cautiously. It is late, second‑hand, and not supported by earlier sources.

The earliest churches, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, never record Peter in Rome. Paul’s letters from Rome never mention Peter. Acts records Paul’s entire journey to Rome and never mentions Peter. Peter’s own letters never claim he was in Rome.

So Irenaeus is the first to mention it, but he is also:

• the first to be late
• the first to be non‑apostolic
• the first to be non‑eyewitness
• the first to be outside the apostolic era

That is why his statement cannot overturn the silence of Scripture and the silence of the earliest churches.

In short: Irenaeus is the first tradition of Peter in Rome, not the first evidence of Peter in Rome.

That distinction matters.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this,

~Tony

It seems to me that none of the apostles went west with Paul who is uniquely the "apostle to the gentiles." Silas, a prophet and one of the 70 elders was chosen to accompany him. God would send Paul to Europe with the gospel but it was established in the first missionary trip Paul and Barnabas would go to the gentiles and the other apostles would go to the circumcision

We know Peter and the other apostles used an OT expedient to choose Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle. There is no reason to believe that God led these men to do this. There are reasons to believe Matthias was not God's choice and that Barnabas was his choice and he made that known many years later at the beginning of the first missionary journey when both Paul and Barnabas were ordained by God as apostles. I will not give all my reasons for my conclusions but both Paul and Barnabas were called apostles by Luke, the writer of the Acts and Matthias was never called apostles even when Luke had the opportunity to do it. Acts 1:26 and 2:14.

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

God no doubt providentially hindered Barnabas from going with Paul because he was going to send him west to Europe and Paul would later say the "gospel of God" was "my" gospel and he would define it in Ro 16 in this manner.

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Eph 2:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

I think there is proof that none of the apostles preached in the west because that was not their calling.

JD731 said:

It seems to me that none of the apostles went west with Paul who is uniquely the "apostle to the gentiles." Silas, a prophet and one of the 70 elders was chosen to accompany him. God would send Paul to Europe with the gospel but it was established in the first missionary trip Paul and Barnabas would go to the gentiles and the other apostles would go to the circumcision

We know Peter and the other apostles used an OT expedient to choose Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle. There is no reason to believe that God led these men to do this. There are reasons to believe Matthias was not God's choice and that Barnabas was his choice and he made that known many years later at the beginning of the first missionary journey when both Paul and Barnabas were ordained by God as apostles. I will not give all my reasons for my conclusions but both Paul and Barnabas were called apostles by Luke, the writer of the Acts and Matthias was never called apostles even when Luke had the opportunity to do it. Acts 1:26 and 2:14.

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

God no doubt providentially hindered Barnabas from going with Paul because he was going to send him west to Europe and Paul would later say the "gospel of God" was "my" gospel and he would define it in Ro 16 in this manner.

Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Eph 2:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

I think there is proof that none of the apostles preached in the west because that was not their calling.

Click to expand...

I don’t have any sources to back it up right now but it is widely accepted that John was at Ephesus. He was at the very least on Patmos which is not far away from Ephesus.

Ben1445 said:

I don’t have any sources to back it up right now but it is widely accepted that John was at Ephesus. He was at the very least on Patmos which is not far away from Ephesus.

Click to expand...

It is reasonable to believe that John ministered to the same people and in the same area after the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersion of Israel from the land in AD 70 that he had before, which included Ephesus. There would have been no one for an apostle to preach to in Israel. John wrote all his 5 books after that and was the only apostle to survive the purge and his apostolic ministry lasted at least another 25 years. The divisions of the New Testament era makes more sense to me the more I read about it.

There is evidence Peter's tomb is in Jerusalem. There is no Biblical evidence Peter was ever in Rome.

JD731 said:

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Click to expand...

JD, I appreciate your thoughts, brother. Just a gentle clarification from the text itself. The word apostle simply means, as you likely know, “one sent forth; a messenger.” In Acts, Barnabas is called an apostle in that general sense, a man sent out by the Holy Spirit and recognized by the church (Acts 13:2–3; Acts 14:14). That’s the same basic idea behind what we now call an evangelist, a gospel‑preacher sent forth by the congregation.

But Scripture also shows a second, very different use of the word. Jesus Himself chose twelve men from among His disciples and “named them apostles” (Luke 6:13). This group held a unique, foundational office tied to their eyewitness role and their direct commission from Christ. Matthias was added to that number, and Luke records it without any hint of correction or reservation: “he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). When Peter stands at Pentecost, Luke again speaks of “the eleven” (Acts 2:14), showing that Matthias was fully accepted in that special office.

Matthias is the one exception in that he was an eyewitness of the risen Christ, though not commissioned by Him during His earthly ministry, as far as Scripture reveals. Yet Scripture shows he was chosen by the Lord through the lot and fully accepted among the Twelve.

Paul belongs in that same category. He saw the risen Christ and was appointed directly by Him, as he himself testifies: “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:1). His apostleship is rooted in a personal appearance of Christ and a direct commission, just like the Twelve.

None of the “general apostles”, men like Barnabas, Silas, Andronicus, or Junia, were chosen personally by Christ. They were raised up by the Spirit and sent out by the churches. Their apostleship was real, but it was functional, not foundational. The Twelve (and Paul) held a distinct office that ended with their deaths. The broader sense of being “sent ones” continues in spirit wherever the churches send forth evangelists to preach the gospel.

That’s all I’m aiming to say, brother, simply letting the text speak for itself.

If you have any further questions, brother, especially about how the apostles divided their ministry between the circumcision and the Gentiles, we can take that up whenever you’d like. I’m glad to walk through the Scriptures with you as needed, for the edification of us both.

Yours in Him,

Tony

My thoughts:

The number twelve is not accidental in Scripture. Jesus chose twelve apostles, and He Himself tied them to the twelve tribes of Israel when He said that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28). Revelation shows the same pattern when it speaks of the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb written on the foundations of the New Jerusalem “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14). The Twelve stand as the foundation of the new covenant people of God, just as the twelve tribes stood as the foundation of the old covenant nation.

The book of Acts shows them ministering in Jerusalem and among the diaspora. Peter writes to believers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” (1 Peter 1:1). James writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.” (James 1:1). These letters show that the apostles did preach to the diaspora, and that their ministry reached Jewish believers throughout the Roman world. Scripture does not trace each apostle’s travels, but it does show that their work extended beyond Jerusalem and into the scattered communities of Israel.

History adds further traditions about their travels and deaths. These accounts are ancient and widespread, but they are not part of Scripture. They may reflect real missionary journeys, or they may be later attempts to honor the apostles by connecting them to various regions. They do not change the biblical pattern. The Twelve stand in relation to Israel, and their ministry began with Israel and extended to the diaspora as the gospel moved outward.

Paul stands in a different position. He was not one of the Twelve, and he calls himself one born out of due time “And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Christ appeared to him personally and appointed him directly, and Paul identifies himself plainly as the apostle of the Gentiles “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:” (Romans 11:13). When the Lord spoke to him in Jerusalem, He said, I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles “And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 22:21). Paul explains that God revealed His Son in him so that he might preach Christ among the Gentiles “To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” (Galatians 1:16). His commission was Gentile‑focused from the beginning. In that sense, he was perhaps the thirteenth apostle, equal in authority yet appointed later and sent to a different sphere, extending the work of Christ beyond Israel to the nations.

So Scripture gives us the pattern. The Twelve correspond to the twelve tribes and form the foundation of Christ’s work among Israel. Their ministry reached the diaspora as the gospel spread. Paul, appointed later and in a unique manner, carries the gospel outward to the nations. History may add details about where each apostle traveled, but the biblical structure remains the same. The Twelve stand in relation to Israel, and Paul stands in relation to the Gentiles, each fulfilling the sphere Christ assigned to them.

~Tony

Anthony Pritchard said:

JD, I appreciate your thoughts, brother. Just a gentle clarification from the text itself. The word apostle simply means, as you likely know, “one sent forth; a messenger.” In Acts, Barnabas is called an apostle in that general sense, a man sent out by the Holy Spirit and recognized by the church (Acts 13:2–3; Acts 14:14). That’s the same basic idea behind what we now call an evangelist, a gospel‑preacher sent forth by the congregation.

Click to expand...

If you would have shown that everyone whom God has sent forth for a purpose is commonly called in the scripture record an apostle, or if you could quote anywhere the word apostle was used as you suggest you would have a stronger argument, but you didn't, and there is a reason you didn't, it is because there are none. The word apostle is used in scripture in the context of one who is commissioned of God as an officer. This office is in a kingdom context. There is a fixed number holding this office of apostle in scripture of Fourteen. They are the 12 disciples who received their commission and power in Matthew 10. One of them, namely Judas, was a devil and his fall represented a vacancy in this set number of twelve who will one day sit upon 12 thrones judging Israel. This left eleven in this group for awhile. Then there was Saul who became Paul who received his commission in Acts 13:2. At this same time Luke says that Barnabas was commissioned and his name appears before Paul's name in both Acts 13:2 and 14;14. There are no coincidences with words in scripture.

With the later commission of Paul as apostle to the gentiles the number of apostles is 13, a number that is associated with the gentile church over and over.

Here is the 14th Apostles mentioned.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
I think it is reasonable and logical to conclude that Luke would not have called Barnabas an apostle if he wasn't commissioned to the office.

Anthony Pritchard said:

But Scripture also shows a second, very different use of the word. Jesus Himself chose twelve men from among His disciples and “named them apostles” (Luke 6:13). This group held a unique, foundational office tied to their eyewitness role and their direct commission from Christ. Matthias was added to that number, and Luke records it without any hint of correction or reservation: “he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26). When Peter stands at Pentecost, Luke again speaks of “the eleven” (Acts 2:14), showing that Matthias was fully accepted in that special office.

Click to expand...

The group of 12 men whom Jesus commissioned to preach the gospel of the kingdom and to work miracles came to be known as simply "the twelve." Even if all 12 were not present they were still referred to as the twelve. On resurrection day 10 of these men became the first to receive the Holy Spirit through the breath of Jesus and were specially endowed with Christ's own authority of binding and loosing, and we saw that power demonstrated in Acts 8 by Peter in the case of the Samaritan Simon. They exercised the power of Christ himself by the power of the Spirit and that extended to the physical such as moving a mountain with a word.

This is how they were referred to at a meeting.
Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven,
Luke 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Now notice the next two verses in Acts;
Luke records this as history
Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Then Luke writes this a short time later. He stills calls them The Eleven
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice,

Notice the consistency of Luke as he references the "eleven" in both his gospel account and in the Acts.

An interesting side light. When Paul referred to this same event as Luke referenced in Luke 24:33. Here is what Paul said about it. in his epistle to the Corinthians written in AD 54 during the years Luke was travelling with him.

I cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Anthony Pritchard said:

Matthias is the one exception in that he was an eyewitness of the risen Christ, though not commissioned by Him during His earthly ministry, as far as Scripture reveals. Yet Scripture shows he was chosen by the Lord through the lot and fully accepted among the Twelve.

Click to expand...

The operative principle of Divine dealing with Israel under the OT ended at the death of Jesus Christ. From that time Israel was under the NT law of the Spirit. It is the New Covenant and it is a new dispensation.

Luke as a good historian only told us what happened concerning Matthias being chosen as an apostle. he did not give any information whether it was the Lord's choice or not. Neither did he say what he thought about it except to say he was numbered with the apostles.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Paul belongs in that same category. He saw the risen Christ and was appointed directly by Him, as he himself testifies: “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:1). His apostleship is rooted in a personal appearance of Christ and a direct commission, just like the Twelve.

Click to expand...

Paul explains his special and separate calling from the other apostles in his letters to the churches. He was trained in Arabia by the Lord and the mysteries of the church were revealed to him comprehensively. There was nowhere to learn them because they were hidden from past ages. This remains true today. One must be born again to understand these mysteries because they are taught by the indwelling Spirit of Christ and the natural man cannot grasp them in any other way. see 1 Cor 2. This fact is demonstrated on this forum every day. Some ideas here are radically opposed to the Apostolic doctrines.

Here is an example of the prophets ministry in the primitive church while God was writing his Bible that would become his authority in the churches. The first letter to the Corinthian church was the 4th letter written by Paul.

1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Note what Paul says about the mysteries of the Christian faith.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

He said he understood all mysteries:
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.



As one can see the prophets (the 70 elders of Lk 10) did not have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the church, and neither did the twelve.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (probably in the epistle to the Hebrews)
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Anthony Pritchard said:

None of the “general apostles”, men like Barnabas, Silas, Andronicus, or Junia, were chosen personally by Christ. They were raised up by the Spirit and sent out by the churches. Their apostleship was real, but it was functional, not foundational. The Twelve (and Paul) held a distinct office that ended with their deaths. The broader sense of being “sent ones” continues in spirit wherever the churches send forth evangelists to preach the gospel.

Click to expand...

I think for one to speak of the office of prophet as the office of apostle confuses the offices. A NT apostle is also a prophet but a NT prophet is not an apostle.

Anthony Pritchard said:

That’s all I’m aiming to say, brother, simply letting the text speak for itself.

If you have any further questions, brother, especially about how the apostles divided their ministry between the circumcision and the Gentiles, we can take that up whenever you’d like. I’m glad to walk through the Scriptures with you as needed, for the edification of us both.

Click to expand...

I have a study I did on the NT prophet. Perhaps later I will start a thread and share my thoughts. Meanwhile, I appreciate someone who studies the scriptures and preaches truth and thank you for sharing your insights. I am sure I agree with many of them. The difference as I see in our approach to our study is the precision of the words that God has chosen to teach us his truths. I think we need to deal with the words he gave us in the texts.

JD731 said:

If you would have shown that everyone whom God has sent forth for a purpose is commonly called in the scripture record an apostle, or if you could quote anywhere the word apostle was used as you suggest you would have a stronger argument, but you didn't, and there is a reason you didn't, it is because there are none. The word apostle is used in scripture in the context of one who is commissioned of God as an officer. This office is in a kingdom context. There is a fixed number holding this office of apostle in scripture of Fourteen. They are the 12 disciples who received their commission and power in Matthew 10. One of them, namely Judas, was a devil and his fall represented a vacancy in this set number of twelve who will one day sit upon 12 thrones judging Israel. This left eleven in this group for awhile. Then there was Saul who became Paul who received his commission in Acts 13:2. At this same time Luke says that Barnabas was commissioned and his name appears before Paul's name in both Acts 13:2 and 14;14. There are no coincidences with words in scripture.

With the later commission of Paul as apostle to the gentiles the number of apostles is 13, a number that is associated with the gentile church over and over.

Here is the 14th Apostles mentioned.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
I think it is reasonable and logical to conclude that Luke would not have called Barnabas an apostle if he wasn't commissioned to the office.

The group of 12 men whom Jesus commissioned to preach the gospel of the kingdom and to work miracles came to be known as simply "the twelve." Even if all 12 were not present they were still referred to as the twelve. On resurrection day 10 of these men became the first to receive the Holy Spirit through the breath of Jesus and were specially endowed with Christ's own authority of binding and loosing, and we saw that power demonstrated in Acts 8 by Peter in the case of the Samaritan Simon. They exercised the power of Christ himself by the power of the Spirit and that extended to the physical such as moving a mountain with a word.

This is how they were referred to at a meeting.
Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven,
Luke 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Now notice the next two verses in Acts;
Luke records this as history
Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Then Luke writes this a short time later. He stills calls them The Eleven
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice,

Notice the consistency of Luke as he references the "eleven" in both his gospel account and in the Acts.

An interesting side light. When Paul referred to this same event as Luke referenced in Luke 24:33. Here is what Paul said about it. in his epistle to the Corinthians written in AD 54 during the years Luke was travelling with him.

I cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:




The operative principle of Divine dealing with Israel under the OT ended at the death of Jesus Christ. From that time Israel was under the NT law of the Spirit. It is the New Covenant and it is a new dispensation.

Luke as a good historian only told us what happened concerning Matthias being chosen as an apostle. he did not give any information whether it was the Lord's choice or not. Neither did he say what he thought about it except to say he was numbered with the apostles.




Paul explains his special and separate calling from the other apostles in his letters to the churches. He was trained in Arabia by the Lord and the mysteries of the church were revealed to him comprehensively. There was nowhere to learn them because they were hidden from past ages. This remains true today. One must be born again to understand these mysteries because they are taught by the indwelling Spirit of Christ and the natural man cannot grasp them in any other way. see 1 Cor 2. This fact is demonstrated on this forum every day. Some ideas here are radically opposed to the Apostolic doctrines.

Here is an example of the prophets ministry in the primitive church while God was writing his Bible that would become his authority in the churches. The first letter to the Corinthian church was the 4th letter written by Paul.

1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Note what Paul says about the mysteries of the Christian faith.

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

He said he understood all mysteries:
1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.



As one can see the prophets (the 70 elders of Lk 10) did not have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the church, and neither did the twelve.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (probably in the epistle to the Hebrews)
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


I think for one to speak of the office of prophet as the office of apostle confuses the offices. A NT apostle is also a prophet but a NT prophet is not an apostle.

I have a study I did on the NT prophet. Perhaps later I will start a thread and share my thoughts. Meanwhile, I appreciate someone who studies the scriptures and preaches truth and thank you for sharing your insights. I am sure I agree with many of them. The difference as I see in our approach to our study is the precision of the words that God has chosen to teach us his truths. I think we need to deal with the words he gave us in the texts.

Click to expand...

Brother, I appreciate the time you put into this. Let me just address the central point, because everything else in your post depends on it.

You’re assuming that the word apostle is used only for men holding a fixed, numbered office. But Scripture itself uses ἀπόστολος in more than one way. Barnabas is explicitly called an apostle in Acts 14:14, and nothing in the text ties that usage to the foundational office Christ gave the Twelve. The same is true of Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), and of Silas and Timothy in 1 Thessalonians 2:6. These men were not part of the Twelve, nor part of any numbered group. They were “sent ones,” raised up by the Spirit and sent out by the churches.

That broader usage is simply there in the text. Luke uses the word that way. Paul uses the word that way. It isn’t a theory, it’s the vocabulary of Scripture.

The Twelve, on the other hand, held a unique, foundational office tied to their eyewitness role and their direct commission from Christ. Matthias was added to that number, and Luke records it without any correction or reservation. When Luke later says “the eleven,” he is using the same shorthand he used in his Gospel, a narrative label, not a doctrinal headcount. Paul does the same thing when he refers to “the twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5, even though Judas was already gone. These are narrative designations, not theological limits.

So the distinction is simple:

There is the foundational office held by the Twelve (and Paul), and there is the broader functional use of the word for men sent out by the churches. Scripture uses both. That’s all I’m saying.

I appreciate your desire for precision in the words God chose. I share that desire. But the precision has to begin with how Scripture itself uses the vocabulary, not with a fixed number imposed on the text.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Brother, I appreciate the time you put into this. Let me just address the central point, because everything else in your post depends on it.

You’re assuming that the word apostle is used only for men holding a fixed, numbered office. But Scripture itself uses ἀπόστολος in more than one way. Barnabas is explicitly called an apostle in Acts 14:14, and nothing in the text ties that usage to the foundational office Christ gave the Twelve.

Click to expand...

I do not think I am assuming anything. I am reading the word apostle from the scriptures. It is used in a certain context in the scriptures. Certain powers and spiritual gifts are associated with this office that are not associated with other believers. They are kingdom signs because apostle is in the context of God's rule over the earth. The very power of Christ was delegated to them, including power to raise the dead. They were for the purpose of confirming the gospel of Christ. Words and context are important in the scriptures.

Consider what Paul said when his apostleship was challenged by the apostates in Corinth.

1 Cor 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.

So you see an apostle is invested with gifts from the LORD that distinguishes their office from all others

Anthony Pritchard said:

The same is true of Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), and of Silas and Timothy in 1 Thessalonians 2:6. These men were not part of the Twelve, nor part of any numbered group. They were “sent ones,” raised up by the Spirit and sent out by the churches.

That broader usage is simply there in the text. Luke uses the word that way. Paul uses the word that way. It isn’t a theory, it’s the vocabulary of Scripture.

Click to expand...

I see your point but I disagree with your premise that these two men are being singled out as apostles in any particular way. Paul said this about Rufus in verse 13 just a couple verses later;

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine."

This obviously is conversational language and not an attempt to suggest he and Rufus are in the same family tree. Paul is not suggesting that Andronicus and Junia, Jews, are apostles in any way but they had ministered faithfully with the apostles at some point in their lives. Remember that Romans was penned in AD 58 when the church was already 28 years old.

In Acts 14 Luke used matter of fact language when referring to Barnabas as an apostle. The reaction of both Paul and Barnabas to those in Lystra was in the context of what the use of the sign gifts of the apostles had caused as a response of those who witnessed the miracle. Barnabas was associated with Paul in his office as apostle and that is what the text tells us. Luke could have used the word "servants" to describe this event if indeed it was what he meant. I have complete confidence in the accuracy of the words in my Bible. Servanthood and apostleship are separated in the scriptures. All apostles are servants but not all servants are apostles. I will demonstrate this.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Only a limited number of Christians can claim to be both and they will be a servant first.

Concerning Silas, he is referred to in his kingdom office as a "prophet" This is a distinct office of the kingdom and is foundational to the church of Jesus Christ. We are told this by Luke.

Ac 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

We know from our reading how the word of God was confirmed in the apostolic era of the Christian church. It was by miracles and sign gifts the apostles and prophets had been given in Matthew 10 and Luke 10 respectively for that purpose.

He 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

Anthony Pritchard said:

The Twelve, on the other hand, held a unique, foundational office tied to their eyewitness role and their direct commission from Christ. Matthias was added to that number, and Luke records it without any correction or reservation. When Luke later says “the eleven,” he is using the same shorthand he used in his Gospel, a narrative label, not a doctrinal headcount. Paul does the same thing when he refers to “the twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5, even though Judas was already gone. These are narrative designations, not theological limits.

Click to expand...

There are limits in these offices relative to the eternal order and the names of these men who hold these offices are revealed through the words of scripture. However, the answers to our questions requires study. There are names of the apostles on the foundations of New Jerusalem and there are only 12.

Eph 2:
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Anthony Pritchard said:

So the distinction is simple:

There is the foundational office held by the Twelve (and Paul), and there is the broader functional use of the word for men sent out by the churches. Scripture uses both. That’s all I’m saying.

Click to expand...

I can see your point in possibly one verse, 1 Thess 2:6. The phrase "as apostles" is definitely in the text, but it takes two mentions to build a doctrine.

Anthony Pritchard said:

I appreciate your desire for precision in the words God chose. I share that desire. But the precision has to begin with how Scripture itself uses the vocabulary, not with a fixed number imposed on the text.

Click to expand...

Thank you for expressing your belief on the subject. It is obvious we accept the "words" of scripture differently.


Re 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

There is another possibility that unfolded in the first 7 chapters of Acts (that is congruous with the hard ground in Mt 13 parable of the Sower) as God called Jerusalem and Judah to repentance, something that was a legitimate call that would have changed history going forward (unless one believes in determinism). Just as Jesus said John the Baptist could be Elijah had Israel received him, I can see that Mathias could have, and probably would have, filled the role of the 12th apostle in that circumstance had Jerusalem repented and believed in Jesus Christ and been baptized in his name. Acts is a history book and God responds to man's obedience to his word. But I may be far off on this.

I respect your opinions and want you to know that because I disagree with you on this subject, I am still your friend.

Compare this prophecy in a parable by Jesus in Luke to these first years in Acts:


Lu 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Lu 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Who knows if there would have been a Lystra narrative if Israel would have repented?

JD731 said:

I do not think I am assuming anything. I am reading the word apostle from the scriptures. It is used in a certain context in the scriptures. Certain powers and spiritual gifts are associated with this office that are not associated with other believers. They are kingdom signs because apostle is in the context of God's rule over the earth. The very power of Christ was delegated to them, including power to raise the dead. They were for the purpose of confirming the gospel of Christ. Words and context are important in the scriptures.

Consider what Paul said when his apostleship was challenged by the apostates in Corinth.

1 Cor 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.

So you see an apostle is invested with gifts from the LORD that distinguishes their office from all others


I see your point but I disagree with your premise that these two men are being singled out as apostles in any particular way. Paul said this about Rufus in verse 13 just a couple verses later;

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine."

This obviously is conversational language and not an attempt to suggest he and Rufus are in the same family tree. Paul is not suggesting that Andronicus and Junia, Jews, are apostles in any way but they had ministered faithfully with the apostles at some point in their lives. Remember that Romans was penned in AD 58 when the church was already 28 years old.

In Acts 14 Luke used matter of fact language when referring to Barnabas as an apostle. The reaction of both Paul and Barnabas to those in Lystra was in the context of what the use of the sign gifts of the apostles had caused as a response of those who witnessed the miracle. Barnabas was associated with Paul in his office as apostle and that is what the text tells us. Luke could have used the word "servants" to describe this event if indeed it was what he meant. I have complete confidence in the accuracy of the words in my Bible. Servanthood and apostleship are separated in the scriptures. All apostles are servants but not all servants are apostles. I will demonstrate this.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Only a limited number of Christians can claim to be both and they will be a servant first.

Concerning Silas, he is referred to in his kingdom office as a "prophet" This is a distinct office of the kingdom and is foundational to the church of Jesus Christ. We are told this by Luke.

Ac 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

We know from our reading how the word of God was confirmed in the apostolic era of the Christian church. It was by miracles and sign gifts the apostles and prophets had been given in Matthew 10 and Luke 10 respectively for that purpose.

He 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:


There are limits in these offices relative to the eternal order and the names of these men who hold these offices are revealed through the words of scripture. However, the answers to our questions requires study. There are names of the apostles on the foundations of New Jerusalem and there are only 12.

Eph 2:
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

I can see your point in possibly one verse, 1 Thess 2:6. The phrase "as apostles" is definitely in the text, but it takes two mentions to build a doctrine.

Thank you for expressing your belief on the subject. It is obvious we accept the "words" of scripture differently.


Re 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

There is another possibility that unfolded in the first 7 chapters of Acts (that is congruous with the hard ground in Mt 13 parable of the Sower) as God called Jerusalem and Judah to repentance, something that was a legitimate call that would have changed history going forward (unless one believes in determinism). Just as Jesus said John the Baptist could be Elijah had Israel received him, I can see that Mathias could have, and probably would have, filled the role of the 12th apostle in that circumstance had Jerusalem repented and believed in Jesus Christ and been baptized in his name. Acts is a history book and God responds to man's obedience to his word. But I may be far off on this.

I respect your opinions and want you to know that because I disagree with you on this subject, I am still your friend.

Compare this prophecy in a parable by Jesus in Luke to these first years in Acts:


Lu 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Lu 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Who knows if there would have been a Lystra narrative if Israel would have repented?

Click to expand...

Brother, thank you for taking the time to lay out your thoughts. Let me stay with the single point I’m making, because everything else you’ve written belongs to a different category. I’m not disputing the unique authority, gifts, or signs given to the Twelve (and Paul). I agree entirely that their office was foundational and distinct. My point is simply that Scripture uses the word ἀπόστολος in more than one way, and we have to let the vocabulary stand as written.

When Luke calls Barnabas an apostle in Acts 14:14, he is not describing him as one of the Twelve, nor as holding their foundational office. He is using the broader, functional sense of “one sent forth.” The text itself makes that plain. Likewise, when Paul speaks of Silas and Timothy “as apostles” in 1 Thessalonians 2:6, he is not placing them among the Twelve; he is using the same broader category. These usages are not theories, they are simply the words of Scripture.

The foundational office of the Twelve is a separate matter entirely. Their eyewitness role, their commission from Christ, their sign‑gifts, and their authority are unique. Nothing in the broader use of ἀπόστολος diminishes that. Scripture itself maintains both categories: the Twelve (and Paul) as the foundation, and other Spirit‑sent men as apostles in the functional sense. That’s all I’m saying.

As for Matthias, Luke records his appointment without any correction or reservation. The names on the foundations of the New Jerusalem will be exactly the men Christ appointed, and Scripture never suggests that Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Andronicus, or Junia belong to that group. The broader usage of the word does not touch the foundational office.

So brother, I appreciate your desire for precision. I share it. But the precision has to begin with how Scripture itself uses the vocabulary. The Twelve (and Paul) hold the unique, foundational office. Others are called apostles in the functional sense of being sent forth. Both uses are in the text. That’s the only distinction I’m making.

And yes, we remain friends even when we disagree. I appreciate your spirit and I appreciate you.

Anthony Pritchard said:

Brother, thank you for taking the time to lay out your thoughts. Let me stay with the single point I’m making, because everything else you’ve written belongs to a different category. I’m not disputing the unique authority, gifts, or signs given to the Twelve (and Paul). I agree entirely that their office was foundational and distinct. My point is simply that Scripture uses the word ἀπόστολος in more than one way, and we have to let the vocabulary stand as written.

When Luke calls Barnabas an apostle in Acts 14:14, he is not describing him as one of the Twelve, nor as holding their foundational office. He is using the broader, functional sense of “one sent forth.” The text itself makes that plain. Likewise, when Paul speaks of Silas and Timothy “as apostles” in 1 Thessalonians 2:6, he is not placing them among the Twelve; he is using the same broader category. These usages are not theories, they are simply the words of Scripture.

The foundational office of the Twelve is a separate matter entirely. Their eyewitness role, their commission from Christ, their sign‑gifts, and their authority are unique. Nothing in the broader use of ἀπόστολος diminishes that. Scripture itself maintains both categories: the Twelve (and Paul) as the foundation, and other Spirit‑sent men as apostles in the functional sense. That’s all I’m saying.

As for Matthias, Luke records his appointment without any correction or reservation. The names on the foundations of the New Jerusalem will be exactly the men Christ appointed, and Scripture never suggests that Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Andronicus, or Junia belong to that group. The broader usage of the word does not touch the foundational office.

So brother, I appreciate your desire for precision. I share it. But the precision has to begin with how Scripture itself uses the vocabulary. The Twelve (and Paul) hold the unique, foundational office. Others are called apostles in the functional sense of being sent forth. Both uses are in the text. That’s the only distinction I’m making.

And yes, we remain friends even when we disagree. I appreciate your spirit and I appreciate you.

Click to expand...

Just a couple more thoughts here on the use of the word apostle.

How does the text make this clear? This book of Acts is primarily a history book. It is what happened, what is said. Luke mentions two men as apostles. One of them is not in doubt as an actual apostle. The Holy Ghost calls out two men and separates them from the others and sends them out to evangelize. The narrative is in the context of the exercise of apostolic gifts.

Paul would use similar language in some of his epistles to churches. Example.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

The choice of Matthias as apostle is in a strictly historical narrative. There is no mention of how God views this action nor anyone else, except Luke the historian. He did not change the apostolic group from "the eleven" to the "twelve."

Luke writing about the apostolic band.

Luke 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
Luke 9:12 And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him,
Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve,
Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Luke 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luke 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
Luke 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

JD731 said:

Just a couple more thoughts here on the use of the word apostle.

How does the text make this clear? This book of Acts is primarily a history book. It is what happened, what is said. Luke mentions two men as apostles. One of them is not in doubt as an actual apostle. The Holy Ghost calls out two men and separates them from the others and sends them out to evangelize. The narrative is in the context of the exercise of apostolic gifts.

Paul would use similar language in some of his epistles to churches. Example.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

The choice of Matthias as apostle is in a strictly historical narrative. There is no mention of how God views this action nor anyone else, except Luke the historian. He did not change the apostolic group from "the eleven" to the "twelve."

Luke writing about the apostolic band.

Luke 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
Luke 9:12 And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him,
Luke 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve,
Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
Luke 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luke 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

Luke 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
Luke 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Click to expand...

I appreciate your desire to be precise with the text. Let me just restate the simple distinction I’m making, because it answers the questions you’re raising.

Luke uses “the twelve” and “the eleven” as narrative labels. They function the same way in Acts as they do in his Gospel, they describe the group as it existed at that moment in the story. That’s why he says “the eleven” after Judas’s death, and why he continues to use that label until the narrative moves forward. It’s not doctrinal commentary; it’s narrative shorthand.

The foundational office of the Twelve (and Paul) is defined by Christ’s appointment, their eyewitness role, and their unique authority. That office is distinct and never expanded. Matthias is recorded as added to that number, and Scripture gives no correction or reservation about it.

The broader use of ἀπόστολος, apostle, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Andronicus, Junia, is simply the functional sense of “one sent forth.” Luke and Paul both use the word that way. It doesn’t touch the foundational office, and it doesn’t add anyone to the Twelve.

So the distinction remains: the Twelve (and Paul) hold the foundational office; others are apostles in the functional sense. Both uses are in Scripture, and they don’t conflict.

I appreciate your careful reading, brother.

JD731 said:

...Luke the historian. He did not change the apostolic group from "the eleven" to the "twelve."
Luke writing about the apostolic band.
.....
Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Click to expand...

Oops why did you stop there?

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Jerome said:

Oops why did you stop there?

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Jerome said:

Oops why did you stop there?

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Click to expand...

It is not good wisdom to take the most obscure passages of scripture to interpret the most clear passages, IMO. At the end of the day, so to speak, there are only 12 apostles in this apostolic group and a fixed number for eternity.

What would be expected that Luke would called this group of 12 men that were real and present in Acts 6 after ministry together over a period of time from Acts 1 to Acts 6 "the twelve." It is the designation of the group. Mathias in in the group. Luke had already told us in Acts 1 that he was "numbered" in the twelve. Then later he let us know that there remained the number eleven. The question then is, did he, Matthias possess the sign gifts of an apostle and the second question is who numbered him in the group? Could Mathias minister in the same power as Jesus Christ, able to move mountains with a word and heal the sick, cast out devils and raise the dead?

The numbers become very important here in our consideration of this matter. The sign gifts, whether in the OT, beginning with Moses at the burning bush, or in the NT with the apostles and prophets is ALWAYS in the context of the NATION of Israel. Take Israel, the nation, out of the scriptural equation and find a miracle in the scriptures that are left. You will not find one. In 70 AD Israel lost her designation as a nation with the dispersion from her land and there has not been a man performing a miracle since. In the very near future when God begins to deal with Israel once again as a nation in her land, the church being full and translated, there will be multiplied miracles once again. The number 12 is God's number for his authority over heaven and earth. Likewise, the number 11 is the number that God consistently uses for Israel's falling short of his rule. Israel came into the NT with 11 apostles, one apostle short of his divine rule. Perhaps he would have ratified the choice of the disciples of Matthias had Judah repented and received a national salvation like they were called on to do but if you read the decision time, Acts 7 and it will become clear they did not .They fell short again. The gospel of Jesus Christ was not preached outside the boundaries of Jerusalem and Judah in Acts 1-7. This corresponds to the Sower broadcasting his seed on the hard wayside ground of the field in Matt 13. By the way, the number 13 is a number that prophetically is associated with "transgression and transgressors" which is overstepping the laws of God. Incidentally, both those words have 13 letters.

Let me just interject something here. I believe the Bible is a supernatural book. If the church of Jesus Christ has a miracle to observe, the Bible is it. I do not think there is anything accidental in it. That is why I believe the context of Acts 13 is a transition of God from his dealings with Judah to his dispersed nation that he had defined as "not my people," cut off from the covenants of Israel, as they occupied the territories of Asia Minor for hundreds of years and were addressed by all the Jewish preachers as "strangers and foreigners and pilgrims" in the Christian age. This is the younger son of the father in the far country in the parable of Luke 15. He would have saved them as a nation, he said, if they would have remained faithful to the "end." The end here is the end of the age, AD 70. See Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10. They were not just the church during these days but a nation and are called that twice in the texts of scriptures.

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Who Peter? Who is a chosen generation, a holy nation, a peculiar people?

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Context:
Ro 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Judah was a nation under a curse in this generation
Israel had been cursed for unbelief but had a promise of being the sons of God through a new birth

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

I believe the 12th apostle was called and anointed and separated at this transition of God when the gospel was going to Asia Minor where these people lived and his name was Barnabas. I think the year was AD 42 which is 12 years after the beginning of the church.

If you haven't ever read the Old Testament with discernment and seen the covenants God made with Israel these things will not impact you much and you will think I am a nut.

Salvation is of the Jews and I thank God for these people through whom he has raised up a saviour who has gloriously saved my everlasting soul and had promised to save anyone who will trust that he is the way to God. God loves Israel with an everlasting love and I am resolved to love what God loves. I hope that is my main concern for others while I seek to glorify God and I hope it is yours as well.