Fortunately for us, there have been apostles beyond the original twelve.
Barnabas comes to mind. (Acts 14:14)
Even Jesus is called an apostle in Heb. 3:1.
Who knows how many there have been over the last 2000 years.
Praise be to God.
Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Barnabas comes to mind. (Acts 14:14)
Even Jesus is called an apostle in Heb. 3:1.
Who knows how many there have been over the last 2000 years.
Praise be to God.
Derf
Well-known member
If I wrote that, the first part would be with tongue planted firmly in cheek. If that's not how you meant it, could you explain?
Derf
Well-known member
He was numbered by whom? Just because most thought of him as one of the twelve doesn't mean Jesus thought of him that way. And Jesus is the only one that matters. Jesus personally picked all of the eleven (plus Judas), then personally picked Paul. He only indirectly picked Matthias. But I've been told this isn't relevant to this thread, for reasons that aren't completely clear.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It wasn't just an agreement between Paul and the rest of the Apostles, in a vacuum. Jesus Himself weighed in on it in Acts 9 (the middle of Acts):
See?
OK ...
Wait what?
All right----maybe it was just an agreement between Paul and the rest of the Apostles.
So what? "He was numbered with the eleven apostles" is explicit. He's part of that group of apostles, the TWELVE Apostles who will sit upon TWELVE thrones over the TWELVE tribes of Israel in the coming Kingdom in the New Jerusalem which has TWELVE gates.
When the Bible says something specific like that, you should pay attention, not dismiss it.
Being numbered among a group means that you are part of that group.
I'm not making an appeal to popularity, if that's what you're thinking. I'm saying that Peter
Do you not remember what Jesus said?
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. - Matthew 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:18&version=NKJV
He was talking to His disciples.
His disciples, the Twelve (minus Judas who had killed himself, making them "eleven") decided to replace Judas. That's literally what the Bible says! JUST READ IT!
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said,“Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”(Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)“For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosento take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:15-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:15-26&version=NKJV
Judas was replaced with Matthias, and Matthias was numbered with the eleven, just as Judas was, and he took Judas's office.
This did not happen for Paul or any of the apostles afterwards, because the TWELVE Apostles (a group, just as the nation of Israel is a corporate entity, a group with which God made a covenant) will sit on TWELVE thrones ruling the TWELVE tribes of Israel.
Neither Paul nor any other other apostle was ever "numbered with the [Twelve Apostles].
Only if Jesus did not give the Twelve the authority to decide such matters. And He did, as per Matthew 18:18. Why do you think the disciples prayed to Jesus in Acts 1:24-25 for God's will to be done in choosing who to replace Judas with? They clearly thought they had the authority to do so.
Also, if Jesus is the only one that matters in this sort of context, then why did the twelve agree with Paul, against what Jesus said, for the Twelve, including Matthias, to only go to the circumcision, and remain mostly in Jerusalem for the rest of their lives, while Paul, only ONE apostle, goes to the rest of the world?
What you say has the "eleven" directly disobeying Christ without any good reason. Do you think God would honor them, who were to keep His commands and endure to the end, by placing them as rulers over the twelve tribes of Israel, for such disobedience?
No. The only way it makes any sense for God to do that is if He had given them the authority to decide such things (as shown in Matthew 18) for themselves,
The problem is that you have to answer the above, and why Paul hardly interacted with the other "eleven" (along with Matthias) for nearly 14 years after he was chosen, if he was supposed to have been the twelfth apostle, as well as why He said that he has no position of authority over any other believer, that he's just another member, with Christ as the head, when the Twelve (whom you assume Paul is part of) will rule over the tribes of Israel.
You also have to explain why being indirectly picked, given the qualifications listed by Peter for choosing someone to fill the office Judas left empty, disqualifies Matthias from filling the role, despite Luke (the author of Acts, who was inspired by God) to describe Matthias as being "numbered with the eleven," just as Judas was.
Derf
Well-known member
Remember that they weren't exactly fond of him. Allowing him to do what Christ wanted (go to the Gentiles) and them to do what they wanted (stay away from the Gentiles) made sense to them, but they all eventually went to the Gentiles.
Derf
Well-known member
The Bible explicitly says "Matthias will be one of those who will sit upon TWELVE thrones over the TWELVE tribes of Israel in the coming Kingdom in the New Jerusalem which has TWELVE gates"? I must have missed that verse.
Right Divider
Body part
Why wouldn't Paul come to mind? Paul wrote THIRTEEN epistles. Paul received instructions directly from the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was given a dispensation of the gospel. Barnabas followed Paul because it was Paul that Jesus gave instructions about the body of Christ..
Indeed, He was. Jesus also said that He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Ah, the unknown apostles... maybe I'm an apostle.
Praise God that He give me discernment to know that you don't know that you're talking about.
Derf
Well-known member
And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; [Luke 6:13 KJV]
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? [John 6:70 KJV]
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. [John 15:15 KJV]
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. [John 15:16 KJV]
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [John 15:19 KJV]
Of Paul this is said:
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: [Acts 9:15 KJV]
Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. [Acts 22:13-14 KJV]
I don't deny that Matthias might be one of the twelve in Jesus' mind, but there is definitely a chance Paul might be the true replacement for Judas--explicitly.
Right Divider
Body part
By God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, remember? Scripture says that Matthias was numbered with the eleven, making the required twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus chose Matthias as the replacement for Judas Iscariot.
Indeed, then why do you doubt Jesus?
So you say that Jesus picked Matthias and still you doubt? What is the difference between Jesus picking directly or indirectly? What does it even mean to "pick indirectly"?
It's not directly relevant. Perhaps it's indirectly relevant.
Right Divider
Body part
Paul did not meet the requirements:
Acts 1:21-22 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (1:22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Not what I said. Please pay attention.
And then later, Judas killed himself, and so his office was empty. Thus, in Acts 1, almost immediately after Jesus' ascension, they chose someone to fill that role.
You'd think if Jesus didn't want Matthias as the one to fill the role, He would have made it clear to the twelve very quickly that Matthias wasn't the one. But instead, just as Jesus described in the parable of the barren fig tree, Jesus waited another year to see if Israel bore fruit, and when they didn't, and instead started by killing Stephen, God cut off Israel, as He said He would in Jeremiah.
As was just pointed out, Paul didn't meet the requirements to be one of the Twelve, but did meet the requirement of being an Apostle.
Numbers are somewhat important in scripture.
Anytime the number 12 is used, or multiples of it, as far as I'm aware, it always has some relation to Israel. 12 Apostles, 12 gates in the New Jerusalem which represent the 12 tribes, 12 thousand from each tribe (144,000 total) will be sealed in the Great Tribulation, Christ's bride (Israel) in Revelation 12, wears a crown with 12 stars in it, Solomon appointed 12 officers over Israel, the high priest's breastplate had 12 stones in it.
13, on the other hand, usually has the connotation of rebellion and lawlessness. Israel had rebelled against her Messiah, and become lawless, so God cut them off, just as Adam and Eve were cut off from God (likely on Friday the 13th day), and started a different program with the 13th Apostle, Paul, who wrote 13 books.
So then what's the problem? Why can't Matthias be the one chosen by Jesus, especially if Scripture indicates that he is?
Again, The requirement was for whoever was chosen to have been with Jesus since the beginning of His ministry. Paul didn't meet that requirement. He DOES meet the requirement of being given his message directly from Jesus Christ, so in that, he was a true Apostle. But he could not have been one of the twelve, and as Scripture makes clear, Matthias had already filled that empty role, about a year prior to Paul even being mentioned.
In other words, not a chance!
You don't think that Paul explicitly separating himself from the Twelve and agreeing with them that his ministry would be to the gentiles while the Twelve ministered to Israel is relevant to that discussion?
No, it isn't. It's based on the following facts...
- Paul, then Saul, was in the process of destroying the church when Judas was replaced with Matthias. (i.e. Saul could not have qualified as a replacment for Judas for this a several other reasons.)
- Mathias' Apostleship was confirmed by God when he was filled with the Holy Spirit along with the rest of the Apostles at Pentecost.
- Paul, then Saul, was converted by the risen, ascended and glorified Lord Jesus Christ Himself AFTER the Jews had officially rejected Christ as their Messiah.
- Paul explicitly and repeatedly separated himself from anyone else's ministry and specifically that of the Twelve.
- Paul taught a different gospel than that of the Twelve, a gospel that he repeatedly refers to as "my gospel".
- Paul taught to not allow yourself to be placed under the law while James' followers were "zealous for the law".
- Paul was sent, by divine revelation, to Jerusalem for the purpose of explaining his gospel to the Twelve
- Paul withstood Peter to his face because Peter didn't get it.
- Paul agreed with the Twelve that they (the Twelve) would stay in Jerusalem and minister to their converts (i.e. the circumcision) and he (Paul) would go to the gentiles.
I can, of course, provide biblical references to all those points and several more that fully establish that Paul was definitely not numbered with the Twelve.
Well, then it is your own flawed understanding of our doctrine and why we hold it that is circular. Who told you that was the reason behind it? Did anyone at all ever make that argument to you or did you just leap to that conclusion?
Regardless of where you came up with it, now the question becomes whether you will now drop the accusation since it's been shown to be wrong and make any effort at all to answer the original argument which is, "Where's the need for a thirteenth Apostle?"
Hint: There wasn't any need for a thirteenth Apostle!
It would destroy a lot more than that. If Paul was a member of the Twelve then it would falsify the testimony of Acts and, by extention, would destroy the veracity of the entire Christian theological construct.
For years I had as a signature line a quote from something John Sanders wrote....
"The openness model is an attempt to provide a more biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..."
I've always loved that quote, not only because its completely true and so eloquently expresses our motives but also because it isn't just true of open theism but of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism as well. So far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate to me, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is the only rationally consistent way to understand the bible. I haven't yet seen anyone who rejects it for purely biblical reasons. Instead, they reject it on the basis of their doctrine, which is invalid because that would be an example of the exact sort of question begging you've accused us of.There may be a detail here or there that we have incorrect, but, generally speaking, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is true or Paul was a total heretic and Christianity itself is false.
No, you can't.
Do yourself a favor and stop trying to read our minds and base your arguments and rebuttals on what we actually say rather than on what you think you see as our motives and premises.
The only reason we deny it is because that's what the bible explicitly says, as I partially established above. The text itself is clear as can be, the only reason you reject something so transparently true is because of your doctrine. And I mean that literally. Your allegiance is to your doctrine first. You bring your doctrine with you to the reading of the text and so see your doctrine everywhere. It's called confirmation bias and we all have to combat it. Indeed, I believe it is a primary reason God wrote a book in the first place. The text serves as an anchor point for one's doctrine but only when allowed to do so. Getting things backward and allowing your doctrine to determine your understanding of the text rather than the other way around is to cut your mooring lines and set yourself adrift into an ocean of meandering doctrines that shift with the wind.
II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
II Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Last edited:
Matthew 19:28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Acts 1:23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had TWELVE foundations, and on them were the names of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb.
@Derf have you even considered the possibility that you're letting your doctrine interpret scripture, rather than letting scripture inform/mold your doctrine?
Because stuff like this:
...requires some pretty serious cognitive dissonance to be able to continue to insist that scripture doesn't mean exactly what it says!
Derf
Well-known member
Or it could mean that I haven't settled on my doctrinal view in this area, and I need to consider any valid options. Something to think about, yes? Something to emulate, maybe?
An honest answer. I like it!
No question about it.
Thankfully, God has provided more apostles since those early times.
You are reading far too much into this.
Where is it written that the twelve OAs were ONLY to reach out to the circumcised Israelites?
If the 12 OSs went to Egypt, and I have read even as far as India, were they supposed to allow the Egyptian and Indian non-Jews to continue on in nonbelief and service to sin?
I doubt it.
Plus, Paul usually started visits to new cities with visits to the local synagogues, which were populated by Jews.