The Apostleship of Paul...

[Grace ambassador]

Precious friends, are these the four current views of the apostles?:

1) There are twelve, including Matthias (replacing Judas), Paul not being an apostle?

2) There are twelve, the eleven being in error, choosing Matthias, instead of Paul?

3) There are thirteen, including Matthias and Paul, all preaching/teaching the same [ homogenized ] thing?

4) a) There are twelve, according To God's Prophecy / Covenants / Law

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):​

​

b) There is One, According To God's Mystery / Grace ( preaching / teaching Different things )​

------------------------------------------------
Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified in the following study:

"
...there is perhaps no place where Paul sets his apostleship forth in stronger terms than in the first
chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, especially in the very first verse. As you read these opening
words, you can almost hear the thunder in the apostle’s voice as he declares in his opening salvo,

“Paul, an apostle, ( not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, ​

and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead; )” (Gal. 1:1)...​

...Paul didn’t always open his epistles by asserting his apostleship (cf. Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; etc.), but the
Galatians suffered from the same spiritual malady that afflicts many Christians today—they doubted
Paul’s apostolic authority! So Paul comes out swinging in this epistle by declaring his authority as an
apostle of God. As he himself affirmed,

“in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles” (II Cor. 12:11).​

Who were they? The Lord’s chiefest apostles were Peter, James, and John, men who are mentioned
ten times in Scripture apart from the twelve. Of those three chiefs, Peter was the chiefest of the
chiefs, but Paul was “not a whit behind” him either (II Cor. 11:5).

But if Paul’s apostleship was equal to Peter’s, and no higher, why do we follow Paul? Surely it is
because Peter was the apostle of the circumcision, and Paul was the apostle of the uncircumcision
(Gal. 2:8). It is important for a believer to know who his apostle is!...

...since most of them [ christians ] believe that Paul’s apostleship is of no more consequence to us
than the apostleship of Peter, James, and John, they are forced to conclude that Paul’s message
must be the same as these chief apostles. The problem with this is that they know that Chief
Apostle Peter taught water baptism was required for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), while
Paul claimed he wasn’t sent to baptize at all (I Cor. 1:17).

Since most Christians believe that Peter and Paul are of equal authority for believers today, they have
to figure out a way to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages. As you probably
know, the solution at which they have arrived is to conclude, “We’ll still baptize people, just not for
the remission of sins!”

In the same vein, most Christians know that Paul taught that if you are saved, The Lord has already
forgiven you “all trespasses” (Col. 2:13). But they also know that Chief Apostle John teaches that
The Lord is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins” if we confess them (I John 1:9). So to homogenize
these two opposite and contradictory messages they conclude that believers are forgiven when they
get saved, they just need a little more forgiveness when they sin!

This despite the fact that forgiveness of sins is something that every believer receives the moment
he gets saved, along with salvation, justification, and redemption. Most Christians wouldn’t think of
asking for more salvation, justification, or redemption when they sin, but asking for more
forgiveness is the only way to get Paul and John to say the same thing.

Finally, most Christians know that Paul asserts that salvation is By Grace Through faith without works
(Rom. 4:5), but they also know that Chief Apostle James is just as adamant that “faith without works
is dead” (James 2:20). So to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages they
conclude that Paul is talking about justification before God while James is addressing the issue of
justification before men, even though The Lord never asked anyone to be justified before
men—in fact, He condemned it (Luke 16:15)!

And on and on it goes, as futile attempts are made to try to blend Paul’s unique message with the
teachings of the Lord’s chiefest apostles, the other writers of the New Testament...
" (R Kurth)

Full study 'link': The Apostleship Of Paul

Amen.

 

[Frank Russell]

I think the 4 options on the menu left out the possibility that the 12 were a fulfillment of the 12 patriarchs of the tribes of Israel. Paul was a fulfillment of the sign of Jonah after being swallowed by the whale since Jesus could not fulfill that part.

Jesus being resurrected after being in the belly of the earth for the same timeframe, was unable to walk among the living, so the role fell to Saul (rebel against David) renamed Paul. A real redemption story.

 

[101G]

Addressing the Op, was not Barnabas an apostle also? so that would make at least 14. and there are more apostles after the 12.

101G

 

[jeremiah1five]

There are twelve apostles of the Lamb. These whose names will be in the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem. These include Judas.
Matthias was an error by Peter to seek to replace Judas who was called and to replace him. God doesn't replace, He adds.
Then there are apostles that God called after the twelve. Even to this day who are called in the power and spirit of the prophets (apostles) God called in Israel's history.

 

[Complete]

There are twelve apostles of the Lamb. These whose names will be in the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem. These include Judas.
Matthias was an error by Peter to seek to replace Judas who was called and to replace him. God doesn't replace, He adds.
Then there are apostles that God called after the twelve. Even to this day who are called in the power and spirit of the prophets (apostles) God called in Israel's history.

'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.
And they appointed two,
Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
And they prayed, and said,
"Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men,
.... shew whether of these two Thou hast chosen,
...... That He may take part of this ministry and apostleship,
........ from which Judas by transgression fell,
.......... that he might go to his own place."
And they gave forth their lots;
and the lot fell upon Matthias;
and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.'
(Act 1:22-26)

Hello @jeremiah1five,

With respect, the choosing of Matthias was not an error: It is not called so in God's word; so should not be presumed to be so.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[civic]

This is a great topic and the OP brings up some interesting points to consider.

One fact remains that has not been mentioned. Jesus personally called and hand picked the 12 disciples face to face.

Jesus did the same with Paul, not Matthias. Like the 12 Paul was also taught by Jesus for 3 years in the wilderness, not Matthias.

Peter in his epistle declares Paul was given special wisdom and knowledge from Christ and we know how Paul revealed the mysteries that were hidden in the OT in his writings. Paul was Christs right hand man post Ascension. Our understanding of the church comes from Paul not the others.

Just some food for thought.

hope this helps !!!

 

[jeremiah1five]

'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.
And they appointed two,
Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
And they prayed, and said,
"Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men,
.... shew whether of these two Thou hast chosen,
...... That He may take part of this ministry and apostleship,
........ from which Judas by transgression fell,
.......... that he might go to his own place."
And they gave forth their lots;
and the lot fell upon Matthias;
and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.'
(Act 1:22-26)

Hello @jeremiah1five,

With respect, the choosing of Matthias was not an error: It is not called so in God's word; so should not be presumed to be so.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

First, Acts is a historical document. It doesn't teach doctrine per se, but doctrine can be taken out of it. Being a historical document, it is only a record of what took place in the first 30 years of the early Jewish Church Christ was building. Our job as students of history is to look into these events to see whether they got it right or got it wrong. And being in a New Covenant era it took time for the Jewish Christians to search the Law, Psalms, and Prophets to better understand what was happening in Israel and in Gentile lands with regard to a "Holy Spirit" of Promise and the effect Israel's Messiah was having or had upon the Hebrew/Jewish Covenants.

Second, Christ commanded His disciples to return to Jerusalem and "tarry" or wait for the Promise of the Holy Spirit. The word "tarry" means to "seat down." In the Jewish culture and practice sitting down is the position to "teach" in a teaching environment. Standing up means to "officiate." Here is the command:

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Lk 24:49.

But Acts records Peter STOOD UP!

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, Acts 1:15.

Clearly in disobedience in what he followed up to do.

Third, the Holy Spirit had not yet been given so Peter was definitely "in the flesh" and officiated a meeting without guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Christ said would "lead them into all truth."

Fourth, Peter "in the flesh" attempts to make Old Testament Scripture fit what concerned Judas. He takes a prophecy made towards Israel corporate (plural) and tries to make it fit Judas (singular.)

Fifth, if Peter is appointing an apostle, well, we later learn from Saul that God calls and appoints apostles and baptizes them with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ when they become born-again.

Sixth, Peter lays out a physical qualification of merely seeing (or being with Jesus) from His baptism by John to when He was taken up (ascended) for a spiritual office of apostle.

Seventh, Peter does what we all do when we seek God's guidance and direction. We offer Him an "either/or" and that's what Peter does with offering Joseph and Justus to take the office of Judas.

Eighth, casting lots is a mystical form of determining God's will in a matter and is reserved solely for the high priest. Peter was not high priest and offering prayer for God's guidance and then referring to throwing dice is not the way things are done in the Church. If it was sanctioned, why aren't we doing it like that today?

Ninth, there are Greek words to define which translators have used one English words to translate two different Greek words.

Tenth, the wording in this recording of what happened here in Acts 1:15-26 describe Judas as being among the twelve and Matthias as being with the eleven. This is significant. It shows exclusivity.

Eleventh, Scripture teaches that Christ does not replace but adds to the Church daily such as should be saved.

Twelfth, James was murdered by Herod later in Acts 12. Who replaced him? Why wasn't this Peter=practice of appointing an apostle to replace James done for biblical support of the Peter=practice done with Matthias?

Thirteenth, from the time gave command in Luke 24:49 to WAIT for the Holy Spirit and the moment the Holy Spirit arrived was a window of ten days. Peter didn't wait. He jumped out of the boat and tried to walk on water without command of Christ to do so and so he sank.

Fourteenth, after His resurrection Jesus was on the planet forty days. If He wanted to replace Judas He would have done so as Head of the Church body while He was still on the planet. But He didn't.

Fifteenth, the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem will have the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb inscribed in it. These "apostles of the Lamb" date and reveal the identity of these twelve apostles - Judas included - whose names are inscribed in the foundation of the wall since Christ was on the planet as the "Lamb of God" it refers to them.

Whether Peter was choosing a treasurer (Judas held the bag) or appointing an apostle he was clearly in disobedience and his actions were not sanctioned by God or His Christ. What took place in this narrative is the basis of how the Roman Catholics choose their popes. If Peter would have been obedient and WAIT for the Holy Spirit, this thing would not have been recorded and not used as the basis for others who call themselves "Christian" and want authority to officiate appointment of their various leaderships.

My brother, Peter, bless his soul, was definitely in disobedience to Christ and had he waited for the Holy Spirit in just ten days things would have turned out differently. But not Peter. Not for let-me-come-out-of-the-boat-and-walk-to-you, let-us-build-three-tabernacles, shall-we-call-down-fire-to-consume-them, Peter. But later in life he calmed down. But early on in Acts 1:15-26 and what was recorded there for our learning we do not mimic history; we study and learn from it to learned what was done right and what was done wrong so that we may use history to better order our lives.

Peter was in serious error.

 

[e v e]

Precious friends, are these the four current views of the apostles?:

1) There are twelve, including Matthias (replacing Judas), Paul not being an apostle?

2) There are twelve, the eleven being in error, choosing Matthias, instead of Paul?

3) There are thirteen, including Matthias and Paul, all preaching/teaching the same [ homogenized ] thing?

4) a) There are twelve, according To God's Prophecy / Covenants / Law

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):​

​

b) There is One, According To God's Mystery / Grace ( preaching / teaching Different things )​

------------------------------------------------
Please Be Very Richly Encouraged And Edified in the following study:

"
...there is perhaps no place where Paul sets his apostleship forth in stronger terms than in the first
chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, especially in the very first verse. As you read these opening
words, you can almost hear the thunder in the apostle’s voice as he declares in his opening salvo,

“Paul, an apostle, ( not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, ​

and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead; )” (Gal. 1:1)...​

...Paul didn’t always open his epistles by asserting his apostleship (cf. Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; etc.), but the
Galatians suffered from the same spiritual malady that afflicts many Christians today—they doubted
Paul’s apostolic authority! So Paul comes out swinging in this epistle by declaring his authority as an
apostle of God. As he himself affirmed,

“in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles” (II Cor. 12:11).​

Who were they? The Lord’s chiefest apostles were Peter, James, and John, men who are mentioned
ten times in Scripture apart from the twelve. Of those three chiefs, Peter was the chiefest of the
chiefs, but Paul was “not a whit behind” him either (II Cor. 11:5).

But if Paul’s apostleship was equal to Peter’s, and no higher, why do we follow Paul? Surely it is
because Peter was the apostle of the circumcision, and Paul was the apostle of the uncircumcision
(Gal. 2:8). It is important for a believer to know who his apostle is!...

...since most of them [ christians ] believe that Paul’s apostleship is of no more consequence to us
than the apostleship of Peter, James, and John, they are forced to conclude that Paul’s message
must be the same as these chief apostles. The problem with this is that they know that Chief
Apostle Peter taught water baptism was required for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), while
Paul claimed he wasn’t sent to baptize at all (I Cor. 1:17).

Since most Christians believe that Peter and Paul are of equal authority for believers today, they have
to figure out a way to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages. As you probably
know, the solution at which they have arrived is to conclude, “We’ll still baptize people, just not for
the remission of sins!”

In the same vein, most Christians know that Paul taught that if you are saved, The Lord has already
forgiven you “all trespasses” (Col. 2:13). But they also know that Chief Apostle John teaches that
The Lord is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins” if we confess them (I John 1:9). So to homogenize
these two opposite and contradictory messages they conclude that believers are forgiven when they
get saved, they just need a little more forgiveness when they sin!

This despite the fact that forgiveness of sins is something that every believer receives the moment
he gets saved, along with salvation, justification, and redemption. Most Christians wouldn’t think of
asking for more salvation, justification, or redemption when they sin, but asking for more
forgiveness is the only way to get Paul and John to say the same thing.

Finally, most Christians know that Paul asserts that salvation is By Grace Through faith without works
(Rom. 4:5), but they also know that Chief Apostle James is just as adamant that “faith without works
is dead” (James 2:20). So to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages they
conclude that Paul is talking about justification before God while James is addressing the issue of
justification before men, even though The Lord never asked anyone to be justified before
men—in fact, He condemned it (Luke 16:15)!

And on and on it goes, as futile attempts are made to try to blend Paul’s unique message with the
teachings of the Lord’s chiefest apostles, the other writers of the New Testament...
" (R Kurth)

Full study 'link': The Apostleship Of Paul

Amen.

View attachment 410

all that matters is whether a soul is His and can hear Him.
the prophets did, any soul of Him at the time of Paul did,
and any one alive today of Him...

Simply, He gives a job to each of His souls... and He gave a job to Paul, who is a soul of Him.
Matters little how today anyone characterizes that ..since every single soul of Him
is an apostle of Him.

 

[101G]

to all,
was not Matthias numbered with the eleven apostles? scripture, Acts 1:26 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

and was he, Matthias, not chosen by the Lord? Acts 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." Acts 1:21 "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us," Acts 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." Acts 1:23 "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Acts 1:24 "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen," (STOP, WHO HAS CHOSEN OF THE TWO?) Acts 1:25 "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Acts 1:26 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

note they appointed two, but it was the Lord who chose one of the two. how by the Knowing of the Hearts the Lots was not, not, not, CASTED. it was a vote, not a roll of the dice .... as to say.

101G.

 

[jeremiah1five]

to all,
was not Matthias numbered with the eleven apostles? scripture, Acts 1:26 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

and was he, Matthias, not chosen by the Lord? Acts 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." Acts 1:21 "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us," Acts 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." Acts 1:23 "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Acts 1:24 "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen," (STOP, WHO HAS CHOSEN OF THE TWO?) Acts 1:25 "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Acts 1:26 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

note they appointed two, but it was the Lord who chose one of the two. how by the Knowing of the Hearts the Lots was not, not, not, CASTED. it was a vote, not a roll of the dice .... as to say.

101G.

Error.
Peter was in serious disobedience.

 

[Complete]

First, Acts is a historical document. It doesn't teach doctrine per se, but doctrine can be taken out of it. Being a historical document, it is only a record of what took place in the first 30 years of the early Jewish Church Christ was building. Our job as students of history is to look into these events to see whether they got it right or got it wrong. And being in a New Covenant era it took time for the Jewish Christians to search the Law, Psalms, and Prophets to better understand what was happening in Israel and in Gentile lands with regard to a "Holy Spirit" of Promise and the effect Israel's Messiah was having or had upon the Hebrew/Jewish Covenants.​

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Thank you for responding.

The record of Luke gives us detail concerning the acts of the Apostles that took place during the approx. 40 yrs which followed the Lord resurrection. Peter was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, chosen and equipped by the Lord Himself. The Divine authority of an Apostle was his, and the signs that accompanied an Apostle were evident in what he did, both during the earthly ministry of the Lord and following His ascension into Heaven. See Mark 6:7-13 and Matthew 16:19.

Second, Christ commanded His disciples to return to Jerusalem and "tarry" or wait for the Promise of the Holy Spirit. The word "tarry" means to "seat down." In the Jewish culture and practice sitting down is the position to "teach" in a teaching environment. Standing up means to "officiate." Here is the command:​

​

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Lk 24:4​

But Acts records Peter STOOD UP!​

​

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, Acts 1:15.​

Clearly in disobedience in what he followed up to do.​

'And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you:
but tarry (kathisate = be ye seated - G2523) ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.'
(Luk 24:49)

* Strangely, figuratively 'kathisate' ('be ye seated') means:- to 'set', or, 'appoint'.

* In Acts 12-26 we have the record of what happened following the Lord's ascension, and as you say, in verse 15, we are told that Peter, 'stood up', to speak.

Third, the Holy Spirit had not yet been given so Peter was definitely "in the flesh" and officiated a meeting without guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Christ said would "lead them into all truth."​

* Peter was an Apostle, with the authority of an Apostle and the equipage of an Apostle ( Mark 6:7-13 and Matthew 16:19 ) .

Fourth, Peter "in the flesh" attempts to make Old Testament Scripture fit what concerned Judas. He takes a prophecy made towards Israel corporate (plural) and tries to make it fit Judas (singular.)​

* This is a composite quotation from Psa.69:25 & 109:8: using such composite quotations within Scripture is a common practice by the Holy Spirit, Whose word it is.

Fifth, if Peter is appointing an apostle, well, we later learn from Saul that God calls and appoints apostles and baptizes them with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ when they become born-again.​

* If the two men, who were surnamed, Matthias and Justus, were chosen, then they fulfilled the criteria, as cited in vv. 21-22 of Acts one. Also if they had companied with the Twelve, during the whole period of the Lord's ministry, as it says in v.21, then they were disciples of the Lord Jesus, and obviously believed that He was the Christ, the Son of God, therefore had life through His Name (John 20:31).

Sixth, Peter lays out a physical qualification of merely seeing (or being with Jesus) from His baptism by John to when He was taken up (ascended) for a spiritual office of apostle.​

* Yes, that was all that was required of a witness, but the men he chose were as described in Acts 1:21, and therefore obviously devotees of the risen Christ. Having followed Him, alongside the Twelve, throughout His earthly ministry.Seventh, Peter does what we all do when we seek God's guidance and direction. We offer Him an "either/or" and that's what Peter does with offering Joseph and Justus to take the office of Judas.

* No, Peter acted in accordance with common practice, he chose two suitable candidates, and brought them before God in prayer (Acta 1:24-25) and determined God's will by the votes cast.

Eighth, casting lots is a mystical form of determining God's will in a matter and is reserved solely for the high priest. Peter was not high priest and offering prayer for God's guidance and then referring to throwing dice is not the way things are done in the Church. If it was sanctioned, why aren't we doing it like that today?​

* ' And they gave forth their lots;' (Act 1:26a)
The word, 'lot' is translated, 'part' in verse 17. They all voted possibly by the use of pebbles (psephos) by which calculations were made.

Ninth, there are Greek words to define which translators have used one English words to translate two different Greek words.​

* To what word are you referring?

Tenth, the wording in this recording of what happened here in Acts 1:15-26 describe Judas as being among the twelve and Matthias as being with the eleven. This is significant. It shows exclusivity.​

* What verses are you referring to @jeremiah1five? Acts 1:21,26?

Eleventh, Scripture teaches that Christ does not replace but adds to the Church daily such as should be saved.​

* It was obviously necessary to replace Judas, to complete the number of the Apostles, for twelve is the number of governmental perfection, and they would one day be judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Twelfth, James was murdered by Herod later in Acts 12. Who replaced him? Why wasn't this Peter=practice of appointing an apostle to replace James done for biblical support of the Peter=practice done with Matthias?​

* In Acts 12:2 we read of James being martyred by Herod, but He will be raised to reign with Christ along with the Twelve, so there was no necessity to replace him.

Thirteenth, from the time gave command in Luke 24:49 to WAIT for the Holy Spirit and the moment the Holy Spirit arrived was a window of ten days. Peter didn't wait. He jumped out of the boat and tried to walk on water without command of Christ to do so and so he sank.​

* Please refer me to the scripture in question?

Fourteenth, after His resurrection Jesus was on the planet forty days. If He wanted to replace Judas He would have done so as Head of the Church body while He was still on the planet. But He didn't.​

* That is not for us to judge surely. He was not classified as 'Head' at that time, and the church of which He is now 'Head' had not been created.

, the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem will have the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb inscribed in it. These "apostles of the Lamb" date and reveal the identity of these twelve apostles - Judas included - whose names are inscribed in the foundation of the wall since Christ was on the planet as the "Lamb of God" it refers to them.​

* Surely one who was called, 'The Son of Perdition' will not be included in that company.

Whether Peter was choosing a treasurer (Judas held the bag) or appointing an apostle he was clearly in disobedience and his actions were not sanctioned by God or His Christ. What took place in this narrative is the basis of how the Roman Catholics choose their popes. If Peter would have been obedient and WAIT for the Holy Spirit, this thing would not have been recorded and not used as the basis for others who call themselves "Christian" and want authority to officiate appointment of their various leaderships.​

* This appointment is recorded and I believe what it says, I also accept the reason given for Peter's action, and also believe that the choice of Matthias was God's, in response to Peter's prayer. If it were not so God would have told us.

My brother, Peter, bless his soul, was definitely in disobedience to Christ and had he waited for the Holy Spirit in just ten days things would have turned out differently. But not Peter. Not for let-me-come-out-of-the-boat-and-walk-to-you, let-us-build-three-tabernacles, shall-we-call-down-fire-to-consume-them, Peter. But later in life he calmed down. But early on in Acts 1:15-26 and what was recorded there for our learning we do not mimic history; we study and learn from it to learned what was done right and what was done wrong so that we may use history to better order our lives.​

​

Peter was in serious error.​

* We are shown clearly when Peter has acted unadvisedly elsewhere in Scripture, and if it were the same in this case, it would have been revealed, but it has not. It is not wise to lean to our own understanding on these matters. I believe where God is silent, so should we be.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[101G]

Error.
Peter was in serious disobedience.

ERROR on your part. First Peter and the rest received the Holy Spirit, but was not yet authorized to use the Power, supportive Scripture, John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:20 "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." John 20:21 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"

well this was before Pentecost. the POWER came on Pentecost. notice he breathed on ..... "THEM".

101G

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hello @jeremiah1five,
Thank you for responding.
The record of Luke gives us detail concerning the acts of the Apostles that took place during the approx. 40 yrs which followed the Lord resurrection. Peter was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, chosen and equipped by the Lord Himself. The Divine authority of an Apostle was his, and the signs that accompanied an Apostle were evident in what he did, both during the earthly ministry of the Lord and following His ascension into Heaven. See Mark 6:7-13 and Matthew 16:19.


'And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you:
but tarry (kathisate = be ye seated - G2523) ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.'
(Luk 24:49)
* Strangely, figuratively 'kathisate' ('be ye seated') means:- to 'set', or, 'appoint'.
* In Acts 12-26 we have the record of what happened following the Lord's ascension, and as you say, in verse 15, we are told that Peter, 'stood up', to speak.
* Peter was an Apostle, with the authority of an Apostle and the equipage of an Apostle ( Mark 6:7-13 and Matthew 16:19 ) .

That's how you want to apply Strong's definition but you're using the figurative to understand the literal:

Tarry:
another (active) form for [#2516] (kathezomai); to seat down, i.e. set (figurative appoint); intransitive to sit (down); figurative to settle (hover, dwell.)

If Jesus wanted Pete do appoint an apostle (which is God's prerogative, not man's) He would have just said so, but He didn't. He told them to chill UNTIL the Holy Spirit arrived. Tarry in Jerusalem is the same as wait in Jerusalem. WAIT. I couldn't tell you on what day Peter did his disobedient deed - whether first of ten days, last of the ten days, but the command is clear. It doesn't read "appoint in Jerusalem." Jesus would be amiss to say, "appoint in Jerusalem until you be endued with power from on high." See how inappropriate it would be to understand His words using the figurative when the rest is literal (Jerusalem/power/on high.)

* This is a composite quotation from Psa.69:25 & 109:8: using such composite quotations within Scripture is a common practice by the Holy Spirit, Whose word it is.

As I said, those passages were to Israel proper (plural) and Pete tries to make it singular to fit Judas. Bad grammar to understand it that way. He does the same with the other Scripture. Ever talk to a true heathen unbeliever (not born-again) and they try to interpret a passage without training, education, and the Holy Spirit? That's how Mormonism and JW's were founded.

* If the two men, who were surnamed, Matthias and Justus, were chosen, then they fulfilled the criteria, as cited in vv. 21-22 of Acts one. Also if they had companied with the Twelve, during the whole period of the Lord's ministry, as it says in v.21, then they were disciples of the Lord Jesus, and obviously believed that He was the Christ, the Son of God, therefore had life through His Name (John 20:31).

Again, Pete did what we do: we offer God an "either/or" especially in our prayers. But God lives out in left-field and the majority of His answers to prayer were things not entered our minds. Throughout the gospels Judas is identified all the time as "among the twelve." Look it up. I think the Holy Spirit is trying to communicate something very important, but Gentile Christians condemn him to hell and eternal separation from God and think awful of the Lord's apostle and they have done far worse sins than what Judas did. Do you know what Judas' betrayal was?

* Yes, that was all that was required of a witness, but the men he chose were as described in Acts 1:21, and therefore obviously devotees of the risen Christ. Having followed Him, alongside the Twelve, throughout His earthly ministry.Seventh, Peter does what we all do when we seek God's guidance and direction. We offer Him an "either/or" and that's what Peter does with offering Joseph and Justus to take the office of Judas.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, 1 C.or 12:28.

A spiritual office such as apostle (sent) requires spiritual qualification, and qualification God would equip, not merely by seeing or being with Jesus physically.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12:13.

And since the Spirit had not yet come and in which in His coming people are baptized into the body and THERE AT THAT TIME given their call, place in the body, spiritual gifts to accomplish that call, and most times God does not reveal these things and the believer requires discipleship (and I'm not talking 3-day retreats or mid-week special "discipleship courses" on Wednesday night.) True, biblical discipleship requires it be done the way the Lord did it and that means living with your teacher.

* No, Peter acted in accordance with common practice, he chose two suitable candidates, and brought them before God in prayer (Acta 1:24-25) and determined God's will by the votes cast.

Common practice? The New Covenant era hadn't even begun yet for the people of Israel, so what "common practice" are you talking about? Show me in the Law this "common practice" you write about. Bottom line: God calls, baptizes into the body (something that hadn't happen yet in Acts 1) and He is the Head of the Church Body and He determines each persons call, place, gifts, pounds, talents, etc., not man.
Do you cast lots after you pray God's will? If you're going to preach Peter did it, then you need to practice it.

* ' And they gave forth their lots;' (Act 1:26a)
The word, 'lot' is translated, 'part' in verse 17. They all voted possibly by the use of pebbles (psephos) by which calculations were made.

Apostleship through hand-vote. Biblical apostles are not called that way in a Biblical Church. Do men have authority to usurp God's prerogative to choose whom He will and appoint apostles (and there wasn't even a body of Christ when Peter did it.)

* To what word are you referring?

"Number" in vs. 15 and 26.

* What verses are you referring to @jeremiah1five? Acts 1:21,26?
* It was obviously necessary to replace Judas, to complete the number of the Apostles, for twelve is the number of governmental perfection, and they would one day be judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Who says so? Judas was among the twelve. The number is already set. His name will be on the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem. God and Christ do not replace, He adds. And each addition receives a call, a place in the body, spiritual gifts, pounds, talents, etc., when He baptizes them into Himself.

* In Acts 12:2 we read of James being martyred by Herod, but He will be raised to reign with Christ along with the Twelve, so there was no necessity to replace him.

Judas is with Jesus. There's no need to replace him, either.

* Please refer me to the scripture in question?
* That is not for us to judge surely. He was not classified as 'Head' at that time, and the church of which He is now 'Head' had not been created.
* Surely one who was called, 'The Son of Perdition' will not be included in that company.

If Jesus named him apostle are you going to challenge the Lord and oppose His designation as to who He wants as disciple and apostle?

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Lk 6:13.

* This appointment is recorded and I believe what it says, I also accept the reason given for Peter's action, and also believe that the choice of Matthias was God's, in response to Peter's prayer. If it were not so God would have told us.

You rather be led by a man in the flesh is up to you.

* We are shown clearly when Peter has acted unadvisedly elsewhere in Scripture, and if it were the same in this case, it would have been revealed, but it has not. It is not wise to lean to our own understanding on these matters. I believe where God is silent, so should we be.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

It is revealed. I'm bringing it to you attention. Now, go study this some more and test what I say and come to the knowledge of the truth.
I have.
But before you do, pray and cast the lot to discern if this is God's will for you. I'm in the Spirit not in the flesh. You prefer men in the flesh over men in the Spirit?

 

[jeremiah1five]

ERROR on your part. First Peter and the rest received the Holy Spirit, but was not yet authorized to use the Power, supportive Scripture, John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:20 "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." John 20:21 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"

well this was before Pentecost. the POWER came on Pentecost. notice he breathed on ..... "THEM".

101G

YOIU AGAIN!
If they were 'endued' when Jesus breathed on them then why does Jesus command them to go to Jerusalem and wait until they are endued with power from on high?
Besides, Jesus said:

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7.

The breathing was symbolic as God's breathing on Adam was literal.

The Holy Spirit rested on Jesus. He left with Him when He ascended and at the appointed time the sound from heaven came and they were filled...

 

[Complete]

That's how you want to apply Strong's definition but you're using the figurative to understand the literal:

Tarry:
another (active) form for [#2516] (kathezomai); to seat down, i.e. set (figurative appoint); intransitive to sit (down); figurative to settle (hover, dwell.)

'And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you:
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.'
(Luke 24:49)

Hello @jeremiah1five,

I mentioned the figurative use of kathezomai ('tarry') only, I do not suggest it be used for the verse in question: for I have no problem with what is written personally. I accept what is said concerning Peter in Luke's narrative, for I believe it was written by Divine inspiration.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

@Grace ambassador said:-
But if Paul’s apostleship was equal to Peter’s, and no higher, why do we follow Paul? Surely it is
because Peter was the apostle of the circumcision, and Paul was the apostle of the uncircumcision
(Gal. 2:8). It is important for a believer to know who his apostle is!...

...since most of them [ Christians ] believe that Paul’s apostleship is of no more consequence to us
than the apostleship of Peter, James, and John, they are forced to conclude that Paul’s message
must be the same as these chief apostles. The problem with this is that they know that Chief
Apostle Peter taught water baptism was required for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), while
Paul claimed he wasn’t sent to baptize at all (I Cor. 1:17).

Since most Christians believe that Peter and Paul are of equal authority for believers today, they have
to figure out a way to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages. As you probably
know, the solution at which they have arrived is to conclude, “We’ll still baptize people, just not for
the remission of sins!”

In the same vein, most Christians know that Paul taught that if you are saved, The Lord has already
forgiven you “all trespasses” (Col. 2:13). But they also know that Chief Apostle John teaches that
The Lord is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins” if we confess them (I John 1:9). So to homogenize
these two opposite and contradictory messages they conclude that believers are forgiven when they
get saved, they just need a little more forgiveness when they sin!

This despite the fact that forgiveness of sins is something that every believer receives the moment
he gets saved, along with salvation, justification, and redemption. Most Christians wouldn’t think of
asking for more salvation, justification, or redemption when they sin, but asking for more
forgiveness is the only way to get Paul and John to say the same thing.

Finally, most Christians know that Paul asserts that salvation is By Grace Through faith without works
(Rom. 4:5), but they also know that Chief Apostle James is just as adamant that “faith without works
is dead” (James 2:20). So to homogenize these two opposite and contradictory messages they
conclude that Paul is talking about justification before God while James is addressing the issue of
justification before men, even though The Lord never asked anyone to be justified before
men—in fact, He condemned it (Luke 16:15)!

'Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed
to the things which we have heard,
lest at any time we should let them slip.
For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast,
and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation;
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord,
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him;
God also bearing them witness,
both with signs and wonders,
and with divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Ghost,
according to His own will?
(Heb 2:1-4)

Hello @Grace ambassador,

As @civic said, you have raised some interesting points (above) for us to consider.

The verses I have quoted from Hebrews (above) show the object of the ministry of The Twelve: which was to confirm the things spoken by the Lord, and the works that God performed through Him, as well as being eye witnesses of His resurrection, and ascension.

Paul had not witnessed these things first-hand as they had. So he is not included among them. The risen Christ had a different calling for Paul. as, 'The Apostle To The Gentiles', and later as 'The Lord's Prisoner' .

'And I said, "Who art Thou, Lord?"
And He said, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."
But rise, and stand upon thy feet:
for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose,
to make thee a minister and a witness
1) both of these things which thou hast seen,
2) and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from The People, (the Jews) and from The Gentiles,
unto whom now I send thee,
.. To open their eyes,
.... and to turn them from darkness to light,
...... and from the power of Satan unto God,
........ that they may receive forgiveness of sins,
.......... and inheritance among them which are sanctified
............ by faith that is in me."
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
.. But shewed first unto them of Damascus,
.... and at Jerusalem,
...... and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,
........ and then to the Gentiles,
........that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
(Act 26:15-20)

* This was the object of Paul's first ministry. Yet the Lord would appear unto Paul again, and give Him yet another commission, when He was 'The Prisoner of the Lord' after Acts 28, while in prison at Rome. The subject of which is that of his epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

I have to go now.
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Fred]

Acts 2:14 coupled with Acts 2:37 teaches Matthias was an apostle in equality with the other eleven.


14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known unto you, and hearken to my words.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

 

[jeremiah1five]

'And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you:
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
until ye be endued with power from on high.'
(Luke 24:49)

Hello @jeremiah1five,

I mentioned the figurative use of kathezomai ('tarry') only, I do not suggest it be used for the verse in question: for I have no problem with what is written personally. I accept what is said concerning Peter in Luke's narrative, for I believe it was written by Divine inspiration.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Please, elaborate.

 

[Complete]

Please, elaborate.

Hi @jeremiah1five,

I'm sorry, but there is nothing more that I can say. I believe that Peter did not disobey the Lord's instruction to 'tarry' at Jerusalem. The fact that he 'stood up' and spoke was not indicative of an act of disobedience: and I believe that Matthias was God's choice to replace Judas Iscariot. If either were not of God then we would have been told so.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hi @jeremiah1five,

I'm sorry, but there is nothing more that I can say. I believe that Peter did not disobey the Lord's instruction to 'tarry' at Jerusalem. The fact that he 'stood up' and spoke was not indicative of an act of disobedience: and I believe that Matthias was God's choice to replace Judas Iscariot. If either were not of God then we would have been told so.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

What a disappointment. And a discouragement. I thought from your responses you'd accept Scripture and reason as well as definition of words to come to the knowledge of the truth. Instead, you'd rather hold to a man-centered theology on this issue and rather than looking at the Scripture, history, and reason on the question would keep the textbook answer and hold to the error of Apostolic Succession, a form of government which drives the method of the Catholics in how they choose their Pope (Bishop of Rome.) So, let's look at the conclusion of the matter.
You believe when a believer dies God replaces them.
So, in practice, Christ builds His Church in Acts 2, and 3000 Jews are born again in one day and filled with the Holy Spirit. By your reckoning when a believer dies God replaces that person and the number remains 3000 in His Church regardless of Acts 2:47 which says God added to the Church daily such as should be saved. This means the Church doesn't grow beyond 3000 Jews.
You believe that a command by Christ disobeyed by Peter is OK.
You believe being "in the flesh" without the Holy Spirit as guidance is the foundation of dealing with and engaging spiritual matters in the Church, especially where application of Scripture to a circumstance or situation is concerned is OK.
You believe man appoints apostles, by either sharing the prerogative of God or outright usurping His authority which Scripture teaches belong solely to Him as per Saul in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
You believe that Scripture declaring almost a dozen times Judas being "among the twelve" is the same as Matthias being "with the eleven."
You believe that as under the Law Peter and others can cast lot's and violate God's command that only the high priest is sanctioned to perform to discern the Lord's will in this way and usurp his authority. You believe that having a natural or physical ability qualifies anyone to the spiritual office of apostle as long as one has the votes from men.
You believe offering God an "either/or" proposition in our prayers for His guidance is sufficient for God in which to make decision towards our need.
You believe Peter's method of appointing an apostle is the correct way to replace apostles that die - and were not even talking about an apostle in the Body of Christ for the New Covenant Body of Christ did not begin until the Advent of the Holy Spirit days away - is the correct way and yet cannot tell me who replaced James after Herod killed him in Acts 12. Nor can you tell me who replaced the other eleven apostles that died, including Peter.
You believe Peter's method of appointing apostles is the correct way but cannot enlighten me as to why this method is not practiced in the Christian churches today and why it stopped.
You believe Peter's method of appointing apostles is the correct way but I'm sure you're not in a church that practices his method nor in a church that has apostle or apostles in your church, and being that apostles and prophets are foundation of the churches that are founded and don't have at least one apostle are probably in a false church.
In order to hold to the man-centered theology and belief of Apostolic Succession one must believe all the above - and then some - or one is not in a biblical church. Funny thing, though, the Church did not begin until Acts 2 a day or more later, so I guess in Peter's Church he was building all the above are valid to be an apostle in his church, the Body of Peter.
What a shame.
I'm not discouraged anymore. Believe as you will. Your belief has no biblical basis or foundation and is - I know - an erroneous belief to hold on this subject.
Good luck with it. Like God, I cannot nor do not bless error.