1. The NT use of the term “apostle”.

In a previous chapter, I documented and categorized every use of the verb ἀποστέλλω and the nouns ἀπόστολος and ἀποστολή in the NT. The verb, especially, is a very general-purpose word which means simply “to send”, “to send away”, “to send out”, including the sending of the original twelve Apostles. It doesn’t take on a special or “spiritual” meaning simply because it was used in the context of sending out the original twelve. Rather, it was the natural verb to use for such a commission.

In terms of semantics, the use of the two nouns is similar to the verb: the Bible student can’t infer a special meaning of the nouns ἀπόστολος and ἀποστολή simply because they were used in the context of the original twelve Apostles. As the enumeration in that chapter shows, ἀπόστολος was widely used as a general-purpose noun to mean simply “one sent out”, “delegate”, “envoy” or “messenger”.

I can’t stress this point enough: the verb ἀποστέλλω and noun ἀπόστολος are not endowed with a special, spiritual meaning! They are very generic words in wide use in NT times. They were well-suited to their use relative to the Apostles because the Apostles were men "sent out" by the Lord Christ as His ambassadors.

The uniqueness of the use of ἀπόστολος relative to the “Apostles of Jesus Christ” lies strictly in what the Lord Christ signified when He chose the original twelve, not in the root meaning of the noun.

Dr. Grudem’s attempts to define the office of Apostle using only the root meaning of the noun are hopelessly flawed and lead inevitably to the simplistic conclusion that if someone was called an “apostle” in the NT, then that “probably” meant he was an “apostle”. Since—to continue this destructively simplistic reasoning—the same term is used for the original twelve, then the use of the term to designate others must automatically mean that those persons were ("probably") added to the ranks of the original twelve.

This gives the appearance of following the Scripture while actually denying it!

This technique, however, can’t make Rev 21.14 magically disappear!

[Of course, you can push it into the background by conveniently declaring the original twelve were the “charter members” (pg. 908): problem solved! Not!]

Dr. Grudem: the Lord will not overlook your re-definition of the true content/meaning of Rev 21.14.

Again, the solution to the majority of the uses of ἀπόστολος in the NT is to recognize that the definition and significance of the Office of Apostle does not rest in the root meaning of the noun. The significance of the office rests solely in the direct commission of the Lord Christ of a select group of exactly twelve men!

Stated another way, every person in the NT who is called an apostle, is one: that is, “one sent out”, “a delegate”, “an envoy”, “a messenger” of the Lord Christ and His gospel. But, there were a total of exactly thirteen men who were explicitly designated as “Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ” in the NT by the Lord Christ Himself:

• Simon Peter
• Andrew
• James and John (the sons of Zebedee)
• Philip
• Bartholomew
• Matthew
• Thomas
• James (the son of Alpheus)
• Simon (the Zealot)
• Judas (the son of James)/Thaddeus
• Judas Iscariot
• Saul of Tarsus/Paul

With the betrayal and death of Judas Iscariot (something foreknown by the Lord Christ!), and consistent with Rev 21.14, there are exactly twelve “Apostles of Jesus Christ” for all time.

Moreover, this select group can never be expanded because they are represented by the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem. When the Lord amends the count of foundation stones or redesigns New Jerusalem then we are free to recognize a different count, but not until that time!

2. Dr. Grudem’s ambiguity on the meaning of the noun “apostle”.

As my chapter on the words used for apostle shows, the noun apostle is generic. Dr. Grudem noted the same principle—“sort of”.

pg. 906
Who were the apostles? …

At the outset it must be made clear that the answers to [this question depends on] what one means by the word apostle. …

The New Testament itself has three verses in which the word apostle (Gk. apostolos) is used in a broad sense, not to refer to any specific church office, but simply to mean ‘messenger.’ [citations here of Phi 2.25, 2 Cor 8.23 and Joh 13.16]

But there is another sense for the word apostle. Much more frequently in the New Testament the word refers to a special office, ‘apostle of Jesus Christ.’ In this narrow sense of the term, there are no more apostles today, and we are to expect no more. This is because of what the New Testament says about the qualifications for being an apostle and about who the apostles were.

The major problem that Dr. Grudem creates—and then conveniently ignores—is why Epaphroditus (cited in Phi 2.25) and an unnamed group of people (cited in 2 Cor 8.23 are not apostles while several others mentioned in the NT as apostles are to be regarded as the “special” class of apostle.

You’ll note that it is at this point that Dr. Grudem transitions clumsily into his poorly-conceived and inconsistently-implemented-and-proved-from Scripture “Qualifications of an Apostle” (handled in point 6 below).

3. Dr. Grudem’s unjustifiable and destructive speculations on the actual number of “Apostles of Jesus Christ”.

Above, I mentioned that Dr. Grudem noted that Rev 21.14 teaches us that there are exactly twelve Apostles, a fact which he tries desperately to side-step. How? He obfuscated the “clear”, then speculated:

• “Twelve” in Rev 21.14 doesn’t really mean “twelve”; it means “charter members”.
• Many/most of those mentioned in the NT as Apostles “probably” were “special” apostles.
  Did you notice his equivocation:
  “… seems to be called an apostle …”
  “… it is possible …”
  “… The evidence is not sufficient …”
  “… perhaps fifteen or sixteen or a few more …”
  “… the New Testament is not explicit …”

What he should have done is to handle all the texts carefully and consistently; if he had done so, he would have found no contradiction.

He ignored (my courteous, euphemistic phrasing: he wantonly distorted, actually) the clear in order to replace it with humanistic speculation to "justify his narrative"! That technique is used by the Lord’s enemies and false religions all the time, throughout time.

[I’ve studied enough of the Watchtower’s stunning errors over many years to recognize this technique of distortion. Dr. Grudem: do you really want to employ the same technique as the Watchtower?]

If this assessment seems harsh, it isn’t; please stay with me while I demonstrate just how careless Dr. Grudem's treatment of Scripture is.

I present below four excerpts in three groups from Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology that show that he violated his own hermeneutic when dealing with the NT’s teaching on the Office of Apostle.

This is clear:

Rev 21.14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The excerpts above, culled from his closing thoughts on apostleship in chapter 47, show that Dr. Grudem asserts an entirely unique, destructive, and self-contradictory notion of “clarity”.

Dr. Grudem's implementation of “clarity” would embarrass even a politician (or maybe not...).

It does not befit someone claiming (Preface to Systematic Theology, pg. 15) “Because I believe that theology should be based on the teachings of Scripture, in each chapter I have attempted to show where the Bible gives support for the doctrines under consideration.”

Yeah, right…  Where was this lofty ideal when you wrote your nonsense about the Office of Apostle?

Chapter 47, as it deals with the office of the Apostle, is an epic fail: it denies the clear text of Rev 21.14, then asserts numerous times the “possibility” that the count of Apostles was not twelve.

Where, Dr. Grudem, is the truth of your claim that “theology should be based on the teachings of Scripture” when you deny a very clear Scripture and favor your own utterly destructive, useless and inconsistent speculations in its place?

4. Dr. Grudem’s failure to recognize or comment upon the Lord’s apparent irresponsibility of not selecting a replacement while He was among the early believers for 40 days, then left them with no instructions or guidance!

For this nonsense to be true (that is, that Matthias is a legitimate replacement for Judas), then in the light of the following pivotal text we have a serious inconsistency:

Luk 6.12-13
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles …

The original twelve were chosen after a full night of prayer by the Lord Christ before the Father; Matthias was selected after a 30-word prayer (in the Greek) by the disciples, and ultimately by the casting of a lot because it wasn't clear which of two presumably equally qualified candidates should be chosen!

Really!?!?! We select parents to lead the PTA with more care and oversight than that demonstrated by the eleven. And does in escape notice that a "vote" is taken by the first Apostles when the choice belongs to the Lord Christ alone!

Consider the contrast! With this type of selection process, how could we not regard Matthias as a “second-class Apostle”? In Dr. Grudem's "theology", how could the Lord Christ have been

• so careless and unconcerned about Matthias when
• He had shown such care and faithfulness in prayer for the original twelve?

What kind of fool would the Lord Christ need to be for an oversight of this magnitude—especially given that He would know (because He is LORD!) that the twelve apostles would be represented by the permanent, twelve foundation stones of the New Jerusalem?

Sure, Matthias was an “apostle”: an “apostle-of-the-other-eleven-apostles” rather than an “Apostle of Jesus Christ”! Matthias was commissioned by the eleven, not by the Lord Christ! Only in this sense was Matthias an “Apostle”.

[I can only assume that Matthias, later in his life, realized that he was not a "real" Apostle of the Lord Christ. This would not impugn his service for the Lord Christ, only his position.]

Dr. Grudem seems to recognize this problem, but “handles” it with the following, astonishingly vapid argument:

pg. 907
Similarly, Jesus commissions his apostles in a special sense to be his ‘witnesses … to the end of the earth’ (Act 1:8). And, in choosing another apostle to replace Judas, the eleven apostles did not take the responsibility on themselves, but prayed and asked the ascended Christ to make the appointment: [emphasis mine]

This reasoning is worse than desperate! It is idiotic and insulting, the type of verbal chaos to which we've become accustomed as it spews forth from mouths of politicians, Hollywood personalities, "journalists" or professors at liberal universities.

Again, consider the carefulness (Luk 6.12-13) with which the Lord Christ chose the original twelve juxtaposed with this “proxy appointment” by the eleven.

Dr. Grudem’s assertion (that the selection was really by the Lord Christ Himself) is absurd in the extreme! He should be embarrassed for even thinking such a thing, much less memorializing it in printed form in a widely-distributed “theology”.

[My copy indicates "300,000 in print"! I saw another in a used bookstore which stated "400,000 in print"!]

5. Dr. Grudem’s apparent ignorance of the proper use of historical texts in contrast to “didactic” texts related to this topic.

The Bible accurately records, for our instruction, the deeds of both the Lord’s own people as well as His enemies, their deeds both good and evil. As the Apostle tells us here:

1 Cor 10.11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

The book of the Acts is the inspired record of the activities and events of the early church; in short, it is inspired history. And like any historical account, it may or may not be what others, in other times and places, should or should not do.

Ancient King David committed adultery/rape, then murdered Uriah and his fellow soldiers (by proxy) to hide his sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11); this is unchangeable history of the man “after God’s own heart”. After the death of the child conceived in that sin with Bathsheba, David repented and the Lord forgave him. But, would any Christian be so irresponsible to then conclude “I guess its OK to commit adultery and murder, because that’s what David did, because he was a ‘man after God’s own heart’ and nonetheless the Lord forgave him.”?

Of course not!

Yet, Dr.  Grudem ignores the clear text of Rev 21.14, and proceeds to systematically dismantle it (albeit carelessly and inconsistently) based on what eleven, relatively inexperienced Christian leaders did—and that completely without any instruction from the Lord Christ!

In doing so, Dr. Grudem gives us a clear example of what not to do with Scripture: ignore a clear text (Rev 21.14), then substitute the actions of a small group of (at that time) relatively immature leaders with no divine mandate as what was supposed to be done!

I could not refer—even sarcastically—to this as "bible exposition”.

Yes, the apparent contradiction between the unambiguous “twelve” of Rev 21.14 juxtaposed with the equally inspired history throughout the book of Acts, in which others are called “Apostles”, must be reconciled! But mishandling a clear text (especially in its context!) to favor speculations is the unconditionally wrong solution.

[Remember Dr. Grudem’s limp assertions: “probably”, “it is possible”, “evidence is not sufficient”, “perhaps”, “not explicit”, "seems”, etc.]

The proper solution is to take both texts—Rev 21.14 and the history of the book of Acts—for exactly what they teach. When this is done responsibly, it will be seen that all are reconciled as they must, in fact, be (as shown in full in this series).

6. Dr. Grudem’s inconsistent handling of Peter’s “requirements for apostles”.

As I showed in point 5 above, Dr. Grudem’s failure to recognize the difference between historical and didactic texts appears to be the primary reason for his epic fail on the Office of Apostle.

[I'm pretty sure that this interpretative rule is taught at the freshman level in pretty much any relatively conservative Bible school in the country. It is astonishing that a seasoned, experienced theologian should fall into this trap.]

But, let us assume for a moment that Peter’s actions in Act 1 were valid and the “qualifications” that Peter posited were biblical and binding.

Dr. Grudem asserts:

pg. 906-907
Qualifications of an Apostle: The two qualifications for being an apostle were (1) having seen Jesus after his resurrection with one’s own eyes (thus, being an ‘eyewitness of the resurrection’), and (2) having been specifically commissioned by Christ as his apostle.

The fact that an apostle had to have seen the risen Lord with his own eyes is indicated by Acts 1:22, where Peter said that the person to replace Judas ‘must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’ Moreover, it was ‘to the apostles whom he had chosen’ that ‘he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days’ (Act 1:2-3; cf. 4:33). [emphasis mine]

Of the two “qualifications”, only the second is biblically valid: immediate, direct, personal commission as an Apostle by the Lord Christ Himself. In this point, Dr. Grudem is correct; it is sad that he fails to apply it consistently.

But, what did Peter really say?

Act 1.22-23
Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of the Lord Christ until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.

If one bothers to read the account, Peter put forth exactly one “qualification” which had two components:

1. the candidate must have been with the Lord as a disciple from the point in time of the baptism of the Lord Christ, and
2. must be an eye-witness of the resurrection.

Why does Dr. Grudem conveniently ignore the first half of that “requirement” (to be present from the baptism of the Lord Christ) and concentrate only on the second half (seeing the resurrected Lord)?

Could it be because to maintain Peter’s actual qualification would disallow (or make it impossible to maintain, at the very least) some of the “apostles” which Dr. Grudem places into the “special” group?

As I mentioned above, Dr. Grudem at least properly recognizes that an “Apostle of Jesus Christ” is one who was specifically commissioned to that office by the Lord Himself. But note: Peter said nothing of this qualification—and small wonder, because to do so would mean that he (Peter) would be ignoring his own qualification—the Lord Christ was not there to “specifically commission” Matthias!

By the way, Dr. Grudem tries to explain away this glaring inconsistency with the following vacuous (and ludicrous!) reasoning:

pg. 907
Similarly, Jesus commissions his apostles in a special sense to be his ‘witnesses … to the end of the earth’ (Act 1:8). And, in choosing another apostle to replace Judas, the eleven apostles did not take the responsibility on themselves, but prayed and asked the ascended Christ to make the appointment: [emphasis mine]

This is an example of some of the poorest, most irresponsible reasoning I’ve ever observed in a “theologian”. See above for additional comments.

7. Dr. Grudem’s inconsistency in the handling of the texts that use the noun ἀπόστολος.

As I showed in this chapter, the noun ἀπόστολος is generic. However, Dr. Grudem nonetheless attempts to show that about 4 additional “apostles” should be added to the “special group” of the original-eleven-plus-Matthias group of apostles (and by “special group” I’m using Dr. Grudem’s expression for those who are to be regarded as “Apostles of Jesus Christ” and not merely “messengers”).

I’ll discuss each of those purported to be “special apostles” by Dr. Grudem, beginning with Saul of Tarsus.

Saul of Tarsus/Paul the Apostle
To review, on page 907, Dr. Grudem asserts that there are two requirements for one to become a “special apostle”:

• observe first-hand the resurrected Lord Christ, and
• be specifically commissioned as an apostle by the Lord Christ.

On the same page, Dr. Grudem proves the second of his list for Paul the Apostle: one definitely and specifically commissioned by the Lord Christ. Of course, Dr. Grudem ignores the fact that Paul doesn’t meet the first half of Peter's qualification, namely one who had been with the original group from the baptism of the Lord Christ. Dr. Grudem appears unconcerned regarding this glaring logical hole.

If the Lord does not require an Apostle to be one who was with Him from the baptism of John—something He obviously did not concerning Saul of Tarsus—then how would it have been valid for Peter to require it in Acts chapter 1?

So, Dr. Grudem: does the "apostle-candidate" need to meet Peter's qualification or not?

• If not, then the selection of Matthias is completely invalid; indeed, the entire process is impugned.
• If true, then Peter must have authority beyond that of his Lord, since he applied additional requirements.

You can't have it both ways!

Barnabas
On page 908, Dr. Grudem asserts that Barnabas was one of that select group of “special apostles”. Barnabas doesn’t appear in the history of the Acts until Act 4.36. The context favors the speculation that Barnabas was one of the early converts to Christianity in the region of Jerusalem. If this is the case, then there is no record of Barnabas meeting either requirement: he could not have been with the disciples from the baptism of the Lord Christ and there is no account of his being commissioned by the Lord Christ.

Stated another way: according to Dr. Grudem, Barnabas is an apostle merely because he is referred to as such. It appears to matter little to Dr. Grudem, that “apostle” is a very generic noun meaning “messenger”. His placement in the “special group” is entirely arbitrary because it can’t be shown that Barnabas met either “qualification”.

James the brother of the Lord
On page 908, Dr. Grudem presents a paper-thin “case” that James the brother of the Lord was “commissioned by Christ as an Apostle”. But, let’s consider whether this is a valid assertion:

1. There is no biblical evidence that the Lord Christ “commissioned” James.
2. There is biblical evidence that James did not associate with the early disciples.

To demonstrate the second point, carefully consider this text:

Joh 7.3-5
Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For not even His brothers were believing in Him.

If you examine the context, you’ll note that at the beginning of the Lord's ministry the other children of Mary (the Lord’s half-siblings, obviously including James) did not only not believe in Him; they were actively hostile toward Him. This means that they could never meet Peter’s first requirement, namely, to have been part of the select group from the baptism of the Lord Christ. 

This fact unconditionally disallows James the brother of the Lord from being an Apostle, according to Peter's definition.

Dr. Grudem, did you somehow miss this? Is this, perhaps, why you tend to ignore the first half of Peter's condition?

Andronicus, Junias, Silas, Timothy
On pages 909 to 910, Dr. Grudem speculates on several other men; unsurprisingly, he offers no proof of his speculations that any of those “possible” apostles had met either of the qualifications. He continues in the same error of inconsistently regarding as “special apostles” those who are merely designated as such by the use of a very common noun in the NT.

This is not Bible exposition!

One troubling element is that Dr. Grudem acknowledges the generic meaning of “apostle” (pg. 906), but then selects a few of the occurrences and then (apparently arbitrarily) designates them “special apostles”. As I show in this chapter, the use of the verb and noun forms is far too generic to make any such distinction based solely on the definitions of those words.

The second troubling element is that Dr. Grudem acknowledges the fact that a “special apostle” must be specifically commissioned by the Lord Christ. But, having held that, he then launches off into completely unwarranted speculation about other “possible” “special apostles” in defiance of this truth. It is a spectacular example of holding to a legitimate biblical truth, then denying it with foolish speculation; not only is it wrong, it is just silly and amateurish. This is the type of error which a young Christian would make; you expect better of a so-called seasoned "theologian'.

8. Dr. Grudem’s failure to call out Peter’s out-of-context use of a pair of texts from the Psalms.

Context, context, context, CONTEXT!

How often this vital rule of handling the Bible is ignored! I’d like to say that this is primarily a modern problem, but as we’ll see, this is an ancient problem into which trap even Peter the Apostle fell.

As the eleven Apostles considered how to fill the vacancy left by Judas Iscariot, Peter quotes from two Psalms:

Act 1.20
For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it’;
and,
‘Let another man take his office.’

The first quote comes from Psalm 69.25 and the second from Psalm 109.8. Both are shown below with attendant context:

Psa 69.22-26
May their table before them become a snare; and when they are in peace, may it become a trap.
May their eyes grow dim so that they cannot see, and make their loins shake continually.
Pour out Your indignation on them, and may Your burning anger overtake them.
May their camp be desolate; may none dwell in their tents.
For they have persecuted him whom You Yourself have smitten, and they tell of the pain of those whom You have wounded.

Psa 109.6-9
Appoint a wicked man over him, and let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is judged, let him come forth guilty, and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

Both are imprecatory Psalms written by ancient King David; both express a desire for the Lord’s vengeance against the wicked for their current, evil treatment of the righteous.

[This property of "current" is very important, as you'll see below!]

The emphasis of both Psalms is that the Lord would deal justly with the wicked as they afflict the righteous. However, Peter’s appeal to Psa 109.8 is more a convenient semantic overlap than a valid, in-context use of a powerful portion of an imprecatory Scripture.

In fact, the Lord would/did replace Judas—but it wouldn’t be by means of the action of the eleven!

The obvious reason that I maintain that Peter used these texts out of context is simple: the petitioner in the Psalms asks for divine justice for a current injustice. The petitioner was currently “under attack” while the Psalm was being penned.

This can’t legitimately apply to Judas Iscariot: he was already the victim of a self-inflicted, violent death more than 6 weeks prior (having experienced the temporal beginning of the Lord’s wrath). He was, at the the time the eleven were planning this careless appointment, no threat to the Lord Christ (or anyone else, for that matter!)—especially given that the Lord Christ was alive and well long after Judas’ death!

Stated another way: Peter’s use of Psa 109.8 would have been appropriate if Judas Iscariot was a current threat, still alive and not only working to afflict but actually afflicting the Lord Christ and/or His people. This, of course, was not the case.

Given the well-known and impetuous nature of Peter it is not surprising that he would lead the eleven into a course of action without the Lord’s explicit direction. That he happened to find a Scripture that provided approximately what he must have regarded as “biblical cover” is also not surprising. At that moment, the Apostle Peter was careless with Scripture because he ignored its proper context. At that point, Peter was a very young and immature believer.

It was not then, and is not now, a valid use of a pair of OT Scriptures to defend the actions of the eleven.

9. Dr. Grudem’s failure to explain how Peter could/should appoint Matthias only, since both Matthias and Barsabbas met the requirements.

One of the very common problems that will be encountered when “theologians” begin to tinker with Scripture is the proliferation of contradictions and non sequitur “conclusions”.

Usually implicit in the error that Matthias was a legitimate appointee is the assumption that only a single man should be chosen to replace the single vacancy left by Judas Iscariot. Indeed, Dr. Grudem appears to operate on this assumption in pages 906-907 where he justifies the selection of Matthias. I take issue with him when he nevertheless suggests several other “special apostles” in the latter pages of the same chapter.

If Dr. Grudem is going to suggest as "special apostles" the men Barnabas, James the brother of the Lord, Andronicus, Junias, Silas and Timothy without any biblical justification that they met the two “qualifications” which he (Dr. Grudem) espouses, then I have a valid question that he should consider:

Why reject “Joseph called Barsabbas”? What possible reason could be given for not declaring Barsabbas an apostle? Dr. Grudem asserts several others who, from the pages of the NT cannot be shown to meet Peter's “qualification”, but ignores Barsabbas who did!

This is an excellent example of how the mishandling of Scripture balloons into inconsistent and destructive nonsense very quickly. Again this—truly a tragedy by a professing Christian theologian—is the same type of mishandling of the Scripture that I've frequently observed in the Watchtower literature.

10. Dr. Grudem’s bizarre, inconsistent and nonsensical argument implying a requirement of being an apostle in order to author inspired Scripture (as support for James the brother of the Lord being declared an Apostle).

pg. 906
Earlier in this book, we saw that the New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle …

pg. 908
Furthermore, when Paul is listing the resurrection appearances of Jesus he once again readily classifies James with the apostles:

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor 15:7-9)

Finally, the fact that James could write the New Testament epistle which bears his name would also be entirely consistent with his having the authority which belonged to the office of apostle, the authority to write words which were the words of God. All these considerations combine to indicate that James the Lord’s brother was also commissioned by Christ as an apostle. That would bring the number to fifteen ‘apostles of Jesus Christ’ (the twelve plus Paul, Barnabas, and James).

Dr. Grudem’s inference of “authority to speak and write words which were the ‘Words of God’ …” is not consistent. Consider the NT books for which the author is not in question and is also not an Apostle:

• The Gospel of Luke.
• The Book of Acts (Luke).
• The Gospel of Mark.
• The Epistle to the Hebrews. (The author is unknown and therefore is not a case for either “side” of this specious inference.)
• The Epistle of Jude.
  [It is interesting to note that our Bible translations do not refer to the author’s name of this epistle as “Judas” in spite of the fact that there is only one form of the proper name in the NT: Ἰούδας
  
  Verse 17 of the epistle is very interesting:
  “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,”, in which Jude/Judas appears to differentiate himself from the Apostles. This strongly implies that he is not the Thaddeus/Judas the son of James—who was an Apostle—and favors the view that he was Judas, the half-brother of the Lord and  brother of James.]

There is at least one NT book concerning which we are not certain as to its authorship:

• The Epistle of James may be from one of the two apostles appointed by the Lord Christ, but could also be James the “brother of the Lord”.
  [I think it unlikely that the author of the Epistle of James is not one of these three, known possibilities (that is, that there is not yet another “James” who is otherwise unknown in the NT except for the epistle).
  
  I favor the view that the epistle was written by James the brother of the Lord.]

The fact is, being an apostle is not required to be one of the human authors of a book in the NT. It is also true that only a few of the apostles penned parts of the Canon. Of the original 12, only Matthew, Mark, Peter, John and possibly James authored books in the canon; of course, Paul authored many. But the remainder of its human authors were not apostles.

Dr. Grudem’s inference also runs into additional problem when we consider the myriad of the human authors of the OT. Some, to be sure, had primary places in the OT theological/historical economy (Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. whose functions were similar to the NT Apostles); other were historical figures (Job, Daniel, Solomon)—significant to be sure, but not sent by the Lord for specific ministries in ways that resemble Moses (OT) or Peter (NT), for example.