Who really replaced Judas ? [ Mathias or Paul]

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BRB

Guest
Listening to Scott Hahn talking on Stations of the Cross.

He makes point we know practically nothing of Mathias … except he was chosen by ‘lot’. Scott made the case that Jesus select Paul for that 12 th spot. Paul believed he was on mission to gentiles for Christ, and co-equal in authority with the original 12 … and they eventually accepted him as their co-equal.

When you think about it … Christ picked the original 12. Was he not directly involved in picking Paul for his Apostleship ?

Whereas the 11 picked Mathias [by drawing the short straw].
Picking Mathias by lot, never seemed the New Covenant way that Christ would of wished us to make decisions.
 
I guess I’ll stick with Scripture which says Matthias was chosen to take the spot of Judas.
Acts 1:24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 1:25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
(Jesus had given the power to “bind and loose” in His Church to Peter and the apostles.)

I’m unaware of any verse in Scripture that indicates Paul was chosen by Jesus to replace Judas. Also, am unaware of any tradition handed on by the early Church fathers that says Paul was chosen for the purpose of replacing Judas. If anyone knows of such a reference, I hope they’ll post it on this thread.
 
BRB said:
Listening to Scott Hahn talking on Stations of the Cross.

He makes point we know practically nothing of Mathias … except he was chosen by ‘lot’. Scott made the case that Jesus select Paul for that 12 th spot. Paul believed he was on mission to gentiles for Christ, and co-equal in authority with the original 12 … and they eventually accepted him as their co-equal.

When you think about it … Christ picked the original 12. Was he not directly involved in picking Paul for his Apostleship ?

Whereas the 11 picked Mathias [by drawing the short straw].
Picking Mathias by lot, never seemed the New Covenant way that Christ would of wished us to make decisions.
Click to expand...
St. John Chrysostom wrote: “Observe the admirable prudence of St. Peter. He begins by quoting the authority of a prophet and does not say, ‘My own word suffices,’ so far is he from any thought of pride. But he seeks nothing less than the election of a twelfth apostle and he presses for this. His entire behavior shows the degree of his authority and that he understood the apostolic office of government not as a position of honor but as a commitment to watch over the spiritual health of those under him.
“The disciples were one hundred and twenty, and Peter asks for one of these. But he it is who proposes the election and exercises the principal authority because he has been entrusted with the care of all” (Hom. on Acts, 3).

“St. Luke underlines that it is Christ who makes the choice, by verbal reminiscences of Christ’s first choice of the Twelve in Lk 6:12-14, by the prayer to Christ (‘Lord’ in Acts has this sense), and by the casting of lots, which leaves full play to the divine initiative.” Navarre** Bible Commentary—Acts of the Apostles**

“A process of selection using marked sticks or stones. It was not a game of chance but a venerated means of discerning God’s will (Lv 16:7-10; Prv 16:33).” Ignatius Catholic Study Bible; comments by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.

“St. Luke usually applies the term ‘apostles’ only to the Twelve (cf., for example, Acts 6:6), or the Eleven plus Peter, who appears as head of the Apostolic College (cf. 2:14). Except in Acts 14:14, Luke never describes St. Paul as an apostle – not because he minimizes Paul’s role (indeed, half the chapters of Acts deal with Paul) but because he reserves to the twelve the specific function of being witnesses to our Lord’s life on earth.** Navarre Bible Commentary—Acts of the Apostles**
 
BRB said:
Listening to Scott Hahn talking on Stations of the Cross.

He makes point we know practically nothing of Mathias … except he was chosen by ‘lot’. Scott made the case that Jesus select Paul for that 12 th spot. Paul believed he was on mission to gentiles for Christ, and co-equal in authority with the original 12 … and they eventually accepted him as their co-equal.

When you think about it … Christ picked the original 12. Was he not directly involved in picking Paul for his Apostleship ?

Whereas the 11 picked Mathias [by drawing the short straw].
Picking Mathias by lot, never seemed the New Covenant way that Christ would of wished us to make decisions.
Click to expand...
Scripture say Mathias. I go with scripture every time.

In my opinion (nothing more or less) Hahn at times gets carried away in scriptural extrapolation. This is an example. With Hahn (just like anyone else), one needs to listen with a discerning ear.

Disclaimer: I have no problems with Hahn in general. He’s a great apologist and has done great good for the Church. I sometimes disagree with some of his claims in extrapolations such as this one.
 
St Paul was not qualified.

The Early Church names the only two who were qualified.

Neither was named Paul…or Scott for that matter.😉
 
MrS said:
St Paul was not qualified.

The Early Church names the only two who were qualified.

Neither was named Paul…or Scott for that matter.😉
Click to expand...
At the time, certainly Paul wasn’t qualified, as he was persecuting Christians.

Later on in Scripture Paul does refer to himself as an apostle, and clearly Peter, John, and James showed him great respect.

Personally I think the way to look at this subject is that Matthias filled #12, then Christ added #13. I don’t think that Paul’s conversion lessened the role or responsibility of any of the others.
 
MrS said:
St Paul was not qualified.

The Early Church names the only two who were qualified.

Neither was named Paul…or Scott for that matter.😉
Click to expand...
Yes, Paul was qualified … having personally met the Risen Christ. True he was blinded and unable to see Christ, but he did get audible instructions … and later in life was taken up to heaven for a vision [so Paul claims in an Epistle].

And, the original 11 accepted Paul as an Apostle … after he proved himself via mighty works of H.S.

I don’t think Hahn was saying Matthias wasn’t legit … just that Paul ultimately proved to be the Hebrew ace apostle needed to replace Judas, & instruct the gentiles.

Hahn has had his own visions/epiphanies. He is a modern day Paul of sorts — taking the message of Church to the Protestant & Catholic gentiles. 😃
 
Strategery said:
At the time, certainly Paul wasn’t qualified, as he was persecuting Christians.

Later on in Scripture Paul does refer to himself as an apostle, and clearly Peter, John, and James showed him great respect.

Personally I think the way to look at this subject is that Matthias filled #12, then Christ added #13. I don’t think that Paul’s conversion lessened the role or responsibility of any of the others.
Click to expand...
Others were also called apostles. Prisca and Aquila, Barnabas. As MrS stated the “qualification” was that the replacement for Judas be one who had “walked with us” from the Baptism of John and who had witnessed the Resurrection.

That “disqualifies” Paul as number 12.

Tradition says that Matthias evangelized in Ethiopia and was martyred in Sebastopol. Confusing, huh?
 
Matthias (not Mathias or Paul) replaced Judas.
Then they prayed, “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". Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles (NAB, Acts 1:24-26)
Click to expand...
 
BRB said:
Listening to Scott Hahn talking on Stations of the Cross.

He makes point we know practically nothing of Mathias … except he was chosen by ‘lot’. Scott made the case that Jesus select Paul for that 12 th spot. Paul believed he was on mission to gentiles for Christ, and co-equal in authority with the original 12 … and they eventually accepted him as their co-equal.

When you think about it … Christ picked the original 12. Was he not directly involved in picking Paul for his Apostleship ?

Whereas the 11 picked Mathias [by drawing the short straw].
Picking Mathias by lot, never seemed the New Covenant way that Christ would of wished us to make decisions.
Click to expand...
Matthias did.
 
This appears to be some residue of Professor Hahn’s Protestant theology. Such a position challenges church authority and throws everything back at the Lord, which is clearly non-Catholic in nature. The ability to choose replacements or successors was bestowed upon the eleven in the power of “binding and loosing”. Christ gave this power to the Apostles, knowing beforehand what they would do with it. Did He then judge the Apostles to be unworthy of the power? That undermines the very foundation and authority of the church.

Certainly, very little is known of Mathias, but relatively little also of Thomas, a crucial figure after the resurrection. And Simon the Zealot? He was handpicked by Christ, but very little is known of him or his work. Concern over a dearth of written history regarding the works of the Apostles is also non-Catholic in nature, the “sola scripturists” preferring to read before believing.

Could it be that the Apostles were more concerned with oberying God’s will than with making sure their efforts were recorded for posterity?

Modern desires for written proof seem to coincide with the ready availability of printed materials. The Gutenberg effect?

Christ’s peace.
 
po18guy said:
This appears to be some residue of Professor Hahn’s Protestant theology. Such a position challenges church authority and throws everything back at the Lord, which is clearly non-Catholic in nature. .
Click to expand...
Protestants dearly love St. Paul … perhaps more than Catholics 🙂

Lets don’t see him as a heretic … he’s the best apologist the Church promotes. Hahn is our Fighting Ace … fearless, and a zealot of the highest caliber. 👍
 
BRB said:
Protestants dearly love St. Paul … perhaps more than Catholics 🙂

Lets don’t see him as a heretic … he’s the best apologist the Church promotes. Hahn is our Fighting Ace … fearless, and a zealot of the highest caliber. 👍
Click to expand...
True. Paul is championed as the anti-Peter for some. However, since we have just opened the Year of Saint Paul, this tends to mute their protestations to some degree. The two Saints could scarcely be more different.

I have always admired Dr. Hahn’s abilities. However, I think we sometimes try to reverse-engineer Christianity to determine the Lord’s intent in nearly everything. Rather than trying to know the unknowable, our time is perhaps better spent in doing the doable.

Christ’s peace.
 
BRB wrote
Paul believed he was on mission to gentiles for Christ, and co-equal in authority with the original 12 .
Click to expand...
I wonder.
For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version, 1 Co 15:9 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989).
Click to expand...
 
NoelFitz said:
I wonder.
Click to expand...
You shouldn’t wonder about Paul. ‘Least’ meaning ‘the Last’ Apostle. Paul was being humble in suggesting he wasn’t deserving of the apostleship.

Christ always picks the best for the job. Paul was chosen for the ‘unworthy’ gentiles. He accepted his mission very admirably … and proved he was exceedingly ready to bear cross for Christ.

He led more people to Christianity that any other.
 
I will stick with whats in the Bible. Hahn is good, but I don’t think Jesus had to come down to correct what the apostles did. That would negate the guidance of the Holy spirit.
I would not go with Scott Hahn on this one, as much as I do like him
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
There are two reasons that Matthias HAS to be the 12th Apostle and they are rooted in Scripture.

a) Jesus came to reunite Israel. The Kingdom is (partially) restored during the Pentecost when Jews from all over the world were brought into a New Covenant. Just as in the Old Covenant, there were 12 judges, in the New Covenant, there would be 12 judges. Jesus says as much in Matthew (I believe).

Hence, during the Pentecost there had to be 12 Apostles. One thing to note is, Jesus could have selected the 12th Apostle at any time during his Resurrection and prior to His Ascension, but He left it up to the Church to decide. That is very, VERY important in my view.

b) The selection “by lot” is actually Scriptural, as well. The Jews used to use a similar technique, by rolling the Urin and the Thummim.

Proverbs 16:19 and Leviticus 16:8 describe this:
When the lot is cast into the lap, its decision depends entirely on the LORD.

***he shall cast lots to determine which one is for the LORD and which for Azazel.

And Exodus 28:30 describes the Urim and the Thumin used to cast the lots. This verse describes the High Priests’ garb::
In this breastpiece of decision you shall put the Urim and Thummim, that they may be over Aaron’s heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus he shall always bear the decisions for the Israelites over his heart in the LORD’S presence.
 
NotWorthy said:
There are two reasons that Matthias HAS to be the 12th Apostle and they are rooted in Scripture.

a) Jesus came to reunite Israel. The Kingdom is (partially) restored during the Pentecost when Jews from all over the world were brought into a New Covenant. Just as in the Old Covenant, there were 12 judges, in the New Covenant, there would be 12 judges. Jesus says as much in Matthew (I believe).
Click to expand...
Is this it?

Matthew 19:28 Jesus 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.”

Also, a similar but not as specific form from Luke:

Luke 22:30 “so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”.

Christ’s peace.
 
I have heard this argument used by Protestants, who see the choice of Matthias by lot as a kind of “gambling” that they assume God would disapprove of - they say that God chose St. Paul because the choice of St. Matthias was made invalid by the fact that the Apostles cast lots.

I’m not sure what Dr. Hahn is basing his argument on, but I think in this case, we should go with the plain sense of the Scriptures, which tell us that St. Matthias was selected to replace Judas, and that St. Paul’s apostleship came directly from Christ Himself, just like that of the original 12.

As for not hearing much from St. Matthias, this also goes for the majority of the Apostles - we really only “hear from” five of them after the Ascension into Heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top