The twelfth Apostle - Paul or Matthias?

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)

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

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 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."

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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