Way Of Life - Who Is The 12Th Apostle?

[RSS Robot]

ACTS 1:26 — “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Revelation 21:14 says there are 12 apostles whose names are in the foundations of the eternal city of God, the New Jerusalem. Also Matthew 19:28 says there are apostles who will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  

Who is the 12th apostle that takes Judas’ place? Matthias or Paul? 

Sixteen times Paul said that he was an apostle. He was personally called of God for this (2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1). 

The argument that Paul took the place of Judas as the 12th apostle is made as follows by George Sayles Bishop: 

“The one who takes Judas’ vacant place is Paul, not Matthias. Matthias was the suggestion of Peter, and Peter made mistakes. He made a mistake when he said: ‘Be it far from Thee, Lord.’ He made a mistake when he denied his Master. He made a mistake at Antioch when he overturned the Gospel and taught circumcision: ‘Building again the things which he had destroyed.’ ‘I withstood him to the face,’ says Paul ‘because he was to be blamed.’ Impetuous Peter steps forward to make an apostle. He gives the Lord, so to say, a choice between two, Matthias and Justus. The lot falls on Matthias and they number him with the twelve and that is the last that is heard of him. The Lord keeps silent. By and by, He comes down from heaven and, Himself in Person, adds to the original eleven, another twelfth apostle, ‘one born out of due time.’ ... The twelfth name on the ‘twelve foundations’ of the New Jerusalem will not be that of Matthias but that of Paul: not only an apostle but ‘not a whit behind the very Chiefest apostles’ though in himself, nothing” (The Doctrines of Grace, New York: Gospel Publishing House, 1910, p. 373).

We disagree with this for the following reasons:

First, the Bible specifically says that Matthew was “numbered with the eleven” (Acts 1:26). Twelve verses are devoted to this scene. While it is true that Peter made mistakes, the Bible plainly identifies the mistakes. The situation in Acts 1 is different. It is not merely Peter acting on some personal whim, it is the entire 11 acting in one accord with the other brethren assembled together. Twelve verses of Scripture are devoted to this scene and there is no hint that they are acting contrary to God’s will. In fact, they are acting in accordance with prophecy (Acts 1:20; Psalm 109:8). And they were acting prayerfully (Acts 1:24-25). 

Second, while it is true that Matthias is not mentioned by name again in Scripture, it is also true that most of the apostles are not mentioned again by name. When the apostles are mentioned thereafter in Acts 2:37, 42, 43; 4:33, 35, 36, 37; 5:12, 18; 11:1; 15:2, etc., Matthias was doubtless one of them because he had been elected to that position. 



View the full article

[Ukulelemike]

OOO-Weee! This is a good topic.

 

I read the article and I must say, I have come out on the other end from Mr. Cloud this time.

 

I believe that Paul is the 12th Apostle, not Matthias. Let's look at Cloud's reasons for choosing Matthias.

 

1"First, the Bible specifically says that Matthew (should be Matthias) was “numbered with the eleven”

               Indeed he was...by the other Apostles. How often are we warned to be very careful taking doctrine from Acts, since it is a historical book, not a doctrinal book, strictly-speaking? The fact is, Peter and the other 10 chose to do this. Yet, who was it that called ALL the other disciples/Apostles? Jesus. No one else ever called anyone else. Even when they brought Phillip, it was Jesus who included him as a disciple.

 

Second reason is not really applicable, because for the reason Cloud gives, most of the Apostles are not mentioned by name again.

 

"Third, Paul did not meet the standards set out in Acts 1:21-22."

  Okay, but who set those standards? Jesus? No, apparently Peter did, because we never see Jesus setting ANY 'standards",  that we are aware of.  

 

"Fourth, Paul was distinguished from the other apostles in Scripture itself. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles"

    True, but Peter was distinguished as 'the apostle to the circumcision'; does this mean Peter was not one of the 12? It seems there were two primary leaders here" Peter, to the Jews and Paul, to the Gentiles. That doesn't mean Paul was different than the others, or not one of the 12.

 

I like David Cloud, but here, as in some other places, he tends to kind of simplify things according to some pretty weak arguments. The primary issue I see is that it seems as if Peter made the decision, whereas Jesus was the one who chose the others. Nowhere do we see Jesus giving Peter or the Apotles to choose a replacement, unless it was done outside of scripture, (possible),  and knowing Peter's prediliction for jumping the gun, it would be no surprise if he woud do so. And just because  they prayed beforehand doesn't mean it was honored.

 

Anyways, this is my take on it. Anyone? Anyone?

[John81]

OOO-Weee! This is a good topic.

 

I read the article and I must say, I have come out on the other end from Mr. Cloud this time.

 

I believe that Paul is the 12th Apostle, not Matthias. Let's look at Cloud's reasons for choosing Matthias.

 

1"First, the Bible specifically says that Matthew (should be Matthias) was “numbered with the eleven”

               Indeed he was...by the other Apostles. How often are we warned to be very careful taking doctrine from Acts, since it is a historical book, not a doctrinal book, strictly-speaking? The fact is, Peter and the other 10 chose to do this. Yet, who was it that called ALL the other disciples/Apostles? Jesus. No one else ever called anyone else. Even when they brought Phillip, it was Jesus who included him as a disciple.

 

Second reason is not really applicable, because for the reason Cloud gives, most of the Apostles are not mentioned by name again.

 

"Third, Paul did not meet the standards set out in Acts 1:21-22."

  Okay, but who set those standards? Jesus? No, apparently Peter did, because we never see Jesus setting ANY 'standards",  that we are aware of.  

 

"Fourth, Paul was distinguished from the other apostles in Scripture itself. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles"

    True, but Peter was distinguished as 'the apostle to the circumcision'; does this mean Peter was not one of the 12? It seems there were two primary leaders here" Peter, to the Jews and Paul, to the Gentiles. That doesn't mean Paul was different than the others, or not one of the 12.

 

I like David Cloud, but here, as in some other places, he tends to kind of simplify things according to some pretty weak arguments. The primary issue I see is that it seems as if Peter made the decision, whereas Jesus was the one who chose the others. Nowhere do we see Jesus giving Peter or the Apotles to choose a replacement, unless it was done outside of scripture, (possible),  and knowing Peter's prediliction for jumping the gun, it would be no surprise if he woud do so. And just because  they prayed beforehand doesn't mean it was honored.

 

Anyways, this is my take on it. Anyone? Anyone?

I've studied this out before and I'm in agreement with you. Peter and the others seem to have decided on their own that they had to choose a new "12th Apostle", with no indication this was done by or for any other means than their own.

 

Paul, on the other hand, was specifically chosen by Jesus, as were the other Apostles.

 

As you point out, Paul is specifically names in Scripture as an Apostle. We are also told in Scripture that there are twelve seats prepared for the 12 Apostles. We know Judas won't be in one of those seats. Does it stand to reason that an Apostle Jesus chose (Paul) and specified as an Apostle in Scripture, will not have one of those seats along with the other Apostles Jesus also chose?

[HappyChristian]

We have always believed (because of scripture) that Paul was Judas' replacement.  He was called by God, as several verses state - even the one reference as being "born out of due time" in 1 Cor. 15.  Matthias was elected by man, Paul was selected by God. 

 

Paul was indeed an apostle to the Gentiles, but that followed what we know was to be: salvation was to be offered to the Gentiles - and someone had to bring it to them.

 

My hubby and I would be in agreement with you, Uke. I think DC's points were kind of weak, too.

[JerryNumbers]

Are you saying that Peter lied, was 100% wrong, that he sinned in doing this, that even the Bible is wrong, that this potion is not the inspired Word of God thereby all 11 apostles were 100% wrong in doing this?

 

Ac 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

 

Yet in other verses you say its 100% correct?

 

Perhaps something happen to Matthias after he was selected as to fill Judas position, maybe he died, or could not fulfill this position & we are not told about it therefore Jesus called Paul. One thing for sure we are not told in the pages of the Bible that the 11 choosing Matthias were wrong in any manner or way so we should not assume they were. And theses verses along with the others your choosing to believe over these are  profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

To me that makes much more sense than to say Peter we have to assume Peter & the other 10 were 100% wrong when we are never told they were wrong within the Bible.

[TheSword]

I think, perhaps, it's not so much that Peter and the other 10 Apostles were wrong and/or sinful in appointing Matthias, but perhaps mayb jumped the gun on trying to fill Judas' vacancy.  How many times do we all do that?  We grow restless waiting on God to do something and try to hurry it along ourselves.  I also think one indication that the appointment of Matthias was in error can be seen in that they cast lots, a common OT practice for discerning the will of God.  It's worth noting that this appointment took place before the outpouring of the Spirit did not take place until the next chapter.  They would have done this prior to being guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus of their own will and conscience, even if it was well-intended.

[HappyChristian]

I think, perhaps, it's not so much that Peter and the other 10 Apostles were wrong and/or sinful in appointing Matthias, but perhaps mayb jumped the gun on trying to fill Judas' vacancy.  

This is what we've always thought.  No lying involved, Jerry.  Just human mistake - jumping the gun. It happens, even to good people. And, as Sword pointed out, they hadn't received the Holy Spirit as of yet, so they didn't have the divine guidance they could have if they had waited even one day.

 

Of course, another way of looking at it is that the Holy Spirit waited until Matthias was chosen to pour out Himself....

[John81]

I think, perhaps, it's not so much that Peter and the other 10 Apostles were wrong and/or sinful in appointing Matthias, but perhaps mayb jumped the gun on trying to fill Judas' vacancy.  How many times do we all do that?  We grow restless waiting on God to do something and try to hurry it along ourselves.  I also think one indication that the appointment of Matthias was in error can be seen in that they cast lots, a common OT practice for discerning the will of God.  It's worth noting that this appointment took place before the outpouring of the Spirit did not take place until the next chapter.  They would have done this prior to being guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus of their own will and conscience, even if it was well-intended.

This is true. We also know that Scripture records many things that happened, as a part of historical fact, without endorsing what happened. It's telling that there is no reference to the Lord's involvement in any of this process, only Peter and the others.

[John81]

This is what we've always thought.  No lying involved, Jerry.  Just human mistake - jumping the gun. It happens, even to good people. And, as Sword pointed out, they hadn't received the Holy Spirit as of yet, so they didn't have the divine guidance they could have if they had waited even one day.

 

Of course, another way of looking at it is that the Holy Spirit waited until Matthias was chosen to pour out Himself....

As to the last point, the time had been appointed by the Lord for the timing of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which Peter and the others were told to wait for. Rather than waiting for the outpouring of the Spirit, Peter chose to act quickly, which seems to have been Peter's nature, and decided to cast lots for a new Apostle. It doesn't seem we could conclude the Holy Ghost waited to come forth, but rather that Peter was in too much a hurry to await the promised coming of the Holy Ghost.

 

One point that is very clear, is that Jesus chose Paul Himself, just as He chose the other Apostles. From what Scripture says, we can't say that about Matthias.

 

As you point out, Peter and the others went forth on their own to select a replacement Apostle, without divine guidance, using their own reasoning.

[HappyChristian]

As to the last point, the time had been appointed by the Lord for the timing of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which Peter and the others were told to wait for. Good point! Rather than waiting for the outpouring of the Spirit, Peter chose to act quickly, which seems to have been Peter's nature, and decided to cast lots for a new Apostle. It doesn't seem we could conclude the Holy Ghost waited to come forth, but rather that Peter was in too much a hurry to await the promised coming of the Holy Ghost.

 

One point that is very clear, is that Jesus chose Paul Himself, just as He chose the other Apostles. From what Scripture says, we can't say that about Matthias.

 

As you point out, Peter and the others went forth on their own to select a replacement Apostle, without divine guidance, using their own reasoning.

[DaveW]

As to the third point it is entirely likely, although not biblically confirmed, that Paul was indeed present at the vast majority of Jesus' earthly ministry.
There were scribes and pharisees following Jesus around as evidenced by the constant questioning and attempts at entrapment.
The Sanhedrin Council had a standard procedure of sending a junior Pharisee of the council to question new teachers. Paul was such a man.
We later see Paul in such a position with regard to Stephen. Since Stephen was part of that same teaching it would seem that Paul was involved in part at least with the observation of this man Jesus and his followers.

If that is the case then Paul was (possibly) witness to the acts and teaching of Jesus from His baptism to His resurrection. He was aggressive to him but witness nonetheless.
And Paul immediately knew Jesus when he was confronted on the road, indicating he was familiar.
there is speculation involved, but it would seem that Paul did likely meet the quals laid down.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I don't see what the big deal is. There are more than twelve apostles in the bible. Whether Paul or Matthias was the twelfth doesn't seem to matter. There's nothing in the bible that says there can only be twelve apostles.

 

Paul qualified as an apostle because he hung out with the Lord in the desert of Arabia for around three years receiving his revelation of the mystery (Gal. 1:17). I would imagine he was "caught up" to heaven at these times like the apostle John  (II Cor. 12:1-7) so he would have literally been in the presence of Christ when he received his revelation which seems to be one qualification to be an apostle. This was one of his arguments to prove his apostleship to those who insisted he wasn't qualified.

[John81]

I don't see what the big deal is. There are more than twelve apostles in the bible. Whether Paul or Matthias was the twelfth doesn't seem to matter. There's nothing in the bible that says there can only be twelve apostles.

 

Paul qualified as an apostle because he hung out with the Lord in the desert of Arabia for around three years receiving his revelation of the mystery (Gal. 1:17). I would imagine he was "caught up" to heaven at these times like the apostle John  (II Cor. 12:1-7) so he would have literally been in the presence of Christ when he received his revelation which seems to be one qualification to be an apostle. This was one of his arguments to prove his apostleship to those who insisted he wasn't qualified.

I don't recall the exact quote offhand, but Scripture refers to the 12 Apostles sitting in judgment or ruling over or having seats of authority in some respect in the world to come.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

I don't recall the exact quote offhand, but Scripture refers to the 12 Apostles sitting in judgment or ruling over or having seats of authority in some respect in the world to come.

There may be a passage that I'm not recalling offhand but if I'm not mistaken ....

 

Nowhere does it state such specifically about the apostles but speculation has been put forth concerning the twenty and four elders in Revelation being the 12 tribes (sans Dan but add Manasseh) and the 12 apostles. 

[ASongOfDegrees]

I don't recall the exact quote offhand, but Scripture refers to the 12 Apostles sitting in judgment or ruling over or having seats of authority in some respect in the world to come.

Yes, that would probably refer to the eleven plus most likely Matthias. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles so I don't think he would be in that group. But there still are more than twelve apostles in the bible. Barnabas is an example of another apostle. Apollos apparently was one also.