Why do you believe...?
Today's question is prompted by a comment from Matthew who is busy getting ready for a mission trip to Japan. Please continue to pray for our dear brother and for this trip.
Matthew said,
"God chose Paul, but not to be one of the Twelve. Paul never identified Himself as one of that number.
Some people have pointed out that we are not told of any great works done by Matthias; but the same is true of most of the Twelve.
The Twelve Apostles failed in their commission; therefore God chose Paul to be a distinctive 'Apostle of the Gentiles'."
By my count that would mean there were thirteen (13) Apostles.
Why do you believe there were only twelve (12) Apostles?
offered by Kc | 12/15/2006 03:25:00 AM
66 Comments:
Well Paul does identify himself as an apostle: Rom 1:1, 1Co 1:1, 2Co 1:1, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, Col 1:1, 1Ti 1:1, 2 Ti 1:1, Tit 1:1...
It probably should be noted that the Hebraic writer (Luke?) calls Jesus an 'apostle'.
Therefore, I think this should be considered like any class. One can be a deacon (servant) and yet not be ordained a Deacon. One can be an elder within the church (an old person), but not be ordained as an elder. One can be a disciple of Christ (a follower of Christ), but not be A Disciple (one of the twelve). Likewise, one can be an apostle (a delagate, a messenger) and yet not be of the office of Apostle.
Does that make sense?
Thanks, Kc.
There are more than Twelve apostles, but the Twelve are referred to as a distinct company.
Don't forget the reference to the Twelve in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:14).
I think the Twelve had a distinct dispensational commission that was quite closely connected with the nation of Israel. The failure of the Twelve (they remained in Jerusale, during Acts events) and the close of the Jewish dispensation after the stoning of Stephen lead to the calling of Paul to be distinct Apostle to the Gentiles.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Safe trip, Matthew!
Interesting question, I don't know that I have ever actually considered it.
It seems that Adam and Matthew have provided some good answers, although I'm not sure I would characterize the original twelve as failures.
I am glad that I have found something upon which Adam and I agree before the end of the year. ;-) (Blessings my friend)
I concur with Gordon, agreeing with Adam here gives me great joy!
If the question was more directed at the size of group closest to Jesus...
It's not scientific, but in every home church or small group study we've had, any group of adults larger than twelve just didn't work. Groups much smaller, lacked the diversity required, and groups larger had too many "cooks in the kitchen" to get any resolutory knowledge.
Thanks, Jel.
The Twelve Apostles failed in their commission; therefore God chose Paul to be a distinctive 'Apostle of the Gentiles'."
I can agree with Adam, but I disagree with the above statment. Paul himself told us that he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Each one was assigned his or her portion. I believe that God selected Paul; however, in the above statement, there is an implication that God selected Paul because the others did not complete their assignment. I believe God chose Paul for the reason Jesus stated - that He would show Paul how much he had to suffer for the sake of Christ. I see this as an example of God using the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
Regarding apostles, I believe there are many more than 12. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles."
I believe the 12 that were selected were the original successors. They completed their assignment. Other apostles are assigned by God to plant churches and establish the vision which congregations are to run with.
Go ahead Kc, make this year grand. If you agree with me, then it will be at least three people that do agree with me (I always thought there was only one - ME!)...DO IT KC!
I likewise have to say that I don't agree with the idea of the original twelve 'failing'. I have always thought that idea of Dispensationalism to be quite lacking. The idea that God wanted to use Israel, but they failed, so He went elsewhere. He wanted to use the Twelve, but they failed, so He went elsewhere. It would seem that God, being infinitely wise and all, would be able to pick better vehicles. The failures don't just cast shadows upon those that fail, but upon Him who picked them. An employer or manager cannot place entire blame upon his incompetent employee, he is the doof that hired the slackard.
Now you just had to go and say that, Adam. ;-) I am a Dispensationalist, but I do not believe in the alleged "failure" of the apostles. The failure was on the part of Israel to receive their message.
It was never a secret that Jesus came to all men. Paul was apostle that God used to expand the gospel beyond the Jewish nation. The others were merely being obedient to Christ's command to spread the gospel as they went on their way.
I am going to be gone Christmas shopping today, so I won't be able to stay around and discuss this with you. Just do yourself a favor and give dispensationalism a fresh look. That way the rapture won't catch you by surprise.
Merry Christmas.
Oh the rapture will not catch me by suprise. It will follow right after the tribulation...
adam said,
Oh the rapture will not catch me by suprise. It will follow right after the tribulation...
PWND!
LOLZ!
Gordon,
Out of respect to Kc and his question, I would ask that you visit my blog and provide me your explanation of dispensationalism. I would like to make sure I understand your point of view. Enjoy your shopping today!
KC you know I adore you......so how about this idea cause its simple and all of you are to fancy smart for me.
There was a group of guys and some gals that got to hang with Christ, not everyone he came into contact with but the other ones. They can be apostle A's. Then Paul and peeps like him in that time can be apostle B's. In case that may make Paul and others mad then they can be apostle Aa's for the A.D. If the ones who hung out get Mad cause the ones that are apostle AA's in the A.D. then they can be apostle Aa's for the B.C.
Now that it's all cleared up what should I get Zeke for Christmas?
:P
Be loved you are
It's the M to the R to the S to the Z to the E to the K to the E. Breakitdown Mrs.Z!
Get him some sexy underwear.
I don't have anything to add, but I think it proper to say that I agree with Adam on the apostle question and the rapture issue.
Thanks again to all for your thoughts. You guys really are salt! ;-)
Adam we’re close on this (as always) but not…well…in exact agreement. I’m going to sidestep, hide from, runaway and otherwise avoid the eschatological implication for the moment and concentrate on the present impact of our interpretations here.
Matthew, thank you for your devotion. I hope all here and many more will remain in prayer for you all throughout this trip.
I’m not sure I could agree with your perspective on the Jewish dispensation and we might have to debate the meaning of failure to agree in that but I think I could say that the first twelve often fell short of fulfilling Christ’ commission, as do we all, but I think Paul’s apostleship was ordained and not born out of the shortcomings of the other twelve (more on that below).
Janice, it’s so good to know you’re here. May God continue to bless you dear sister.
Preacher thanks for your thoughts and for helping to keep Adam in line (hehe). I hope you have a wonderful visit with Steve today!
Missy, that’s an interesting observation and those are excellent points. You’ve got me wondering now if that’s a scriptural principle that can be used as a guide. My best to the Mister! ;-)
Ron, I look forward to discussing this with you. I think we are close in our understanding concerning the disagreement with Matthew but far apart on our understanding regarding the meaning of being an apostle of Jesus Christ. I’m anxious for your critique on my thoughts posted below. I would also like you to always feel free to follow through on any topic here. ;-)
Brandon, what is PWND? (I love you man!;-)
Lady Z the feelings are mutual! Now if fancy smart means wisdom then you’re always my pick! ;-)
I guess I’m hung up on what it means specifically to be an apostle of Jesus.
I have to agree with Dorse on the gift. The big Z already has all he wants and needs in you so now it’s just a matter of presentation. I love you guys! ;-)
Dorsey, I’m sending Corry to you for suggestions on my gift too (grin). I was surprised to find out you’re post-trib. I said I wouldn’t mention it but Adam already knows that while I’m not fully convinced I lean toward mid-trib. How ‘bout them apples? ;-)
Before I address this question I’m going to take a minute to beat a dead horse (after all it is my blog, isn’t it?). I stumbled across this during my study for today’s question and I think it relates. Concerning “casting lots” I followed up on the meaning of “numbered” in Acts 1:26. The transliterated Greek verb used is “Sugkatapsephizo”. I’m even more convinced they voted. ;-)
I think we would all agree that the term “Apostle” means to be a delegate or representative and in that respect we should all strive to be apostles of Jesus Christ but I think the specific usage of this phrase in the scripture is much more definitive. Luke 6:13 records that Jesus chose 12 that “he named apostles”. Mark 3:14,15 declares that He ordained them to be with Him that He might send them to preach and grant them what we refer to as apostolic powers. We know that Judas was replaced but there is a division between us on who replaced him. I’m guessing all here would say Matthias replaced him but I say it was Paul. Matthias was not chosen by Christ to be an apostle but the scripture makes it clear that Paul was both chosen and discipled by Him. It is also evident from scripture that Paul possessed apostolic powers but there is no evidence that Matthias did. There is no evidence that Paul’s commission was any different from that of the other apostles.
Given the understanding that Jesus personally chose, discipled, commissioned and empowered His apostles and the fact that Revelation 21:14 clearly establishes the number at twelve I must conclude that the concept of “Apostolic Succession” is false and that there is no such thing as the “office of Apostle” outside that of the twelve. They were given first and then followed by others.
kc,
Sorry, I've been playing to much Warcraft - PWND is internet gaming slang (also called leet/1337 ['elite'] speak or hacker speak) for 'OWNED!'. It is a term of undeniable victory; a win so definitive that no one could deny it. e.g. "U so pnwd that priest - he didn't even have any mana left!" or "I got pwnd by a mage today - he one-shotted me in the battlegrounds!" or "The Cowboys got pwnd by New Orleans." (42-17, bleh!)
Also, I find myself becoming convinced of your argument here - it makes sense. However, I'm a little upset at the implications; now I can never grow up to be an apostle :(
OMG!!!1111!!!111!11!
ADAM!
Go fix the pub for great justice!
Neccesito mas pubo protestanto!
Dorsey this is a nice Christian conversation and sexy underwear implications might just ruin our salvation and then what? :) love you tons!
Anyway Kc ...
Apostle Aa's in the B.C.
Apostle Aa's in the A.D.
Apostle Aa's in the M.trib
Apostle Aa's in the P. trib
We can meet at the pub crib
Now if any of the Aa's get bent about the other Aa's
then the Aa's who get bent are not being very Apostle like
cause that would not represent
(just for rf2r2)At the crib we can watch Guild Wars PWND WoW
This could get really complicated :P
Love you, God loves you better
It crossed my mind that throughout the OT, representatives from the twelve tribes of Israel are chosen for various tasks. Many of the disciples were related to one another, so it would not have been plausible that they were each representing a lineage of those tribes, would it?
Thanks for the 411 Brandon. We are in complete agreement on the Pub. Adam!! ;-)
The Pub it is Mrs. Zeke if we can just get Adam to open it back up!
Missy I see you have those things that go “bump” in the night too. ;-)
I don’t normally discuss typology or numerology but I don’t discount it by any means. In addition to the twelve tribes and twelve apostles I also noticed how Judas office was given to another, how grace fulfilled the law (and even wondered if the Gentiles replaced the Levites.shhhhhhh!!!!!!)
Uh-oh, KC. You might have an unexperienced biblical researcher with very little sleep on the loose in no time! Right now I am focusing on chemistry and nutrition - but I have never pretended to be a "focused" individual. C=:]
KC,
What I don't understand (I was the one sofyst was responding to in the original comment) is why the original 11 were casting lots or even voting to begin with. I tend to believe Mathias was a possible mistake.
These 11 were the first men to have the advantage of the indwelling Holy Spirit's guidance, and they casted lots?!?
I think this is the Church's first instance of exalting reasoning & democracy above God's wisdom. (Apparently we've learned that move well...)
Missy I wouldn’t say any of that is necessarily a bad thing. ;-)
Jeff I really appreciate your attitude concerning the leadership of the Holy Spirit but I think we might disagree somewhat on how He works in the Church. Since His Spirit indwells each of us I would find it contrary for Him to act in any way other than through collective means regarding such issues as these.
I couldn’t say that the Apostles acted wrongly because they acted on biblical principles. I might even argue the probability that had His Spirit been indwelling them at this time (I don’t think the Comforter had yet come) that their method of selection would have yielded the correct choice though I think it most likely they would have simply waited on the Lord.
I do think you’ve made an excellent point concerning the exaltation of reasoning though. It seems the whole situation concerning Matthias was a result of Peter’s logic. ;-)
Jeff, I will have to disagree. The casting of lots is no different than Gideon's testing with the fleece.
It is not as though the Disciples were attempting to use logic to deduce who should be the next disciple, or attempting to reason without consulting the Spirit's guidance. THEY WERE consulting the Spirit's guidance, just as Gideon did.
Gideon wanted to know if the LORD's decision was what he thought it was. So he put out the fleece for God to change. It would appear, to us looking from outside, that Gideon was doing a completely random act. It seemed that Gideon was throwing it up to chance, or not trusting in God. But Gideon knew that God had controll over the weather and God's power encompassed even the morning dew. Therefore Gideon sought the 'word' of God, if you will, through the sign with the fleece.
Likewise, it would appear that the disciples were using reason or logic or throwing the decision up to chance and whim or luck. But they knew that the decision of a casted lot is from the LORD (the proverbs I shared) and they knew God had control (or could have control for all you others) over even the tiniest factor as such. Therefore they were seeking the word of God through a different means.
I think that we look to this 'means' as strange because this is normally the means used by those who believe in chance or luck. Or worse, it is the 'means' used by those who practice witchcraft or sorcery.
The normal means that we use, I mean we by modern Christians, is the heart feeling. What 'feels' right. We woudl take a poll, asking the eleven whether Matthais or (whoever the other guy is, I cannot remember and am too lazy to look), asking them which one 'feels' right, or who they 'think' (and by this we mean how they feel) is the best candidate.
Therefore, if one was to use a means that did not consult the feelings of man. A means that seems to be utterly out of the control of man. A means that throws the decision into a power that we cannot even conceive to understand (by this I mean God, but this is normally thought of as chance, even by those who do not claim to believe in chance or luck). If a group of people use such a means that is utterly out of the control of man, we see it as not consulting the Spirit. Or not trusting the Spirit.
When in reality, in my opinion, it is leaving it to God's decision even greater than consulting our hearts. The Proverbs said the decision of a casted lot is from the LORD. Surely the disciples knew this fact. Therefore, by casting the lot, they were seeking the decision of the LORD.
Absoulutely can not wait to make it here for the series. I am sure there will tons of fodder! Please do not stop until you see what's next.
Hope all is well. Hope you have a Merry Christmas. Real busy around here, we'll have to catch up sometime.
Yes Paul was an Apostle and Matthias was chosen but what happened to Matthias?
Scripture is silent on him.
According to Anchor Bible Commentary:
Since there is no reliable information about him beyond these few verses in Acts, his importance lies in the ideas connected with the story of his election.
Luke, with two exceptions, limits the use of “apostle” to the Twelve. Paul seems to distinguish the Twelve from apostles (1 Cor 15:5–7). In unraveling the traditions behind the story of Matthias’ election to the Twelve, it appears that Luke has imposed his own definition of the apostolate upon an earlier time. The Twelve were not originally apostles. They were eschatological representatives of messianic Israel. Symbolizing the twelve tribes, they stood as the foundation of the true Israel. It was essential that the vacancy left by Judas be filled in order to fulfill this function. With Matthias’ election the early community stood ready for the eschatological gift of the Spirit at Pentecost and their anointing as the true Israel. It is doubtful that the Twelve functioned in this sense outside of Jerusalem or that they functioned for very long as a definite group within Jerusalem. This helps to explain the lack of knowledge about Matthias and others of the Twelve.
For Paul “apostle” refers to someone called to mission by a special appearance of the risen Lord. See APOSTLE. Luke gives Matthias’ qualifications as having been with Jesus from his baptism by John until the ascension. This statement is the origin of speculation that he was one of the Seventy. The probable requirement for membership in the Twelve was simply being a witness of the resurrection. Luke has expanded this to include witnessing Jesus’ life as a means of grounding the gospel tradition in eyewitness testimony. Luke’s restriction of the term to the Twelve seems to reflect a later solution to the problem already felt in Paul’s epistles as to how to distinguish true from false apostles. There are only twelve apostles, the foundation not only of the true Israel but also the Church (cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).
Luke tells us that Matthias was elected by lot. The exact meaning of the phrase in v 26 and the procedure it describes are uncertain. Some have thought that the verb (didōmi) implies that Luke may have meant by klēpos not “lot” but “vote.” But it seems more likely that Luke, familiar with the LXXand the Hellenistic practice of selecting responsible officials by lot, understood the OT practice where stones with names on them were put in a vessel which was shaken until one fell out. It has also been argued that the word “lot” acquired a metaphoric usage in Judaism. In this view the story indicates that the community selected Matthias (the procedure left unspecified) and that they believed the decision was from God. It was his God given “lot” in life to be one of the Twelve. In this reconstruction Luke’s source portrayed a metaphoric use of the word “lot” which he has objectified as a literal “casting of lots” (Beardslee 1960: 245–52). In any event the story makes it clear that God selected Matthias to fill Judas’ vacancy. This causes speculations that Paul was meant to be the twelfth apostle and that Peter and the early community overstepped their authority in appointing Matthias to appear polemical.
Bibliography
Beardslee, W. A. 1960. The Casting of Lots at Qumran and in Book of Acts. NovT 4: 245–52.
Thomas W. Martin
Freedman, D. N. 1996, c1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday: New York
According to Catholic Tradition:
All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in interiore AEthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena brought the relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics that are in Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who was Bishop of Jerusalem about the year 120, and whose history would seem to have been confounded with that of the Apostle. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias on 24 February and the Greek Church on 9 August. [Note: After this article was written, the Latin Church moved the feast of St. Matthias to 14 May.]
Full article here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10066a
This struck out to me:
In any event the story makes it clear that God selected Matthias to fill Judas’ vacancy.
Kc, you would be of the opinion that they 'voted' for Matthias, correct? Wouldn't this mean that 'they' (the eleven) selected Matthias, not God?
Pech, congrats in all! I look forward to being able to catch up. I’m still reflecting on your current thanksgiving post and all the great men of God you listed.
Rich, thanks for the contribution. I was wondering where you stand on this issue. Have you taken a position?
Adam I saw that too and thought it odd. I wonder if it is a typo seeing it conflicts with the surrounding commentary.
In any event, yes, that would be my position. Jesus had just instructed them to go and wait but Peter reasoned that “they” should give Judas’ office to another. As I wrote to Jeff above, I don’t condemn the act of voting but they were in clear violation of Christ command to wait.
So it wouldn't be your opinion that Matthias was elected by God?
That is correct, that would not be my opinion.
My opinion is that there are thirteen Apostles. The Twelve including Judas replacement Matthias and Paul.
Yes God chose them all
Rich, thanks. How would you reconcile Revelation 21:14 where the number is said to be twelve?
Revelation is very symbolic. Twelve tribes, Twelve apostles, twenty-four elders, different creatures,etc.
Well there is twelve original Apostles but that does not mean that Paul could not be the Thirteen Apostle.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19
I have never really grasped the full meaning of this scripture, but it seems that this may be a warning from Jesus for Peter to be cautious about a decision like the very one he made here? The descision to appoint a replacement would bind Matthias as an Apostle even if he was not God's choice?
I knew eventually we'd get around to power and authority. (way to go Missy!)
;-)
We must first determine "if" they had the power and authority to actually "bind" Matthias as an apostle of Jesus. I previously stated that I believed that Christ reserved the authority to select His apostles.
Christ gave his authority to bind to all the Apostles and ministers so....
Rich are you using this verse as the basis for your belief? If so I think we interpret it differently. I don't read it to say, "Bind whatsoever ye will and...". Could that account for the difference in our understanding?
I also have trouble applying this power singularly or selectively. I understood Christ to have given it to the Church.
Kc, that really wasn't my intention! (reg. the power & authority stuff)
We were questioning Peter's leadership decision and I was just curious if this verse applied.
That's what I mean power and authority to the Church. The priesthood of all believers.
The Psalms predicted the loss of Judas and the replacement by Matthias, as Peter says in Acts. 1:20. Ps.55:12-15 confirms the choice of the apostles(in the casting of lots)as that of the Holy Spirit. They were not acting independent of the Lord, but according to the Lord.
The 12 apostles to the nation of Israel did not fail(Gal.2:7,8)nor was their obedience or lack of it the cause of the calling of Paul.
He is the Apostle to the gentiles. His is a unique apostleship, as Moses was unique regarding Israel. He was not to be the one replacing Judas. Remember Matthew 19:28, where the twelve take part in judging the 12 tribes of Israel on twelve thrones. Paul, on the other hand is ministering as a priest, offering up the gentiles to God.(Romans 15) He has a totally different calling and apostleship. He mentions himself as distinctly not of the 12 in 1 Cor.15:5-7. Acts 2:14 (Luke) has no imaginings that Matthias was a wrong move when he mentions Peter standing up with the eleven (Matthias included). (Also 6:2..The twelve summoned the multitude....)
Paul presents the majority gentile bride as a chaste virgin to Christ, giving away the bride. The twelve judge Israel before the millennium. They have different callings.
As for a rapture at the end of the tribulation, who would then occupy the renewed earth? Glorified people don't have children. There will be non-glorified people entering the kingdom, and if the rapture takes place post-trib, this would be impossible.
Kc, you say that you do not believe Matthias to be chosen of God, or elected by God to be one of the twelve. May I ask why you believe such? What within the Scripture gives you the impression that he was not God's choice?
I can speak that I think he was chosen by God based upon the Proverb (ever decision of the lot is God's), but do you have any Scripture that says Matthias was not God's pick?
Everyone thanks so much for your contribution to the discussion!
Missy I see your point but doesn’t that directly relate to Peter’s power and authority in this matter?
Rich I think then we’re in agreement concerning the “who” and our disagreement pertains to “what” specifically can be bound by the Church.
Joe, even though we’re on opposite sides in this issue it’s an honor to have your thoughts here. I have been blessed in reading your comments on many other sites. I hope you’ll always feel welcome here, especially when we disagree. I pray God will continue to bless you all in your efforts.
I agree the verse Peter used to justify his decision prophesied Judas replacement but I don’t find it to indicate it would be Matthias. I think the text in Ps. 55, applies to the betrayer and not to the one who would replace him. With respect to Matthew 19 I would not say that this would preclude Paul as His apostle. I find the use of the phrase, “the twelve” interesting in both Acts 6 and 1st Corinthians 15 along with “the eleven” in Acts 2. Why did the writer not use the term apostle here? I won’t (can’t) argue the eschatological implications and while I totally agree that Paul was unique in his calling I can’t find where his commission was any different from the other apostles (remember Peter’s vision in Acts 10?).
Adam I don’t find where the apostles “cast lots” ("Lagchano") in this text so I can’t accept the scripture you referenced as applying here. The act of “casting lots” was a means of divine determination performed singularly by an individual appointed by God and not collectively as was performed by the apostles in this instance. The assumption that the apostles cast lots can only be made by inferring that “gave forth their lots” in Acts 1:26 is the equivalent of “casting lots”. I think this results from ambiguity in the English translation of the text though I think the nuance is evident even in English.
Given that there is no evidence that Jesus selected Matthias I think it only necessary that I offer evidence that Paul was and this I have done. ;-)
I did not realize, but I guess I did bring P&A in, huh?
I brought Matt. 16:18 up more as a question than an opinion. If Jesus gave Paul the authority "bind on earth," for the church, then the decision to make Matthias one of The Twelve would make him so. Is this sound reasoning? (I am not positioning here, just trying to learn!)
Oops, I meant Peter, not Paul...
Missy I think this verse is an excellent topic and the interpretation of it is a cause for many of the divisions that exist between believers. I will offer my understanding of this for now and hopefully I’ll be able to prepare an in-depth article in the near future.
Jesus had questioned Peter regarding who men thought He was and next who Peter thought Jesus to be. Upon Peter’s reply Jesus pointed out (Vs. 18) that though Peter (“Petros” – little rock) was a little rock, his profession that, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, was the rock (“Petra” – mass of rock) or foundation upon which He would build His Church. Vs. 20 makes it evident that in Vs. 19 Jesus turns His attention back to His disciples and grants them this great power and authority. What is the key then? I say it is the word of God that is the key that binds a man to salvation or looses him who finds it foolishness and that we, His disciples, do both posses and are charged with it.
KC said:
Rich I think then we’re in agreement concerning the “who” and our disagreement pertains to “what” specifically can be bound by the Church.
I don't think we are in disagreement here. please clarify.
KC Said
Jesus turns His attention back to His disciples and grants them this great power and authority. What is the key then? I say it is the word of God that is the key that binds a man to salvation or looses him who finds it foolishness and that we, His disciples, do both posses and are charged with it.
I agree with this
Rich I'm sorry. I think I read too much into your comment when you said, "Christ gave his authority to bind to all the Apostles and ministers so....".
I guess the only variance we would have then concerns Matthias. Where I would say he was selected by men you would say he was selected by God.
Hey Kc,
This is an important topic you are exploring together with others. Thanks for working it through.
I believe that the apostleship of Paul validates Matthias, along with the confident unison of the eleven when they put forth Matthias and Joseph (Justus). There is no indicator that the Lord was not in this choosing at all. Psalm 109:8 is quoted by Peter as in reference to who would be replacing Judas. There is never any correction, or intimation that they were self-deceived or contrary to the mind of God in this.
Paul describes his apostleship as distinct in focus and sphere:
Gal. 2:7 "But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised"
verse 8. "(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles ),"
v.9 "and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
You can see his understanding of their apostleship. It does not mean that they could not or should not allow for the exception (as Peter with Cornelius, and Paul in synagogues)
They are indebted to all men, but called specifically to particular spheres.
There are no more foundation laying Apostles beyond these 13. There were, and are "sent ones" who lay foundations, but only over and with the materials of the original 13.
Paul knew the special privilege granted to him, and worked more, labored far more (through the grace of God) than the others.
11:13 "But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,"
Let me kow what you think of these verses if you have time.
Thanks
Joe
Thanks KC
I believe that God is Sovereign(he is in control and is not taken by surprise) even though I'm not a 5 point Calvinist.
I believe Matthias was chosen by God.
Joe, it’s a real blessing for me to be able to study these things with such wonderful brethren and I really appreciate everyone for their effort in this.
I can see Ps. 109:8 as foretelling of Judas being replaced but I can’t yet assign that replacement as being Matthias. I will concede that the scripture is silent concerning the correctness or inappropriateness of the apostle’s action but I think it is clear that it was Peter who provoked it based on his own reasoning of the scripture. He determined it was necessary that “they” fulfill this scripture after having been instructed to wait for the Holy Spirit. While I agree that Paul’s apostleship and calling was distinct I don’t find that would negate his being the replacement for Judas but would rather reinforce that position.
Having argued all of this I would still allow for the possibility that my belief is in error.
;-)
Whether there were twelve or thirteen is certainly important but it seems critical to the function of the body today that we all agree that there is no such concept as Apostolic Succession presented in the scripture outside of Judas replacement or as Joe so wisely phrased it, there are no more “foundation laying” apostles.
Rich we agree once again in that I believe God is sovereign as well. I think He allowed them to make the selection and was in no way surprised by their actions. ;-)
Kc,
Acts 6:2 say's "then the twelve summoned the multitude...." and verse six qualifies the twelve as
"the apostles." So, you see, the writer did use "apostles" in reference to the "twelve" which included Matthias.
Paul's unique portion of revelation and apostleship certainly excluded him from being the replacement for Judas. The complete witness to Israel and the judging of the twelves tribes by the twelve apostles is uniquely Jewish, a place Paul was not to have, even according to the first church council in Jerusalem.(Gal.2:9)
In Christ,
Joe
kc said,
I think He allowed them to make the selection and was in no way surprised by their actions. ;-)
!
I never suspected you to be a closet determinist! How skillfully you have cloaked your true belief yet in this admission you show your true colors!
;)
Kc,
I finally got my computer to work correctly! My question to you is, do you believe that Jesus chose Paul, but Matthias was chosen by man?
Kc, you said,
Adam I don’t find where the apostles “cast lots” ("Lagchano") in this text so I can’t accept the scripture you referenced as applying here.
I think you're wrong, and allow me to present my case.
The text in question is Acts 1:26. I will not quote it here, we all know it. But the word used here is: κλῆρος.
Now, this is the same word used elsewhere in John 19:24. Which I do believe someone else has brought up (or at least one of its synoptic similars).
Joh 19:24 So they said to one another, "Let's not tear it, but toss for it, to see who gets it." They did this to fulfill the Scripture that says: They divided My clothes among themselves, and they cast lots for My clothing. And this is what the soldiers did.
Again, the same word is used (κλῆρος). But there may be disagreement here as well as to whether they casted lots (as in threw die, or chose straws) or whether this is to be interpreted as you posit it should (they gave forth a vote).
However, if you notice within John 19:24 it is a reference to an Old Testament passage. This act done is a fulfillment of prophecy. That specific prophecy is:
Psa 22:18 They divided my garments among themselves, and they cast lots for my clothing.
But since this is an entirely different language (it is not the greek word: κλῆρος used here), we need to look to the Hebrew word used.
That would be: גּורל or gôrâl.
Now, the interesting thing about this word is that it is used elsewhere. Care to guess where it is used?
Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
Therefore, we have the Proverbs using 'גּורל' referring to the act of throwing die, or casting lots. The apparent random game of chance. We then have this same word being used by the Psalmist in a prophecy concerning Jesus' death. It is foretold that Jesus' clothes will be seperated and divided according to casted lots (again, the game of chance kind of casting lots).
We then have John, when recording his gospel account, telling that this prophecy was foretold. Choosing the greek word 'κλῆρος' to describe the hebrew word 'גּורל'. Obviously not attempting to change ideas, but mainting that it was still the random game of chance that was done.
I think it is also noteworthy that the Septuigint (however the heck you spell it - the LXX) translators used the same word ('κλῆρος') to translate both passages within Proverbs and Psalms.
So we have at least the LXX translators and John using this word to describe not the giving of a vote, but the casting of lots (as Luthsem points out above, the putting of stones into a bowl).
Understand?
Joe, I appreciate your arguments and your conviction on this. I will admit that any argument I would have concerning Acts 6:2 and 6:6 would be purely semantic but honestly I don’t find these verses definitive. I think the verses from Galatians clearly establish that the apostles recognized Paul’s calling but I can’t see the implication it has on his apostleship let alone that of Matthias. I am still, however, willing to admit I could be in error here. ;-)
Brandon I’m still laughing but seriously, being Non-Determinist doesn’t mean that I have to be an Open Theist does it? (You can’t peg me! Hehe) ;-)
Ron, welcome back! Yes that is my contention.
Adam you know I trust your knowledge and integrity in this. As you know my experience and knowledge with both the Greek and Hebrew is limited to lexicons and my knowledge of the Septuagint is available to me primarily through the Blue Letter Bible.
;-)
Given your knowledge of these things I won’t pretend to argue with you but neither will I hesitate to question you on them. ;-)
It seems that both the Hebrew and Greek forms of the word translated as “lot” have as their primary meaning, “pebbles used for systematically making decisions” and secondarily, “what is obtained by lot, allotted portion”. A lexical study seems to reveal that the secondary meaning evolved in the OT from the predominate use of the primary meaning. IOW “lot” came to mean “portion” because “Casting lots” was a common method for appropriating land, inheritance, etc… This is evidenced by the use of “Gawral” or “Goral” in the Psalms.
Ps 16:5 The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.
Ps 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
Ps 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.
Two verses use the secondary meaning and one the primary. Proverbs is similar with the intended use being questionable.
Pr 1:14 Cast in thy lot (surely portion) among us; let us all have one purse:
Pr 16:33 The lot (pebble or portion?) is cast into the lap (?); but the whole disposing (of a pebble or of a portion?) thereof is of the LORD.
Pr 18:18 The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty
My first question then is this; Am I correct in stating that the specific meaning, either primary or secondary, can only be determined within the context of the verse? I would also ask why have you applied the primary usage to Pr 16:33?
Returning again to the Lexicon for the use of “Kleros” I find the identical situation exist however the extended verb, “Lagchano” seems to be used in place of the secondary meaning when defining what is divinely proportioned and “Kleros” is used only in the Gospels with the primary meaning when specifically referencing the OT prophecy. “Kleros” appears in Acts more than in any other NT book and it’s usage seems clear in all verses with the exception of 1:26.
Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part (Kleros) of this ministry.
Ac 1:25 That he may take part (Kleros) of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Ac 1:26 And they gave forth their lots (Kleros); and the lot (Kleros) fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Ac 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot (Kleros) in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Ac 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance (Kleros) among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Given the predominate usage as the secondary meaning, why would you assign the primary meaning to 1:26?
Kc, sorry to open this one back up - I will respond to the next, very joyful, posting soon!
Regardless of the meaning of "casting lots, I think the point I was hearing from you is that they took it into their own hands and did not wait as they had been instructed. Is this correct?
Missy these discussions always remain open! ;-)
I think that is one of the points that gives evidence against Matthias but Joe zero'd in on my real contention that there are no more "foundation laying" apostles. ;-)
First, Luke only uses the word five times within the book of Acts, four of which, undeniably, used as 'inheritance'. As in my inheritance was this land (or the land was my lot). The other time is where we disagree, or where we are unsure of.
However, it is not as though Luke never uses this word to describe the game of chance (again, I only use this terminology to distinguish from the type of 'lot' you are speaking of, you know I don't believe in chance).
Luke does elsewhere use the word to describe the game of chance. Specifically in Luke 23:34. It is noteable that his usage here is the equivalent to John's within his gospel. They are both refernecing back to the Psalmist wherein the word is used to describe the game of chance.
So my definition would not be completely foreign to Luke's writing, however it would be, admittedly, not the most common.
I do want to question your usage of lexicons though. When looking at Strongs and Thayer's (two very used dictionaries, and very trusted), we see that the game of chance definition is actually the first usage, with the inheritance being the second.
Thayer Definition:
1) an object used in casting or drawing lots, which was either a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood
1a) the lots of several persons concerned, inscribed with their names, were thrown together into a vase, which was then shaken, and he whose lot fell out first upon the ground was the one chosen
2) what is obtained by lot, allotted portion
Strong Definition:
Probably from G2806 (through the idea of using bits of wood, etc., for the purpose); a die (for drawing chances); by implication a portion (as if so secured); by extension an acquisition (especially a patrimony, figuratively): - heritage, inheritance, lot, part.
Showing that the common usage, or at least the first or primary usage, is that of the 'die'. And the heritage or inheritance idea being derived from this (perhaps originally land from fathers was given to the son who won at the die; or maybe land was given through use of drawing die as there were no sons...)
My first question then is this; Am I correct in stating that the specific meaning, either primary or secondary, can only be determined within the context of the verse? I would also ask why have you applied the primary usage to Pr 16:33?
I think you would agree with me that the Proverbs are a little more difficult to find 'context', as they are mostly composed of grouped saying or pithy comments, almost irrelevent to each other (having some connection, but not enough to interpret each other with).
However, if we were to look at the word's usage within the whole of the book, I believe that we would find the majority being that of the 'die' usage, or 'pebble'.
Pr 1:14 Cast in thy lot (surely portion) among us; let us all have one purse:
I disagree that this is speaking about the portion aspect. The clue here is the 'purse'. Telling the hearer to cast in their pebble, or their stone, so that all may have one purse is more likely (as the pebble would go in one purse).
If we interpreted it as 'inheritance', I agree, it would make somewhat sense. If everyone put in their portions, or their belongings, then everything would be one. Everyone would possess only one possession (that being the communial possession). And this common possession could perhaps use the euphemism of 'purse'.
So here, I think either would be acceptable. I would opt for the first, you for the second naturally (as we naturally part ways). Let us though consider the others...
Pr 16:33 The lot (pebble or portion?) is cast into the lap (?); but the whole disposing (of a pebble or of a portion?) thereof is of the LORD.
Here is some confusion as well...
Pr 18:18 The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty
Here I think it a little more clear. If there is an argument, as to who gets the land, let us say. Then all of this argument can be solved by the throwing of die. How can one cheat at such a game. It surely is fair as each had equal opportunity and no bias was shown. Therefore, the usage of the die, or lot, causeth contentions to cease.
So we have at least one clear usage of 'lot' as 'die'. Shining onto the second Proverbs which is debateable, but not that debateable (you are the first one I have ever heard question whether this was speaking of 'die' or not).
I would agree that it would make some sense. The inheritance is given, and who gets it is from the LORD. The LORD decided that Jacob would get the inheritance and not Esau. That makes some sense.
But given the usage of 'lot' as 'die' in 18:18, and given the common agreement amongst most that in 16:33 it is referring to 'die' (afterall, the die is cast, and its decision is from the LORD makes more sense). Given all this, I think it too obvious that 16:33 is referring to the die.
And given these two being 'die', I think the first is obviously referring to it as well...
Adam thanks for you patience and persistence on this.
I would agree with both definitions you offer as the primary I offered is definitive of “die” and the secondary equivalent in scope to yours. I can accept your determination regarding the usage of lot in all cases as well but I don’t see where you’ve tied the primary usage to Acts 1:26. I would further protest that inference based upon the use of the verb “Didomi” as opposed to other instances of the primary usage where “Kleros” is prefaced with the verb “ballo”. Doesn’t it seem that if, as you have shown, Luke has no qualm with the primary usage in his writing that he would not alter his method in this one instance?
Kc, that may be somewhat significant. Matthew, Mark and John, when referring to 'kleros' as 'lots, or die' all use 'ballo' as describing how this 'die' is given. Luke even uses it in his gospel account when referring to the account of the soldiers 'casting' (ballo) 'kleros' for Jesus' raiment.
HOWEVER, it is significant as well that when 'kleros' is used not as 'lots' or 'die', it is never used with a verb denoting the action of 'throwing' or 'giving', as 'ballos' and 'didomai' do.
When we see 'kleros' used as 'die', it is always said that it is cast or given (ballo). However, when we see 'kleros' used as 'inheritance' or 'part', it is normally spoken of someone receiving 'inheritance' or 'part'.
The fact is that we don't have 'kleros' used with 'didomai' anywhere else. Perhaps this is because of Luke's advanced vocabulary (he was a doctor you know). Whatever the reason, we need to find some determining factor as to how to interpret it.
The two sides are 'kleros' being 'cast' (ballo), which is normally interpreted as a lot cast or a die cast. And 'kleros' being received (numerous verbs), which is normally interpreted as an 'inheritance' or 'part in something'.
Therefore, if we are to interpreted 'didomai' 'kleros' and would want to see which direction to take it, I suggest it would be more accurate to translate it in the direction of 'kleros' being 'cast' (ballo), given that 'didomai' means to 'give'.
Adam, were that the case then wouldn't this action be contrary to the normal use of 'casting lots' for proportional appointment? Wouldn't that also be contrary to the consequence as well? Verse 17 states that Judas was numbered with (reckoned with - "katarithmeō") the apostles and had obtained ("lagchanō") part of their ministry. Verse 26 concludes that Matthias was numbered with ("sugkatapsēphizō") the eleven apostles (but never calls him an apostle). According to Thayer's Lexicon "sugkatapsēphizō" means to, “deposit a ballot in an urn, to assign one a place among, to vote one a place among, to vote against others, or to condemn with others.” Doesn't it seem clear from this that Matthias was voted in by the apostles and not chosen by Christ?
Adam, were that the case then wouldn't this action be contrary to the normal use of 'casting lots' for proportional appointment?
Explain that, 'normal use of 'casting lots' for proportional appointment'. I am not aware of this normal usage, and even less aware of what you mean by 'proportional appointment'.
Wouldn't that also be contrary to the consequence as well?
How is their casting die contrary to the consequence?
Doesn't it seem clear from this that Matthias was voted in by the apostles and not chosen by Christ?
From Luke simply not including that Matthias obtained part of the ministry, I don't think that is sufficient evidence to say that he was not chosen by Christ. Personally, I think it is reading too much into the text. Or attempting to speak where Scripture is silent.
Explain that, 'normal use of 'casting lots' for proportional appointment'. I am not aware of this normal usage, and even less aware of what you mean by 'proportional appointment'.
The “lot” was used to assign a “part” or portion for all involved. For instance land was subdivided by lot and Christ’ robe was divided among the soldiers by lot. Even the sacrifice and the scape goat each had a part by lot but in this case there were no portions for those involved. This would be contrary to the normal use of the lot.
”How is their casting die contrary to the consequence?”
Verse 26 relates Matthias as being numbered ("sugkatapsephizo”) by vote rather than being numbered (“katarithmeo”) by divine appointment.
”From Luke simply not including that Matthias obtained part of the ministry, I don't think that is sufficient evidence to say that he was not chosen by Christ. Personally, I think it is reading too much into the text. Or attempting to speak where Scripture is silent.”
I would agree but my argument was formed from much more than simply silence. ;-)
Happy New Year KC,
Been really really busy trying to move. Anyway instead of scanning the comments much, as it seems they turned back into the casting lots question, I offer this verse to see what if any impact it has on determining if there is a distinction between a certain 12 apostles and the calling of any person being an apostle.
Rev. 21:14
Post a Comment