The Typology of Paul and the Thirteen

[Jaltus]

In hearing a poor message on Acts 1:12-26 on Sunday, it got me to thinking about what this passage was really doing and what the Eleven understood they were doing. Why is it that another apostle was needed? Was it indeed a mistake to bring in someone to take Judas' spot since it was meant for Paul, or did they in fact make the right decision?

Well, let us look at the text in question:

Acts 1:15-26 15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "' May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.' 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

As far as I can tell, there is no judgment within the text whether what they did was right or wrong, it is essentially objective reporting. This means that any interpretation will be opinion and not something directly supportable by this text.

There is a list of qualifications given about who fits the role of an apostle. They are 1) someone who has been with us to see Jesus and 2) someone who will be a witness of these things to others. Paul does not in fact fit qualification 1).

What if Paul is a different kind of apostle, though? What if apostleship is not about who you are sent to preach to, but what if it is in fact an eschatological issue? Let me explain.

Matthew 19:27-28 27 Then Peter said in reply, "See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Obviously this is addressed only to the Twelve since it talks of the Twelve thrones. So the role of the Twelve is to judge Israel in the Last Day. But what happened to the Tribes of Israel?

Genesis 35:22-26 Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. 23 The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob's firstborn), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. 24 The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 25 The sons of Bilhah, Rachel's servant: Dan and Naphtali. 26 The sons of Zilpah, Leah's servant: Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram.

Revelation 7:4-8 4 And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 5 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 6 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh, 7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000 from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 8 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.

Wait a minute, what happened to Dan and where did Manasseh come from? Dan was cutoff because the tribe tried to lead people away from God.

Amos 8:14 14 Those who swear by the Guilt of Samaria, and say, 'As your god lives, O Dan,' and, 'As the Way of Beersheba lives,' they shall fall, and never rise again."

If you read through Judges 18, you will see that Dan set up golden images.

So Dan was cut off for betraying the Lord. Judas was cut off for betraying the Lord.

Where did Manasseh come from? It was a half-tribe, being part of the tribe of Joseph. It was gifted into a full inheritance because Dan fell. Where did Matthias come from? He was gifted into a full inheritance because Judas fell.

Thus, we have 12 tribes + 1 and 12 apostles + 1.

But this covers only Israel, what about all of the promises to the Gentiles? We all know Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, so it makes sense that he fulfills the same eschatological function as the 12 do.

Thus, we have the 13 tribes plus the Gentiles gives us the 13 apostles plus Paul.

Therefore, it is not about the gospel being a message of Jesus' death that mattered, it is the gospel as a message of His resurrection and therefore the forthcoming hope that matters.



So, what do you think?

[Solly]

I find it interesting that God is not mentioned in reference to the lot. Later, we have the Holy spirit setting apart Paul and Silas, but here he does not make an entrance.
If one takes the view that this is reported simply because it happened, then one might be inclined to the view that it did not have God's whole hearted approbation, and that Peter is somewhat chastened when Paul arrives on the scene.
Do the numbers matter? I think so, and I think Peter did too, that is why they wanted to heal the rift in the twelve, and found textual support.
This took place after Christ's resurrection, and before Pentecost; so that, as apostles, as wintesses to the rez, they had not yet been fully equipped. Paul fits in here because he had seen Christ post resurrection, even though he hadn't accompanied him. Peter was doing the thinking, not asking. Yes, he was right that they should be witnesses of the resurrection; but he was wrong in how such an one would be chosen. Christ chose the 12, it was up to him to choose a replacement.

You mention about Paul as apostle to the Gentiles, but don't forget that Peter was there first. Paul wasn't unique.

[Jaltus]

Solly,

Peter went to the Gentiles, but only Paul was an apostle for the Gentiles ([greek]apostoloV eqnwn[/greek]).

[Ormly]

Solly wrote:

but he was wrong in how such an one would be chosen. Christ chose the 12, it was up to him to choose a replacement

This is a very good observation; one I hadn't thought of that makes a lot of sense. We see today the same thing happening in the church[s] as well individuals who can't wait for God or on Him, to move that things be established by the life of Christ instead of from self-effort. Your observation is typology for sure.

Orm

[Daywalker]

My view is that when the bible says that Matthais was numbered with the 11 it was God that numbered it. In other words, it was not just a human decision. I find it interesting to note in other places that God never is mentioned as having to tell them to STOP keeping Matthais. From that point forward we read of Peter WITH THE 11 (acts 2:14) and that under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Peter declares that WE are witnesses (acts 2:32). It later states in Acts 2:37 that the crowd discoursed with the apostles. If it was NOT SO that Matthais WAS an apostle then WHY did God not intervene to correct this "false conclusion" that the crowd no doubt would have come to?

And, there needed TO BE 12. Paul, in hindsight writes in I.cor. 15:5,7 that Jesus was seen OF THE 12 and excludes himself from the 12 by putting himself as a SEPERATE WITNESS that saw Christ afterwards. Looks to me that Paul could have considered Matthias as part of the 12 even before Matthias's actual inaguration transpired.

It would be like me saying as a married man that "my wife and I went to FL on March 12th" even though our marriage did not occur until the 14th. She was picked out as my wife and it was settled in my mind and heart even though the formalities and "officialality" (egad, did I just invent a word!?!? LOL) did not transpire till afterwards.

Moreover, there were other apostles to come on the scene later which give no indication as being a part of the 12 such as barnabbas (Acts 14:14). Furthermore all an apostle is simply "one sent forth". I firmly believe that there are a multitude of other apostles in the NT (such as the 70 whom God chose in Christ's earthly ministry), because they are ONE SENT (Heb.3:1). No, Paul did not qualify to be one of the 12, and evidently, barnabbas didn't either at the time.

As far as the tribes go, well, in the end I think Dan. will be restored, but that is another story. I believe that God can, ummm...change things up in Israel just so that there are 12 tribes in the end.

I agree that the DEATH of Christ is not the key to the message, but the hope that his ressurection that is the emphasis...
Hope this was worth the reading.
Grace,
Mike

[Jaltus]

Thanks, DW. Perhaps we should move this discussion into what it means to be an apostle. I think a large part of my contention is seeing that the apostles are not apsotles "to" anything/anyone but rather are apostles "for" people.

[Daywalker]

I think a large part of my contention is seeing that the apostles are not apsotles "to" anything/anyone but rather are apostles "for" people.

I would agree with that. We know that "not all are apostles" according to the latter end of I. Cor. 12...some were prophets, etc...yet they were all SENT to Israel. But there seems to be something MORE SPECIFIC that characterizes the sending of an apostle vs. a prophet or teacher. I am under the belief that it falls in the realm of a type of governmental role.

To have 12 apostles for the 12 tribes is very specific when it relates to judging. Jesus, the apostle of Heb. 3 is in control of "his house" etc. I feel that the fine tuning as to what an apostle is can be understood through this light.
Grace,
Mike

[Sheepdog]

I've been told elsewhere (i don't have the actual social-historical info to back this up, so this might not be much more than speculation), that Peter, as the oldest of a gruop of diciples under a Jewish rabbi, was expected to take a leadership role over the other disciples, albeit under the guidance of the rabbi (Jesus). this could explain why he was so hasty to get out of the boat and walk on the water with Jesus... he was fulfilling the role -- as expected of the eldest disciple -- to be an example for the younger ones.

no doubt, Peter felt that in the absence of the rabbi (physically, not necessarily "in spirit"), he was expected to cover administrative leadership over the Twelve. his decision to cast lots for a replacement for Judas would have been permissible, if not appropriate in God's sight.


by any chance, does anyone know what ended up happening to Matthias? i don't recall ever reading about him again in Acts.

[Daywalker]

by any chance, does anyone know what ended up happening to Matthias? i don't recall ever reading about him again in Acts.

That is part of the controversy...
Those that feel that Matthias wasn't God's choice point out the fact that he is no longer mentioned after Act 1. However, neither are many of the other apostles in the 12...
Grace,
Mike

[Sheepdog]

That is part of the controversy...
Those that feel that Matthias wasn't God's choice point out the fact that he is no longer mentioned after Act 1. However, neither are many of the other apostles in the 12...
Grace,
Mike

i was about to say, quite a few of them disappear from the record.

does tradition hold any insight towards this?

[Jaltus]

There is a record of him having been martyred somewhere, but I cannot remember where.

[Daywalker]

i was about to say, quite a few of them disappear from the record.

does tradition hold any insight towards this?

I second Jaltus on this one.

[7thangel]

In hearing a poor message on Acts 1:12-26 on Sunday, it got me to thinking about what this passage was really doing and what the Eleven understood they were doing. Why is it that another apostle was needed? Was it indeed a mistake to bring in someone to take Judas' spot since it was meant for Paul, or did they in fact make the right decision?

Well, let us look at the text in question:

Acts 1:15-26 15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, 16 "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "' May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.' 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

As far as I can tell, there is no judgment within the text whether what they did was right or wrong, it is essentially objective reporting. This means that any interpretation will be opinion and not something directly supportable by this text.

There is a list of qualifications given about who fits the role of an apostle. They are 1) someone who has been with us to see Jesus and 2) someone who will be a witness of these things to others. Paul does not in fact fit qualification 1).

What if Paul is a different kind of apostle, though? What if apostleship is not about who you are sent to preach to, but what if it is in fact an eschatological issue? Let me explain.

Matthew 19:27-28 27 Then Peter said in reply, "See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Obviously this is addressed only to the Twelve since it talks of the Twelve thrones. So the role of the Twelve is to judge Israel in the Last Day. But what happened to the Tribes of Israel?

Genesis 35:22-26 Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. 23 The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob's firstborn), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. 24 The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 25 The sons of Bilhah, Rachel's servant: Dan and Naphtali. 26 The sons of Zilpah, Leah's servant: Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram.

Revelation 7:4-8 4 And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 5 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 6 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh, 7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000 from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 8 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.

Wait a minute, what happened to Dan and where did Manasseh come from? Dan was cutoff because the tribe tried to lead people away from God.

Amos 8:14 14 Those who swear by the Guilt of Samaria, and say, 'As your god lives, O Dan,' and, 'As the Way of Beersheba lives,' they shall fall, and never rise again."

If you read through Judges 18, you will see that Dan set up golden images.

So Dan was cut off for betraying the Lord. Judas was cut off for betraying the Lord.

Where did Manasseh come from? It was a half-tribe, being part of the tribe of Joseph. It was gifted into a full inheritance because Dan fell. Where did Matthias come from? He was gifted into a full inheritance because Judas fell.

Thus, we have 12 tribes + 1 and 12 apostles + 1.

But this covers only Israel, what about all of the promises to the Gentiles? We all know Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, so it makes sense that he fulfills the same eschatological function as the 12 do.

Thus, we have the 13 tribes plus the Gentiles gives us the 13 apostles plus Paul.

Therefore, it is not about the gospel being a message of Jesus' death that mattered, it is the gospel as a message of His resurrection and therefore the forthcoming hope that matters.

So, what do you think?

According to the prophecies, and even mentioned by Paul, Israel, which I believe to be the old heaven and earth, was subject to fall away. The ministry of the twelve apostles, corresponds to the old Israel bearing the ministry of circumcision, which is a kind of administration according to the law that is subject to be changed.Thus we see that Peter still hold on to the Mosaic Laws(see Acts 10). However, as we can see at the council of Jerusalem, we know that Peter knew that the law cannot save us. In fact, it is neither under the circumcision nor uncircumcision saves a person, but of being a new creature(Gal 6:15). Being under the circumcision with Peter, nor uncircumcision with Paul has no bearing to God's promises. However, according to the plans of God, the administration of the circumcision will cease.

Evidently, according to prophecies, the new administration (new Israel) of God will be composed of Gentiles. They will be the ones who will be bringing children unto God. The presence of the apostles corresponds to the fact that the Old Israel had not fallen yet. And even Paul still speaks of falling away as in the future, and likewise he(Paul) speaks of gentiles who would believe in the future, meaning the New Israel is not yet standing. In fact, he said to the Jews, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Now, Paul is of the uncircumcision, and thus he should not be counted to the circumcision that was subject to be done away, else his ministry should also cease. Paul becomes the gospel bringer to the gentiles, and that as we can see, he presents differently the gospel, even explaining it to be a message regarding God's predestination. His revelations and doctrines set a new way of administering in the Church of God(whatever that being under uncircumcision meant).

This just came to my mind: I am not wondering why the first century Jews were complaining about the epistles of Paul. Paul clearly said that he preached the gospel of uncircumcision. I do not wonder why they cannot understand Paul's epistles knowing they heard the gospel through Peter who preach the gospel of circumcision. Paul himself, in his epistle, noted that the two gospels have distinction(Gal 2:7-9).

Hoping this is for you worth reading......

God Bless,
7thangel

[bar Jonah]

7thAngel, are you a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, then?

[7thangel]

7thAngel, are you a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, then?

Pardon my ignorance, but I am not really learned about different eschatological beliefs, including the above. What I believe is based on my own understanding of the prophecies, which I am too poor in making detailed presentation.

Would you mind if you give a little detail of what "Mid-Acts Dispensationalist" is? Or give link/s, perhaps?

I'll appreciate your response, it may guide me to presenting my belief if it will have similarities with it.

God Bless,
7thangel