I received the following question:
A question from Acts 15 concerning James not being the James of the twelve. I had a discussion with (my wife)’s sister about there being more Apostles than just the twelve. She couldn’t accept that this could be. How would you answer someone’s claim that since there are two James’ in the list of the twelve, that this James in Acts 15 is the other James of the twelve? Not James, the brother of John, since he had been put to death, but James, the son of Alphaeus. Luke 6:13-15. Thanks.
Also I find interesting the language in v.13.
“And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” After choosing them, He ALSO named them Apostles. For some reason my Strong’s doesn’t list the Greek for “named” in this verse. Is it some form of Kaleo? It’s interesting that after choosing the twelve, He then also “named” them apostles. If this is some form of Kaleo, then it is seen here to designate, name, or position, as you teach. It brings more understanding to words with some form of Kaleo in them such as Ekklesia. “Out positioned ones” is so far superior of a translation of Ekklesia and it is sad that the major portion of Christendom is ignorant of its meaning.
There is no way to confirm that the James of Acts 15 was the Lord’s brother and not James of Alphaeus. There is a trail of clues that makes this likely, however. Most significant, and blowing out of the water her claim that only the twelve are apostles, would be Galatians 1:19.
19. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Here, James the Lord’s brother is called an apostle, as clear as can be.
Since Paul saw James the Lord’s brother and considers this significant, it is clear that he is considered not only an apostle but one with considerable authority in Jerusalem. There is no similar indication that James of Alphaeus ever was promoted to a position of authority among the apostles. Therefore, it is this reference in Galatians 1:19 that would lead us to believe that the James listed in Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; I Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 2:9; James 1:1, and Jude 1:1 were all James, the Lord’s brother, and not any other James.
As far as others than the twelve being apostles, clearly both Paul and Barnabas are apostles, though not of the twelve, in Acts 14:4 and 14. Paul calls his kinsfolk Andronicus and Junia (a woman’s name) “apostles” in Romans 16:7. Paul calls his brethren the “apostles of the churches” in II Corinthians 8:23, though the translators have not been very faithful to render apostolos “apostles” in this case. Epaphroditus was the apostle of the Philippians in Philippians 2:25 (again, not faithfully rendered.) Paul includes Silas and Timothy, his fellow writers of I Thessalonians, with him as apostles in I Thessalonians 2:16 (when comparing with I Thess. 1:1.) On top of this, it hardly seems necessary to list the many, many passages in which Paul is referred to as an apostle. The fact that more than the twelve can be apostles is very, very clear from Biblical evidence. There can be no doubt about it, if the Biblical evidence is allowed to give its testimony.
In Luke 6:13, the word “named” is Strong’s number G3687, which is onomazo, which means “to name.” It is not kaleo. You are right that it would be interesting if it was.
The idea of kaleo is indeed of naming, designating, or positioning. If this was understood about ekklesia, much truth would be available to people that is hidden from them. If the Old Testament word kahal, the Hebrew equivalent of ekklesia, were searched out, this truth would become much more obvious as well. The English translation limits the “church” to the New Testament, and hides the truth.