Judas Iscariat's replacement / Casting lots?

No, there was a bit more to it than that.
This is from the Easton Bible Dictionary:

And this from Robertson's Word Pictures (specifically on the passage in question)

Hope this helps


Lastly: This was used BEFORE the giving of the Holy Spirit and thus you need read or hear of it's usage again. Why? Because now we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

 

I address this in my book, SpellBound, (which is on the occult and at some points I bring up scriptures people use to try to say the Bible endorses occult stuff, which it doesn't). Casting lots here is the last time and I think the only time it's done by believers in the NT.

Note that this was also done before the disciples had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Allan posted good info on why it was used in the OT.

 

What about the "Urim and Thunim" (spelling?) that the priests used in the OT? Wasn't that a type of "casting lots?"

 

Many people believe (including myself) that the replacement for Judas was actually Paul, because he was chosen by the Lord Himself as all the other apostles were.

 

Thats my belief as well Amy

 

Fine, I guess, but then I would wonder who is the "replacement" for James, the brother of John?? He, just as Judas Iscariot, was not around when Paul was "chosen." (Ac. 12:1 - James is killed by Herod; Ac. 13:2 - Saul is "chosen.")

Is it Barnabas (Ac. 14:14, called an apostle)? James 'the Just', the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19)? Jesus, Himself (Heb. 3:1)? Andronicus and/or Junia? (Rom. 16:7) Epaphroditus? (Phil'p. 2:25, WYC, YLT, AMP) or one of the other 4 or 5 that I believe I can definitely demonstrate from comparing Scripture with Scripture to be Biblically identified as an apostle?

Then who becomes the replacement when Paul is martyred, etc.??

Last time I checked, we are not followers or practitioners of the Mormon teaching on this, or at least I'm not, anyway.

Personally, I just believe this idea to be treading on dangerous ground, especially, when writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luke again speaks of "the twelve" (Ac. 6:2) and before Saul/Paul (Ac. 13:9 - Scripture never says Saul's name was ever "changed" to Paul, FTR.) is even mentioned (Ac. 7:58), let alone converted (Ac. 9), and this well after Matthias was "numbered with the eleven apostles" in Ac. 1:26. This wording of "the twelve" is found in Ac. 6:2.

Think about it.

Ed

 

Paul was an apostle by God's unique and individual calling. It takes a little too much reading into the Bible or between the lines to firmly believe that Paul was a subsitute runner after Judas was taken out of the line up.

 

What does that have to do with thinking Paul may have been the apostle to replace Judas? You could make the same argument about Matthias being the replacement apostle.

What is your point? Who become the replacement when James is martyred? Or Peter? How does this question prove anything?

What??? Thinking Paul may have replaced Judas makes me a follower of Mormonism? Why do you make such comments except to offend me?

I'm on dangerous ground? Is my salvation at risk? Am I going to destroy the church with this false, heretical teaching? The worst thing that could happen is that I'm wrong. I'm not in rebellion against God or out to destroy the church. I'm just another human with an opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong, no different than your opinion.
Even my pastor believes that Paul was the Lord's replacement, so I don't think it's some far-out, "dangerous" belief.

I did. I disagree with you.

 

I think she covered about everything that needed to be covered ED.
Im sure you have your view on the Tribulation period, which side do you take Pre or Post. It really doesnt matter its the view that you take, no different here this doesnt effect my salvation or yours one way or the other, but to go and call people Mormons because of there view is just WRONG. I thought this was a place for discussion not name calling.

 

Hello CoJoJax,
If I might offer a couple of comments . . .
The method of casting lots used by the Jews was to have the priests (or in this case, the apostolic candidates) to stand in a circle and raise one, two, three or more fingers. A random number would then be chosen, such as 70, and then the counting would begin by counting each finger in order (it was unlawful in Israel to count persons) until the designated number was reached, thus designating that person to be the one upon whom the lot had fallen. This is why the word used for "casting lots" means to "count" or "count up" as in the case of the other New Testament uses our fellow posters have cited.
As an additional note, there were only 12 original Apostles, and Paul is not counted among them. The reason is that the requirement for being one of the original Apostles was that the person had to have been an eye-witness to the baptism, ministry, teaching, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, having been present with the others from Jesus' baptism by John until Jesus' ascension 3 1/2 years later. Only those who companied with the Lord and his men for the whole of Jesus' ministry qualified as one of the original 12. (see Acts 1:21-22)

It is for that reason that I do not ascribe to the Catholic or Coptic idea of Apostolic succession, or that later generations could have received the "bishop prick" or Apostolic authority of Peter or any of the other 12. To have the authority of this particular office required one to be an eye-witness to the person and work of the Lord.

Hope this might shed a little light on things.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

I am not saying that you are wrong, but where are these qualifications written?

Paul was without a doubt an apostle. He was chosen by the Lord Himself and he displayed all the sign gifts, healing, raising the dead...ect.

2Cr 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.


Why is it error to think that Paul was chosen by God as the final apostle?

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead


Among many, many other scriptures.

 

This was something God designed. We don't even know what the Urim and Thumin were, though some speculate they were stones. I address this in my book as well.

 

I think Paul was an apostle, but not a replacement for Judas. Can't Paul be an apostle without being one of the "twelve?"

 

Oh thanks! I forgot about that. :thumbs:

 

I believe this, as well.

Incidentally, not only do I not "firmly believe that Paul was a 'substitute runner' after Judas..." but I do not believe this to be true, at all. The apostleship of Paul (or any other Apostle, for that matter) had absolutely zero to do with Judas Iscariot, unlike that of Matthias, who was called as an apostle, after the fall of Judas.

Since my other post has apparently been greatly misunderstood, I will have to post to it again, simply in order to clarify, it seems.

Ed

 

Hello Amy G.,

Paul was certainly an apostle, and there are others who are named as apostles in the New Testament as well. But the question was about the 12 original Apostles who do hold a unique office in the church, even among all the apostles. So much so that their names are written in the 12 foundation walls of the New Jerusalem (see Revelation 21:14).

The 12 Apostles are to the New Covenant what the 12 sons of Jacob were to the Old Covenant, ergo, you see also that the names of the 12 tribes are written in the gates of the city (see Revelation 21:12).

These Jewish men, 12 Old Covenant elders and 12 New Covenant elders, are the 24 elders spoken of in Revelation 4, 5, 14, etc.

For the qualifications of the office of the 12 Apostles see Acts 1:21-22.

Paul holds a unique place in the church as well, but it's not as one of the original 12 apostles, it is as the Apostle to the Gentiles, and the expounder of the mystery of the Gospel to both Gentiles and Jews.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

Yes. I see that now. Thank you for your kindness and not comparing me to a Mormon.

I still have much to learn.

 

Urim and Thummim, in the Old Testament (Deut 33:8) appear to have been flat objects on the priest's garments and were used to settle prayerful questions. They were stored in a pouch and cast out on ground. They never revealed a negative response...according to Jewish history. There is nothin in our Bible on these items. The problem with Acts and casting lots, is that the original Urim and Thummim disappeared between the early monarchy and the exile (Ezra 2:63).Were they just a pair of dice?

Cheers,

Jim