Stephen the Apostle or Stephen - the Holy Spirit Filled Deacon

Wouldn't you use your bible and refer to Acts 6:1-5?

yes Dave....but these days I try to imagine real world scenarios in which Logos software might give a quick, fast, easily searched for outcome.

The Bible is always the first primary source (thanks for the reminder too).

Ever heard anyone refer to Stephen as an Apostle?

Maybe taking the person aside privately later and asking them "Can you show me in your Bible where Stephen is listed or described as an Apostle?".
It would be great to say "I used my Logos software and asked it - Was Stephen an Apostle?" and see the software definitely say no.

Many are so accustomed to saying "The Apostle Paul" that I can imagine that someone could easily say "The Apostle Stephen" as well.

I was also a little curious if many or any had heard Stephen described as an apostle in a group setting too.

Stephen was a deacon (spirit filled) not an apostle, end of discussion. I would immediately make the correction in a friendly way. Paul was an apostle by the will of God and chosen by Christ not men - no doubts there either. I had someone flipping the switch and teach cohabitation equals marriage and I immediately stopped him on his tracks and made sure people understood the Bible's teaching on the subject by preparing lessons on the subject. Some who were cohabiting got married and others who didn't want commitment, unfortunately, left the church and remain lost and living in fornication...sad. But yes, if it's being taught in public, address the issue right away.

My 2 cents!

DAL

It would be great to say "I used my Logos software and asked it - Was Stephen an Apostle?" and see the software definitely say no.

I prefer my software to provide accurate information.[:P]

[quote]

Members of this Greek-speaking congregation disputed with the apostle Stephen (Acts 6:9) and

Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 392.

[quote]

beginning with the stoning of the apostle Stephen shortly after the crucifixion of Christ

Tim LaHaye, Jesus (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2009).

[quote]

We may read of the like of these, Acts 7:51, where the Apostle Stephen is preaching to some Jews,

Samuel Rutherford, Quaint Sermons of Samuel Rutherford (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1885), 340.

[quote]

I remember the Apostle Stephen when he was stoned, and persecuted; there was a Spirit in him

A Friend’s Discourse, Delivered at an Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, in Boston, on Friday the 30th of August, 1728. Taken down in Short Hand, Examined by Several That Heard It, and Now at Their Desire Made Publick., Early American Imprints, 1639-1800; No. 3028 (Boston: Printed for N. Belknap, and sold at his shop, near Scarlet’s Wharf, at the North End, 1728), 11.

[quote]

The Apocalypse which bears the name of Stephen the Apostle, apocryphal.

A. E. Breen, A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, Second Edition (Rochester, NY: John P. Smith Printing Company, 1908), 607.

Ever heard anyone refer to Stephen as an Apostle?

Depends upon how they are using the term "apostle" ... to me he was an "apostle" but not an "Apostle" - the latter being limited to the 12. I have not seen him referred to as a capital A apostle - heard I can't tell the intended capitalization. [:(] Okay if you look above you'll see I'm wrong here. [:$]

end of discussion.

nope, I continued it [;)]

teach cohabitation equals marriage

And perhaps in the Greco-Roman culture of the first century it did:

In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages. Normally civil and religious officials took no part in marriage ceremonies, nor did they keep registries. There were several more or less formal ceremonies to choose from (partly interchangeable, but sometimes with different legal ramifications) as well as informal arrangements. It was relatively common for couples to cohabit with no ceremony; cohabiting for a moderate period of time was sufficient to make it a marriage. Cohabiting for the purpose of marriage carried with it no social stigma.

I wouldn't feel the need, no. Especially given that church leaders were scratching the heads on the term well before there was a New Testament.

I'm most impressed with the Apostle Jesus. I assume upper-cased relative to his divinity. As Dave suggested, the Bible is a good source.

"I found one answer faster and more simply by doing a google search asking "Was Stephen an Apostle?""

How long takes Google?

It took me 1 Seond to get the Answer...just read Act 1:21-23

The better Question would be is Stephen gifted with the Gift of an Apostle.

The better Question would be is Stephen gifted with the Gift of an Apostle.

Or even "what do I mean by apostle in this context?" - a necessary question when a word has more than one meaning.

Stephen was a deacon (spirit filled) not an apostle, end of discussion. I would immediately make the correction in a friendly way. Paul was an apostle by the will of God and chosen by Christ not men - no doubts there either. I had someone flipping the switch and teach cohabitation equals marriage and I immediately stopped him on his tracks and made sure people understood the Bible's teaching on the subject by preparing lessons on the subject. Some who were cohabiting got married and others who didn't want commitment, unfortunately, left the church and remain lost and living in fornication...sad. But yes, if it's being taught in public, address the issue right away.

My 2 cents!

DAL

In my view DAL is absolutely correct. Stephen was designated a deacon in the Word of God and not an apostle (Acts 6:1-6) I believe that to call him an apostle in the context of Acts is to confuse the use of the term apostle in that book. Indeed, when choosing a substitute for Judas the apostles defined who might be added to their number as an apostle: 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22).  Stephen was not among those considered for election and perhaps did not meet that criteria.  

I can understand why some might be tempted to call him an apostle because of his evangelism and the miracles that accompanied his work, but  equally, being filled with the Holy Spirit and having miracles including healing and deliverance are some of the signs of being a believer. Mark 16:15-20 is still in my Bible. From that perspective, signs and wonder's alone don't make an apostle - even if it were possible to have apostles today (an open question).  

If the issue arises in a public group, I personally would hesitate to correct the person if it was likely just a slip of the tongue or the person was young or inexperienced. In any other case, gently mentioning to the public group that Stephen was a deacon according to Acts would usually be sufficient.

Keep well Paul

 I believe that to call him an apostle in the context of Acts is to confuse the use of the term apostle in that book

Except the use of the term apostle isn't totally consistent in the book of Acts with Barnabas being referred to in this way in 14:14

Not arguing that Stephen was an apostle!

This discussion with opinions asserted and evidence given illustrates why when I mean the Twelve, I say the Twelve or the Twelve Apostles. I remove the ambiguity of language by using precise language.

To add to the confusion in Luke the same author writes:

[quote]Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Lk 11:49.

 I believe that to call him an apostle in the context of Acts is to confuse the use of the term apostle in that book

Except the use of the term apostle isn't totally consistent in the book of Acts with Barnabas being referred to in this way in 14:14

Not arguing that Stephen was an apostle!

Thanks Graham - That's interesting.  I wonder if the term 'apostle' is being used more loosely in Acts 14:14 perhaps because of Paul's self designation as an apostle and Barnabas' association with him? By Acts 15:2 and 22 we have verses in which Paul and Barnabas appear to be distinguished from the apostles (presumably the Twelve) and elders and no further reference to Barnabas having that title. 

MJ has a good point about precise language and making "The Twelve" a reference point - it avoids a lot of problems. Of course, there's a slight ambiguity in apostolic credentials as the criteria for defining who was to be an apostle (at Acts 1:21-22) was determined by "the Eleven" !   [;)]   Fascinating stuff.  Keep well Paul     

Luke in Gospel and Acts pointed Apostel only to the 12. The only Verse is Act 14:14 where he calls Paul and Barnabas Apostel. When he wrote to Theophilus in the 60 it gave several Groups.

1. The 12 Apostel

2. Paul

3. The Gift of the Apostel witch we see in Act 14:14

4. Apostels who call themself Apostle and are not.

My Thought is, Luke uses the Term Apostel just for the 12 to not confuse Theophilus with all the others     

I belong to a denomination that sees the role of "small a" apostles as continuing (called New Frontiers), but they have a fairly similar role (in broad strokes) to Bishops in many other denominations. A church is run by elders (assisted by deacons), and a group of churches is overseen by an apostle.

The term itself is getting used less and less (basically because of the panicked reaction it can bring about, when people wrongly assume that we believe they have equal authority to the 12), but the idea is for them to pattern their role after Paul, Barnabas, Mark, etc in Acts - they appoint elders, they help plant and establish churches, and then speak into them, make sure we're on the same track, hold leaders accountable, encourage them, etc.

Regarding Stephen, I wouldn't recognise his role as an apostle, because he seemed to be stationed and under the authority of elders. But I have no issue with people using the term differently, and even on my own terms I'm open to correction.

We might look to the Church Fathers to get their take...

There seems to be no argument that Stephen was called a deacon, it's easy to find if you have any of the resources like the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and Ante-Nicene Fathers series. "Apostle" seems less clear, Origen, Justin Martyr and John of Damascus call Stephen an apostle for example, but several, including the likes of Augustine all the way to the 4th century, specifically separate Stephen out when referring to apostles. Maybe Stephen was considered an apostle early-on and as the significance/definition of "apostle" was discerned, opinion was changed? So you can probably make a case for either side of this argument.

Paul also was under the authority of elders cause he was sent to the Apostel Concil by the Elders of his Church ;-)

Come on guys, just admit that the term "apostle" like many words has multiple meanings one of which is limited to the twelve (what I refer to as capital A Apostle) and at least three of which are not (see the dictionary definition I provided near the top of this thread). If you start with a false premise (the term has one and only one meaning) and ignore evidence of usage you don't like, you'll end up looking like a person who doesn't use Logos.[:P]

Consider especially Romans 16:7

The most interesting for me is Hebrews 3:1.

Never noticed that before!

YES! Finally, someone said it: "DAL IS RIGHT!!!" This calls for a celebration. Here's a totally FREE  copy of Faithlife study Bible;  just follow the link: https://www.logos.com/product/36338/faithlife-study-bible 

DAL

I agree with you MJ that the term "apostle" can be used in the general sense of "one sent" but the problem with that is many religious groups start abusing the term and begin to claim that they have "apostles" when they really don't.  The Bible says Jesus commended the church at Ephesus for testing those who called themselves "apostles" and found them to be false (Rev. 2:2).  Paul also says, that in the midst of the Corinthians, the signs of a true apostle were wrought, signs which he also performed, since he was a true apostle in the "official" sense of the word (2Cor. 12:12).

Therefore, with that in mind, it logically follows that the term cannot be used as a title now days because doing so will bring confusion to those who don't know how the term is used in different contexts.  If anybody wants to argue for apostles in the general sense, then ALL christians are apostles, not just some in a given church.  The title/term was only used in the official sense to refer to the 12 and Paul.  It wouldn't be wise to start throwing it around loosely.

I had a discussion with a guy who claimed he was an "apostle" that could "do things" and took him to task and asked him to prove/show evidence that he was an apostle.  His response, typical of someone who doesn't have the truth, was "Oh no, I'm not going to 'tempt' God, because that's what you're trying to do, 'tempt' God and God cannot be tempted." Of course, he didn't count on me pulling Revelation 2:2 and 2 Corinthians 12:12 along with Acts 5:12 and ask him to deal with those verses, because all I was trying to do is to make sure he was telling the truth.  In the end, as a dog with its tail between its legs, he pulled the old shenanigan trying to explain to me that the word is used in 2 different senses (general and official) and that he didn't really mean the official sense.  I was like, "uh hu, sure, no kidding, tell me something I don't know."

In the end he said, "oh, but I saw a guy that almost died because the doctors didn't give him much time to live and a brother went and prayed for him and he was healed." I looked at him and he knew I could tell he was lying and I told him, "please, don't go around calling yourself an "apostle" because you're not! Save yourself the embarrassment of being exposed yet again for not telling the truth." I found out later on he was still claiming to be someone he's not in his neighborhood and that he loved to be called an apostle because it made him feel "special." What a joke and full of deceit he is! Poor guy, hopefully, someday he'll stop lying to himself and come to his senses.

DAL

I have trouble with the assumption that the Greek NT prescribes the English use of a word in 2016. It may, and does, prescribe meanings of terms when used in a specific, technical, religious context. But that is off into linguistics which is not the purpose of the forums.

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I was just reminded of another use of apostle that is very frequent especially in the Byzantine tradition.

[quote]
There were many other ‘apostles’, 70 in all, according to the Holy Scriptures. (see Luke 10:1–16) These 70 made up the bulk of Jesus’ preachers and ministry workers, just as the 12 made up His inner circle.

Regarding the 70, it is not important to know all of their names, but here are a few of them:

  Evangelists Mark and Luke, Gospel authors;
  James of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord;
  Timothy and Titus, companions of Paul;
  The seven deacons, including St. Stephen.


John A. Peck, Called to Serve: A Basic Survey of the Holy Scriptures for Orthodox Christians, Student Edition (Interior Strength, 2006), 53.

[quote]

Several scholars favor the tradition that Jesus sent out 70 followers (Tiede, Luke, 200; Scaer, “Luke and the Foundations of the Church,” 70; Plummer, Gospel According to Luke, 269; Lenski, St. Luke’s Gospel, 565):

  •      Plummer suggests the number is meant to establish a parallel between Jesus and the apostles with Moses and the elders (Plummer, Gospel According to Luke, 269). Also, Plummer states that both the 12 disciples and the 70 apostles were tasked with preparing people to hear the gospel, but he sees the mission of the 70 as temporary, whereas the charge to the 12 disciples is permanent (Plummer, Luke, 270).
  •      Scaer connects the number with the gospel’s proclamation among the Gentiles, noting that seven is a symbol of “completion and fullness” (Scaer, “Luke and the Foundations of the Church,” 68). The 70 apostles point back to the nations after Noah and the elders appointed by Moses, as well as pointing forward to the seven deacons chosen in Acts 6:1–6 (Scaer, “Luke and the Foundations of the Church,” 70).
  •      Lenski treats the 70 merely as a historic fact, without ascribing meaning to the number. He states that Jesus sends 35 pairs to expedite His mission (Lenski, St. Luke’s Gospel, 565).


John M. Lewis, “Apostle, Critical Issues,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[quote]

Early Church Fathers. Hippolytus lists Andronicus (but not Junia) as one of the 70 apostles whom Jesus sent out in Luke 10 (Hippolytus, On the Seventy Apostles). Chrysostom identifies both Andronicus and Junia as apostles, but he does not elaborate on whether they might have been among the 70 or James’ group (Chrysostom, Romans 31).

John M. Lewis, “Apostle, Critical Issues,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[quote]

Sanday and Headlam state that Andronicus and Junias were included among a larger body of apostles than the Twelve, suggesting that they were among the Palestinian Jews who dispersed after Stephen’s execution. They present three primary reasons for accepting Andronicus and Junias as apostles (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 423–424):

  1.      the church fathers understood them to be apostles
  2.      the use of the Greek form of episamos (ἐπίσημοι, episēmoi) literally means “stamped or marked” in a way that made them distinct among the apostles, rather than meaning “well known by the apostles”
  3.      the wider use of “apostle,” substantiated by the Didache, allows the title to apply to people outside the Twelve (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 423).

Several scholars emphasize that the term “apostle” could be used in several broader senses.

  •      According to Palmer, the New Testament describes two categories of apostles:
  •      the Twelve;
  •      anyone with apostolic gifts, which Palmer connects with teaching and preaching (Palmer, Romans, 215).
  •      Mounce proposes that the term “apostle” includes missionaries and evangelists. He also suggests that Andronicus and Junia were Jewish believers and likely among the first Palestinian Christians (Mounce, Romans, 275–76).
  •      Abernathy suggests that Andronicus and Junia were among the 500 people mentioned in 1 Cor 15:6, and that all 500 were appointed as apostles by the risen Christ. This would explain Paul’s comment that Andronicus and Junia were ahead of him in the faith (Rom 16:7; Abernathy, Romans 9–16, 370).
  •      Schüssler Fiorenza explores in depth the possibility of a female apostle, concluding that the early Christian movement allowed men as well as women (and married couples) to serve as missionaries. She suggests that Paul uses four titles to describe missionaries: co-worker, brother/sister, deacon, and apostle (Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 169). The last title, she says, corresponds to Junia in Rom 16:7 and indicates her authority to evangelize, teach, and admonish (Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 169; see also 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 4:13).
  •      Although Murray acknowledges that “apostle” could refer simply to a messenger, he considers it far more likely that Paul uses this term to denote the Twelve. In Murray’s view, neither Andronicus nor Junias were apostles; instead, Paul’s comment in Rom 16:7 indicates that they were well known by the twelve apostles in Judea and Jerusalem (Murray, Romans, 230).


John M. Lewis, “Apostle, Critical Issues,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).