Was Timothy an Apostle?

In a previous blog post, I argued that Timothy was not a pastor (click here). Like that one, this article continues my posts on Pauline Emulation as a missiological hermeneutic. See my article in the Midwestern Journal of Theology (click here) to read my defense of Pauline Emulation as a valid missiological hermeneutic.

When Timothy received First Timothy, he served as Paul’s delegate to Asia Minor. About ten years before Paul wrote First Timothy, Paul, Timothy, and his team planted churches across Asia Minor. During that ten-year gap, false teachers and heresy arose in those areas, and Paul tasked Timothy to clean house. He removed false elders and installed genuine elders. He corrected false teaching. After Timothy completed these tasks, he moved on to his next task.

Instead of being a pastor, Timothy served as Paul’s missionary team member. Paul sent him to accomplish short-term tasks. Timothy assisted Paul in writing numerous New Testament books and delivered others. Like Paul, Timothy was an itinerant missionary, planting churches in places where Christ had not been named.

Since Timothy was not a pastor, the purpose of this blog post is to determine what designation Timothy served under. There are three basic choices:

1. Apostolic delegate. Modern New Testament scholars tend to call Timothy an apostolic delegate, meaning he was a special class of individuals serving under an apostle’s leadership. As a delegate, he was sent with the apostle’s authority to do the work that the apostle delegated him to do. Andreas Kostenberger, among others, advocates for Timothy as an apostolic delegate.

2. “Small-a” apostle. Others call Timothy an “apostle of the churches” or a “small-a” apostle. This designation essentially means an individual responsible for the apostolic task of taking the gospel to pioneer peoples and places to plant churches where they do not exist. David Hesselgrave, among others, advocates for Timothy as a small-a apostle.

3. Evangelist. Some call Timothy an evangelist, especially since Paul indicated that he held this title in 2 Timothy 4:5. In interpretations of the role of an evangelist, there is functionally no difference between the role of an evangelist and a “small-a” apostle. There is only a difference in titles. George Peters, among others, advocates for Timothy as an evangelist.

In the end, all three of these titles have very similar meanings. Paul designated Timothy to do the same task that Paul did throughout Acts. Timothy was a pioneer church planter, set apart to make the name of Jesus known in pioneer settings. However, Timothy was appointed by men for this role rather than by Jesus. Timothy received his commission through men (Paul and the churches), whereas Paul was commissioned by Jesus. Timothy received his teaching from men (Paul and the chuches), whereas Paul received his teaching directly by revelation from Jesus Christ. Therefore, while Timothy was commissioned to do the same task that Paul did, there is a great magnitude of difference in his authority in doing that task. As a result, Timothy did not provide apostolic leadership to the churches as Paul did. Nor did Timothy write Scripture. However, just as Paul proclaimed Jesus, where he had not been named and planted churches among the lost, so did Timothy. In this way, Timothy, perhaps even more than Paul, is the prototype missionary.

Thomas Grantham and the Successors of the Apostles

Debate about Timothy’s role has existed since at least 1674, when Thomas Grantham, a General Baptist from England, wrote The Successors of the Apostles (click here). Grantham said, “The designe of this treatise is to bring into the good liking of the Church her ancient servants, the messengers or apostles of Christ and his churches (such I mean as Timothy and Titus, and others of that rank) for the more orderly management of her affairs in religion at home and abroad” (Thomas Grantham, The Successors of the Apostles, London, 1674: F2).

In brief, Grantham argued that Timothy and Titus were examples of subordinate apostles. He said that these subordinate apostles lacked the authority of the chief apostles, namely Paul and the twelve. However, these subordinate apostles were required “for the more orderly promulgation of the gospel, and the better settlement of churches to the end of the world” (Grantham, 1).

Throughout this short treatise, Grantham argued that Timothy and Titus were examples of successors of the apostles. While Grantham clearly and forcefully argued that subordinate apostles, like Timothy and Titus, lacked the full authority of the chief apostles, he recognized the need in the seventeenth century for subordinate apostles to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Grantham also understood himself to be one of these subordinate apostles and took the title “Messenger” to indicate it. However, Grantham stayed in England and saw himself as fulfilling this role in something like the Southern Baptist role of Director of Mission or Associational Strategists in the United States.

My purpose in sharing Grantham is to state that my ideas in this blog post are not new. They have been part of evangelical thought for at least 350 years!

Second Timothy as a Letter of Succession

However, I am much less convinced by church history than by Scripture. The text that concerns us at this point is Second Timothy. Second Timothy is a letter of succession, meaning that Paul expected to die imminently and called on Timothy to take up his mantle and continue his work. Take any modern evangelical commentary off the shelf on Second Timothy and you are likely to see them describe Second Timothy as a letter of succession in one way or another.

As I have argued elsewhere, Paul called Timothy to continue the missionary task of proclaiming Christ, where He had not been named. To defend this point, please read my article “Validating Pauline Emulation as a Missiological Hermeneutic” (click here). After Paul died, he expected that Timothy and others would continue the Great Commission. Paul desired that they would preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches in new territories. Paul also admonished Timothy to entrust his teaching to faithful men who would be able to teach others also. Paul intended for Timothy to continue raising up more pastors and missionaries, as Paul had, to continue the task.

Pauline Successors Does Not Equal Apostolic Succession

When I discuss the topic of apostles’ successors, the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is often raised. The Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession states that there has been an uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority from the apostles (and primarily from Peter) through successive popes and bishops. Therefore, the present Roman Catholic pope is said, by this doctrine, to be acting in the same apostolic authority as Peter.

However, what I am saying is the opposite of Catholic apostolic succession. Anyone who looks at the pope recognizes in a moment that he is not functioning in the missionary task of Paul, Peter, and the apostles. The popes do not lead in missionary activity by bringing the gospel into pioneer territories and establishing churches where they do not exist. The dichotomy is like a famous quote by N.T. Wright, “Wherever St. Paul went, there was a riot. Wherever I go, they serve tea.”

In contrast to apostolic succession, Timothy was given the task of Paul and the apostles without their authority. Jesus Christ appointed the apostle Paul as an apostle, while Timothy was appointed by men (Gal 1:1; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). The apostle Paul received his gospel and teaching by revelation from the Lord Jesus, while Timothy received the same from Paul (Gal 1:11-12; 2 Tim 1:13-14). While Paul functioned in the authority he received from Jesus, Timothy’s authority was lesser because he received it from man rather than from Jesus. For this reason, Timothy did not continue to write Scripture after Paul’s death. So, let me be clear: there is no biblical warrant for the idea that the authority of the chief apostles now rests in the hands of men.

At the same time, even Paul, who Jesus made an apostle, submitted to others. Therefore, his successors, like Timothy, who possess less authority, must act in submission to others. It is appropriate that churches and missionary agencies exist to provide accountability and direction for those seeking to work in a Pauline missionary role. First, Paul submitted his gospel to Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem. The result was that they recognized his teaching as being from Jesus and gave him the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that Paul and Barnabas should spearhead efforts to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10). Second, when controversy arose about the circumcision of Gentiles, Paul submitted to the Jerusalem Council, where key leaders publicly agreed with Paul and wrote a letter to that effect (Acts 15). My point is that modern missionaries should be even more careful in their submission to others if Paul modeled submission to other church leaders.

Until now, I have argued that Timothy was a successor of Paul but without the apostolic authority that Roman Catholics and others have sought to establish for the pope and others. Instead, he carried Paul’s burden of making the name of Christ known where He had yet to be named. From this point, I want to turn my attention to three potential designations for Timothy: (1) apostolic delegate, (2) small-a apostle, and (3) evangelist.

Was Timothy an Apostolic Delegate?

Modern evangelical scholars have begun using the term “apostolic delegate” for Timothy since they are unconvinced that any biblical title should be utilized. Kostenberger asserts:

“[Timothy and Titus] serve as Paul’s apostolic delegates who are temporarily assigned to their present location in order to deal with particular problems that have arisen in their respective churches and require special attention. For this reason Paul’s correspondence with Timothy and Titus doesn’t merely contain advise to younger ministers. It records Paul’s instructions to his special delegates toward the close of the apostolic era at a time when the aging apostle feels a keen responsibility to ensure the orderly transition from the apostolic to the post-apostolic period (A.J. Kostenberger, 1-2 Timothy & Titus. Nashville: Holman, 2017, 8).

Those emphasizing Timothy as an apostolic delegate usually highlight the fact that this was a temporary role made possible by Paul’s apostolic authority. They see Timothy acting as Paul’s delegate and thus functioning inside of Paul’s authority, which he received directly from Jesus. Therefore, after Paul’s death, the continuity of this role is in question.

In the same work, Kostenberger said, “In 2 Timothy Paul seeks to prepare Timothy for assuming the mantle of Paul’s mission” (Kostenberger, 364). The weakness of the title apostolic delegate becomes apparent at Paul’s death. As Kostenberger argued, Paul expected Timothy to continue his mission. However, under what title or authority did he continue without the delegator?

Was Timothy a Small-A Apostle?

In contrast, many argue today that Timothy was a small-a apostle. The biblical evidence for this is solely in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, which says,” We could have been a burden as Christ’s apostles.” The argument is that the “we” in this verse finds its antecedent in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, making Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy apostles of Christ.

David Hesselgrave argued that Timothy was a small-a apostle, or using his term, an apostle of the churches. He wrote, “other apostles were sent out by Holy Spirit-directed churches or leaders (Acts 13:4; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 1 Thess 2:6). Apostles or missionaries in this more general sense included Barnabas, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus” (Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005, 216). See Don Dent’s excellent book, The Ongoing Role of Apostles in Missions, for a thorough analysis and defense of this view (Amazon link here).

Arguing for Timothy as an apostle is an argument for the continuity of the role of apostles. If Timothy was an apostle after Paul, others can function as apostles today. The primary argument here is that modern missionaries should see themselves as small-a apostles who have the burden of the apostles’ mission but function in lesser authority. In other words, Hesselgrave and Dent agree with Grantham’s distinction between chief apostles and subordinate apostles. All three authors argued that modern missionaries continue this great tradition.

On the other hand, many have vehemently argued against the continuity of apostles. This vehemence arose during the Reformation as men like Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to fight against the Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Unfortunately, this resulted in a dynamic during the Reformation in which Catholic missionaries were spread across the world, while the Protestant church had little to no missionary impulse. While theological debate raged in Europe, Jesuit missionaries sought to evangelize the court of Akbar the Great in the Moghul Empire. By the time William Carey went to India, Catholics had been established in the subcontinent for hundreds of years.

From a biblical perspective, the evidence that Timothy was an apostle is not fully convincing. After all, the only verse in the New Testament that might argue for Timothy as an apostle is 1 Thessalonians 2:7. Some commentators see Paul using a “royal we” in this passage. Others say that the “we” is not meant to designate Silvanus and Timothy as apostles but could be a reference to the character of the other apostles. Another view is that the “we” is a reference to Silvanus and Timothy, but that Paul did not intend to designate them as apostles in this passage.

One point that brings me great pause in designating Timothy as an apostle are a few of the letters that Paul and Timothy co-wrote. For example:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will, and Timothy our brother.” 2 Corinthians 1:1

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will, and Timothy our brother.” Colossians 1:1

In these two letters, Paul seems careful to distinguish his title as apostle from that of Timothy. Both Second Corinthians and Colossians were written after First Thessalonians. Therefore, if Paul intended to designate Timothy as an apostle in that book, why carefully differentiate in later books? Moreover, it is telling that Paul never took the opportunity to designate Timothy as an apostle in First and Second Timothy or any other letter.

The result is that it is a judgment call on whether or not Timothy should be deemed a small apostle. Because of this, each person leans toward the evidence that corroborates their own perspective. Those who want to see a continuity of the apostolic role see Timothy as a small-a apostle, and those who believe the apostlic role has ceased say that he was not.

We need to move beyond this dichotomy. Kostenberger never affirmed Timothy as a small-a apostle but still argued that Paul’s role was to persist in Timothy. Paul’s mission had to continue. Second Timothy is a letter of succession. So, whether Timothy was a small-a apostle or something else, Scripture is clear that Paul’s apostolic function to take the gospel to the end of the earth was to persist in Timothy.

Was Timothy an Evangelist?

One option to break the stalemate over whether Timothy is an apostle or not is to explore whether the title evangelist is more appropriate. In 1972, George Peters, a missions professor from Dallas Theological Seminary, convincingly argued that Timothy was an evangelist. His views could be unifying for some.

Looking at Ephesians 4:11, Peters argued that the roles of apostles and prophets had ceased and been inherited by evangelists and pastor-teachers, respectively. He says, “A careful study leads to the conclusion that a New Testament evangelist is an apostle, fully responsible for the apostolic function minus the apostolic office and original authority” (Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1972, 247). An astute reader will immediately recognize that there are virtually no differences between the roles Grantham, Kostenberger, Hesselgrave, Dent, and Peters describe. All argue for individuals who continue “the apostolic function.” All argue that these individuals do not have “the apostolic office and original authority.” It does not matter which term is correct. What matters is the persistence of a role that continues the apostolic mission of bringing the gospel to the ends of the earth.

As we did with Timothy as a small-a apostle, let us look through the biblical evidence of whether he was an evangelist. The primary evidence is in 2 Timothy 4:5, which charged Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist.” Many, especially those who argue for Timothy as a pastor, argue that he is not called an evangelist but simply called to do evangelism. However, before we so quickly dismiss Timothy as an evangelist, consider that Paul only used this term in some of his letters to give Timothy a clear designation (unless 1 Thess 2:7 designates him as an apostle). Paul often referred to Timothy as his spiritual son, which is not a clear ministry designation. He is called “our brother” in 2 Corinthians 1:1 and Colossians 1:1, but that is not a ministry designation. In fact, “evangelist” in 2 Timothy 4:5 is the clearest verse of Paul giving Timothy a title in any of his letters. Other titles used by Paul for Timothy include a servant of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:1), Paul’s coworker (Romans 16:21), and man of God (1 Timothy 6:11).

The clearest title Paul gave Timothy was evangelist—not pastor, not apostle, but evangelist. Considering that point, perhaps the biblical role of evangelist should be seen as individuals who follow in Timothy’s footsteps and take on “the apostolic function minus the apostolic office and original authority.”

The term evangelist occurs only three times in the New Testament: Acts 21:8, Ephesians 4:11, and 2 Timothy 4:5. In Acts 21:8, we hear about “Philip the evangelist, who was one of the Seven.” This designation reminds the reader of Acts 8 when Philip, one of those designated to serve widows, was scattered to Samaria after the death of Stephen. In Acts 8, Philip preached Jesus and baptized many. Then Philip was sent by an angel to Gaza, where he evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch, which began the gospel mission to Ethiopia. Acts 8 is a picture of a biblical evangelist as someone who participates in proclaiming Jesus where He has not been named by does not hold the office or authority of an apostle. Therefore, if Timothy was an evangelist, his role should be likened to Philip’s.

As an aside, here is an obvious point. Modern evangelists like Billy Graham obviously stand in a different role than Timothy. As William Combs stated in his analysis of the biblical role of evangelists, “modern day ‘evangelists’ do not seem to fit the pattern of what the NT means by evangelist, if we are right in seeing the term as more correctly applied to the missionary church planter” (William W. Combs, “The Biblical Role of the Evangelist” in DBSJ (Fall 2002): 48). It seems likely that modern evangelical missionaries are slow to adopt the term evangelist to describe their role because men like Billy Graham have utilized this biblical term in another sense.

Conclusion

Was Timothy an apostolic delegate? Yes. In fact, that term was coined to describe Timothy and Titus, so it, by necessity, describes them. Was Timothy a small apostle? Maybe. But this depends on what a small apostle is and how 1 Thessalonians is defined. Was Timothy an evangelist? Almost certainly.

In conclusion, the difference between these three terms is almost entirely semantics rather than a difference in function. Grantham, Kostenberger, Hesselgrave, Dent, and Peters all argue that Timothy was to continue doing Paul’s apostolic mission but was of lesser authority than Paul. He was appointed by men rather than by Jesus. He received his teachings and gospel from men rather than through revelation from Jesus. He did not inherit the apostles’ authority but rather their duty to take the gospel to the nations.

Therefore, whether we use the term apostolic delegate, small-a apostle, or evangelist for Timothy does not seem to matter. Scripture is clear that Paul intended for Timothy to continue in his missionary task and to train and designate others to do the same. Again, I refer to my paper “Validating Pauline Emulation as a Missiological Hermeneutic” as a defense of these basic points (click here).

If there is little to no difference between these titles, why have I written at such length on this topic?

First, I am writing on this subject because of how divisive the idea is that modern missionaries are small-a apostles. In defending Pauline Emulation, I was careful not to base my arguments on that point. In my experience, many tune out the conversation when others argue that point. There are many reasons that people argue against modern-day apostles. In fact, many false teachers today call themselves apostles; some have grown weary of these things.

Second, I am writing on this subject because there is broad agreement that Paul’s missionary role persists today but with reduced authority. It is helpful to demonstrate how broadly accepted these ideas are.

Third, many who argue against modern-day apostles are put at ease when we emphasize that modern missionaries do not possess the authority of Paul or the apostles. In contrast, most false teachers who take on the title “apostle” do so to emphasize their great authority. Instead, those arguing that modern missionaries are small-a apostles are usually careful to argue a differentiation in authority.

Therefore, let us endeavor to find cooperation and agreement around the role of missionaries, even if some disagreement persists about the correct biblical term to use for them.