Does "Apostle" Mean "Missionary?"

In my thread on the Great Commissison, I brought up the fact that most veteran missionaries I know believe that the word "apostle" in the NT means "missionary" in today's language. I was asked why, and this is what I wrote:

Consider these facts:

(1) The 12 (I include Matthias) were special in that they will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, and their names will be in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
(2) However, there are quite a few more than just 12 apostles mentioned in the Bible. Most commentators simply ignore this inconvenient fact, like the seminary prof I had who taught 4 credits worth of the book of Acts but hardly mentioned missions.
(3) As I said above, the evangelist = missionary view is hard to defend. What else is left? Apostles!
(4) We have a whole book, the Acts of the Apostles, which describes cross-cultural, church-planting missions work done by who? Apostles!

Try to shake my belief that I am an apostle (though not a special one like the 12). Go ahead--make my thread!! :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :type:

 

I don't get it, rlvaughn. What are the additional options for missionary other than "apostle" or "evangelist"?

 

It means a lot to me, as a missionary!! It means I get to read the book of Acts with personal relevance, instead of thinking, "Oh, those guys are apostles, I can't be like them. Their office ceased in the first century."

 

The view that an apostle must be one who was taught by Christ is based solely on two passages. First of all, in Acts 1:21-22, the replacement for the Judas had to be someone who was a witness of the resurrection and had been with the other 11 from the start. Thus, it doesn't apply to the other apostles in the NT.

The second passage is 1 Cor. 9:1, where Paul says, "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" However, the phrases here are parallel. There is no statement of purpose, such as, "I am an apostle because I have seen the Lord."

Concerning where the other apostles in the NT are, here are just a few: Baranabas is called an apostle along with Paul in Acts 14:14, Andronicus and Junia in Acts 16:7, James the Lord's brother in Gal. 1:19, Silvanus and Timothy in 1 Thess. 2:6 (compare with 1:1). Also, the word "messenger" in Phil. 2:25 is the Greek apostolos, indicating that Epaphroditus was an apostle. The same goes for 2 Cor. 8:23.

 

Oh, don't worry, I don't go around calling myself an apostle. The typicil Baptist would unthinkingly think I had gone Charismatic!

But tell me more about your position. Why is the technical meaning inappropriate for missionaries? When did the office of apostle cease, and why? Eph. 4:11 lists apostle with pastor, evangelist, etc., and no one thinks those offices have ceased.

 

Let me put it this way. If, believing that the office of apostle has ceased, a theologian does a proper exegesis of Acts 13, he must logically say to me, "Sorry, John, you can't claim this passage is talking about a missionary and his sending church. Those guys were apostles and you are not." With that, the whole Biblical basis for a modern missionary going home on furlough and reporting to his sending church after his term collapses. Yet that is what Paul and Barnabas did after their first missionary journey--they returned to the church at Antioch and reported.

 

But you see, my point is not that it is one or the other, my point is that they are exactly the same!

I agree that it wasn't a divine requirement, and that strengthens my argument that there were more legitimate apostles than the twelve.

Note these direct statements (I'll let you look up the other passages yourself):

Acts 14:14--"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul...."

Rom. 16:7--"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles."

 

I'm willing to go with two categories of apostle. In my OP I noted that the 12 (I include Matthias, since he was "numbered with the apostles") were special, since the 12 will judge the 12 tribes and have their names in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

Both categories are missionaries, though. I have a wonderful book entitled The Search for the Twelve Apostles, by William McBirnie, which gives the history of each individual apostle and how they did cross-cultural evangelism. Foxe's Book of Martyrs also does this some, to an extent.

 

You are arguing from etymology rather than usage. My definition of apostle, based on 1st century usage, is "one who is sent with a mission or message."

I'm not sure how you are equating the modern concept of evangelist with missionary. Please explain further, and equate it with the Biblical term "evangelist."

Gotta go to the church and do some apostle work, I mean missionary work. :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

 

Okay, I see where you are coming from. But it doesn't quite fit. Church planting missionaries usually stay in one place for a long time. Even the apostle Paul stayed in Ephesus for three years, and other places for a long time. We may have a home base and preach in several towns around, but we still locate in one place.

Note that Philip the evangelist was not a church planter. Sure, he did evangelistic work in another town and saw a lot of people come to Christ. But when push came to shove, he called the apostles over from Jerusalem to establish the work (Acts 8). I consider apostles/missionaries to be foundation builders, or the founders of churches in that respect.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand" (Rom. 15:20-21).