Was Mathias an Apostle?

Maybe, maybe not.

HankD

 

Well that settles it

 

Very interesting topic. I would like more imput before attempting an opinion.

 

Brandon, The group isn't headquarted in Oklahoma is it? I understand there is a group here by the same name who claim to have apostles, which include the two guys who started the church along with some more they selected. It is becoming quite a world-wide cult, I understand. I was just wondering if it is the same group.

This is an interesting thread, any more input on this?

 

It's my understanding that to be numbered among the Twelve, one had to be called, set apart and taught by Christ Himself. Paul, building the case for his apostleship said, "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:12

 

Aaron, didn't Paul also go away to study for a period of time? And we don't know much about that, except that it happened?

 

It doesn't matter whether he did or not. The point was that he justified his office by the fact that he was not called nor taught by man, but by the revelation of Christ. He didn't see any of the other Apostles until three years into his ministry.

 

Matthias was presumably among the Twelve who appointed 7 to oversee the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6:2, as he is the only one said to have been counted among the Twelve (Acts 1:23, 26) after Judas' departure made them eleven. The fact that the selection of Matthias is included in the book of Acts, written many years later than the incident, certainly gives credibility to his position. The Twelve seems to be a metonomy for a certain few disciples who were with Jesus through His ministry and remained through the resurrection and Pentecost. Paul says Jesus appeared to "Cephas [peter] and to the twelve," (I Corinthians 15:5) even though Judas Iscariot was already gone, thereby leaving only eleven.

However,
both Paul and Barnabas were called "apostles" in Acts 14:14, and Andronicus and Junius were called "apostles" in Romans 16:7. So being an apostle and being among The Twelve are not exactly the same thing. As Paul referred to the Twelve in 3rd person, he apparently did not consider himself among them, though he certainly did consider himself an apostle ['one sent'].

 

Scarlett,

Great points! Here is a compilation of some posts I made to another board on this subject.

Jesus chose and called 12 apostles.

Matt 10:2 – “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter...”

Luke 6:13 – “he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;”

In addition to the twelve, seventy others were sent forth to preach the gospel of the kingdom and work miracles (Luke 10:9). The noun apostolos is not applied to them, but the verb form of the word is translated as “sent” in Luke 10:1, apostellw. I believe it is correct to view them as “apostles” based on the used of the verb AND based on their function as His ambassadors. They were directly commissioned by the Lord Jesus in the flesh, just as Paul was commissioned by the Lord in the flesh, post-resurrection (1Cor 15:8). I do not believe that the use of the verb apostellw always designates the person sent as an “apostle”, but in combination with the purpose and the accompanying sign gifts, I believe it does in this case.

I believe that Barnabas may have been one of the seventy, though we cannot say with certainty. He is clearly called an apostle (Acts 14:14) as is James, the Lord’s brother (1Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19). Paul was called an apostle (Rom 1:1, 5), “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13) even as Peter was the apostle of “the circumcision” or the Jews (Gal 2:7-9). Andronicus and Junia were of note “among the apostles” (Rom 16:7). Greek Scholar, A.T. Robertson, gives this note – “Among the apostles (en tois apostolois). Naturally this means that they are counted among the apostles in the general sense true of Barnabas, James, the brother of Christ, Silas, and others. But it can mean simply that they were famous in the circle of the apostles in the technical sense.” (Re A.T. Robertson's quote above, I do not agree with his statement that Silas was an apostle. Can not find any place where the term is ever applied to him, nor can I find that he ever demonstrated such office with sign gifts.)

Paul appeals to the fact that “the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds” as evidence of his apostleship (2Co 12:12). Based on this text and the Biblical pattern, it would seem that no one has a valid claim to apostleship who does not evidence such an office with “signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds”. It is worthy of note that these three words are the same words used to describe the ministry of the Lord Jesus (terata, semeia, & dunameis, Acts 2:22). We should also note that the anti-christ will deceive the masses “with all power and signs and lying wonders” during the tribulation (2Thes 2:9). So, even the presence of these signs is not proof positive that the worker is of God. The message must be tested against the written word.

Matthias is clearly said to “take part of this ministry and apostleship” (Acts 1:25). They consulted the Word of God, prayed, and followed a valid OT practice in determining the will of God in the selection. I BELIEVE THAT HE WILL BE THE TWELFTH! Based on this passages cited, “let another take his office” (Psa 109:8). He was numbered with them and when we subsequently read of “the apostles”, it would most certainly have included Matthias (Acts 2:37,43; 4:33, 35, 36, 37; 5:2, 12, 18, 29, 34, 40, et al).

There is no Biblical indication that the office of an apostle continued beyond the New Testament age and the ones who were indeed commissioned directly by the Lord Jesus in the flesh. To insist upon the presence of NT apostles today is to give the right to speak authoritatively on behalf of the Lord Jesus Himself. Their words would then be as binding as THE WORD, (Matt 16:19; 18:18). This is a very dangerous position to take, not only because it finds no Biblical support but because of the implications of continuing revelatory authority!

Most conservative Bible scholars view Peter's action in leading in the choice of Matthias as a correct action for the reasons I gave above. M. R. DeHaan, Sr., with the Lord for quite some years now, strongly disagreed. In his brief commentary on Acts, he suggests that Peter's action was wrong in that he essentially rolled a dice to make a selection that God had already made, just not yet revealed. He sees Paul's words describing himself as “an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” as Paul's indictment against Peter’s action (Gal 1:1). I certainly respect the ministry of Radio Bible Class and all of the DeHaans. The Daily Bread ministry has no doubt touched literally millions of lives through the years. Yet, I still side with the majority of commentators on this issue in accepting Peter’s action as appropriate. It seems obvious from all the references to “the apostles” in Acts 1-12 that they all certainly viewed Matthias as the twelvth.

One day we will know for sure. Regarding the existence of lesser “apostles” today, the Bible gives no indication that the office was to continue. I do not think I said a great deal regarding Eph 4:11 in my reply on the other thread. Certainly the definition and meaning of “evangelists” and “pastors and teachers” (two functions of one office, as indicated in the Greek, Granville-Sharp’s Rule) does not in any way preclude their continuing position in the church today. However, by definition, an apostle was one directly commissioned by a man to act fully on his behalf. The Aramaic (common language in Palestine during the time of Jesus and the early church) term for “apostle” is salyah. A common saying to describe his function was “the salyah of a man is as the man himself’”. The term “apostle” bore that kind of authority and responsibility. Yes, the twelve are distinguished from the other apostles in the NT, but there is no indication from the Word that the office was to continue.

Regarding “prophets” in v. 11 we have a clear indication from 1Cor 13 that the function of speaking the Word of God by direct revelation from God would indeed cease. “Whether there be prophecies they shall fail” (1Cor 13:8). I am a cessationist, I believe that the sign gifts all ceased by the time the final words of the NT were given by God. We know that later in his ministry Paul told the Galatians to reject a different gospel even if Paul himself or an angel as from heaven should proclaim it (Gal 1:8). This tells me that God has given HIS WORD priority above any other message that may come today. We also know, that later in his ministry, even the Apostle Paul could not heal the sick. He told Timothy to drink “a little wine” for his stomach’s sake (1Tim 5:23). He rejoiced that Epaphroditus recovered lest Paul should have “sorrow upon sorrow” (Phlp 2:25-27). Paul did not heal Trophimus, but left him at Miletum sick (2Tim 4:20).

No. I do not believe there is a good foundation for the claim that there are still apostles today. God did give gifted men to the church. The apostles and prophets fulfilled their function in their time. Evangelists and Pastor/Teachers continue the work begun by the Apostles, but the authority is not in what man speaks. It is in what God has spoken. There is nothing in Eph 4, or anywhere else which indicates a perpetual apostolic office. If there had been, why didn’t Paul or Peter appoint successive apostles to continue the office? They trained and worked with other men such as Timothy, Titus, Silas, John Mark, and others, but these men are never called apostles. The only ones who were apostles were those chosen by the Lord, either before His death in the flesh OR in a post-resurrection appearance in the flesh. Anything else is adding to the Word or reading into the Word what is not there.


Yes, I agree that Paul did see Jesus in the flesh. That is the whole point of 1Cor 15:1-8. Jesus did indeed rise bodily from the tomb. The passage lists out the Lord's post-resurrection appearances. Among those appearances of the Lord Jesus was His appearance to Paul. If it was only a vision but not a literal physical appearance, Paul could not have said "and last of all, he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time" (v. 8). I cannot argue that Jesus appeared in the flesh on the Damascus Road, especially since no one else saw Him. It would seem that this was a vision, in my opinion, based on Acts 9, 22,and 26. But at some point, Jesus appeared to Paul in the flesh.

We should also note that Paul says that Jesus appeared to him LAST (1Cor 15:8). This also seems to preclude future appearances in the flesh to appoint any more apostles.

 

No way to be dogmatic, but thinking about it I would say the twelve should be distinguished from the rest of the apostles mentioned in scripture, based on the "twelve apostles of the Lamb" in Rev. 21:14. These twelve would be the same twelve Jesus called 'in person' in the scriptures, the original twelve with Judas being replaced by Paul. Off the top, it looks like there could even be a "seed of the woman" picture here with Judas, the disciple turned son of Perdition, being replaced by Saul, the persecutor of the church turned Paul, apostle to the Gentiles and the world.

The seventy and the others mentioned in the NT are genuine apostles I should think (compare 1Cor 15:7 with 15:5 in ESV, NASB, HCSB, or NET) in that they were "sent" as "messengers" and given "authority" by Jesus in whatever manner to speak, act, and perform supernatural works. My guess is Mathias was used by God as an apostle in response to Peter's action and the prayers of Acts 1, and would likely be included in this group.

Peter thought that Judas must be replaced by someone who had walked with them and had a personal relationship with the Lord during his 3.5 year ministry (Acts 1). He had a good sense of the qualification, as it turned out, in that he thought it required a personal connection or calling from Jesus Himself. But I would suggest that the action of Peter was premature because 1) Peter had a natural tendency toward bold, knee-jerk responses, and 2) this action came before the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. My guess is if he had waited to act until after Pentecost, he would not have made the decision he did in Acts 1, understanding that Jesus had another, superior way to personally call the twelfth apostle.

[ February 14, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: IveyLeaguer ]

 

That is really the point in question in this thread. On the 12 foundations are the names of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb," but is Matthias or Paul among those names? I don't think we know for sure, I tend to think Matthias rather than Paul, or else the selection of Matthias in Acts 1 should not even be included.

It might be a significant point, though, that this selection of Matthias over Joseph Barsabbas occured by the casting of lots before the apostles had been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Still, why would the incident be included if it was precocious or improper?

 

To me, there can be no question that Paul is one of the names. How much of our doctrine is built on his letters?

BTW, great post on the meaning of "The Twelve."

 

I don't think we can know for sure either, Alcott. It's a very good question. If indeed the twelfth apostle is Paul, I don't know why the story of Matthias' selection is included and takes up half the 1st chapter of Acts. But it wouldn't be the first time in scripture man takes the initiative instead of doing it God's way and God honors it, then gets the outcome He wants anyway, would it? Right now I am too tired to think of any examples of that.

Also, I'm a little bit suspicious of the omission of any act or further record of Matthias since, like Paul, he was different in the sense that he was chosen after the Ascension. I'm sure he was dedicated and obedient and did many wonderful things but his election/disappearance in the scriptures causes me as much question as the inclusion of his selection in the text of Acts 1.

If it does turn out to be Paul, I do strongly suspect the whole Matthias thing was due to Peter's irresistible urge to act in a headstrong manner before thinking things through, one of his 'trademarks' before being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

 

When I get to heaven I plan to take to my new angel wings and fly around the New Jerusalem and read the names of the twelve apostles carved into the foundation stones. Until that day I do not expect to know whether I will find Matthias or Paul on the twelfth stone.

 

Maybe I'll go with you. Or, maybe when you get back you can join Alcott and I, having "dinner" with Peter. Hopefully, he'll only kid me about the way I talked about his haphazard, pre-Pentecost style.