Matthias

[JonC]

No they were set aside as the Priestly Tribe of the others. Still a part of the twelve.

Yet in Numbers 2 and Ezekiel 38 Levi is not mentioned when the 12 are listed. The land was divided among 12 tribes, and the encampments consist of 12 tribes, but not Levi. There is no need to go into why, we know Levi was set aside for another purpose and Joseph's became two tribes. What is important is that they were referred to as legitimate. My point is that when dealing with the 12 tribes Scripture does not always mean the same 12 we may think of. Paul may very well have been made an apostle out of season for a specific purpose. He might not be among the 12. He might. But Scripture places Matthias among the 12, anything after that is tradition and speculation. Personally, I'd Matthias was rejected by God I think Scripture would have dealt with that detail. It would certainly have had relevance to Paul.

 

[revmwc]

Yet in Numbers 2 and Ezekiel 38 Levi is not mentioned when the 12 are listed. The land was divided among 12 tribes, and the encampments consist of 12 tribes, but not Levi. There is no need to go into why, we know Levi was set aside for another purpose and Joseph's became two tribes. What is important is that they were referred to as legitimate. My point is that when dealing with the 12 tribes Scripture does not always mean the same 12 we may think of. Paul may very well have been made an apostle out of season for a specific purpose. He might not be among the 12. He might. But Scripture places Matthias among the 12, anything after that is tradition and speculation. Personally, I'd Matthias was rejected by God I think Scripture would have dealt with that detail. It would certainly have had relevance to Paul.

I believe it was very relevant to Paul He continually had to defend his apostleship as the H.S. inspired him to continually say he was an apostle. God the H.S. through His inspiration let us know consistently in Paul's writing that the 12th was Paul.

 

[JonC]

I believe it was very relevant to Paul He continually had to defend his apostleship as the H.S. inspired him to continually say he was an apostle. God the H.S. through His inspiration let us know consistently in Paul's writing that the 12th was Paul.

I question your reasoning here. Not all numbered among the 12 wrote books of the New Testament. Not all books of the NT were authored by a member of the 12.

 

[revmwc]

One more relevant point here:

Acts 1:3-5
3 "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

The command of Jesus to the disciples all 11 was one thing, "commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father." what was the promise of the father? The Holy Spirit was coming to indwell and fill them. Until that point in Time they were not to do anything and yet what did impetuous Peter do?

Acts 1:21-23,

21 "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
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.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias."

The Holy Spirit inspired Luke and He gave us a clue, the people disciples chose two and then prayed God which of these two do we choose? How did they kknow God wanted either, what about someone else. Why these two?

First they were not to do anyhting but tarry in Jerusalem and Wait for the Holy Spirit, once the Holy Spirit was come He not they would have shown them the true replacement. That happened to be Paul not either of these men. This was done out of disobedience to what Christ had said, which was "wait for the promise of the Father," we have problems waiting upon the Lord ourselves sometimes. To be this invalidates anything done and scripture through inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes it clear who made the choice, "they appointed two." Here had God been guiding Luke by inspiration would have confirmed God's choice and said God chose not they chose!

 

[revmwc]

I question your reasoning here. Not all numbered among the 12 wrote books of the New Testament. Not all books of the NT were authored by a member of the 12.

Not his writing his defending his apostleship, why the great emphasis, others may have insisted it was Matthias and Paul defended His calling in the writings we have from him.

 

[JonC]

Not his writing his defending his apostleship, why the great emphasis, others may have insisted it was Matthias and Paul defended His calling in the writings we have from him.

I absolutely agree with you that Paul was an apostle. I am not questioning that one bit. But all that I can say from Scripture is that he was an apostle to the Gentiles, and an apostle "out of time." I can't say he took the place of Judas...or Matthias....or even that Matthias was erroneously chosen. I can't do it because Scripture does not say so. To do so is speculation. As far as choosing two and casting lots...it could have been divinely inspired...we simply do not know. We see the implementation of deacons done by reasoning rather than by some direct revelation.

I know that we disagree, and I understand your reasoning for placing Paul as one of the Twelve. I hope that you also understand my reasoning for not taking that stand (I am not trying to sway you to my view here, only letting you know why I hold it).

 

[revmwc]

I absolutely agree with you that Paul was an apostle. I am not questioning that one bit. But all that I can say from Scripture is that he was an apostle to the Gentiles, and an apostle "out of time." I can't say he took the place of Judas...or Matthias....or even that Matthias was erroneously chosen. I can't do it because Scripture does not say so. To do so is speculation. As far as choosing two and casting lots...it could have been divinely inspired...we simply do not know. We see the implementation of deacons done by reasoning rather than by some direct revelation.

I know that we disagree, and I understand your reasoning for placing Paul as one of the Twelve. I hope that you also understand my reasoning for not taking that stand (I am not trying to sway you to my view here, only letting you know why I hold it).

We are just discussing. You feel that scripture isn't clear enough. I feel there is enough to see that Paul was the replacement for Judas. In the end it really doesn't matter because that is not a major doctrine.

 

[DHK]

we have problems waiting upon the Lord ourselves sometimes. To be this invalidates anything done and scripture through inspiration of the Holy Spirit makes it clear who made the choice, "they appointed two." Here had God been guiding Luke by inspiration would have confirmed God's choice and said God chose not they chose!

Why would a personal problem that you have invalidate the inspiration of Scripture? That is a huge leap!!
God did validate through Luke and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who was chosen. It was Matthias. He was chosen by lot, the OT prescribed way of divinely choosing someone. God was in this. It was not a decision made by chance--something westerners read into it. It was God that made the decision in a God-appointed method. With the advent of Pentecost the next day, the dispensation of grace or the church age starts. Up to this time they were still operating under an age of the law and made decisions according to Jewish precepts.
This was a fulfillment of prophecy. Peter explained what had to be done and why, even quoting OT scriptures in the previous verses. This office had to be fulfilled according to prophecy. It had to be done. God was in this. Matthias was divinely appointed the 12th apostle. No one, not God; not the Holy Spirit, not Christ, not Paul--absolutely no one in the rest of the NT ever questioned this decision. Who are we to question their decision led by the Spirit of God, recorded by Luke under the inspiration of the Spirit of God?

 

[TCassidy]

Is there any specific Bible citation that states that Matthias was actually baptized by John?

Matthias Nathanael was also called Simon, the son of Cleopas, and was one of the Twelve. He was among those who met and conversed with Jesus during the preaching of John the Baptist at Bethany beyond Jordan (compare Joh_1:28).

 

[TCassidy]

The big problem here is that casting lots is a form of divination, and diviners were to be put to death. I don't think God would bless a decision made using a means He abhors.

"Casting lots" was simply a way of voting. Each person was given two round stones in the shape of a small ball. One black and one white. If they were voting "Yes" they would put the white stone in the bag as it was passed. If they were voting "No" they would put the black stone or ball in the bag. (Hence the term "black balled.")

We still do the same thing today. We cast ball lots. Or ballots.

 

[Sapper Woody]

"Casting lots" was simply a way of voting. Each person was given two round stones in the shape of a small ball. One black and one white. If they were voting "Yes" they would put the white stone in the bag as it was passed. If they were voting "No" they would put the black stone or ball in the bag. (Hence the term "black balled.")





We still do the same thing today. We cast ball lots. Or ballots.

If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with that. But why do we say the soldiers gambled for Christ's coat when they cast lots?

 

[JonC]

If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with that. But why do we say the soldiers gambled for Christ's coat when they cast lots?

And God command to Moses to "cast lots" seems different from voting as well. I think that interpreting "casting lots" as voting may be a modern explanation. I wonder if there are instances where it actually presented as balloting....I don't know. The OT seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[wpe3bql]

Is casting lots anything similar to the LOTtery? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[TCassidy]

But why do we say the soldiers gambled for Christ's coat when they cast lots?

Because a lot of Christians think that if they hear something from the pulpit it just HAS to be true!

 

[TCassidy]

Is casting lots anything similar to the LOTtery? :smilewinkgrin:

In some cases, yes. As with almost all such issues the meaning of the phrase "casting lots" is context driven.

In the case of the allotment of the land to the 12 tribes we see the practice of casting lots (Joshua chapters 14-21).

In this case the descriptions of the parcels of land to be alloted were placed in the proverbial hat and drawn at random to determine which tribe got which allotment of land.

 

[JonC]

If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with that. But why do we say the soldiers gambled for Christ's coat when they cast lots?

I don't think that there is evidence that the soldiers gambled, but it was casting lots. The idea of two colored stones, or balls, put in a box or a bag is also a bit speculation (it is that way in Freemasonry, and that is where the term "black balled" comes in). But "casting lots" definitely was not voting as used in the Old Testament (e.g., God's command for Moses to cast lots doesn't make sense if it means balloting with colored stones), and I suspect it was not when the Disciples cast lots.