The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

To be precise, I am saying that there is definate grounds to question the decision, The First reason is that Peter was told to wait at Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came. He acts instead of waiting, I don't think a 40 day period in which to expect a ministry to wait and Pray is unreasonable.

The second reason, is the Qualifications of An Apostle of Jesus Christ in every other decision is just That, a Decision of Jesus Christ, Jesus made the decision on Paul prior to Acts 1, we both will recognize this fact. so Jesus had in effect Chosen his 12th apostle though he had not comissioned him yet. if you can provide the logic of a 13th apostle that fits I'd be open to that one, but Jesus seems to be Spiritually re-constitution Israel as the Ekklesia.

I am sure we both agree the text never directly says Matthias was Chosen either by the Holy Spirit or by jesus Christ, I assume we both can agree on that simply by observation of the text. If I missed it just quote the verse and I'd be happy to write a retarction that I missed that one.

I assume also, that from the text we can both agree, Peter remained impulsive, and given to rash judgement the text will support this, getting out of the boat, cutting off the servants ear, denying Jesus three times, removing himself from fellowship with gentile believers etc. Later he will be a pillar, but early on was a bit on the impulsive side, like alot of us. combined with the observation that the Holy Spirit is not in the picture yet. the 40 days are not up yet.

The Third reason is Peter's Speach itself, If God is doing the Speaking here, His word endures forever, God is not a man that he changes his mind for no reason on an Apostles qualifications, if Peter's Speach IS INSPIRED. Then to be honest one must conclude Paul is not an apostle. Peter here is going onver the qualifications of replacing an apostle of Jesus Christ which means it is true always or its not accurate. If the text said that Peter was being Led by the Holy Spirit here there would be no question, it does not and this is the most important decision Peter will make EVER. I Find it odd that the Holy Spirit did not put His Express endorsement on the decision given its an APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST. This is not a light decision, and its not one HUMANS EVER MAKE. Every other Apostle of Jesus Christ is by Direct Comission.

So I also have to ask, By what Authority Peter makes the appointment here and the decision to cast lots over such a critical decision?

He certanly is one of the Main leaders of the Church, but not the only leader unless one is trying to invoke the Petrine doctrine, which I believe is inaccurate.

From what we can gather of the Apostles of the Holy Spirit they are by direct calling of the Holy Spirit such as Barnabas, which also is missing here.

So al I am saying is there is a big question mark on the procedure we may both not know this side of Heaven.

I've remained a lurker on this thread since LTDahn and others (Antipater, Daily Bread) have handled it quite well, consistently presenting logical arguments in contrast to the logically deficient posts of christundivided and later biblos.

But this one's just too obvious.

biblos refers several times to a "40-day period" in which Peter and the other apostles were instructed to await the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem.

But it wasn't 40 days. It was actually less than 10 days. Acts 1:3 says that Jesus taught His disciples for 40 days after His resurrection. The descent of the Holy Spirit occurs on Shavuot (Pentecost), which is 50 days after Passover.

The reason I point this out is not because it materially affects the arguments on the issue; it's simply to note how deficient is biblos' reading of the text. If you're misreading the simple facts of the narrative, how credible is your interpretation of the passage?

The "waiting" was not inactivity, but entailed not trying to take the gospel to the nations without the Spirit. Jesus did not say "Go to Jerusalem and do nothing". They were praying (activity), they were in fellowship (activity), they found a place to meet (activity), they had teaching by Jesus (activity), etc.



Acts 1:6, 21; 2:21, 34-36 These verses are the words of the apostles wherein they specifically refer to Jesus as "Lord". Note that Acts 1:24 is Peter's prayer for direction for the replacement of one of "the twelve" addressed to the "Lord". It seems rather likely that Peter was specifically requesting the selection of Jesus himself concerning the choice. Also, note that Acts 1:2, 24 both refer to the "choice" (the same Greek term is used for each) of the Lord concerning the apostles (and then the apostle to become the twelfth). These connections would seem to actually indicate that Jesus himself was entreated to choose the replacement of the twelfth just as he had already in fact done of the original twelve. It would not seem to be an accident that Luke writes in this manner connecting these things.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Consider this my last post on this matter, as I'm merely repeating myself.



You should not assume this. There is NOTHING whatsoever in the text of Acts 1 which indicates that Peter is acting in haste or on impulse. You have taken stray contexts and imported them into this text, as though the plain reading of Acts 1 does not mean what it plainly says, and requires outside contexts in order to be understood properly (not to mention the impossibility you're facing in asserting that your reading is the proper one, a proposition which is entirely unverifiable, given your import of various other contexts).



Again, You are assuming that Peter is giving qualifications for apostleship. I have, at least three times, noted that Peter's qualification are for Judas' replacement, and not for apostleship proper. Your ignoring of this is indicative of an agenda of some sort, and the main reason this is my last effort in dialoguing with you on this matter.

Lastly, you have predicated all of your conclusion on your personal assumptions and preferences. For example, immediately above: "I find it odd...". Really? Based on what? Who said the HS didn't endorse said decision? The text, didn't, remember? Yet, somehow you come to the conclusion that it's "odd" to understand the choosing of Matthias as legitimate. On what grounds? You have none.

Adios.

LTD

_________________
L. T. Dahn
Friendswood, Tx

Actually you just made the arguement that much stronger, thank you, for some reason I had remembered it from memory as 40 days instead of 10.

The Point of the text is that if in my reading there is a mistake, point it out, otherwise its not there.

observation before interpretation. so Peter cannot wait 10 days before he acts is what you just said. Is there any Place in the text it says Jesus or the Holy Spirit authorized matthias.

I never see lots used again in the New Testament other than dividing Jesus garmets, anything incorrect about that observation.

Jesus Authorized 12 apostles including Paul, anything incorrect about that statement (Judas as he is dead at this point I am not counting). any observations about that incorrect.

Only Jesus authorizes his Apostles every other Place in the New Testament any incorrect statement about that?

Peter's Speach if followed as scripture excludes Paul as an apostle as Paul is inqualified, therefore something else must be at play in the speach. God's word is not a case where its true in one instance and suddenly not true in another, its not situational ethics here so we can state its either Peter is not acting for God at this point or Paul has to be a imposter as an apostle, those are the two rational choices as Paul was not with Jesus from the beginning.

I suspect all Christians will state openly that Paul is genuine. so I assume we agree on that

Peter was told to wait for the Holy Spirit (the text actually says dorea or gift and then explains it later as the Holy Spirit), the Rational he and the others would receive Power at this point to be his wittnesses, any thing missing in that observation.

The Text never says that He or Jesus authorized Matthias anything missing from that ovservation.

Every other occasion of setting aside an Apostle, Jesus shows up or the Holy Spirit specifically sets aside the Apostle himself. Anything missing from that observation.

so again, Observation before interpretation as the general rule in good exegisis. Any observations you care to add from the text that I may have missed?

By the way, either way, I believe Matthias served as a faithful disciple and a excellent evangelist in Jesus service, He did well, and may have served as an Apostle, though of that I simply am not sure for the above reason's. I think there is grounds to question the actions here of Peter on whether this is a case of Peter being impulsive, which he had done less than 50 days previous to this in denying Jesus and trying to cut off someone's ear, not to mention the future cases where he walks away from fellowship with gentiles in spite of having a direct revelation from God to call no man unclean. so as it seems he is not following Jesus instructions here I do believe there is cause to question the actions taken.

Lets see, as Obidiah just pointed out, Peter is told to wait 10 days for the Holy Spirit and goes out and appoints an apostle. I'd call that a bit impulsive from the text. The plain reading of Acts is neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit authorized the appointment. In every authorized case of an Apostle, either Jesus or the Holy Spirit specifically sets them aside.

Peter is giving qualifications for an apostle, either God's word is always true or its only Sometimes true. do you obey God in some cases only when you interpret obedience as warrented?
God's word is absolute truth, where does it say its for Matthias only. He states a replacement is needed, which is not a true statement, a replacement has already been set apart by Jesus. One that was set apart from birth but not comissioned yet. So there that is not a true statement either in the speach. He states that this replacement apostle had to be with Jesus from the beginning of His Ministry till the Assention, and we know Paul was not so if God's word is unconditionally true then the speach has human errors in it. and as noted Neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit ever authorizes the appointment. every other place the Text specifically says jesus authorizes an apostle or the Holy Spirit sets an apostle aside. Here Peter is also unaware that a replacement has been set apart by Jesus, which also goes against interpreting this as authorized.

And Yes, In interpretation I do look at Peter's immediate past conduct, and his future conduct to see him as impulsive, which I Believe the text supports. (I'd rather use impulsive here rather than deliberately sinful if you don't mind particurally in the future case).

two corrections, if my math is correct, its actually less than a week at this point, and for the record I just want to state I hope Matthias is a genuine Apostle, I merely from the text see alot of reason's to question the decision, Lack of specific authorization, Lack of a valid arguement in Peter's speach as Jesus had a 12th in the wings that Peter was not aware of, seemingly Lack of obedience if Jesus directions are followed. And qualifications to appoint a 12th replacement that would not be true for Paul who was the 12th appointed by Jesus. Remember this is to be added to the 11 as a direct appointment of Jesus Christ as an apostle, so it has also to be true for all Jesus Apostles.

Biblos,
It is interesting to me that you didn't reply to my last post (perhaps you didn't have time, but it is interesting in light of your multiple replies that do not even attempt to wrestle with the evidence I have given that would point towards Jesus own choice of Matthias to replace Judas).

I wonder do you have ANY Scripture that would say explicitly that Paul was chosen to replace Judas? Or that Paul was chosen as one of "the twelve"? If not then your arguments are moot. Paul was chosen as an apostle (which is explicit in Scripture), but not as one of "the twelve" or as the replacement of Judas (where the Scripture ONLY state that Matthias was chosen as the replacement). All of Peter's impetuous moves are specifically corrected in Scripture, why (if this one was) would this one not be? And referring to Paul's apostolic call does not answer this charge. All it means is that Paul was called to be an apostle (as Barnabus, Silas, etc.) not that he was made one of the twelve (or Judas' replacement). This thread continues to go nowhere because you parrot the same argument again and again that conjectures what the text never states contrary to what the text actually does state.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

In addition to "the twelve," the Bible identifies several others besides Paul as apostles: Barnabas (Acts 14:14; 1 Cor 9:5-6); James, the Lord's brother (Gal 1:19); Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1; 2:7); Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9). The very fact that Paul found it necessary to denounce certain persons as "false apostles" (2 Cor 11:13) shows that there was no thought in the early church of restricting the apostleship to a body of 12 or 13 men. "Had the number been definitely restricted, the claims of these interlopers would have been self-condemned" (Lightfoot, Galatians, 97).

Nevertheless, "the twelve" had a unique status. In Luke 22:28-30, Jesus told the twelve:

You are the ones who have remained with me in my trials. Thus I grant to you a kingdom, just as my Father granted to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Compare the language of Matthew 19:28 where Jesus says, "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Clearly there are twelve "positions" in view here, where Jesus grants to the ones who had "followed him" / "remained with him during his trials" a special status in his kingdom. The twelve will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And it is because they have remained with him during his trials that he will accord them that privilege. This, at least in part, is why Peter quite rightly says in Acts 1:21-22 that the man to replace Judas Iscariot among the twelve had to be one who was with them (i.e. with Jesus) throughout Christ's earthly ministry. Jesus himself had already limited "the twelve" to those who had remained with him during his trials.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Will Judas Iscariot be seated on a throne also? Or shall his replacement, Matthias?

_________________
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which reaches inside behind the curtain Hebrews 6:19 http://www.monachos.net

There will be no throne for Judas Iscariot (John 17:12). Since Matthias took his place among the twelve, the reward that would have gone to Judas reasonably becomes his.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I agree, then it must be settled, the Matthias selection was no mistake.

_________________
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which reaches inside behind the curtain Hebrews 6:19 http://www.monachos.net

I wrote this comment on another tread and Antipater suggested I look at this tread. I have read it over and found some ideas left out:
Luke the writer is not like some of the other writers (ex. John) He does not edit or comment on what was said and would never say anything “bad” about an apostle. As far as Luke “explaining” what happened ( even errors) are not there just the observed facts.
There are lots of comments about the use of “the twelve”. If you go back every time that is used you might find it is more a descriptive term than trying to be a specific number. John 20: 24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. At this time there were only 11. 1 Cor. 15: 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. Again this should be the ten others or the eleven since Judas is gone.
I am not saying Matthias was not an apostles for God can work through our mistakes and a lot can be accomplished in spite of our actions. Who was right and who was wrong in Acts 15: 36-40?


Here is what I wrote on the other tread:
We all know the nice true detailed story Luke gives us (unedited) of how Matthias is chosen to replace Judas, but was that Jesus’ intension?
1. The upper room group does not have the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit at that time. So who is in charge?
2. Jesus specifically told them to wait until the Spirit come to take His place. Is the job of selecting an apostle a waiting type of activity and who does the selecting or is it a group activity?
3. Peter is not known for his patience and would have been looked to for leadership at this time. So is Peter trying to keep the group accomplishing stuff, moving forward and can Peter stay active in pray and meditation or does Peter fall asleep?
4. The verses Peter uses to “justify” his actions are far from obvious and when does prophecy start by taking half a verse one place and finish with half a verse 80 verses later? How does this compare to the prophecies the apostles use after they have the indwelling Holy Spirit?
5. Does Luke ever add his own opinions especially about the apostle’s actions? Who did Luke say was wrong in the with Paul and Barnabas argument?
6. The “qualifications” Peter give to be“apostle” sounds more like a ship captain finding a new crew member. Would a person like Paul have made Peter’s list?
7. The throwing of dice is a tried and true method on board a ship, but is that good here? What kind of questions do we force God to answer with the throw of dice and which do we consider important enough for Christ himself to come down and make first hand? Christ was visibly present for all the other apostle selections and did make a special trip for Paul.
8. After praying for God’s choice how long should we wait before throwing the dice? Is the decision important enough for Jesus to verbally call out the name, because that is the next words of Christ that follows “Saul, Saul…”? Was the first Saul in response to Peter’s pray?
Have you ever thought how the 3 years with disciples would have been if Paul had been in the first 12? When you mentor to a small group, they need to be as harmonious a group as possible or at least all started at about the same place. Paul is way out there in knowledge from the rest and his questions would have been only confused the other 12. Paul needed individual instruction and that is what he got. What Paul did up, what god allowed to happen and what God/Jesus did not do for Paul up until the Damascus Road experience help prepare Paul. Paul could still have rejected the Lord after getting to Damascus as heat stroke, sun blinding and a bad dream, but he humble accepted God’s forgiveness and dependence on God’s Love.