Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Way Of Life - Who Is The 12Th Apostle?


RSS Robot

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Was not 120 about the number of church members of the church at Jerusalem? And after Peter preached that great sermon many were added.

 

Ac 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

 

My understanding is that the 120 are the number of disciples (men and women) who had faithfully followed the Lord from his baptism until his ascension.  So, yes, they would have been of the Jerusalem church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

 

My reason for bringing up the 70 was that the Lord did "choose" other disciples.  In that instance, he chose 70; however he had 120 to choose from...
 
Acts 1:15
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
 
Acts 1:23-26
23   And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24   And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25   That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26   And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
 
Peter and the other apostles had full confidence that the Lord chose Matthias.
 
Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
 
Judas Iscariot had not yet betrayed the Lord when Jesus Christ said those words, so it would appear that he was included in that future promise.  The one thing that I see that excludes Judas from that promise is when Jesus Christ said, "Ye which have followed me..."  We know Judas wasn't a true follower. However, at the same time, Paul wasn't a follower of Christ when the Lord said those words either.

 

I personally believe that Matthias was the twelfth apostle, but I'm not dogmatic about it. 

 

However, in this quote, since Jesus specifically mentions 12 thrones, He cannot be speaking to ALL His current disciples, but only the 12. Removing Judas from that 12 would then indicate that another could be chosen, who was not necessarily following Him at that time, but would. Is He speaking in the past tense in reference to that particular time He spoke, or past tense in reference to the regeneration? Those who have followed me up to this point, or those who have followed me before the regeneration? If the former, then Paul could not be counted among the possible twelve, if the latter, then he could.

 

Good point, though, and one I had not considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

However, in this quote, since Jesus specifically mentions 12 thrones, He cannot be speaking to ALL His current disciples, but only the 12. Removing Judas from that 12 would then indicate that another could be chosen, who was not necessarily following Him at that time, but would. Is He speaking in the past tense in reference to that particular time He spoke, or past tense in reference to the regeneration? Those who have followed me up to this point, or those who have followed me before the regeneration? If the former, then Paul could not be counted among the possible twelve, if the latter, then he could.

 

Good point, though, and one I had not considered.

That verse from Matthew was the one I was thinking of earlier.

 

As we look at the pattern of the Lord when it came to the 12, He personally chose each one of them. Christ didn't personally choose Matthias; rather Peter and the others took it upon themselves to hurry and fill the position (perhaps thinking of what Christ said in Matthew 19). Jesus told them to wait for the coming of the Holy Ghost, but we see here Peter decided to fill the vacancy of the 12 by taking matters into his own hands. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates the Lord accepted Matthias as one of the 12, only that Peter and the others cast lots and added him to their number.

 

After the original 12 Christ personally called out to be his inner circle of Apostles, we have the fall of Judas and it's not until Christ personally appears to Saul (Paul) and calls him out to be His Apostle, which Scripture confirms Paul is an Apostle, that we have another man mentioned in Scripture as specifically, personally selected by Christ to be His Apostle, if we follow the pattern Christ set, as well as looking to the wording in Scripture, it would be Paul who is the 12th Apostle.

 

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But you don't know that, your guessing, you have nothing to back that up, so you could be 100% wrong.

 

Yup,  I don't know that for certain.  All I have to go on is the timeline of events presented in the Bible.  There's nothing that says God disapproved of the appointment of Matthias; there's nothing to say He approved of it either.  All we can do is draw an inference based on what precedes and what follows the event.  However, your assertion that something may have happened to Matthias is just as much conjecture and without support.  The fact is, the Bible doesn't really say so I'm not prepared to make a dogmatic stand it; but I do lean toward my previously stated position because I think the evidence (what little there is) better supports it based on where we see God taking action and/or making His will known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Again, speculation, you cannot build doctrine on speculating, what you think. As I posted to Sword, there is not one verse to back that train of though up.

No one said anything about building a doctrine...and of course it's speculation. Just as DC's article is, and all of our opinions.   :icon_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

My hubby and I were talking about this last night (he was quite emphatic that the 12th apostle was Paul, as I knew he would be). Anyway, he was musing and mentioned this - there is historical evidence of the martyrdom of all of the apostles (including Paul). Has anyone ever heard of Matthias being martyred?   I know the Orthodox Church of America claims he was, but they claim some pretty strange things, so I'm not sure if they are historically accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Most sources have Matthias being martyred and buried in what is now Georgia in Eurasia.
Following the martyrdom of Stephen, Paul was chosen directly by Christ to be the lone
Apostle to the Gentiles. "The Twelve" were to remain Apostles to the Jewish Diaspora.
Following the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the possibility of a Kingdom was
cut-off, and only the Gentile Church (with remnant of Jews) remained. When the future
"fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25), the Gospel of the Kingdom
will once again be preached, by believing Jews, to the ends of the earth (Mt. 24:14)

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness
unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Most sources have Matthias being martyred and buried in what is now Georgia in Eurasia.
Following the martyrdom of Stephen, Paul was chosen directly by Christ to be the lone
Apostle to the Gentiles. "The Twelve" were to remain Apostles to the Jewish Diaspora
.
Following the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the possibility of a Kingdom was
cut-off, and only the Gentile Church (with remnant of Jews) remained. When the future
"fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom 11:25), the Gospel of the Kingdom
will once again be preached, by believing Jews, to the ends of the earth (Mt. 24:14)

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness
unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

I disagree with this statement.  History and various traditions attest to several of the Twelve Apostles making trips to many different Gentile areas such as Egypt, Greece, Syria, Persia, India, Armenia, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, and others.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think the Jewish Diaspora had a big presence in those last 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

The Bible can be rightly divided and each verse is inspired and included specifically by inspiration of God.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

 

The twelve apostles are important to Rev. 21 which speaks of 12 apostles.

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom 2:16
Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the
revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Rom 16:25
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 2 Tim 2:8
Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, presented the Gospel of Grace - by grace through faith + nothing.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is what Jesus preached and what "the Twelve" preached. Jesus proclaimed
the words that the Father gave him and not of himself. Unless you distinguish the two gospels from
each other, it will cause confusion.

Paul's Gospel of Grace was a gradual revelation:
2 Peter 3:15-16
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul
also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.
Following the destruction of the Temple, there remained no opportunity
to establish the Kingdom - only the Gospel of Grace remained (as it has to this day).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First, let me say that I can understand the view of Paul being the twelfth apostle.  I'm not opposed to that view, and I appreciate everyone's graciousness in not attacking me for my personal view of Matthias being the twelfth apostle.  Don't get me wrong...Paul was an apostle!

 

There are several reasons for my view...some which I've already given.  I also agree with David Cloud's reasoning (I've actually used the same points in the past)...and then I also look at it this way...

 

1.  The original prophecy which Peter referred to...

 
Psalms 109:8
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
 
It just says "let another take his office".  The indication is that another man would simply "receive" the office...the language doesn't indicate an actual appointment.
 
2.  Though the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ had just happened, the Holy Ghost had not yet been given.  The apostles understood that the casting of lots was a recognized way of determining God's will.
 
Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
 
3.  In casting the lots, Peter was not only leaving the choice to the Lord, but he even asked IF (shew whether) one of the two men were the Lord's choice.
 
Acts 1:24
And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
 
4.  The Bible plainly states that Matthias was "numbered with the eleven".
 
Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
 
5.  The Bible plainly states after Matthias was chosen and numbered with the eleven, that the apostles (which would include Matthias) performed many wonders and signs.
 
Acts 2:43
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
 

See also Acts 2:37, Acts 2:42, Acts 4:33, Acts 5:12, and several others.

 

6.  Paul included Matthias as an apostle.

 

1 Corinthians 15:5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
 
Paul plainly says that the risen Lord was seen "of the twelve".  Matthias had to have been #12...it surely wasn't Judas Iscariot.  He then went on to say that the risen Lord was seen by himself (Paul); thereby, differentiating himself from the 12...
 
1 Corinthians 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

Again, I'm not being dogmatic...just explaining my reason for why I believe as I do.  If I'm wrong, I pray the Lord will forgive me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First, let me say that I can understand the view of Paul being the twelfth apostle.  I'm not opposed to that view, and I appreciate everyone's graciousness in not attacking me for my personal view of Matthias being the twelfth apostle.  Don't get me wrong...Paul was an apostle!

 

There are several reasons for my view...some which I've already given.  I also agree with David Cloud's reasoning (I've actually used the same points in the past)...and then I also look at it this way...

 

1.  The original prophecy which Peter referred to...

 
Psalms 109:8
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
 
It just says "let another take his office".  The indication is that another man would simply "receive" the office...the language doesn't indicate an actual appointment.
 
2.  Though the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ had just happened, the Holy Ghost had not yet been given.  The apostles understood that the casting of lots was a recognized way of determining God's will.
 
Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
 
3.  In casting the lots, Peter was not only leaving the choice to the Lord, but he even asked IF (shew whether) one of the two men were the Lord's choice.
 
Acts 1:24
And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
 
4.  The Bible plainly states that Matthias was "numbered with the eleven".
 
Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
 
5.  The Bible plainly states after Matthias was chosen and numbered with the eleven, that the apostles (which would include Matthias) performed many wonders and signs.
 
Acts 2:43
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
 

See also Acts 2:37, Acts 2:42, Acts 4:33, Acts 5:12, and several others.

 

6.  Paul included Matthias as an apostle.

 

1 Corinthians 15:5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
 
Paul plainly says that the risen Lord was seen "of the twelve".  Matthias had to have been #12...it surely wasn't Judas Iscariot.  He then went on to say that the risen Lord was seen by himself (Paul); thereby, differentiating himself from the 12...
 
1 Corinthians 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

Again, I'm not being dogmatic...just explaining my reason for why I believe as I do.  If I'm wrong, I pray the Lord will forgive me.

I certainly appreciate this reasoned approach with supporting Scripture. While I still lean towards Paul as being the one who is named on the foundation with the other 11, I acknowledge that Scripture isn't clear as to the matter and that leaves room for the possibility it could be Matthias. You do present a strong case.

 

The delving into Scripture to look at the matter, whether one leans towards Matthias or Paul in the end, has been worthwhile if for nothing else we've explored Scripture a little deeper.

 

I don't think any of us will need to ask forgiveness for which man we think is the 12th Apostle (unless one were to be dogmatic and attack all dissenters or make it a test of some kind...which no one here is doing). In the next life we will rejoice at whichever name is upon that foundation, and with whichever one sits upon that seat, and we will understand and agree with it.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion here. Thank you for your fine contributions to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First, let me say that I can understand the view of Paul being the twelfth apostle.  I'm not opposed to that view, and I appreciate everyone's graciousness in not attacking me for my personal view of Matthias being the twelfth apostle.  Don't get me wrong...Paul was an apostle!

 

There are several reasons for my view...some which I've already given.  I also agree with David Cloud's reasoning (I've actually used the same points in the past)...and then I also look at it this way...

 

1.  The original prophecy which Peter referred to...

 
Psalms 109:8
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
 
It just says "let another take his office".  The indication is that another man would simply "receive" the office...the language doesn't indicate an actual appointment.
 
2.  Though the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ had just happened, the Holy Ghost had not yet been given.  The apostles understood that the casting of lots was a recognized way of determining God's will.
 
Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
 
3.  In casting the lots, Peter was not only leaving the choice to the Lord, but he even asked IF (shew whether) one of the two men were the Lord's choice.
 
Acts 1:24
And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
 
4.  The Bible plainly states that Matthias was "numbered with the eleven".
 
Acts 1:26
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
 
5.  The Bible plainly states after Matthias was chosen and numbered with the eleven, that the apostles (which would include Matthias) performed many wonders and signs.
 
Acts 2:43
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
 

See also Acts 2:37, Acts 2:42, Acts 4:33, Acts 5:12, and several others.

 

6.  Paul included Matthias as an apostle.

 

1 Corinthians 15:5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
 
Paul plainly says that the risen Lord was seen "of the twelve".  Matthias had to have been #12...it surely wasn't Judas Iscariot.  He then went on to say that the risen Lord was seen by himself (Paul); thereby, differentiating himself from the 12...
 
1 Corinthians 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

Again, I'm not being dogmatic...just explaining my reason for why I believe as I do.  If I'm wrong, I pray the Lord will forgive me.

 

I've also enjoyed the discussions on this and don't think this is a doctrinally separating issue.  If you'll permit, I'd like to critique some of your points to strengthen your argument.

 

#1.  I think the premise of your point is valid regarding the lack of appointment-type language, but rephrasing "take" to "receive" actually works against your argument.  One is an active verb and the other is passive.  To receive something necessitates that it be given.  To assert that the Matthias/Paul recieved the position that Judas held is to say that it was given to him by someone else: by the Eleven for Matthias or by Jesus for Paul.  Strictly speaking, this language necessitates that Jesus' giving overrides the the Eleven's giving.

 

#2.  Agreed, though I don't think it can be assumed that God always participated and revealed his will in the casting of lots.

 

#3.  Your explanation of "whether" here is incorrect because it assumes modern misuse of the word.  "Whether" is used do indicate one or the other.  When used as a pronoun (which is the case in Acts 1:24), it is expressely synonymous with "which" or "whichever".  This was the way it was commonly used in KJV-era English.  Thus, a proper dumbed-down English rendering is more accurately "show which of these two thou hast chosen,"  This reveals that they only put up two choices assuming that God would choose one or the other without considering a third option, which is somewhat of a presumptious way to go to approach God.

**any dictionary can illustrate this point, but for quick reference you can use dictionary.com or merriam-webster.com**

 

#4&#5. Both of these assume your position is correct and that Matthias was a valid apostle according to God's standards as opposed to man's.  When arguing the point with someone who believes there were only 12 real apostles, this point is of no effect.  You first have to show that apostleship was not limited to the original 12 disciples (11 + the replacement for Judas).

 

#6. An excellent point that I want to put some study into!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've also enjoyed the discussions on this and don't think this is a doctrinally separating issue.  If you'll permit, I'd like to critique some of your points to strengthen your argument.

 

#1.  I think the premise of your point is valid regarding the lack of appointment-type language, but rephrasing "take" to "receive" actually works against your argument.  One is an active verb and the other is passive.  To receive something necessitates that it be given.  To assert that the Matthias/Paul recieved the position that Judas held is to say that it was given to him by someone else: by the Eleven for Matthias or by Jesus for Paul.  Strictly speaking, this language necessitates that Jesus' giving overrides the the Eleven's giving.

 

#2.  Agreed, though I don't think it can be assumed that God always participated and revealed his will in the casting of lots.

 

#3.  Your explanation of "whether" here is incorrect because it assumes modern misuse of the word.  "Whether" is used do indicate one or the other.  When used as a pronoun (which is the case in Acts 1:24), it is expressely synonymous with "which" or "whichever".  This was the way it was commonly used in KJV-era English.  Thus, a proper dumbed-down English rendering is more accurately "show which of these two thou hast chosen,"  This reveals that they only put up two choices assuming that God would choose one or the other without considering a third option, which is somewhat of a presumptious way to go to approach God.

**any dictionary can illustrate this point, but for quick reference you can use dictionary.com or merriam-webster.com**

 

#4&#5. Both of these assume your position is correct and that Matthias was a valid apostle according to God's standards as opposed to man's.  When arguing the point with someone who believes there were only 12 real apostles, this point is of no effect.  You first have to show that apostleship was not limited to the original 12 disciples (11 + the replacement for Judas).

 

#6. An excellent point that I want to put some study into!

 

Thank you Sword.  As to your points...

 

#1 - I didn't mean that "take" meant "receive".  I apologize for being less clear in my point.  At risk of digging my hole deeper, I'll try to explain a little more.  With the language, "take" doesn't necessarily mean that someone would be appointed (though it could); rather, that the position would merely be taken by whoever it was given to.  That may sound even worse.

 

#2 - I agree.

 

#3 - You're right...I failed to look up "whether", and it does mean "which".

 

#4 & 5 - I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding what you're saying.  God's standards for apostleship were...

  1. The apostle must have been chosen by the Lord. (We only have what the Bible tells us. Whereas, I can't prove that God used the lots to choose Matthias, neither can it be proven that he didn't.)
  2. An apostle must have personally seen the resurrected Christ. (According to the Bible, Matthias was one of the 120 people who had followed Jesus from his baptism until his ascension.)

#6 - To me, that's the strongest case for Matthias.

 

Thanks again Sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you Sword.  As to your points...

 

#1 - I didn't mean that "take" meant "receive".  I apologize for being less clear in my point.  At risk of digging my hole deeper, I'll try to explain a little more.  With the language, "take" doesn't necessarily mean that someone would be appointed (though it could); rather, that the position would merely be taken by whoever it was given to.  That may sound even worse.

 

#2 - I agree.

 

#3 - You're right...I failed to look up "whether", and it does mean "which".

 

#4 & 5 - I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding what you're saying.  God's standards for apostleship were...

  1. The apostle must have been chosen by the Lord. (We only have what the Bible tells us. Whereas, I can't prove that God used the lots to choose Matthias, neither can it be proven that he didn't.)
  2. An apostle must have personally seen the resurrected Christ. (According to the Bible, Matthias was one of the 120 people who had followed Jesus from his baptism until his ascension.)

#6 - To me, that's the strongest case for Matthias.

 

Thanks again Sword.

 

I certainly appreciate the thoughtful dialogue.

 

#1 - I think you're right...it does sound a little worse.  It kinda sounds like you're saying that the position was to be taken by the person who was given permission to do so; kind of like when my wife tells me I can have the last brownie and I take it off the plate and eat it.  It still implies an authoritative giving.  I'm not sure you should use this for your position.  If you did, you would have to argue that "take" implied no divine permission or blessing was needed, only that someone qualified stepped in to do it.

 

#4 & #5 - What I mean is that people on the Paul-side of this discussion generally see only 12 valid apostles (I don't want to speak for everyone if they disagree but this is what I have noticed) and therefore if Paul was one as he claimed to be then Matthias could not have been.  The qualifications following Christ from baptism and witnessing the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22) are viewed more as pre-requisites for Apostleship rather than a checklist for certification.  As you pointed out, there were about 120 people who met those qualifications so either there were 120 apostles with 12 leaders or possession of the qualifications did not automatically make one an apostle.  In the same way, a man may be fully qualified to be a pastor according to 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Tit 1:7-9, but if he is not called to be such then he is not a pastor. 

 

I think it's also important to note that the qualifications in Acts 1:21-22 were give by Peter prior the guidance of the not-yet-outpoured Holy Spirit.  Jesus clearly waivered the qualification of being one of the 120 pre-Pentecost followers for Paul in Acts 9:15, indicating at least that divine appointment superceded it or at most iterated that it was not one of God's true qualifications to begin with. 

 

In order to use arguments #4 & #5 with any effect, you have to first show how there can be more than 12 apostles.  If point #6 turns out to be solid, you should move it before these two points.  You have to set the foundation with the least disputable evidence or else whatever follows will not be considered accurate either.  This is kind of why the Romans Road in witnessing starts off with getting the person to acknowledge that they are a sinner.  It's the easiest and most foundational truth.  If you start with Rom 10:13 instead of Rom 3:10-23 you run the risk of the person flatly rejecting the Gospel before they truly hear it or falling victim to easy prayerism without understanding what it truly means to be saved.  It's the same with any debate such as this.  You have to first start by definitely showing that there can be more than 12 Apostles, because there undisputably the original 11 plus Paul to make 12.  After that is should be relatively easy to show that Matthias is the most likely candidate to be included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...