ECFs/Heaven/Keys

[NotWorthy]

This may be a difference of emphasis for Lutherans. The Keys are understood in a heavenly, sacramental sense, not like that which was given to the Jews in their political establishment. I’m not aware of an Old Testament reference where the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to anyone, where they are expressly given authority to forgive and retain sins in such a way that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. That peculiar gift is something Christ alone gives, by virtue of His work on the cross, in which He takes the sins of the world onto Himself. Even the Old Testament prophets only speak what they have been expressly given to speak.

I apologize, that I cannot perceive the references you draw in Isaiah 22-- this seems clearly to be speaking of a restoration of a righteous king after the fall of an evil king. And as for Joseph, he clearly is a type of Christ to come, but in his functioning in Egypt, he only forgives his brothers for what they have done to him… not all their sins before God.

The reference to Isaiah 22 is not the restoration of a King, but of the Prime Minister. Shebna and Hilkiah were not the kings of Judah. They were Prime Ministers. And what is the role of the Prime Minister? To look after the King’s household, and also to look after his kingdom when he is away until his return. That is the role of the Pope.

And do you really not see the parallels?
Isaiah: I will clothe him (Hilkiah) with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah (This is the role of the Prime Minister). I will place the key of the House of David * (the key of the kingdom)** on his shoulder***, when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
Matthew: *I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. * Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Lutherans see the Keys as explicitly defined by Christ when He gives them, and that’s how we tend to reflect upon them. This is how I read the Fathers to discuss them, too.

Grace and peace to you.

But I thought you even claimed that the power to forgive was part of the powers of the key. I agree that it is implicit in Matthew, but that it is explicit in John’s Gospel.

 

[NoelFitz]

NW thanks for your reply.
You note:

It is the authority to make rules binding on the faithful and to release rules from their binding.

That is the point I was trying to make. The Vatican has authority to make and break rules.

Also the reference says

This authority is verified with the “binding and loosing” that Jesus gives to the Apostles,

To me the binding power was given to Rocky Johnson.

AgapeBibleStudy.Com does not seem a very authoritative source. Michal Elizabeth Hunt does not seem to hold any special position in the Church.

 

[inkaneer]

The reference to Isaiah 22 is not the restoration of a King, but of the Prime Minister. Shebna and Hilkiah were not the kings of Judah. They were Prime Ministers. And what is the role of the Prime Minister? To look after the King’s household, and also to look after his kingdom when he is away until his return. That is the role of the Pope.

And do you really not see the parallels?
Isaiah: I will clothe him (Hilkiah) with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah (This is the role of the Prime Minister). I will place the key of the House of David (the key of the kingdom)*** on his shoulder***, when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
Matthew: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

But I thought you even claimed that the power to forgive was part of the powers of the key. I agree that it is implicit in Matthew, but that it is explicit in John’s Gospel.

The OT Davidic kings had help in ruling the kingdom. Like the American presidents they had a cabinet of sorts composed of 12 members who were called stewards. One of these stewards was selected to be the chief steward. This chief steward was given power and authority to act in the name of the king and he presided over the kingdom in the king’s absence. As a symbol of his authority he was given keys to the kingdom and what he opens no one can shut. Now fast forward to the NT. Jesus is a Davidic King he chooses 12 stewards [Apostles] and names one as chief steward [Peter] He gives Peter keys to His kingdom along with the authority to bind and loose. Like the OT chief steward the NT Peter can bind (lock, shut) and loose (unlock, open) but since the OT is prefigured in the NT and the NT is perfected in the OT, Peter’s authority extends far beynd that of the OT chief steward. Peter’s authority extends to include heaven as well as earth. None of the other APostles were given tjhe power to bind and loose individually. None of the other Apostles were given keys ot the kingdom.

 

[NotWorthy]

NW thanks for your reply.
You note:
That is the point I was trying to make. The Vatican has authority to make and break rules.

Oh, I agree. I just tend to shy away from the words, “The Vatican can do whatever She wants…”. Maybe it’s my own pessimism, but that type of verbiage leads me to think that the Vatican can easily abuse this position. Maybe its just me.

But I think its because I’ve heard several Protestant claim that this is exactly what the Vatican does - “whatever She wants”. Where I feel that the Vatican does “whatever She feels that She needs to do”. You may be thinking this when you say it your way “whatever she wants”, but that’s what I hear when you say that.

Again… maybe it’s just me.

God Bless!

Also the reference says

To me the binding power was given to Rocky Johnson.

AgapeBibleStudy.Com does not seem a very authoritative source. Michal Elizabeth Hunt does not seem to hold any special position in the Church.

The Binding power was given both to “The Rock” and to the Apostles as a whole (Matt. 18).

And yes, Michal Hunt does not hold any special position in the Church… she is simply a lay person. But I have found her studies to reflect, rock solidly, the Orthodox Teaching of the Church. She receives many kudos from several people of note in the Church, you can find the link to them on her main page, but she no authority, nor does she claim to.

If you take a look at any of her studies, and there are many, I think you will find them most orthodox and interesting indeed. And extremely thorough.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The role of Isaiah 22 as an office of prime minister is well-known by many of us on these forums, but I’d like to add to that the Jewish understanding, which takes on more priestly connotations.

Jesus makes reference to Peter as basically a foundation stone for his Church, which in the Jewish mind would mean a New Temple. Here are some citations of the Jewish understanding of the foundation stone:

The “Foundation Stone” (’Eben Shetiyah)
[On the day of Atonement, the High Priest] went through the Sanctuary until he came to
the space between the two curtains separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies….
When he reached the Ark he put the fire-pan between the two bars. He heaped up the
incense on the coals and the whole place became filled with smoke. He came out by the
way he went in, and in the outer space he prayed a short prayer. But he did not prolong
his prayer lest he put Israel in terror. After the Ark was taken away a stone remained there
from the time of the early prophets and it was called “Shetiyah.” It was higher than the
ground by three fingerbreadths. On this he used to put… (Mishnah, Yoma [Day of
Atonement] 5:2)

In the below passage the foundation stone is referred to as the center of the world:

“And it was called Shetiyah [foundation].” A Tanna taught: [It was so called] because
from it the world was founded. We were taught in accord with the view that the world
was started [created] from Zion on… Rabbi Isaac the Smith said: “The Holy One, blessed
be He, cast a stone into the ocean, from which the world then was founded as it is said:
‘Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner stone thereof?’
(Job 38:38). But the Sages said: The world was started [created] from Zion, as it is said…
“Out of Zion, the perfection of the world” (Ps 50:2). (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma [The
Day of Atonement] 54a-54b)

The keys to the Temple themselves were kept in: a rock. I’m sure you can make the parallels between the keys of the Kingdom and Peter, and the Temple keys being kept in a rock:

…for although there be four courses of the priests, and everyone of them have above five
thousand men in them, yet do they officiate on certain days only; and when those days
are over, other priests succeed in the performance of their sacrifices, and assemble
together at midday, and receive the keys of the temple (Josephus, Against Apion 2.108).

And there was a place there… whereon lay a slab of marble in which was fixed a ring
and a chain on which hung the keys. When the time was come to lock up [the Temple
Court] he lifted up the slab by the ring and took the keys from the chain. The priest
locked [the gates] from inside while a Levite slept outside. When he had finished locking
[the gates] he put back the keys on the chain and the slab in its place, put his mattress
over it, and went to sleep (Mishnah Middoth 1.9).

The Captain of the Temple was given the keys to the Temple:

Thus also, before the Jews rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the
war [in 67-70 A.D.]… the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] Temple, which was of
brass, and vastly heavey, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested
upon a basis armed with iron… was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth
hour of the night. Now, those that kept watch in the Temple came hereupon running to
the captain of the Temple, and told him of it: who then came up there, and not without
great difficulty, and was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar tobe a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own
accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these
publicly declared that this signal foreshadowed the desolation that was coming upon
them. (Josephus, War 6:293-96)

The destruction of the Temple and the Keys:

“Our Rabbis have taught: When the First Temple was about to be destroyed bands upon
bands of young priests with *the keys of the Temple *in their hands assembled and mounted the roof of the Temple and exclaimed, *‘Master of the Universe, as we did not have the merit to be faithful treasurers these keys are handed back into Thy keeping’. They then threw the keys up towards heaven. And there emerged the figure of a hand and received the keys from them. *Whereupon they jumped and fell into the fire.” (Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anith 29a)

“What did [Jeconiah] do?―He collected all the keys of the Temple and ascended the
roof [of the Temple], and said, “Lord of the Universe! Seeing that we have hitherto not
proved worthy stewards, faithful custodians for Thee, from now and henceforth, behold
Thy Keys are Thine.” Two Amoraim [differ as to what followed]. One said: A kind of
fiery hand descended and took them from him; the other said: As he threw them upward
they did not come down any more.” (Leviticus Rabbah 19.6).1

Josephus gives a Jewish perspective on “binding and loosing”:

The Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in
the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws… became at length the
real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and recall, to loose (Greek luein) and
to bind (Greek desmein) whom they would. In short, the enjoyments of royal authority
were theirs… [even though Alexandra was the queen]. (Josephus, War 1.5.2)

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

To round all of this information into context, it is helpful to view the Targum for Isaiah 22. For those that don’t know precisely what the a Targum is, it is a translation of the Hebrew read in the Synagogue into Aramaic, with verses fleshed out by the Rabbis. For every two readings in Hebrew, it would then be repeated in Aramaic, so that those that did not speak Hebrew could still hear in their own language. The Targums can be invaluable for a given Jewish perspective on a passage. Below is the Isaiah 22 we know:

“Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the house (Hb al bayith), and say to
him: ‘What have you to do here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself…? Behold,
the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on
you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you
shall die… I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your
station. In that day, I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe
him with your robe, and will bind your belt on him, and will commit your authority to his
hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none
shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a
sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will
hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring of every issue, every
small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons…” (Isaiah 22:15-24)

Now here is the Targum version, with the differences italicized:

Thus says the LORD God of hosts, “Come go to this guardian, to Shebna, who is
appointed* over the house*, and you will say to him: What have you do to here and why do you act this way; that you have prepared a place for yourself here?” He has prepared his place on the height, sets his residence in the rock. “Behold, the LORD casts you out, a mighty man is cast out, and shame will cover you. He will take away from you the turbanand encircle you with enemies as an encircling wall… there you shall die, and there shall your glorious chariots return in shame, because you did not guard the glory of your master’s house. And I will thrust you from your place and throw you down from your ministry. And it will come to pass in that time that I will exalt my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your cincture, and place your authority in his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place the key of the Sanctuary and the authority of the house of David in his hand; and he will open, and none shall shut; and he will shut, and none shall open. And I will appoint him a faithful officer ministering in an enduring place… And all the glorious ones of his father’s house will rely on him, the sons and the sons’s sons, from the princes to the juniors, from the priests wearing the ephod to the sons of the Levites holding the harps. (Targum on Isaiah 22:15-25)2

We see here the parallels between the priestly figure in the Targum of Isaiah 22 and the aforementioned passages regarding the keys, Temple, and the rock. “Turban,” interestingly, is translated as “miter,” and the cincture, etc, is priestly dress.

We can see then, that the Jewish traditions are invaluable for understanding the extensive nature of the authority given to Peter. Yes, it is an office of prime minister, but it is also a priestly office rooted deeply in Jewish tradition, and adding this to your understanding makes apologetics discussions that much more powerful. It becomes much more difficult for others to argue that Jesus really did not mean Peter as the rock, the power of the keys was given to all the apostles, etc, when you are familiar with the Jewish background as well. Hope this benefits everyone. God Bless.

 

[DPMartin]

The power to forgive and retain sins.

WorkerPriest

thanks for the reply

Please explain:

Reason for asking is. Isn’t it true, that if one does not forgive, it is held against the one that does not forgive?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

WorkerPriest

thanks for the reply

Please explain:

Reason for asking is. Isn’t it true, that if one does not forgive, it is held against the one that does not forgive?

This is true for and offense against the forgiver, but the priest is forgiving as a third party, in the person of Christ,and as such his personal feelings are not even part of the equation. He is making a judgement about whether the person asking for forgiveness is repentant, then absolves him. It’s quite a bit different.

One must keep in mind that the apostles were the forerunners of our bishops, and so sacramental confession is what is being described, otherwise yes, there WOULD be a contradiction. This is why it cannot merely be describing a blanket statement for all believers about forgiveness, but is addressed to the ministerial priesthood.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I shall ponder your presentation of Isaiah 22. While I can see what you offer as parallels, I must confess that in the broader context of Isaiah, and in the narrow Hebrew of this particular passage (as well as the Greek of the Septuagint) I struggle to see a direct corollation between these political rulers of Israel and the priestly ministry of Christ’s Apostles. Truly the opinion of the Pharisees toward Jesus, when He forgave sins, was to be aghast that any human would take say such things, since “who can forgive sins, but God alone?” That seems to say that this power of the Keys to forgive and retain sins, is a power newly given to the world by Christ alone. The priesthood of the blessed Apostles is far beyond that of the Levitical.

It takes Lutherans a while to digest allegorical interpretation of Holy Scripture. You can probably appreciate our struggle.

As for that last challenge, I’m not sure what your contest is with me. The Keys as Christ delivers them are expressly defined by binding and loosing, an action of the Apostles which will transcend earth and reach even unto heaven. If there is an authority in the Keys beyond the binding and loosing of sins in earth and heaven, I do not see it in either Matthew or John’s Gospels.

Grace and peace to you.

(PS-- I’m not arguing that the Church is without authority to establish canons for the good order and discipline of the House of God. I think Lutherans, however, see this not so much as an aspect of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather a function of the pastoral office at the local, diocesan, and synodical levels. We tend to be careful to distinguish between human opinions which are regulations for good order and discipline, and the divine mandates of Holy Scripture. It is interesting, though, for this Lutheran to ponder the relationship between the canons established through the authority of the pastoral office (either by the individual priest, bishop, local or general council, or potentially by a patriarch or pontiff,) and the potential relationship of those canons to the power of the Keys. Blessings to you, and thanks for provoking charitable reflection.)

The reference to Isaiah 22 is not the restoration of a King, but of the Prime Minister. Shebna and Hilkiah were not the kings of Judah. They were Prime Ministers. And what is the role of the Prime Minister? To look after the King’s household, and also to look after his kingdom when he is away until his return. That is the role of the Pope.

And do you really not see the parallels?
Isaiah: I will clothe him (Hilkiah) with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah (This is the role of the Prime Minister). I will place the key of the House of David (the key of the kingdom)*** on his shoulder***, when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
Matthew: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

But I thought you even claimed that the power to forgive was part of the powers of the key. I agree that it is implicit in Matthew, but that it is explicit in John’s Gospel.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Well said, Nathan. Thank you.

This is true for and offense against the forgiver, but the priest is forgiving as a third party, in the person of Christ,and as such his personal feelings are not even part of the equation. He is making a judgement about whether the person asking for forgiveness is repentant, then absolves him. It’s quite a bit different.

One must keep in mind that the apostles were the forerunners of our bishops, and so sacramental confession is what is being described, otherwise yes, there WOULD be a contradiction. This is why it cannot merely be describing a blanket statement for all believers about forgiveness, but is addressed to the ministerial priesthood.

 

[NotWorthy]

I shall ponder your presentation of Isaiah 22. While I can see what you offer as parallels, I must confess that in the broader context of Isaiah, and in the narrow Hebrew of this particular passage (as well as the Greek of the Septuagint) I struggle to see a direct corollation between these political rulers of Israel and the priestly ministry of Christ’s Apostles. Truly the opinion of the Pharisees toward Jesus, when He forgave sins, was to be aghast that any human would take say such things, since “who can forgive sins, but God alone?” That seems to say that this power of the Keys to forgive and retain sins, is a power newly given to the world by Christ alone. The priesthood of the blessed Apostles is far beyond that of the Levitical.

You are absolutely right on this analysis, as Scripture illustrates… “Who but God alone can forgive sins?”.

It takes Lutherans a while to digest allegorical interpretation of Holy Scripture. You can probably appreciate our struggle.

Pot. Meet Kettle!

As for that last challenge, I’m not sure what your contest is with me. The Keys as Christ delivers them are expressly defined by binding and loosing, an action of the Apostles which will transcend earth and reach even unto heaven. If there is an authority in the Keys beyond the binding and loosing of sins in earth and heaven, I do not see it in either Matthew or John’s Gospels.

Ah, but now its time to digest.

You don’t see it in Matthew’s or John’s Gospel, that is correct. But… you see it in Acts.

1. The elevation of Matthias to Apostle.
2. “Repent and Believe, and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit”. (OK, this might be taught directly from Jesus, so I’ll conceded this point if contested).
3. The acceptance of Gentiles into the Church - “Cornelius-Gate”, to many of the Jews.
4. And, of course, the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

All of those are examples of the explanation provided so well by Nathan regarding the authority to bind and loose. Peter, and then the Council are all exercising the authority that the Pharisees held.

Grace and peace to you.

(PS-- I’m not arguing that the Church is without authority to establish canons for the good order and discipline of the House of God. I think Lutherans, however, see this not so much as an aspect of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather a function of the pastoral office at the local, diocesan, and synodical levels. We tend to be careful to distinguish between human opinions which are regulations for good order and discipline, and the divine mandates of Holy Scripture. It is interesting, though, for this Lutheran to ponder the relationship between the canons established through the authority of the pastoral office (either by the individual priest, bishop, local or general council, or potentially by a patriarch or pontiff,) and the potential relationship of those canons to the power of the Keys. Blessings to you, and thanks for provoking charitable reflection.)

And blessing to you too, brother! I understand the dilemma, for all the struggles between Catholics and our Christian Brothers seem to boil down to authority.

 

[inkaneer]

You are absolutely right on this analysis, as Scripture illustrates… “Who but God alone can forgive sins?”.

Pot. Meet Kettle!

Ah, but now its time to digest.

You don’t see it in Matthew’s or John’s Gospel, that is correct. But… you see it in Acts.

1. The elevation of Matthias to Apostle.
2. “Repent and Believe, and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit”. (OK, this might be taught directly from Jesus, so I’ll conceded this point if contested).
3. The acceptance of Gentiles into the Church - “Cornelius-Gate”, to many of the Jews.
4. And, of course, the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

All of those are examples of the explanation provided so well by Nathan regarding the authority to bind and loose. Peter, and then the Council are all exercising the authority that the Pharisees held.

And blessing to you too, brother! I understand the dilemma, for all the struggles between Catholics and our Christian Brothers seem to boil down to authority.

I would object to one partof your post. Matthias was not elevated to Apostle. He was elevated to Bishop. In Acts 1:20 Peter says Judas apostleship is desolate no one will occupy it. He then goes on to say “let another take his office”. That office is the office of bishop. The word translated as "office’’ is the Greek episkope that word means office of Bishop. In fact older translations such as the DR and KJV translate that word as bishopric.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would object to one partof your post. Matthias was not elevated to Apostle. He was elevated to Bishop. In Acts 1:20 Peter says Judas apostleship is desolate no one will occupy it. He then goes on to say “let another take his office”. That office is the office of bishop. The word translated as "office’’ is the Greek episkope that word means office of Bishop. In fact older translations such as the DR and KJV translate that word as bishopric.

I would tend to disagree with this analogy for two reasons.

1. Christ wanted 12 Apostles in place before the Pentecost would kick in. The Pentecost ushered in the New Covenant Church. Just as there were 12 tribes in ancient Israel, with 12 judges, there were 12 Apostles.
2. Luke uses the term “The Twelve” to refer to the Apostles. But, after the death of Judas and prior to the elevation of Matthias, the Apostleship is called “The Eleven”.

All of this is a moot point, however, as even if I concede your point that Matthias was a Bishop (you do know that the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Matthias as “An Apostle”, don’t you?), the elevation of Matthias to Bishop is an example of the “Binding and Loosing” authority of Peter.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The priesthood of the blessed Apostles is far beyond that of the Levitical.

You may find my posts # 24 and # 25 to see the Levitical parallels. Also, if Jesus did not mean to set up a NT version of the priesthood, he was very particular about his numbers…70’s and such…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I shall ponder your presentation of Isaiah 22. While I can see what you offer as parallels, I must confess that in the broader context of Isaiah, and in the narrow Hebrew of this particular passage (as well as the Greek of the Septuagint) I struggle to see a direct corollation between these political rulers of Israel and the priestly ministry of Christ’s Apostles.

You may find my posts # 24 and # 25 helpful to see the Jewish understanding of the Levitical parallels, instead of merely the political parallels (although political parallels can be made because of the fact that it is the prime minister of the house of David).

 

[inkaneer]

I would tend to disagree with this analogy for two reasons.

1. Christ wanted 12 Apostles in place before the Pentecost would kick in. The Pentecost ushered in the New Covenant Church. Just as there were 12 tribes in ancient Israel, with 12 judges, there were 12 Apostles.
2. Luke uses the term “The Twelve” to refer to the Apostles. But, after the death of Judas and prior to the elevation of Matthias, the Apostleship is called “The Eleven”.

All of this is a moot point, however, as even if I concede your point that Matthias was a Bishop (you do know that the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to Matthias as “An Apostle”, don’t you?), the elevation of Matthias to Bishop is an example of the “Binding and Loosing” authority of Peter.

Again I disagree. Your first point that Jesus wanted 12 Apostles in place for pentecost is unscriptural. Nowhere in scripture does it state this. As for point No. 2 I agree that there are twelve Apostles called and sent by Jesus but Matthias is not one of them. The Twelfth Apostle is Paul. Judas was called but never sent. Matthias was neither called not sent. Paul was both called and sent by Christ. Notice in Acts 1 there were eleven apostles before Mattias was selected to be a bishop and verse 26 tells us there were still eleven Apostles after Matthias was selected.

“26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26 RSV]

Other versions say he was “counted with the eleven Apostles” or he was “numbered with the eleven Apostles.” Nowhere does scripture say he was an Apostle. Yet no less than thirteen times scripture calls Paul an Apostle. Notice also what kind of Apostle Matthias would make if he was indeed Judas’ successor. Judas left the Last Supper before the institution of the Eucharist and the empowerment of the eleven Apostles to consecrate the Eucharist. Also Judas dies long before the resurrection. He is not empowered to forgive of retain sin. If Matthias is a successor to Judas he has a defective ministry He cannot consecrate the Host nor can he forgive sins. In fact he is no better than a protestant minister today. And you have yet to explain Peters quote of Psalm 69:25:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; …’ [Acts 1:20 RSV]

What is desolate and no one will live in it? It is Judas line of Apostolic Succession that is desolate. Notice the word ‘habitation’. It means a place to live, an abode or a house. And recall that Luke said of Joseph that he was of the house of David. It meant that Joseph was of the lineage of David. So Judas’ lineage is desolate and no one will live in his lineage. And if you don’t believe that then name one bishop either Catholic, Copt or Orthodox that traces his Apostolic Succession to Judas. I don’t know of any and I really can’t concieve of anyone who would want to either.

As for your last point. I agree that Matthias is the first Bishop and the Apostolic Succession of bishops is thus established in scripture. Now consider this, If Matthias is an Apostle then you have one Apostle, Matthias, succeeding another, Judas. Because Matthias cannot succeed to something that Judas was not. So you have the precedent in scripture of one Apostle succeeding another. So then which Apostle succeeds Peter? OOPS! No Apostle succeeds Peter. Peter was succeeded by a bishop. If Matthias is an Apostle then the Apostolic Succession of bishops loses its scriptural support and thus becomes tenuous at best.

 

[NotWorthy]

Again I disagree. Your first point that Jesus wanted 12 Apostles in place for pentecost is unscriptural. Nowhere in scripture does it state this. As for point No. 2 I agree that there are twelve Apostles called and sent by Jesus but Matthias is not one of them. The Twelfth Apostle is Paul. Judas was called but never sent. Matthias was neither called not sent. Paul was both called and sent by Christ. Notice in Acts 1 there were eleven apostles before Mattias was selected to be a bishop and verse 26 tells us there were still eleven Apostles after Matthias was selected.

“26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26 RSV]

Other versions say he was “counted with the eleven Apostles” or he was “numbered with the eleven Apostles.” Nowhere does scripture say he was an Apostle. Yet no less than thirteen times scripture calls Paul an Apostle. Notice also what kind of Apostle Matthias would make if he was indeed Judas’ successor. Judas left the Last Supper before the institution of the Eucharist and the empowerment of the eleven Apostles to consecrate the Eucharist. Also Judas dies long before the resurrection. He is not empowered to forgive of retain sin. If Matthias is a successor to Judas he has a defective ministry He cannot consecrate the Host nor can he forgive sins. In fact he is no better than a protestant minister today. And you have yet to explain Peters quote of Psalm 69:25:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; …’ [Acts 1:20 RSV]

What is desolate and no one will live in it? It is Judas line of Apostolic Succession that is desolate. Notice the word ‘habitation’. It means a place to live, an abode or a house. And recall that Luke said of Joseph that he was of the house of David. It meant that Joseph was of the lineage of David. So Judas’ lineage is desolate and no one will live in his lineage. And if you don’t believe that then name one bishop either Catholic, Copt or Orthodox that traces his Apostolic Succession to Judas. I don’t know of any and I really can’t concieve of anyone who would want to either.

As for your last point. I agree that Matthias is the first Bishop and the Apostolic Succession of bishops is thus established in scripture. Now consider this, If Matthias is an Apostle then you have one Apostle, Matthias, succeeding another, Judas. Because Matthias cannot succeed to something that Judas was not. So you have the precedent in scripture of one Apostle succeeding another. So then which Apostle succeeds Peter? OOPS! No Apostle succeeds Peter. Peter was succeeded by a bishop. If Matthias is an Apostle then the Apostolic Succession of bishops loses its scriptural support and thus becomes tenuous at best.

Why were the Apostles called “The Twelve”, then referred to as “The Eleven” after Judas death, and then renamed “The Twelve” after Pentecost. And why does St. Paul refer to the Apostles as “The Twelve”. He doesn’t included himself in that group, or else he would say “I went and saw the rest of the Twelve”.

And why does the Catholic Church call Matthias an Apostle.

Also, you know that there were a couple more people called “Apostles” in Acts, don’t you?

 

[inkaneer]

Why were the Apostles called “The Twelve”, then referred to as “The Eleven” after Judas death, and then renamed “The Twelve” after Pentecost. And why does St. Paul refer to the Apostles as “The Twelve”. He doesn’t included himself in that group, or else he would say “I went and saw the rest of the Twelve”.

And why does the Catholic Church call Matthias an Apostle.

Also, you know that there were a couple more people called “Apostles” in Acts, don’t you?

The word apostle means one who is sent. We don’t use the word today preferring to use a later Latin derived word, missionary. As for using the word Twelve there were twelve who were selected to be apostles. Only eleven made it. Judas commits suicide and doesnot graduate from apostle class. As for Paul he says in 1Co 15:4-5:

“4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” [1Co 15:4-5 RSV]

Notice Paul is relating and event that occurred after Jesus’ resurrection. Judas is not there. He is dead already. In Luke 24:9-10 we read about the women returning from the encounter at the tomb:

"9 and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles; " [Luke 24:9-10 RSV]

So Luke says only eleven Apostles were there along with an unknown number of people that Luke refers to as “all the rest”. Luke and Paul are describing the same event. Paul only says Jesus appearred to the “the twelve”. He doesn’t identify all twelve as being Apostles. Luke says of this same event that there were eleven and “all the rest” So it is entirely possible that Matthias is present as one of "all the rest in Luke’s account and “one of the twelve” in Paul’s account. Recall that scripture says that after his selection Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles [Acts 1:26]. Eleven Apostles before his selection and eleven Apostles after. In Paul’s account eleven apostles plus one bishop make twelve. You know if only Paul had said “twelve apostles” your argument would have far better meaning but Paul didn’t say “twelve apostles”. He only says “the twelve”. Maybe the Holy Spirit was guiding him as he wrote and thus prevented him from saying "twelve apostles’’. Do you think so?

As for the church calling Matthias an Apostle, this has never been an excathedra teaching of the church. As you may recall the church once claimed there was a saint named St. Christopher. He was even the patron saint of travelers. Then he was dropped like a hot potato when it was realized there was not one shred of evidence that this guy ever existed. He was a myth, a legend yet there were medals made in his honor and every Catholic had one in his car. There were a slew of other saints given the axe also the same time the alledged St. Christopher got it. So it is not like we are contradicting dogma by saying Matthias was not an apostle.

As for the others called apostles in acts [Barnabus, etc.] they were missionaries sent by the chiurch. The apostles I am speaking of are the Apostles called and sent by Christ. Paul and the original eleven meet these requirements. Judas, Matthias Barnabus and the other so called apostles do not.

 

[NotWorthy]

The word apostle means one who is sent. We don’t use the word today preferring to use a later Latin derived word, missionary. As for using the word Twelve there were twelve who were selected to be apostles. Only eleven made it. Judas commits suicide and doesnot graduate from apostle class. As for Paul he says in 1Co 15:4-5:

“4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” [1Co 15:4-5 RSV]

Notice Paul is relating and event that occurred after Jesus’ resurrection. Judas is not there. He is dead already. In Luke 24:9-10 we read about the women returning from the encounter at the tomb:

"9 and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles; " [Luke 24:9-10 RSV]

So Luke says only eleven Apostles were there along with an unknown number of people that Luke refers to as “all the rest”. Luke and Paul are describing the same event. Paul only says Jesus appearred to the “the twelve”. He doesn’t identify all twelve as being Apostles. Luke says of this same event that there were eleven and “all the rest” So it is entirely possible that Matthias is present as one of "all the rest in Luke’s account and “one of the twelve” in Paul’s account. Recall that scripture says that after his selection Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles [Acts 1:26]. Eleven Apostles before his selection and eleven Apostles after. In Paul’s account eleven apostles plus one bishop make twelve. You know if only Paul had said “twelve apostles” your argument would have far better meaning but Paul didn’t say “twelve apostles”. He only says “the twelve”. Maybe the Holy Spirit was guiding him as he wrote and thus prevented him from saying "twelve apostles’’. Do you think so?

No, I think the 12 Apostles were called “The Twelve”. Any Disciples that happened to be with them were called “and the rest”.

As for the church calling Matthias an Apostle, this has never been an excathedra teaching of the church. As you may recall the church once claimed there was a saint named St. Christopher. He was even the patron saint of travelers. Then he was dropped like a hot potato when it was realized there was not one shred of evidence that this guy ever existed. He was a myth, a legend yet there were medals made in his honor and every Catholic had one in his car. There were a slew of other saints given the axe also the same time the alledged St. Christopher got it. So it is not like we are contradicting dogma by saying Matthias was not an apostle.

My dear Ink, if one “is numbered with”, that means one is considered a part of that group.

Am I wrong in thinking this? No, if someone is counting members of a basketball team, and I am numbered with them, that means I’m a member of that basketball team.

And notice that in Acts 2, Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.

If Peter was among the Eleven Apostles, then it would have read, “Then Peter stood up among the Eleven…” or “Then Peter stood up with the rest of the Eleven…”

Also, notice Peter’s words as they cast lots: ***You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry *from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.

And I think you are using dear St. Christopher to rationalize any disagreement you have with Church teaching.

Notice even the Holy Spirit agrees with the Apostleship being fulfilled in 12 members, for it is immediately after Peter’s binding decision to include a new member to complete the group that the Holy Spirit descends on them with tongues of fire.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ink, please start a new thread if you want to continue this dialog, for looking back on this, I see that we have hijacked this thread.

Thank you.