The Petra Zone

There are a few passages of scripture that have always bothered me...here is one of them.

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

Paul was not (of course) one of the original apostles. He was not the replacement for Judas. Matthias was chosen by the remaining apostles as Judas' replacement...

Acts 1:26 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

This raises a few questions...

The Gospels (and Revelations) make it clear that there are only 12 apostles. Yet Paul over and over in his epistles claims to be an apostle. How is this so?

So whose name is on the 12th foundation? I'm sure God would not have Judas' name on it, since he betrayed Jesus. Is it Matthias or Paul?

So how did Paul become the greatest apostle (besides writing the most epistles of the New Testament)?

Short answer - the Apostles chose Matthias, God chose Paul.

While we are told the Apostles prayed over their choice, choosing a replacement for Judas was never something God had asked of them, nor was casting lots ever condoned as a means of choosing such a replacement. Everything about this account reminds me of Sarai, Hagar and Abraham in Genesis - when Sarai (or was she Sarah by then?) has Abraham go on a date with her handmaid in order to "fulfill" God's promise. Only in Acts 1, replacing Judas was never something God even promised to do - so Sarai had more of a justification than the Apostles from that perspective.

I'll concede here that this is in large part speculation, because we simply aren't told who the apostles that represent the twelve foundations are. I think it's very likely that Paul (who was specifically chosen by God) was the intended replacement for Judas, and that the appointment of Matthais was a case of the well-meaning apostles jumping the gun and trying to do God's business for Him, in their own way. If I'm right, I think all would agree it wouldn't have been the first time someone tried doing the same thing. In fact, I suspect most of us have "gotten ahead" of the Lord's leading in many areas.

It's funny you mention this, because this issue came up during a Sunday School class at our church recently. In fact, I know at least one person on this forum who thinks differently. I understand the other position (namely, that Matthais was the intended replacement for Judas), particularly among those of us who truly value the examples of the early church in Acts. TBH I simply don't have a problem believing these early believers may have made a well-intended but ill-advised decision.

Ultimately, I don't think this issue can be answered decisively because there's too many unknowns. So can't we get back to arguing over who wrote the book of Hebrews already?!

Anyways, due to my expressed feelings, I think you can see why seeing Paul as one of the aforementioned "foundations" isn't a big deal for me. Honestly I'm not sure what the consensus is about the identity of this person from the "other" camp.

A different answer... from

at least one person on this forum who thinks differently.

The church, today, is primarily made up of Gentiles. Who was Paul? What do we learn from Romans 11:13 and Galatians 2:8? Although he, himself, was a Jew, he was the apostle to the Gentiles.
I think, simply, since the church is predominantly made up of converted Gentiles, Paul and his writings became more prevalent.

As far as Matthias goes, note that EVERYONE was in agreement and the Scriptures NEVER condemn the decision.

I do, respectfully disagree that there are only 12 apostles. Paul, certainly, was an Apostle - even defended in Galatians (chapter 1, as well as 1 Cor 9:1ff and 2 Cor 12:11ff). He saw the risen Christ, he performed the signs of an apostle, he received his commission directly from the Lord Jesus, Himself.

Do disciples make mistakes? Absolutely! They're not perfect. However, where there is a need for us to know that they were wrong, the Scriptures are clear and explicit (e.g., Galatians 2). If there is no condemnation or rebuke, it is best to assume they were right, lest we find ourselves arguing with God.

There are some who would argue that Matthias was never mentioned again and for that reason the 11 (and the rest) were wrong. The serious flaw with this is that the same thing can be said about most of the other Apostles (even in the Gospels, outside of the lists). What about Bartholomew? What about Matthew (Levi)? Yet, was Christ wrong in picking these? Also, Luke, a coworker of Paul's, mentions "the twelve" (Acts 6:2), meaning the twelve existing apostles - Paul was not yet saved. If Matthias was in doubt, the Holy Spirit through Luke had ample opportunity to set the record straight. Did He not?

With that said, if I was cornered, I'd say Rev 21:14 would refer to Matthias, as Paul was an Apostle "untimely born" (1 Cor 15:8).

Matthew RJ wrote:

zak89 wrote:Ultimately, I don't think this issue can be answered decisively because there's too many unknowns. So can't we get back to arguing over who wrote the book of Hebrews already?!

Had to be a woman.

Brothers and sisters, I urge you to bear with my word of exhortation, for in fact I have written to you quite briefly. ~ Hebrews 13:22

Briefly? That little letter is 13 chapters. You want a brief letter, try 3rd John, or Jude. Philemon. Those are short letters.

I don't know... I've heard a number of preachers go on, and on, and on... and that's just the opening prayer.

You know, both of those views really do have merit. I would add that the phrase "The twelve apostles" does not preclude the possibility of there being other apostles. When we say, "The twelve disciples," we do not mean that those were the only disciples Jesus ever had. Only that those 12 were special. I think the same can be said of "twelve apostles".

Matthias' wikki article is interesting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthias) According to it, he is the patron saint of "alcoholism; carpenters; Gary, Indiana; Great Falls-Billings, Montana; smallpox; tailors".

What if it was still Judas? Peter bombed almost as badly.

Nah - after Bob wrote the song, Judas doesn't have a chance. Can you imagine what heavenly dance parties would be like? All of a sudden you'd hear a distinctive Gm pentatonic riff...

On a serious note, Peter may have fallen hard, but he didn't the distinction of being called a "son of perdition" (John 17:12). And Peter was later restored (Mark 16:7), while Judas committed suicide (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18). Judge them by their fruits, I guess.

As far as Matthias goes, note that EVERYONE was in agreement and the Scriptures NEVER condemn the decision.

I still doubt that the apostles had the ability/authority to "make" someone an apostle. The only people we are told were apostles were chosen directly by the Lord - namely the twelve, and Paul. Are we told that the apostles could not appoint other apostles? No - but neither are we told that anyone couldn't appoint an apostle. All we have is the patterns in the Gospels and in Acts. The Lord directly chose a total of 13 Apostles - one fell away, and another (Paul) was appointed (again by the Lord) shortly after.

zak89 wrote: I still doubt that the apostles had the ability/authority to "make" someone an apostle. The only people we are told were apostles were chosen directly by the Lord - namely the twelve, and Paul. Are we told that the apostles could not appoint other apostles? No - but neither are we told that anyone couldn't appoint an apostle. All we have is the patterns in the Gospels and in Acts. The Lord directly chose a total of 13 Apostles - one fell away, and another (Paul) was appointed (again by the Lord) shortly after.

Ok, If the Lord directly chose only 13 Apostles, then who directed the lot that fell to Matthias?

I don't really want to make a big deal about this, but personally, I don't feel comfortable going up against an apostle, much less 11, not to mention the rest of the church, saying they were wrong, when the Bible never says it.

Let me put it another way... I'm not sure those in the upper room made Matthias an Apostle. They recognized him as an apostle. By way of example, much the same thing happened later on with the Scriptures. How did we come up with the 66 books that we have? Yes, men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Did the prophets and Apostles not say other things? They probably did. Did everything they say or write make it into the Bible? No. I don't think so. If you doubt me, how else would you explain 1 Corinthians 5:9? The Holy Spirit directed various ones to write (over a span of about 1500 years) and then others to compile both the Old and New Testaments as we have them, today. Did the compilers make them Scripture? If you say "yes" you're in the wrong church, but I don't know how you'll break it to your folks that you're converting to Roman Catholicism (tongue in cheek).

I'm pretty sure that you agree with me that the compilers recognized the 39+27 as Scripture... as the Word of God. Right? I think it's the same thought process in recognizing Matthias. Does that make sense?

I don't really want to make a big deal about this, but personally, I don't feel comfortable going up against an apostle, much less 11, not to mention the rest of the church, saying they were wrong, when the Bible never says it.

Well, from a historical standpoint, I think it's worthwhile to critically examine the apostles' actions in light of Scripture. There a number of things that some question regarding their choices, where we are not told whether they were right or wrong. Paul's taking up the vow in Acts 21, for example. I tend to lean towards Paul's move being perfectly valid, but it does raise some eyebrows. Many actions in the OT are recorded without judgement on their wisdom or anything else. I don't view it as being directly confrontational.

Let me put it another way... I'm not sure those in the upper room made Matthias an Apostle. They recognized him as an apostle. By way of example, much the same thing happened later on with the Scriptures. How did we come up with the 66 books that we have? Yes, men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Did the prophets and Apostles not say other things? They probably did. Did everything they say or write make it into the Bible? No. I don't think so. If you doubt me, how else would you explain 1 Corinthians 5:9? The Holy Spirit directed various ones to write (over a span of about 1500 years) and then others to compile both the Old and New Testaments as we have them, today.

Valid points, but then it's a matter of convention (as you said, you were "not sure"). If we think of the Apostle's actions in the upper room where a matter of recognition and not appointment, sure, the analogy fits. I'll grant that God had the final say in which way the lot fell - but that still doesn't address the question of using lots to "choose" an apostle. When were they given this responsibility? There was never a condition set on them to ensure there were twelve in their ranks. Does that make it wrong? Of course not, but it raises my eyebrows at least, especially when only a few chapters later we see (surprise!) another personal appointment of an apostle by the Lord! Who would have thought?

To put it another way, seeing (as I do) the twelve original apostles were chosen by the Lord in person, and Paul (undoubtedly an apostle) was also chosen by the Lord in person, to my mind that suggests that being chosen by the Lord in such a manner is part of the "qualification" of an apostle. But I freely admit here that this becomes a matter of convention - because if you assume before hand Matthias' appointment/recognition was a valid way to appoint/recognize an apostle, than you change the "qualification", making my distinction invalid.

I'm pretty sure that you agree with me that the compilers recognized the 39+27 as Scripture... as the Word of God. Right? I think it's the same thought process in recognizing Matthias. Does that make sense?

Yes. Again, that's certainly a valid way to think about it - but neither of those scenarios are actually played out like that in Scripture. So one can't "prove" that they are the same, or different. Convention, again.

I may not be unbiased, but I don't see any clear "clincher" on either side of this question. Am I wrong?

Did the compilers make them Scripture? If you say "yes" you're in the wrong church, but I don't know how you'll break it to your folks that you're converting to Roman Catholicism (tongue in cheek).

Ha ha! Don't you start bringing "folks" into this!

<edit>
FWIW, every major commentator I consulted takes Matthias' appointment as being perfectly right and valid. A couple did have reservations - John Calvin for instance noted Peter's reasoning for the appointment in Acts 1:20-21 seemed "far set [arch. 'fetched']" . I'm inclined to agree with that assessment, althout Calvin went on to "endorse" the decision. So, if you're looking for the "accepted" position, that appears to be it. Sigh... somehow I always end up being the oddball.
</edit>