APOSTLE (one sent on a mission, an envoy, as in Isa. xviii. 2), a term used in the New Testament and in Christian literature generally, in an increasingly technical sense, for a special envoy of Jesus Christ. In its first and simplest form, the idea is present already in Mark iii. 14 f., where from the general circle of his disciples Jesus "made twelve that they should be with him, and that he might from time to time send them forth (Iva 6.7rocrrEXXp) to preach and to have authority to cast out demons." Later on (vi. 6 ff.) Jesus begins actually to "send forth" the Twelve, two by two; and it is relative to this mission (vi. 3o) they are for the first time described as "apostles" or missionary envoys. Matthew (x. I ff.) blends the calling of the Twelve with their actual sending forth, while Luke (vi. I 3) makes Jesus him self call them "apostles" (see Luke xi. 49, "prophets and apostles," where Matt. xxiii. 34, has "prophets and wise men and scribes," cf. xiii. 34, "those sent on mission") . But it is doubtful whether Jesus ever used the term for the Twelve any more than for the "seventy others" whom he "sent forth" later (Luke x. I) . The Fourth Gospel never so describes them. It simply has "a servant is not greater than his lord, neither an apostle (envoy) greater than he that sent him" (xiii. i6) ; and applies the idea of "mission" alike to Jesus (cf. Heb. iii. I, "Jesus, the apostle . . . of our profession") and to his disciples, generally, as represented by the Twelve (xvii. 18, with 3, 6 ff.) . But while ideally all Christ's disciples were "sent" with the Father's Name in charge, there were different degrees in which this applied in practice ; and so we find "apostle" used in several senses.
In the Apostolic age itself, "apostle" often denoted simply an "envoy," commissioned by Jesus Christ to be a primary witness and preacher of the Messianic Kingdom. This sense was shown by Lightfoot (commentary on Galatians) to exist in the New Testament, e.g., in I. Cor. xii. 28 f., Eph. iv. II, Rom. xvi. 7, Rev. ii. 2 ; and his view has since been emphasized by the discovery of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (see DIDACHE), with its itinerant order of "apostles." These together with "prophets" (cf. Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5) and "teachers," constituted a charismatic and unordained ministry of the Word, in some part of the Church (in Syria?) even during the early sub-apostolic age. Paul, our earliest witness, also (I. Cor. xv. 5 ff.) seems to quote the lan guage of Palestinian tradition, in saying that Christ "appeared to Cephas; then to the Twelve; then . . . to James; then to the apostles one and all eras iz roo r6Xocs ir&o t) ; and last of all . . . to me also." The appearance to "all the Apostles" must refer to the final commission given by the risen Christ to certain assembled disciples (Acts i. 6 ff., cf. Luke xxiv. 33), including not only the Twelve and the Lord's brethren (i. 13 f.), but also some of the Seventy. Of this inner circle of personal disciples during Jesus's earthly ministry, we get a further glimpse in the election of one from their number to fill Judas's place among the Twelve (i. 21 ff.), as the primary official witnesses of Messiah and his resurrection. Many of the 120 then present (Acts i. 15) must have been disciples who by recent commission had been made "apostles." Among such were Judas Barsabbas and Silas (Acts xv. 22, cf. 1. 23), if not also Barnabas (I. Cor. ix. 6) and Andronicus and Junias or Junia (Rom. xvi. 7). If Junia be cor rect, a woman might be an "apostle" or primary missionary.
So far, we gather that the original Palestinian type of apostle ship meant simply (a) personal mission from the risen Christ (cf. I. Cor. ix. I), following on (b) personal intercourse with Jesus in his earthly ministry. It was pre-eminence in the latter qualifica tion that gave the Twelve their special status among apostles (Acts i. 26, ii. 14, vi. 2 ; in Acts generally they are simply "the apostles") . Conversely, it was Paul's lack in this respect which lay at the root of his difficulties as an apostle.
It is possible, though not certain, that even those Judaizing mis sionaries at Corinth whom Paul styles "false-apostles" or, ironic ally, "the superlative apostles" (II. Cor. xi. 5, 13 ; xii. I I), rested part of their claim to superiority over Paul on (b), possibly even as having done service to Christ when on earth (II. Cor. xi. 18, 23). There is no sign in II. Cor. that they laid claim to (a). If this be so, they were "Christ's apostles" only indirectly, "through men" (as some alleged touching Paul, cf. Gal. i. I), i.e., as sent forth on mission work by certain Jerusalem leaders with letters of introduction (II. Cor. iii. I) .
When Jesus selected an inner circle of disciples for continuous training by personal intercourse, his choice of "twelve" had direct reference to the tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 3o). This gave them a symbolic or representative character as a closed body (cf. Rev. xxi. 14), marking them off as the primary leaders and authority (cf. Acts ii. 42, "the apos tles' teaching") among the "disciples" or "brethren," when these began to assume the form of a community or church. Naturally, then, they took the lead, collectively—in form at least though really the initiative lay with one or two of their own number, Peter in particular. The process of differentiation from their fellow-apostles was furthered by the concentration of the Twelve, or at least of their leaders (cf. Gal. i. 19), in Jerusalem, for a con siderable period (Acts viii. 1, cf. xii. i seq.; an early tradition specifies twelve years). Other apostles soon went forth on their mission to "the cities of Israel" (Matt. x. 23, cf. Acts ix. 31 seq.), and so exercised but little influence on the central policy of the Church. Hence their shadowy existence in the New Testament, though Matt. x. 5-42, read in the light of the Didache, may help us to conceive their work in its main features.
But differentiation between apostles existed among the Twelve also. There were "pillars," like Peter and John (and his brother James until his death), who often de termined matters of grave moment, as in the conference with Paul in Gal. ii. 9. Such pre-eminence was but the sequel of per sonal distinctions rooted in the preparatory days of discipleship; and it warns against viewing the primitive facts touching apostles in the official light of later times.
The same lesson emerges when we note that one such apostolic "pillar" stood outside the Twelve altogether, viz., James, the Lord's brother (Gal. ii. 9, cf . i. 19) ; and further, that "the Lord's brethren" seem to have ranked above "apostles" generally, being names between them and Peter (in I. Cor. ix. 5). That is, they too were apostles, with the addition of a certain personal distinction.
Such personal pre-eminence has left its marks on the lists of the Twelve in the New Testament. Thus Peter, James, John, Andrew, always appear as the first four, though the order varies, Mark representing relative prominence during Christ's ministry, and Acts (i. 13) actual influence in the Apostolic Church (cf. Luke viii. 51, ix. 28).
So far apostles are only of the Palestinian type, taken from among actual hearers of the Messiah and with a mission primarily to Jews—apostles "of the circumcision." Now, however, emerges a new apostleship; that to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 7-9). With the change of mission goes also some change in the type of missionary or apostle. Of this type Paul was the first, and he remained its primary, and in some senses its only, example. Though he could claim, on occa sion, to satisfy the old test of having seen the risen Lord (I. Cor. ix. I, cf. xv. 8), he himself laid stress not on this, but on the reve lation within his own soul of Jesus as God's Son, and of the Gospel latent therein (Gal. i. 16). Here lay both his qualification and his credentials, once the fruits of the divine inworking were manifest in the success of his missionary work (Gal. ii. 8 seq.; I. Cor. xi. I seq.; II. Cor. iii. 2 seq., xii. 12). But this new criterion of apos tleship was capable of wider application, one dispensing alto gether with vision of the risen Lord—which could not even in Paul's case be proved so fully as for the original apostles—but appealing to the "signs of an apostle" (I. Cor. ix. 2; II. Cor. xii. 12), the tokens of spiritual gift visible in work done, and particu larly in planting the Gospel in fresh fields (II. Cor. x. 14-18). It may be in this wide charismatic sense that Paul uses the term in I. Cor. xii. 28 f., Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11. That he used it in senses differing with the context is proved by I. Cor. xv. 9, where he styles himself "the least of apostles," although in other connec tions he claims the very highest rank, co-ordinate even with the Twelve as a body (Gal. ii. 7 seq.), in virtue of his distinctive Gospel.
This point of view was not always shared even in circles appre ciative of his actual work. To many he seemed but a fruitful worker within lines determined by "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" as a body (Rev. xxi. 14). So we read of "the plant (Church) which the twelve apostles of the Beloved shall plant" (Ascension of Isaiah, iv. 3) ; "those who preached the Gospel to us (especially Gentiles) . . .; unto whom He gave authority over the Gospel, being twelve for a witness to the tribes" (Barn. viii. 3, cf. v. 9, cf. T he Preaching of Peter in Clem. Alex.) . Later on, however, his own claim told more and more on the Church's mind, and his epistles were read in church as a collection styled simply "the Apostle." As the primary medium of the Gentile Gospel (Gal. i. 16, cf. i. 8, ii. 2) Paul had no peers, unless it were Barnabas, who shares with him the title "apostle" in Acts xiv. 4, 14—possibly with ref erence to the special "work" on which they had recently been "sent forth by the Spirit" (xiii. 2, 4).
In the sub-apostolic age, the class of "missionaries" enjoying a charisma conceived to convey apostolic commission through the Spirit, soon became distinguished from "apostles" (cf. Hermas, Sim. ix. 15. 4, "the apostles and teachers of the message of the Son of God," so 25. 2 ; in 17. I the apostles are reckoned as twelve). The title became confined by usage to the Twelve as a body, or to them and Paul (e.g., in Clement and Ignatius), as reverence for these latter grew in connection with their story in the Gospels and in Acts. Thus Eusebius describes as "evangelists" (cf. Philip the Evangelist in Acts xxi. 8, also Eph. iv. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 5) those who "occupied the first rank in the succession to the Apostles" in missionary work (Hist. Eccl. iii. 37, cf. v. 1o). Yet the adjective "apostolic" was applied to men like Polycarp and even to a certain Alexander, martyred at Lyons in A.D.
7 (Eus. v. I).
authority attaching to apostles was essentially spiritual in character and in the conditions of its exercise. Anything like officialism among his followers was alien to Jesus's own teaching (Matt. xxiii. 6-11). All Christians were "brethren," and the basis of pre-eminence among them was service. But the personal rela tion of the original apostles to Jesus himself gave them a unique fitness as authorized witnesses, from which flowed naturally, by spiritual influence, such special forms of authority as they came gradually to exercise in the early Church. "There is no trace in Scripture of a formal commission of authority for government from Christ Himself" (Hort., Chr. Eccl. p. 84) given to apostles, save as representing the brethren in their collective action. Even the "resolutions" (dogmata) of the Jerusalem conference were not set forth by the apostles present simply in their own name. They expressed "a claim to deference rather than a right to be obeyed" (Hort, op. cit. 81-85). Such was the kind of authority attaching to apostles, whether collectively or individually. It was not a fixed notion, but varied in quantity and quality with the growing maturity of converts. This is how Paul conceives the matter. The exercise of his spiritual authority is not absolute, lest he "lord it over their faith"; consent of conscience or of "faith" is ever requisite (II. Cor. i. 24; cf. Rom. xiv. 23). But the principle was elastic in application, and would take more patri archal forms in Palestine than in the Greek world. So the notion of formal or constitutional authority attaching to the apostolate, in its various senses, is an anachronism for the apostolic age. The tendency, however, was for their authority to be conceived more and more on formal lines, and finally as absolute.
This change of conception fostered the notion of a devolution of apostolic powers to successors, constituted by act of ordination. "The doctrine of Apostolic Succession," says Dr. Sanday (The Primitive Church and Reunion, 1913, p. 81) "represents a real continuity, expressed in the relative and symbolical form appro priate to the time." In its earliest form it meant re-emergence in others of the apostolic spirit of missionary enthusiasm (Euseb. iii. 37, v. 1o). Of apostolic succession in grace conferred by or dination, there is no suggestion before Irenaeus. Clement of Rome (xliv. 2) refers simply to the succession of one set of men to another in an office of apostolic institution. Nor is there even in Irenaeus any idea of sacerdotal grace attaching to the succession in apostolic truth. But once the idea of supernatural grace going along with office as such arose in connection with successio ab apostolis, the full development of the doctrine was but a matter of time. (See C. H. Turner, The Early History of the Church and the Ministry, ed. Swete, 1918.) Individual Apostles.—Here the striking thing is the little known of most of the Twelve after the opening of Acts : which suggests doubts as to their ex officio influence and authority qua apostles (cf. Rev. xxi. 14).
(a Greek name) : brother of Simon Peter, of Bethsaida on the Lake of Galilee. He had been a disciple of John the Bap tist, through whom he first met Jesus (John i. 35-44). After his definite call he lived for a time with Peter and their fishing part ners James and John (Luke v. 1o), at Capernaum (Mark i. 16 ff. 29). In the gospel story he is present on some important occa sions as one of an inner circle among the Twelve (Mark xiii. 3 ; John vi. 8, xii. 22). In the Fourth Gospel he appears in close association with Philip, his fellow-townsman (vi. 8, xii. 22), whose friendly human spirit he may have shared. After the fall of Jerusalem he seems to have gone with John to the region of Ephesus (Mur. Canon). Later traditions make him preach in Scythia, and suffer crucifixion at Patras in Achaea, on a cross of the form called decussata (X) and commonly known as "St. An drew's cross." His Acts and Gospel were declared apocryphal by the Decretum Gelasii. His festival is Nov. 3o.
In the New Testament he appears only in the lists of apostles, always after Philip. This suggests that the name, "son of Tolmai," describes him who is called in John i. 45 ff. Nathanael, who was Philip's special friend, and reappears in xxi. 2, while "Bartholomew" is absent from this Gospel. The legends touching him are various and confused (see Eus. v. Io, Lipsius in Diet. of Cur. Biog. s.v., and M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.T., which last may also be consulted for his Gospel). His festival is Aug. 24.
Elder brother of John, since he stands before him in the Gospels, save in Luke viii. 51, ix. 28 (cf. Acts i. 13)—where James' early martyrdom (Acts xii. 2) prob ably affects the perspective. If their mother Salome (Mark xv. 40, Matt. xxvii. 56) was a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (cf. John xix. 25), they were his cousins; and this would suit her re questing special privileges for them in the Messianic Kingdom (Matt. xx. 20 f.) as well as her ministering to Jesus and the Twelve (Mark xv. 4o f., Luke vii. 3) of her means. Perhaps one of them was the companion of Andrew in John i. 35-4o. For what was common to him and his brother, including the sobriquet "Boanerges," see JOHN. From his being singled out by Herod Agrippa for martyrdom (in A.D. 44, Acts xii. 2) we may infer that his zealous spirit (Luke ix. 52 ff.) made him a marked leader in the early Jerusalem Church. The legends touching him are not to be trusted (cf. Hastings' Diet. of the Bible).
as distinct from the last : otherwise unknown. Can he have been brother to the "Levi, son of Alphaeus" of Mark ii. 14 (cf. Matt. x. 3, where "Matthew [ = Levi] the Tax-collector" immediately precedes "James the son of Alphaeus") ? (cf. JAMES.) John: see special article.
in Luke's lists (vi. 16, Acts i. 13), in stead of Thaddaeus, both probably being names of the same man. Perhaps = "Judas, not Iscariot" in John xiv. 22. In the Edessene Abgar legend (Eus. i. 13) "Judas, who also is Thomas" (see below) sends as envoy ("apostle") Thaddaeus, "one of the Seventy"—perhaps a way of removing Thaddaeus from the Twelve in favour of Lebbaeus, whom the "Western" text sub stituted.
see special article.
see special article.
(see above "Bartholomew") : in John xxi. 2 he is described as of Cana in Galilee.
see special article.
the fifth in all lists (Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13) . He is a mere name in the Synoptics, but rather prominent in the Fourth Gospel. There he is "of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter"; like them he first meets Jesus when a disciple of the Baptist "beyond Jordan" ; and at once he introduces Nathanael to Jesus (John i.
; cf. 28). His close association with Andrew continues in this Gospel (xii. 21 seq., cf. vi. 5, 8) . Philip is also one of the few interlocutors in John xiv. (8 seq.). The character suggested by all these passages is one marked by quick and large human sympathies, a friendly man. Some see in the similarity of characteristics between him and Philip the Evangelist in Acts proof that the picture of the Apostle in the Fourth Gospel has been coloured by confusion with the latter, who seems to have been a prominent figure in the region where this Gospel took shape. Such confusion arose later on (see Eus. iii. 31, 39, v. 24, cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 6), and may make the Apostle's residence in Asia Minor doubtful (yet see Lightfoot, Coloss. 45 seq.) ; but hardly warrants the inference as to the Fourth Gospel (cf. the two "Johns" s.v. JOHN) . Philip appears in various late apocryphal writings (see e.g. M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.T.), probably with no historical basis.
"the Zealot" (as Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13) in Aramaic, a name borne by those burning with patri otic anger against the Roman domination and inclined to a policy of force. Whether Simon had actually been one of them is not clear. If so, his fidelity to Jesus is a tribute to his Master's spiritual power.
perhaps the Greek name (? = Theudas, so Dal man, if'ords of Jesus, p. 5o) of "Judas (son) of James" (above). In legend he is the missionary of Edessa (Eus. i. 13) : see above "Judas." Thomas: interpreted in John xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2 by "Didymus" or "Twin," and there playing a significant part as a type of serious minded loyalty in the face of hard daunting facts. In John xiv. 22 Syr. Sin. reads Thomas for Judas, possibly with reference to his questioning mind (xx. 24 seq.), cf. Judas above. For his story outside the New Testament, see THOMAS, ST.
