The twelfth Apostle - Paul or Matthias?

[Olivencia]

1. In encountering the risen Christ on the Damascus road, Paul fulfilled a basic qualification for apostleship, that of being "a witness of his resurrection" (Acts 1:22) (NIDNTT 1:136, Apostle).
2. From him he received his apostolic commission (Rom. 1:5), which is grounded in the fact that he has seen the resurrected Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) (NIDNTT 3:314, Revelation).
----------------------------
1. You must be a witness of Christ's resurrection.
2. You misunderstand 1 Corinthians 9:1.
------------------------------
If you can produce a Greek lexicon (dictionary) that proves otherwise I'd like to see it but until then you are just giving us your opinion.

 

[thegospelgeek]

Yes, he was chosen as an apostle. Luke 6:13 is correct.

Here is another prophecy:

Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.


God chose to do it this way, so in that respect, yes it was a requirement.

So Christ can chose him and then remove him?

If so, he is no longer an apostle, although Christ named him one. He was an Apostle to the Jew as were the other 11. Mattias was chosen to take his office per Psa 109 and Acts 1. Looks like a pretty clear answer to the OP to me.

Paul was an Apostle to the gentiles. There are also other who the NT refers to as apostles. Barnabas(ACTS 14:14), Epaphraditus(Phillipians 2:25), Titus(2 Cor 8:23), Timotheous and Silvanus(I Thes 1:1-6) and Christ himself(Heb 3:1)

 

[Alcott]

There are more apostles than only 12, as both Paul and Barnabas are called apostles. But supposing the question concerns which 12 are The 12 which will judge the tribes of Israel, I think it is Matthias. The reasons are if his apostleship was discounted in favor of Paul-- or, well, something like that-- the incident of his being chosen by lot would not even have been included in the book of Acts, which was written decades later by one of Paul's closest companions, Luke; plus, Paul himself said (I Corinthians, I think) that Christ appeared to him later, as one "untimely born," and he mentioned that he may not be worthy to be called an apostle because of his persecution of the early church. I think these outweigh the 2 marks 'against' Matthias-- that he was chosen by a game of chance before Pentecost, and that he is not referred to by name again as to what he did or where he went.

 

[thegospelgeek]

1. In encountering the risen Christ on the Damascus road, Paul fulfilled a basic qualification for apostleship, that of being "a witness of his resurrection" (Acts 1:22) (NIDNTT 1:136, Apostle).
2. From him he received his apostolic commission (Rom. 1:5), which is grounded in the fact that he has seen the resurrected Lord (1 Cor. 9:1) (NIDNTT 3:314, Revelation).
----------------------------
1. You must be a witness of Christ's resurrection.
2. You misunderstand 1 Corinthians 9:1.
------------------------------
If you can produce a Greek lexicon (dictionary) that proves otherwise I'd like to see it but until then you are just giving us your opinion.

I do not disagree with the requirements for apostleship as the bible states. However 1 Cor 9;1 makes no such distinction. You are putting words into Paul's mouth. If it is stating that seeing Christ is a requirement, then is also states that being free is a requirement.

(1Co 9:1) Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

You can produce no valid argument that Judas was not an apostle as clearly stated in Luke 6:13. Therefore your argument with the validity of Judas as an apostle is with Christ, not I. For he is the one who named him an apostle.


No doubt Paul is an apostle, no one is saying he is not.

 

[Olivencia]

Judas? His bishopric let another take (Acts 1:20).

I have cited two quotes that disprove what you are saying. You have cited....yourself. If you want to go along and make up your own definitions for the Greek words involved that may be all fine and dandy with you but for the serious Bible student it doesn't hold any water. I previously cited 1 Corinthians 9:1 to which you disagreed. I then cited from the TDNTT that proves you wrong.
You chose to cite no authorities because you don't have any. OK please give a definition for the word "requirement" that you used in your last post. Do not cite any authorities such as a dictionary, thesaurus, etc to prove your point - and your opinion doesn't count as well. Thus it is imposisble and your assertions are meaningless.

 

[EdSutton]

There are more apostles than only 12, as both Paul and Barnabas are called apostles. But supposing the question concerns which 12 are The 12 which will judge the tribes of Israel, I think it is Matthias. The reasons are if his apostleship was discounted in favor of Paul-- or, well, something like that-- the incident of his being chosen by lot would not even have been included in the book of Acts, which was written decades later by one of Paul's closest companions, Luke; plus, Paul himself said (I Corinthians, I think) that Christ appeared to him later, as one "untimely born," and he mentioned that he may not be worthy to be called an apostle because of his persecution of the early church. I think these outweigh the 2 marks 'against' Matthias-- that he was chosen by a game of chance before Pentecost, and that he is not referred to by name again as to what he did or where he went.

More than half of "The Eleven" (Ac. 1:26) and "The Twelve" (after Matthias, Ac. 2:24; 6:2) are not referred to by name after the selection of Matthias. (BTW, you might wanna' look at I Cor. 15:5, a bit more closely, here. There are twelve apparently besides Peter, and this is also before Paul. Hmmm! Who is this 'mystery' apostle, here? )

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Judas? His bishopric let another take (Acts 1:20).

I have cited two quotes that disprove what you are saying. You have cited....yourself. If you want to go along and make up your own definitions for the Greek words involved that may be all fine and dandy with you but for the serious Bible student it doesn't hold any water. I previously cited 1 Corinthians 9:1 to which you disagreed. I then cited from the TDNTT that proves you wrong.
You chose to cite no authorities because you don't have any. OK please give a definition for the word "requirement" that you used in your last post. Do not cite any authorities such as a dictionary, thesaurus, etc to prove your point - and your opinion doesn't count as well. Thus it is imposisble (sic) and your assertions are meaningless.

What Paul is citing in I Cor. 9:1 as "evidence" FOR his apostleship, does not necessarily make this any "requirement" for apostleship, IMO.

 

[Alcott]

you might wanna' look at I Cor. 15:5, a bit more closely, here. There are twelve apparently besides Peter, and this is also before Paul. Hmmm! Who is this 'mystery' apostle, here?

I didn't 'wanna' look at that verse a bit more closely, but I did anyway. And so what? "He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve" does not say Cephas was not included in The Twelve. If I say "This post was read by Ed Sutton, then by all who read this section," that would not mean you read it only once and were not part of "all who read this section."

 

[thegospelgeek]

Judas? His bishopric let another take (Acts 1:20).

I have cited two quotes that disprove what you are saying. You have cited....yourself. If you want to go along and make up your own definitions for the Greek words involved that may be all fine and dandy with you but for the serious Bible student it doesn't hold any water. I previously cited 1 Corinthians 9:1 to which you disagreed. I then cited from the TDNTT that proves you wrong.
You chose to cite no authorities because you don't have any. OK please give a definition for the word "requirement" that you used in your last post. Do not cite any authorities such as a dictionary, thesaurus, etc to prove your point - and your opinion doesn't count as well. Thus it is imposisble and your assertions are meaningless.

Calm down a bit. Did you read any of the post? I had already agreed that Psa 109 disproved that it was Judas, as does Acts 1:20, as you have properly quoted. You keep misreading what I have said. I never stated that you did or did not have to see a resurected Christ to be an apostle. I simply stated the fact that Jesus himself named Judas as an apostle, thus he was an apostle, replaced by Mathias. I never once thought Judas was in heaven or numbered with the apostles as mentioned in the OP. I was just throwing out a bit of a challenge. I do this from time time, it's the way God made me, and is a very effective teaching method.

I stick to the fact that 1 Cor 9:1 makes no statements. Everthing is in the form of a question. However if you pair Acts 1 with 1 Cor 9, you can see that paul is supporting the fact that he did see the resurected savior. 1 Cor 9:1 does not support this on it's own. I have defined, redefined, nor argued the definition of any greek words. basically, if you look back at my post, I have simply asked a few questions.

 

[thegospelgeek]

More than half of "The Eleven" (Ac. 1:26) and "The Twelve" (after Matthias, Ac. 2:24; 6:2) are not referred to by name after the selection of Matthias. (BTW, you might wanna' look at I Cor. 15:5, a bit more closely, here. There are twelve apparently besides Peter, and this is also before Paul. Hmmm! Who is this 'mystery' apostle, here? )

Ed

Could be....
Barnabas(ACTS 14:14)?
Epaphraditus(Phillipians 2:25)?
Titus(2 Cor 8:23)?
Timotheous and Silvanus(I Thes 1:1-6)?
or Christ himself(Heb 3:1)?


But I agree with Alcott

 

[Olivencia]

EdSutton wrote: What Paul is citing in I Cor. 9:1 as "evidence" FOR his apostleship, does not necessarily make this any "requirement" for apostleship, IMO.


--> I have cited a Greek lexicon/dictionary concerning 1 Corinthians 9:1. You have supplied your opinion.


Here's one more for you from Mounce:

Paul's understanding of apostolos and its distinguishing features are as follows: (a) The call to apostleship is not inititiated by the human agent but by God in Jesus Christ alone (Gal. 1:1) and comes about through meeting the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7; Gal. 1:16) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Apostle, page 27).

What passage is cited?

1 Corinthians 9:1
---------------------------------------------------------
thegospelgeek:
Ok sounds cool.

 

[EdSutton]

EdSutton wrote: What Paul is citing in I Cor. 9:1 as "evidence" FOR his apostleship, does not necessarily make this any "requirement" for apostleship, IMO.


--> I have cited a Greek lexicon/dictionary concerning 1 Corinthians 9:1. You have supplied your opinion.


Here's one more for you from Mounce:

Paul's understanding of apostolos and its distinguishing features are as follows: (a) The call to apostleship is not inititiated by the human agent but by God in Jesus Christ alone (Gal. 1:1) and comes about through meeting the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7; Gal. 1:16) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Apostle, page 27).

What passage is cited?

1 Corinthians 9:1
---------------------------------------------------------
thegospelgeek:
Ok sounds cool.

The citing of I Cor. 9:1 here by Dr. Mounce proves exactly what??

thegospelgeek is correct, here, in stating that I Cor. 9:1 is a series of questions.

Matthias is the "replacement" Apostle, however, in case you missed it in my other posts here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=57641&highlight=Junia

But, contrary to what has been implied, the actual "Twelve Apostles of the Lamb" found in Revelation are not identified by name, anywhere to my knowledge, so I believe they could be any of those whom Scripture specifically names as Apostles or perhaps even some others who are not named. As Apostle is one of the 'charismata' () and the very word means "sent one" in addition, why could not a missionary (or snet one) be Biblically said to be an apostle, today? As far as I know, there is no Biblical statement saying or even implying that this gift "passed away" would be ended or "ceased of its own accord", or even would, unlike the gifts of "prophecy", "Knowledge" and "languages". (I Cor. 13)

There is a great deal of difference between suggesting that since the canon of Scripture is 'closed' there is no further need for this gift, and therefore it is not valid today, and proving such a conclusion from Scripture.

Incidentially, I find it interesting that only four Apostles can definitely be "proved" to have written any NT Scripture, as well, they being Paul, James the Just, Peter, and John, with a total of 17 books among them. Jude is not stated to be an Apostle, and there are 9 books which are actually Biblically anonymous, namely 4 gospels and Acts, Hebrews and the 3 Epistles of 'John', the opinion of the early church notwithstanding.

Ed

 

[Olivencia]

1. It proves that one need to see the risen Lord in order to qualify as an Apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1 cf. Acts 1:22). Thus Judas does not qualify.
2. When Judas died it records he was replaced but not so with James (Acts 12:2).

 

[EdSutton]

1. It proves that one need to see the risen Lord in order to qualify as an Apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1 cf. Acts 1:22). Thus Judas does not qualify.
2. When Judas died it records he was replaced but not so with James (Acts 12:2).

I'll agree that Judas was replaced (by Matthias, as I have said for some 40 years) and that Ac. 1:22 does give accompaniment of the Lord for the entire time and seeing the resurrection as one qualification for the 'replacement' Apostle of Matthias as being one of "the Twelve" here. However, Judas, whom I definitely believe to have been unsaved, is named both as a "disciple" and as an "apostle" in Scripture (Mt. 10:1-4; Lk. 6:13-16), and that Biblical designation is quite good enough for me to identify him as such, as well.

But one cannot realistically claim Paul's series of questions in I Cor. 9:1 to be a "requirement" for apostle, when Scripture does not actually claim this as such, for more than one reason. It is extremely unlikely that Timothy, Epaphroditus, or Silas would have witnessed the Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, simply due to the ages of Timothy and Epaphroditus (plus the geography of Epaphroditus and Silas), unlike Barnabas, who very well may have done so, and James the Just, to whom the Lord personally appeared after His resurrection (although I do consider it unlikely that James atually 'witnessed' the crucifixion). (Ac. 4:36; I Cor. 15:7)

Yet all five of these individuals, as well as some others (including, but not necessarily limited to, Apollos, Andronicus, Junia(s), and the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself), are also called or properly identified as apostle (apostolos) in Scripture (Ac. 14:14; Rom. 16:7; I Cor. 4:6, 9; Phl'p. 2:25; Gal. 1:19; I Thess. 1:1; 2:6; Heb. 3:1), and as I have said, such Scriptural designation is good enough for me. :jesus: :thumbs:

Ed

 

[Olivencia]

Greek lexicons make a distinction between the meaning of the word "apostle" as it pertains to the others than the Twelve.
2 affirm what I have said concerning 1 Cor. 9:1. I have not yet seen any that disagree.

 

[EdSutton]

Greek lexicons make a distinction between the meaning of the word "apostle" as it pertains to the others than the Twelve.
2 affirm what I have said concerning 1 Cor. 9:1. I have not yet seen any that disagree.

Not all lexicons. Wigram, Strong, and Thayer do not make any such distinction in the "meaning" of the word, with Wigram merely giving the definition, as does Strong. Thayer does say the word as used "(2. Specifically applied to the Twelve Disciples... ", but then proceeds to place Paul alongside as an equal, while relegating others to whom this term is used to some lesser station, and which is, unfortunately, still an interpretative, and not a strictly definitive understanding of 'apostolos'.

I simply happen to disagree, here with your opinion that Paul's questions when he asks "Am I not an Apostle?" and "Have I not seen the Lord?" being a requirement, somehow, given other Scriptures, and even the two other questions that make up I Cor. 9:1?.

As I have said, now three times, if Scripture declares one as "apostle" who am I, or you, or some "'self-styled', 'self-appointed', or 'self-proclaimed' Bible scholar" to say otherwise, even given that such as Dr. Mounce, whom you quoted, has no doubt, long since forgotten a hundred times more than I will ever know? BTW, that is in no way a detraction of Dr. Mounce, whom I do highly respect FTR, but simply a statement that there is no objective standard for "scholars" or "authorities" written down anywhere, that I'm aware of.

Out of curiosity, what does the abbreviation of "NIDNTT" stand for?

I do think I got the "TDNT" figured out, however. :thumbs:

Ed

 

[donnA]

We had this discussion recently and I thought that Paul was really the 12th, but I changed my mind because it was pointed out that one of the requirements was that an apostle was to have been a witness to the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. I can't remember the scripture off the top of my head, but Paul did not meet those requirements, even though he was an apostle.

I beleive the requirement was to have seen the resurected Christ.

 

[Olivencia]

Strong is really not an in depth lexicon per se.
One Greek word can have several meanings. Take the word "kurios". It an mean "Lord" as in the Lord Jesus Christ, it can mean a respective "sir" or it can mean "master". Now just because John referred to the angel as kurios (Revelation 7:14) does not at all demand that we are to take that as the angel being on the same plane as the Lord Jesus Christ.
NIDNTT stands for the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. It's a 4 volume set by Colin Brown. I bought it one day at a small Christian bookstore here in the Philippines.

Thanks for the discussion.

Bless God

 

[Palatka51]

I don't want to speak for you but it sounds like you are saying;

Jesus knew the requirement, Judas never met it, but Jesus named him an apostle anyway?

Jesus never named him as an Apostle. Judas was a disciple, he never obtained the office of Apostleship.

 

[EdSutton]

Jesus never named him as an Apostle.

I disagree.

(Out of curiosity, exactly what version are you now reading, here?) I believe in the past, you have indicated a preference for some edition of the KJV, if my memory is not failing. According to both the KJ-1611 and the NKJV, this is an incorrect statement, for Jesus in fact, did name Judas Iscariot as an Apostle.

13 And when it was day, he called vnto him his diʃciples: and of them he choʃe twelue; whom also hee named Apoʃtles: 14 ʃimon, (whom he alʃo named Peter,) and Andrew his brother: Iames and Iohn, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, Iames the ʃonne of Alpheus, and ʃimon, called Zelotes,
16 And Iudas the brother of Iames, and Iudas Iscariot, which alʃo was the traitour. (Lk. 6:13-16 - KJ-1611)

13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; 15 Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor. (Lk. 6:13-16 - NKJV)

Could be it's just me, I guess, but I don't see any real difference between the two versions, nor effectively with the WYC, WYC-P, MCB, GEN, DBY, or several other versions I checked, as I consider "designated" and/or "called" to be equivalent to "named" for this purpose, and in fact, the change is apparently made between the WYC and the WYC-P revision from "called" to "named" in that verse.

Judas was a disciple, he never obtained the office of Apostleship.

Yes, Lk. 6:13-16 obviously identifies Judas as a disciple. However, consider this verse both from the OT and when quoted in the NT.

8 Let his days be few, And let another take his office. (Ps. 109:8 - NKJV)
‘ Let[b]another take his office.’[c] (Ac. 1:20c - NKJV)

FTR, Ps. 109:8 also reads office in the KJV. The NT quote is also rendered as "office" in the WES, RV, ASV, HNV, MLB, NASB, ISV and WEB, to name some more. I suggest this is an acceptable rendering, as well.

And I would merely ask the question of what is in view, here, for "episkopE" if not the office of apostleship? We have already established that Jesus did, in fact, "name" Judas as an apostle. "Bishop" (or "overseer") as a church position has not yet been revealed, and disciple simply seems too wide a category for the subject and context, IMO.

Ed