If there are twelve apostles why did Jesus appoint Saul?

[manualman]

It doesn’t take an OT scholar to see that Jesus had 12 apostles precisely because that number corresponds to the 12 tribes of Israel. By appointing 12 apostles, Jesus is fulfilling the OT prophecy of the Messiah coming to Israel. This is also why Luke goes to the trouble of noting Matthias replacing Judas in Acts. The messiad first came to fulfill God’s covenant to Israel.

God THEN directly appointed Saul/Paul to the level of apostle (Paul explicitly refers to himself with that word) to reinforce the fact that the gospel is for ALL the world. It’s no coincidence that Paul’s mission was primarily to the gentiles. That’s the significance of apostolic office growing BEYOND the 12. The new covenant is made with all of humanity!

 

[minkymurph]

I wonder why we never hear of Mathias? I haven’t seen a statue of him anywhere; nor an icon, nor prayers said to Mathias. Has anyone else - or is he the forgotten Apostle?

 

[ezeekl]

There were other apostles that were appointed even after Paul, they had to have seen the risen Christ in order to be an apostle. Paul saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.

There are apostles and then there are Apostles. The word is ofGreek origin and means one who is sent. The word is not used today in that context. Today we use the Latin equivalent of apostle which is missionary. We too are sent. At the end of every Mass we are told to go and spread the good news. In fact, the Mass is named after this Latin phrase.

However, we also recognize that there are twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. These are the ones who were calledby Christ and sent by Christ. Judas was called but never sent. Matthias was never called nor sent. Paul was both called by Christ as well as sent by Christ.

 

[ezeekl]

I wonder why we never hear of Mathias? I haven’t seen a statue of him anywhere; nor an icon, nor prayers said to Mathias. Has anyone else - or is he the forgotten Apostle?

I believe Matthias’ place in the church is reflected in every bishop for he is the first non- apostle consecrated as a bishop. He thus is the start of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops in the Catholic Church and he cements that Apostolic Succession in the scriptures where it cannot be denied by the sola scripturists.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Peter was not faithless. Peter was the only one to get out of the boat. All the rest of the Apostles cowered in fear while the storm raged and Peter alone asked Jesus to command him to get out of the boat. Peter is the only person in the history of man aside from Christ to have walked on water. That doesn’t happen when someone has no faith.

Have you never read Acts of the Apostles? It was Peter who stood up and addressed the crowds at Pentecost and it was Peter who, through faith and belief in the power of the name of Jesus, performed the first miracle of the Church.

And the Jesuit comment was foul. You have managed to insult both the first Pope and the current Pope in one post.

-Tim-

Peter had faith, he just lost his nerve when faced with pressure.

• Sinking beneath the waves
• Denying Jesus 3 times on the eve of his betrayal
• Going back on the decision made during the counsel of Jerusalem and refusing to eat with Gentile-Christians when the Judiazers came to town.

The important thing about Peter is that he always repented with a honest contrite heart and sought to do better. To sin and fail is human, we all do it. Peter’s strength was the ability to pull himself up off the mat and keep improving. Reading Acts of the Apostles shows the development of Peter from a guy hiding before Pentecost to the active leader of the Church, the role Jesus had prepared for him. Peter had a leadership quality to him from the beginning, he just had to develop it.

Now, can we imagine what Paul would have been like as the first Pope?

Paul was many things, but a natural leader of men was not one of them. Paul seems to have done his best work with a few select companions, or working alone. Scripture tells us he bickered with Barnabus about travel companions, and then went separate ways. Paul rebukes Peter in public while in Antioch. Paul pretty much slams the entire Galatian church in his letter to them, it is a bit shocking to read in context. He rebukes the Corinthians.

I call him the bulldog of orthodoxy in the early Church, the guy not afraid to call others out and engage in conflicts to try and enforce unity of belief in the One Gospel he was entrusted to spread. He did his job very well, but it is likely he ticked more than a few people off in the process.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I wonder why we never hear of Mathias? I haven’t seen a statue of him anywhere; nor an icon, nor prayers said to Mathias. Has anyone else - or is he the forgotten Apostle?

He most certainly is not forgotten, and he most certainly is considered an Apostle by the Church. There are many churches named after him, one in our Diocese. In my church we have six doors leading into the church proper, one for each Apostle, and St. Matthias is one of them. Here is a link to an EWTN article about him, you can see that he was sent and preached the Gospel just like the original 12.

ewtn.com/library/mary/matthias.htm

He even has his own feast day, and notice the collect for the day which calls him an Apostle and martyr,

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2013-05-14

 

[CB_Catholic]

I believe Matthias’ place in the church is reflected in every bishop for he is the first non- apostle consecrated as a bishop. He thus is the start of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops in the Catholic Church and he cements that Apostolic Succession in the scriptures where it cannot be denied by the sola scripturists.

St Matthias most certainly is considered an Apostle by the Church. Where are you getting your assertion from?

 

[steve53]

There were other apostles that were appointed even after Paul, they had to have seen the risen Christ in order to be an apostle. Paul saw the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.

The risen Christ was on earth for forty days, and then went up to heaven, as witnessed by some of his followers.

I think Paul missed out. JMO. No one else witnessed this reappearance of Jesus.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

The risen Christ was on earth for forty days, and then went up to heaven, as witnessed by some of his followers.

I think Paul missed out. JMO. No one else witnessed this reappearance of Jesus.

I am confused. Do you think Paul was lying about his experience?

 

[Dorothy]

The risen Christ was on earth for forty days, and then went up to heaven, as witnessed by some of his followers.

I think Paul missed out. JMO. No one else witnessed this reappearance of Jesus.

Paul was dazzled by his encounter with the Risen Christ on the way to Damascus.
Of course, this occurred after the Ascension of our Lord.

 

[minkymurph]

He most certainly is not forgotten, and he most certainly is considered an Apostle by the Church. There are many churches named after him, one in our Diocese. In my church we have six doors leading into the church proper, one for each Apostle, and St. Matthias is one of them. Here is a link to an EWTN article about him, you can see that he was sent and preached the Gospel just like the original 12.

ewtn.com/library/mary/matthias.htm

He even has his own feast day, and notice the collect for the day which calls him an Apostle and martyr,

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2013-05-14

Thank you for this information.

One learns something new every day.

This link may also answer the OP’s question quite simply. I would deduce, and of course I could be wrong, the 12 were the first to be called by Christ. That did not mean no one else would ever be called as an Apostle but these 12.

As far as I know, the term Apostle means ‘one who is sent forth, or called for a special purpose.’ This number is not limited to 12. The significance of the original 12 is they were the first to be called, the closest to Christ, and those who succeeded them followed the teachings handed down from these 12. The message of the Gospel,originated with them.

Now of course I could be corrected on how of I have expressed this thought. What I have written is the gist of it rather an attempt to explain it exactly.

 

[steve53]

I am confused. Do you think Paul was lying about his experience?

He believed it, so it wasn’t a lie. But do you believe everyone who says they had a vision of Jesus? A LOT of people have.

 

[Miriam1947]

Because Judas needed to be replaced

Judas was replaced by Matthias.

Obviously I did not read the entire thread before I posted.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

He believed it, so it wasn’t a lie. But do you believe everyone who says they had a vision of Jesus? A LOT of people have.

I believe Paul met the resurrected Lord. Do you?

 

[ezeekl]

St Matthias most certainly is considered an Apostle by the Church. Where are you getting your assertion from?

St. Peter. No, really. Read what Peter says in Acts 1. He is calling for someone to fill the office vacated by Judas. Apostle was not and is not an office in the church. Peter, referring to Judas, says in Acts 1:20:

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

The KJV and the DR has this verse as:

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."

The word translated as **office **or bishoprick is the Greek word episkope which is translated in other NT writings (Paul’s Epistles) as ‘bishop’.

In Acts 1:20 Peter is actually quoting a single verse from each of two different Psalms. The first, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it” is a paraphase of verse 25 of Psalm 69 while the second, “…his bishoprick let another take” is verse 8 from Psalm 109. Peter is not doing what bible scholars warn against; that being joining two separate verses together out of context. What he is doing is referring to two different things about Judas. The first verse refers to Judas’ lineage, his Apostolic Succession. That is what the word habitation refers to. One’s habitation is where one lives. It is one’s house. Recall that Jesus and Joseph were both said to be of the house of David meaning they were descended from David. Peter says Judas’ house will be desolate and no one will live in it. That means no one will claim any lineage or succession [Apostolic Succession] from Judas and to this day no bishop ever has claimed succession from Judas.

The second quote from verse 8 of Psalm 109 refers to the office Judas vacated. That is his “bishoprick” or episcopacy. Someone else will be made bishop to fill the office just as others will fill the offices of bishop that the other Apostles will vacate upon their deaths too. So Matthias is a bishop. Nothing more. Peter did not call for another Apostle. In fact Luke makes this quite clear in verse 26 of Acts 1 where he writes:

"Acts 1:26 - And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.’

Notice before the election of Matthias there are eleven Apostles. After the election there are still only eleven Apostles. Luke says he was numbered with the eleven but if he were an Apostle then verse 26 would say there were again 12 Apostles not still eleven. Luke says Matthias was numbered with them but does that actually make him one of them?
Recall that Isaiah 53:12 in prophesising about Jesus says of Him:

" Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So Jesus was numbered with trangressers (sinners). Does that make Jesus a sinner? No more so than being numbered with the Apostles makes one an Apostle [especially when the number of Apostles stays the same].

Matthias is a bishop, a missionary bishop to be sure but only a bishop and nothing more.

 

[ezeekl]

Thank you for this information.

One learns something new every day.

This link may also answer the OP’s question quite simply. I would deduce, and of course I could be wrong, the 12 were the first to be called by Christ. That did not mean no one else would ever be called as an Apostle but these 12.

As far as I know, the term Apostle means ‘one who is sent forth, or called for a special purpose.’ This number is not limited to 12. The significance of the original 12 is they were the first to be called, the closest to Christ, and those who succeeded them followed the teachings handed down from these 12. The message of the Gospel,originated with them.

Now of course I could be corrected on how of I have expressed this thought. What I have written is the gist of it rather an attempt to explain it exactly.

But Judas, though called was never sent. He committed suicide before the Apostles were sent. The sending forth occurred at the Resurrection when Christ gave the church its marching orders to Go into the world and preach the Good News. So while called Judas never was sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent. Paul was called and sent as Luke tells us in Acts 9:11-15

11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; [RSV]

In verse 15 Paul is chosen by Christ for the purpose of carrying Christ’s name to the Gentiles. He is both called and sent.

 

[minkymurph]

But Judas, though called was never sent. He committed suicide before the Apostles were sent. The sending forth occurred at the Resurrection when Christ gave the church its marching orders to Go into the world and preach the Good News. So while called Judas never was sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent. Paul was called and sent as Luke tells us in Acts 9:11-15

11 And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
12 and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; [RSV]

In verse 15 Paul is chosen by Christ for the purpose of carrying Christ’s name to the Gentiles. He is both called and sent.

To clarify, is your meaning that other than the 11 and Paul, no one has been both called and sent by Christ? That the meaning of the term Apostle is someone who is both called and sent by Christ directly, and unless one is both called and sent by Christ directly, one is not an Apostle?

 

[CB_Catholic]

St. Peter. No, really. Read what Peter says in Acts 1. He is calling for someone to fill the office vacated by Judas. Apostle was not and is not an office in the church. Peter, referring to Judas, says in Acts 1:20:

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

The KJV and the DR has this verse as:

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."

The word translated as **office **or bishoprick is the Greek word episkope which is translated in other NT writings (Paul’s Epistles) as ‘bishop’.

In Acts 1:20 Peter is actually quoting a single verse from each of two different Psalms. The first, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it” is a paraphase of verse 25 of Psalm 69 while the second, “…his bishoprick let another take” is verse 8 from Psalm 109. Peter is not doing what bible scholars warn against; that being joining two separate verses together out of context. What he is doing is referring to two different things about Judas. The first verse refers to Judas’ lineage, his Apostolic Succession. That is what the word habitation refers to. One’s habitation is where one lives. It is one’s house. Recall that Jesus and Joseph were both said to be of the house of David meaning they were descended from David. Peter says Judas’ house will be desolate and no one will live in it. That means no one will claim any lineage or succession [Apostolic Succession] from Judas and to this day no bishop ever has claimed succession from Judas.

The second quote from verse 8 of Psalm 109 refers to the office Judas vacated. That is his “bishoprick” or episcopacy. Someone else will be made bishop to fill the office just as others will fill the offices of bishop that the other Apostles will vacate upon their deaths too. So Matthias is a bishop. Nothing more. Peter did not call for another Apostle. In fact Luke makes this quite clear in verse 26 of Acts 1 where he writes:

"Acts 1:26 - And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.’

Notice before the election of Matthias there are eleven Apostles. After the election there are still only eleven Apostles. Luke says he was numbered with the eleven but if he were an Apostle then verse 26 would say there were again 12 Apostles not still eleven. Luke says Matthias was numbered with them but does that actually make him one of them?
Recall that Isaiah 53:12 in prophesising about Jesus says of Him:

" Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So Jesus was numbered with trangressers (sinners). Does that make Jesus a sinner? No more so than being numbered with the Apostles makes one an Apostle [especially when the number of Apostles stays the same].

Matthias is a bishop, a missionary bishop to be sure but only a bishop and nothing more.

I am not interested in YOUR interpretation. I asked you for a source for your assertion. The Church considers St. Matthias an Apostle, and has even assigned a feast day, May 14, as the Feast of St. Matthias, the Apostle.

What qualifications do you have to make assertions that are not in line with the 2000 year old tradition and wisdom of the Church?

 

[ezeekl]

To clarify, is your meaning that other than the 11 and Paul, no one has been both called and sent by Christ? That the meaning of the term Apostle is someone who is both called and sent by Christ directly, and unless one is both called and sent by Christ directly, one is not an Apostle?

The word apostle has both a specific meaning as well as a generic meaning. Its generic meaning is the same as missionary. The only difference is that Apostle comes to us from the Greek apostolos]while missionary is from the Latin. But the church and all christianity states over and over and over that there were twelve apostles [specific sense] otherwise known as the Twelve or Christ’s apostles or simply the Apostles. So yes to be Christ’s Apostles they must be called and sent by Christ which Paul was. There are only twelve too not thirteen or fourteen or any other number. The book of Revelation confirms this in Revelation 21:14:

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

So there are only twelve Apostles.of the Lamb who is Jesus Christ.

 

[ezeekl]

I am not interested in YOUR interpretation. I asked you for a source for your assertion. The Church considers St. Matthias an Apostle, and has even assigned a feast day, May 14, as the Feast of St. Matthias, the Apostle.

What qualifications do you have to make assertions that are not in line with the 2000 year old tradition and wisdom of the Church?

First you show me where the Church has formally defined as dogma that Matthias was an Apostle. [HINT: It hasn’t] The church and all christianity, has taught that there were twelve Apostles. Scripture records no less than ten times that Paul was an apostle and the best that scripture could say of Matthias was that he was only numbered with the eleven Apostles. Please refer to my earlier post wherein I quoted scripture saying that Christwas numbered with transgressors. If being numbered with the eleven apostles means that Matthias is one of them then Christ being numbered with transgressors means that Jesus is a sinner and that means He is not the unblemished lamb and that means His death on the cross is meaningless. Do you see where you position takes you? it is the highway to heresy.

Then there is this. If Matthias is an Apostle then we have the precedent established in scripture of one Apostle succeeding another. So the question then becomes which apostle succeeded Peter? Of course the church does not teach that any apostle succeeded Peter. Do you see where that leads to?

Peter was an apostle in the office of chief steward or universal bishop and he was succeeded in his office of universal bishop by a bishop, not an apostle.