Acts 12:2 Why was not the apostle james replaced?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Acts 12:2
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

If the office of an Apostle was to be passed down ( true apolostolic succession ) from man to man then why was not the Apostle James replaced and that recorded in the book of Acts?

Note: Paul became an apostle before James died.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, first, we believe that a successor for St. James WAS chosen; just as successors for St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Bartholomew, etc. But THEIR successors were not ‘named’ in Acts, or in any other New Testament writings (even though it is more than possible that St. Thomas, for example, died ‘before’ St. Paul did). Certainly the long tradition that St. John lived to be 90 years old and wrote Revelation at the end of that long life would have implied that HE ‘knew’ all the successors of his apostolic brothers. . .and ‘could’ have recorded THAT in Revelation.

But he didn’t.

Remember that the ‘recorded’ example of a person being chosen as an apostle was not as a SUCCESSOR. Matthias REPLACED Judas, he did not ‘succeed’ him.

 

[mercygate]

Acts 12:2
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

If the office of an Apostle was to be passed down ( true apolostolic succession ) from man to man then why was not the Apostle James replaced and that recorded in the book of Acts?

Note: Paul became an apostle before James died.

Which assures us that the number who whole the apostolic office may exceed 12.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

You do know that there are more than 12 apostles right?

Question: How many apostles were there? Was Paul the twelfth and last apostle?

Answer: First off, we must understand that the term “apostle” ( “messenger” or “ambassador”) is capable of conveying either a more general or a more restricted meaning. An “apostle of the church” is anyone who is sent by a particular local church to represent that church’s interests and / or deliver its message. Epaphroditus was the apostle from the church at Philippi (Phil.2:25; see also Titus in 2Cor.8:23; in both of these passages the term “messenger” translates the Greek apostolos).

The “apostles of Christ,” however, are that carefully select group of men who were the personal representatives of Jesus Christ Himself. “Apostle of Christ” is a much more specific and technical use of the term “apostle.” In a sense, all Christians are to be apostles for Jesus Christ, but this gift of apostleship belonged only to a very few. These are the men who are “foundational” to the church (Eph.2:20), the personal messengers of Jesus Christ, sent by the Lord Himself.

Like the gift of Pastor, one was an apostle not only by calling or gifting but also by meeting certain qualifications. An apostle must have been one who could personally testify to the risen Christ. This was Paul’s argument concerning his own apostleship in 1Cor.9:1. This was also one of the requirements stipulated by the eleven for the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:21_22). The credentials of Christ’s apostles also included the ability to perform miracles. Jesus Himself gave this power to the twelve when He commissioned them (Matt.10:1). In defending his apostleship to the Corinthians Paul mentioned this as something which identified him as a true apostle (2Cor.12:12). The apostles were ambassadors for Christ who could bear personal witness to the risen Lord and perform miracles as proof of their calling and office.

On the one hand, these stipulations highlight the falsehood of all modern claims to apostleship - not only are there no apostolic-class miracle workers, there just is no one around old enough to claim that he is a witness to the risen Christ!

But it is a surprise to some to learn that there were more than only twelve apostles of Christ. First of all, of course, there were the original twelve apostles, minus Judas Iscariot. In Acts1:12-26, these eleven, after much prayer and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, chose Matthias as the replacement for Judas Iscariot. Acts 1:26 informs us that Matthias “was numbered with the eleven” (i.e., he was number 12).

James, the half_brother of the Lord and writer of the epistle which bears the name, was another apostle. His is an interesting biography, unbelieving until sometime after the resurrection. He is identified as an apostle equal to the others in Gal.1:19, and in Acts 15 his high standing among the apostles is evident.

Barnabas was an apostle as well. He is so designated in Acts 14:4 and 14. Some today question his apostleship; however, note that he is referred to as an apostle equal to Paul.

And Paul was the last man to enjoy the position of apostleship. He was “one born out of due time” in that he was a later (indeed, the last) addition to the apostolic company (1Cor.15:8-11).

This brings us to a total of fifteen - the original eleven plus Matthias, James, Barnabas, and Paul.

cornerstonechurchofskippack.com/pastorsdesk/questions/qa4.html

 

[NotWorthy]

It was important for their to be 12 Apostles when the New Israel was instituted, at Pentecost. After that, it was not.

 

[mercygate]

It was important for their to be 12 Apostles when the New Israel was instituted, at Pentecost. After that, it was not.

Right. And as Daniel Marsh notes in the quoted passage, about 15, maybe 16 “apostles” are mentioned in Scripture. People like Timothy & Titus also received the apostolic ministry as bishops of their churches.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Matthew 19:27

Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30

28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 20:23

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

Mark 10:40

but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."

Basically, the kingdom of God which the apostles have keys to is yet fulture to them.

 

[NotWorthy]

Basically, the kingdom of God which the apostles have keys to is yet fulture to them.

The kingdom was instituted at Pentecost. This was yet in the future to all the verses you referenced, except for Revelation which takes place in heaven, so there is no time to consider.

 

[dacoobob]

Remember that the ‘recorded’ example of a person being chosen as an apostle was not as a SUCCESSOR. Matthias REPLACED Judas, he did not ‘succeed’ him.

Why do you say this? And what is the difference? I see the selection of Matthias to take up the “office” of Judas as good evidence of the whole concept of Apostolic succession. Although Judas sinned pretty spectacularly it doesn’t change the fact that he really was/had been a disciple, one of the Twelve, and his “office” needed a successor. Right?

 

[mercygate]

Why do you say this? And what is the difference? I see the selection of Matthias to take up the “office” of Judas as good evidence of the whole concept of Apostolic succession. Although Judas sinned pretty spectacularly it doesn’t change the fact that he really was/had been a disciple, one of the Twelve, and his “office” needed a successor. Right?

I don’t see a conflict. There were originally 12. They replaced the 12th. Soon, apostolic power and authority were required of more than 12 in order to spread the Gospel, so others were added in a manner similar to that used for choosing Matthias. Perhaps Justus Barsabbas, who “lost” the election in Acts 1 made it in the second round?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The kingdom was instituted at Pentecost. This was yet in the future to all the verses you referenced, except for Revelation which takes place in heaven, so there is no time to consider.

Please demonstrate this, thanks.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Why do you say this? And what is the difference? I see the selection of Matthias to take up the “office” of Judas as good evidence of the whole concept of Apostolic succession. Although Judas sinned pretty spectacularly it doesn’t change the fact that he really was/had been a disciple, one of the Twelve, and his “office” needed a successor. Right?

The scriptures tell us of the mis-steps of the apostles. The apostles were indwelt with the Holy Spirit at the end of John’s gospel. They were not FILLed or enpowered to do their work with the Holy Spirit until Acts 2.

In Acts 1, Peter does a really bad job of proof texting scripture out of context. They were telling God whom they think the new apostle should be, instead of waiting for God to tell them.

The apostles were STILL looking for an earthly KINGDOM, that is how I know for certin that they including Peter were acting in the flesh.

They were NOT following JESUS command to WAIT. Matthias really became an after thought of history or tradition, that is why there are seriously contradictory accounts of his life and death.

Quote:​

St. Matthias Apostle.

All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in interiore Æthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, “Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles”, I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena brought the relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics that are in Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who was Bishop of Jerusalem about the year 120, and whose history would seem to have been confounded with that of the Apostle. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias on 24 February and the Greek Church on 9 August.​

www.newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm

Lets look at what Jesus commanded them, and how badly Peter mishandled scriptures in Acts 1, while he was still walking in the flesh, looking to set up an earthly kingdom!!!

Acts 1:6-8

6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

NOTE: Here the Apostles are still thinking in the flesh, are still asking about setting up an Earthly Kingdom.

Jesus, clearly says,

7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Their mission as given in Matthew 28 and here is after recieving the power of the HOLY GHOST was to be witnesses to unbelievers everywhere.

Now, lets look at Psalms 69

24Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

25Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

26For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded.

27Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.

28Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

Verse 25, clearly says that THEIR habitation be desolate and MORE IMPORTANTLY Their habitation, tents are NOT to be lived in again. Their place is NOT to be replaced by others peroid. This is the worse possible text Peter could have choosen to justifly replacing anyone. The text in context clearly says their tents are never to be lived in again.

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.

Peter makes a serious error by ignoring the context of Psa 69 which is God bringing down JUDGEMENT on a group of people, not just one. And, these people are NOT to be replaced peroid.

Now the second part of the mis-quote is from Psa 109, lets look,

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Psalm 109

1Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;

2For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

3They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.

4For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.

5And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.

6Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

7When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

8Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

9Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

10Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

11Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.

12Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.

13Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

14Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.

15Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

16Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.

17As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.

18As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.

19Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.

20Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.

21But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name’s sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me.

22For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me.

23I am gone like the shadow when it declineth: I am tossed up and down as the locust.

24My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness.

25I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads.

26Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy:

In short, verse 8 is speaking about filling the office of an adversay of God’s servant David. It is not speaking of filling a spiritual office of apostle in anyway shape or form.

These two texts either seperately, nor together justifly placing someone in Juda’s place. The apostles, and peter are still thinking of an earthly kingdom. They still don’t get the fact that Jesus KINGDOM is spiritual and NOT OF THIS WORLD. The apostles were replacing someone to fill an office in an earthly kingdom, who’s goal would be to overthrow the Roman Government. They could not had have been more wrong, fleshly and off the mark.

John 18:36 (King James Version)

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Ephesians 4:11 (King James Version)

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Apsotle, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers are SPIRITUAL gifts given only by the HOLY SPIRIT “as he wills” I Cor 12-14.

Apostles are not apointed by man, they are only gifted by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If you don’t get it, the “he” here is the Holy Spirit, NOT PETER.

Peter’s “methods” of proof texting in Acts 1:20 do not follow any pattern of Jewish interpretation of that day. Some critical scholars have even dismissed Acts 1 as unhistorical for that very reason. I think it is historical simply because it shows how leadership in the flesh misses the mark completely.

Remember, the first phrase qoute is mistating “him” for “their”, and ignores the fact that their TENTS are never to be lived in again. The second misquoted phrase is speaking of filling the office of an adversary of God’s people, naming david. Peter makes both texts stand on their head with his misinterpretations.

Also, we know they are working in the flesh for two reasons, they are not enpowered by the Holy Spirit as of yet, that happens the first time in Acts 2, the very NEXT chapter. And, they are still trying to set up an earthly kingdom, which in hindsight maybe the very error of the Roman Catholic church and pope.

p067.ezboard.com/fthetruth11187frm2.showMessage?topicID=1562.topic

These last three posts are one unit, follow the link to copy paste response there please, thanks Daniel

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I don’t see a conflict. There were originally 12. They replaced the 12th. Soon, apostolic power and authority were required of more than 12 in order to spread the Gospel, so others were added in a manner similar to that used for choosing Matthias. Perhaps Justus Barsabbas, who “lost” the election in Acts 1 made it in the second round?

Acts 13

1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “**Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” **3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
On Cyprus
4The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. 5When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

With all respect, I see the HOLY SPIRIT as the one sending them out as APOSTLES, not the church itself.

It would be an interresting study to see where each of the apostles were sent out.

Anyone?

 

[NotWorthy]

If you don’t get it, the “he” here is the Holy Spirit, NOT PETER.

Peter’s “methods” of proof texting in Acts 1:20 do not follow any pattern of Jewish interpretation of that day. Some critical scholars have even dismissed Acts 1 as unhistorical for that very reason. I think it is historical simply because it shows how leadership in the flesh misses the mark completely.

But I think you are going off on the wrong tangent here.

Jesus’ “methods” of proof texting do not follwo the patterns of Jewish interpretation of that day. I don’t believe Paul’s would qualify as well.

This is the New Covenant Church and they are interpreting the OT Scriptures in light of Christ, something I don’t believe the Jews did.

Note, the inspired author of Acts never indicates that Peter taught in error in this part. I don’t believe this follows Luke’s tendencies in his writings.

 

[kevinas2]

Well, first, we believe that a successor for St. James WAS chosen; just as successors for St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Bartholomew, etc. But THEIR successors were not ‘named’ in Acts, or in any other New Testament writings (even though it is more than possible that St. Thomas, for example, died ‘before’ St. Paul did). Certainly the long tradition that St. John lived to be 90 years old and wrote Revelation at the end of that long life would have implied that HE ‘knew’ all the successors of his apostolic brothers. . .and ‘could’ have recorded THAT in Revelation.

But he didn’t.

Remember that the ‘recorded’ example of a person being chosen as an apostle was not as a SUCCESSOR. Matthias REPLACED Judas, he did not ‘succeed’ him.

St. John of the first 12 apostle’s did not write Revelations and they say he did not get to finish writing his own gospel, his followers did. The author of Revalations calls himself John but theologans only know that he came from Ephesus and had written this to encourage the people of Asia Minor.

 

[Mannyfit75]

St. John of the first 12 apostle’s did not write Revelations and they say he did not get to finish writing his own gospel, his followers did. The author of Revalations calls himself John but theologans only know that he came from Ephesus and had written this to encourage the people of Asia Minor.

Catholic Tradition holds that John, the Apostle did wrote the Book of Revelation. It was just recently that modern biblical scholars put doubt who wrote it…and I also like to note tradition held that Mary and John stayed in Ephesus. Note that in the Council of Ephesus the Church declared Mary to be Theotokos or Mother of God.

 

[TDiGaetano]

Acts 13

1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
On Cyprus
4The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. 5When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

With all respect, I see the HOLY SPIRIT as the one sending them out as APOSTLES, not the church itself.

It would be an interresting study to see where each of the apostles were sent out.

Anyone?

The Holy Spirit calls us to do the work of the Lord, In 13:3 you see that the apostle still layed on hands (ordained) and sent him on his way to continue the work of God.

In Act 1 when they replaced Judas’s spot Man did not replace him the Holy spirit filled his position.

Peter was just exercising his authority that was given to him by Jesus.

 

[kevinas2]

Catholic Tradition holds that John, the Apostle did wrote the Book of Revelation. It was just recently that modern biblical scholars put doubt who wrote it…and I also like to note tradition held that Mary and John stayed in Ephesus. Note that in the Council of Ephesus the Church declared Mary to be Theotokos or Mother of God.

I used information from books and notes that I have attained from R.C.I.A… And all books are approved by U.S.C.C.B.