Pauls Ordination
This post is a separation of the post called Is ordination a requirement for a female pastor. since it was brought to my attention that the two streams of thought were too much for one post
Date: 2008-06-11
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2008/06/11/pauls-ordination/
This post is a separation of the post called Is ordination a requirement for a female pastor? since it was brought to my attention that the two streams of thought were too much for one post. This post will deal with the ordination of Paul by Jesus as an apostle.
Paul was not ordained by any man yet he claimed to be an apostle ordained by Jesus Christ and chosen to be a witness to the resurrection just as the other eleven were chosen as witnesses of the resurrection.
Matthias was ordained by men, chosen as one of two candidates who were then presented to God for the final decision. God did not speak forth either by prophecy or word of knowledge or through the gifts of the Holy Spirit in choosing Matthias. Rather than a direct word of God, Matthias was chosen by the casting of lots. The question that I asked was whether the decision of men is involved in the gifting and calling of God?
It was disciple’s decision to chose two candidates and Paul was not a candidate put forth by the Apostles because they did not consider that the decision for the twelfth apostle was to be made in the far distant future or that they were not personally responsible for initiating the process. Rather they believed that a witness to the resurrection had to be someone who was among their midst from the beginning so that he could be a witness to the resurrection. Yet Paul was indeed chosen by Jesus to be a witness to the resurrection even though he had not been with the apostles from the beginning.
Let’s examine the ordination requirement of the replacement apostle to Judas. It is found in Psalm 109:8.
Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; Let another take his office.
The inspired wording says “Let another take his office”. Notice it doesn’t say “Let a group of men give him his office.” The onus is on the successor to Judas to do the taking. When Barsabbas and Matthias were picked by the apostles as two possible replacements, did Matthias say that Jesus had picked him as a witness to the resurrection? Did Matthias give a testimony that he was the one to take the office? No, he did not.
The word in the Greek for “take” is lambánõ. According to the Complete Word Study Dictionary, in the NT, this Greek word means:
to actively take, and, partially in the pass. sense, to receive
So it is an action word that primarily means to “take” and this is why nearly every translation renders it as “take”. What was the “office” that the replacement was to take? It was the “office” of a legal witness to the resurrection. The disciples make this clear in Acts 1:22
…one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
Judas failed to be a witness of Jesus’ resurrection because in his unfaithfulness he betrayed Jesus and because of his betrayal he committed suicide before the resurrection happened. The replacement for this “office” had to be one who would “take” it himself. The “taking” of the “office” would be a personal witness that one has been called by Jesus Christ as an official witness to the resurrection, and one “takes” the office by claiming and proving their ordination by Jesus.
Did Matthias “take” the office of official witness to the resurrection by his own testimony? It appears that he did not otherwise there would not have been a need to cast lots. Matthias’ testimony that he had been picked by Jesus as the witness to the resurrection would have made such an act of casting lots totally unnecessary. There is no record that Matthias ever claimed to be personally picked by Jesus nor is there any record that the eleven disciples received a witness from Matthias that he was the one who was to “take” the “office” of witness to the resurrection. Instead of Matthias taking the office at the stage where the choice was to be made, the disciples chose to cast lots as an act of their faith that God should be the one who makes the choice.
My question continues in asking did Paul take the “office” of witness to the resurrection? Yes, absolutely! Paul claimed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, picked to be a witness to the resurrection by the very ordination of Jesus himself. Paul’s ordination was completely opposite to the ordination of Matthias whose ordination proves to be from men alone with no outward miracles or a witness by Matthias himself that he was picked by Jesus as the others had been.
Now how does all of this relate to the ordination of a women Pastors? I personally believe that a true God-ordained choice of Pastor should be only to ratify and recognize what God has already chosen. Man’s ordination cannot make one a Pastor nor can the failure of some to recognize God’s gifting take away one’s gifting and calling from God. Paul’s ordination as an apostle of Jesus was in no way lessened because he did not have the ordination of men. Paul’s proof of his ordination was in his signs and wonders and revelations that stood the test of a true apostle. It was his actions that proved his claims. No ordination of man was necessary.
Have you ever met a Pastor that was ordained but who did not have the fruits of the Spirit or the heart of a shepherd? Such a one is not a true Pastor gifted by Jesus himself. Jesus said that there would be hirelings who do not care for the sheep but who are there as shepherds for other reasons. These hirelings run away when the wolves come to make a meal of the sheep. The fact that they have been ordained by a church cannot truly make them a gift to the church. Only Jesus’ choice and gifting can do that.
Eph 4:7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.”
Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
While there are apostles beyond the twelve who have been gifted by God for service to the church, there are only twelve apostles who formed the foundation of the church along with the cornerstone who is Jesus. Is Paul a member of that special foundation of the church, or is he only one of the other gifted apostles who have been gifted for the service of the body of Christ but not as special foundational apostles? While I believe, as many others do, that Paul was chosen by Jesus as the twelfth apostle, this is something that we can discuss and debate and see what we see in scripture to support our viewpoint. I will be moving the comments from the other post to this one so that we can keep the flow of our arguments.
Thoughts?
Cheryl
2008-06-11
★
Hi Don,
” The lot was an accepted way to make decisions and besides being random it might mean they voted.”
While the “lot” was an accepted way to make decisions in the OT, it is not shown to be an accepted way for decision making in the NT. It is only shown one time and in the disputed area of Matthias as an apostle. The other thing you have not dealt with is that the apostles were the ones who picked the candidates. It wasn’t until they had the candidates that they prayed and asked God which choice he wanted. The problem with that is that if neither one of these choices was God’s choice (i.e. if Paul was the choice and neither one of the other men) then they were forcing the lot to be God’s decision. If you notice the decisions made by “lot” in the OT were not the same as the decision over the twelfth apostle. For example in each case all were brought forward and the lot “chose” the one that was to be picked. In the apostles case, not all were brought forward so the “lot” was skewed. It would have been similar to bringing only a couple of the tribes up front and casting the lot over them while ignoring all of the other tribes. If all are available for the choice, then the “lot” is skewed. When all are there, then the “lot” is in the hands of the Lord. Do you see the difference?
As far as Paul claiming the same thing as the eleven, consider this:
Acts 1:22 “beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.
Acts 2:43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.
Acts 5:12 At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people…
Acts 19:11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,
Acts 19:12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
John 15:27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.Acts 10:39 We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
Acts 10:40 God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
Acts 10:41 not to all people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
Acts 10:42 And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses of these things….
Paul writes:
1 Cor. 4:9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.
2 Cor. 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.
2 Cor. 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.Romans 15:18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me…
Romans 15:19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.1 Cor. 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
In 1 Cor. 9:1 Paul equates his seeing the risen Christ with his apostleship which is a direct connection to the requirement of being a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.
1 Cor. 15:8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
1 Cor. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1 Cor. 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Paul compares himself to the other apostles who have seen Jesus and he says that he is what he is (an apostle) by the grace of God. That grace of God caused him to work even harder than all of the others.
Again the requirement of seeing the risen Christ was the requirement for being a true apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul considers himself the least of this group who are to testify of the resurrection.
1 Cor. 15:15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up – if in fact the dead do not rise.
Here Paul includes himself in those who are are to testify of the resurrection of Christ.
Paul claims to have authority from Christ:
2 Cor. 13:10 For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not tearing down.
Gal. 1:1 Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead
Gal. 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man,
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.Romans 1:1 Paul a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle, separate to the gospel of God
Romans 1:4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead,
Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship….
Paul received his call by Jesus Christ himself to be an apostle of the resurrection.
So the questions that you need to answer is:
-
Why does Paul appeal to the fact that he saw the resurrected Christ as necessary for him being an apostle?
-
Why does Paul appeal to the fact that he had the necessary “signs and wonders” of a true apostle?
If Paul was an ordinary apostle who was like those who went out and started churches, then why did he need to appeal to the signs of a true apostle? None of the other secondary apostles ever appealed to these signs nor did they ever claim that they were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. These are questions that must be answered.
Cheryl
2008-06-11
★
Don,
- In 1 Cor. 15 we see several very interesting observations that will help us to understand this passage. First of all we see that each “group” of listing of people does not meaning that it is entirely new people. Peter is listed first as “Cephas” who is apparently the first of the men who saw the resurrected Christ, but I think we can all agree that “Cephas” is not excluded from “the twelve”. So we have Peter listed first and then the twelve with Peter being a part of the twelve.
Now at the time of the first appearance of Christ to the “twelve” (as the order is given as a time order), Judas was not there neither was Thomas. This means that “the twelve” is a title for the twelve apostles, not a number of who were present. Matthias would not be included in this number since he was not “picked” at this time.
John Gill brings out the same claim as I do that “the twelve” are the “name” of the group not the number that were present.
“then of the twelve; though there were then but eleven of them, Judas being gone from them, and having destroyed himself; and at the first appearance of Christ to them, there were but ten present, Thomas being absent; and yet because their original number, when first chosen and called, were twelve, they still went by the same name;”
Remember that Paul is listing the appearances in order of the men whom Jesus appeared to. I do not believe that there is any evidence at all that Matthias was counted as one of the twelve during the resurrection appears of Jesus with the other eleven disciples. If he was, then there would not have been a need to draw straws to pick him later. The fact that Thomas was not present but the group is still called “the twelve” shows that the number does not prove that Matthias was there with them.
Then we find in order of appearance that Jesus appeared to 500 brethren and then:
“1Co 15:7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;”
The understanding is that the phrase “then to all the apostles” means that Jesus appears to the eleven that now included Thomas who had been missing when Jesus appeared the first time. With the apostles were others, likely the 72 disciples whom Jesus had sent out two by two. This is the last recorded appearance of Jesus so this would be the ascension into heaven. Some consider the term “all the apostles” to be just the 11 apostles and some consider the number to include all those who were present. I don’t think this is an issue since we both agree that there were other apostles besides the 12 apostles.
Lastly Paul says that he saw the resurrected Christ. Paul considered himself abnormally born because he lacked the “gestation” period of having been with Christ during His earthly ministry. (The Bible Knowledge commentary).
- It appears odd to me that Paul would be fighting to compare himself only to the false apostles since Paul considered himself in within the group in 1 Cor. 15:8
Albert Barnes on the 2 Cor. 11:5 passage says that Paul is saying that he is equal to the very top apostles. He paraphrases Paul:
“For I suppose … – I think that I gave as good evidence that I was commissioned by God as the most eminent of the apostles. In the miracles which I performed; in the abundance of my labors, and in my success, I suppose that I did not fall behind any of them. If so, I ought to be regarded and treated as an apostle; and if so, then the false teachers should not be allowed to supplant me in your affections, or to seduce you from the doctrines which I have taught. On the evidence that Paul was equal to others in the proper proof of a commission from God;”
John Gill says:
“the very chiefest of the apostles: such as Peter, James, and John; who seemed to be pillars, were eminent apostles, of great note among them, and such as Christ, in the days of his flesh, took particular notice of. This he says, not to exalt himself, but to show, how weakly and injudiciously the Corinthians acted in setting up the false apostle above him;”
John Gill then goes on to include the false apostles as making themselves equal to the twelve. It appears that even if Paul is equating himself with what the false apostles claim, it isn’t who they really are that Paul is equating himself with. It is with their “claims” that he is equating himself with. The claims are to be equal with the very top apostles and that would be the twelve.
Paul appears to be claiming a position of apostleship, one just like the other eleven as he claimed to have genuine miracles, signs and revelation.
-
While we do not know what signs and wonders the other apostles did, we do know that it was important to have signs and wonders and miracles and to have seen the resurrected Christ to be an apostle of Paul’s caliber. We don’t hear of any other apostle that claimed the things that Paul claims. If having signs and wonders must be a sign of a regular apostle today and if it was also a sign back then, then there is no evidence that a regular apostle had these signs either then or now. The only evidence of signs and wonders was from the hands of the twelve apostles and Paul’s claim to these preeminent signs, wonders and revelations puts him in the class of the twelve if not in the best of that class as none of the other apostles did as much as Paul did. Why would Jesus give a secondary apostle preeminent signs and revelations than he gave to the others of the twelve? It doesn’t make sense to me other than that Paul’s claims to being preeminent are true.
-
As far as Acts 1:22, I believe that the requirement to have been there the entire time of Jesus’ ministry was a requirement to have been under Jesus’ teaching. Every single one of the eleven had been under Jesus’ entire teaching and were witnesses of the resurrection. While I do not think that the eleven saw past their own experience to understand at that time that Jesus would raise up one who received the same teaching as they did and who also saw the resurrected Christ but who had not been with them for one minute. Yet Paul claims to have been taught by Christ and he claims to have seen the resurrected Christ so his experience with Jesus matched their experience during the time that they were with Christ.
You said:
“If you reject the process of choosing Matthias, it is ironic that you use part of this process to justify your position.”
I believe that it is Jesus himself who said that the twelve were to be witnesses to his resurrection. While I can take the partial understanding of the eleven, my foundation on the selection of the twelfth apostle is on Jesus’ words, the OT prophecy of the selection of the replacement for Judas and Paul’s testimony that he was selected by Jesus to be a witness to the resurrection, to receive teaching by Jesus himself and to be an apostle who has more miracles and more revelation then the other eleven. I believe Paul makes his claims in this way because the twelfth position has been taken and his claim appears to make him an interloper to position taken by Matthias. I do not believe that he would take the opportunity to brag about himself just to make himself an equal to the false apostles. Paul’s authority was from Jesus alone and no other secondary apostle had this kind of authority.
While I can appreciate why you do not believe that Paul was the twelfth apostle, especially because you do not want to see the eleven as having made a premature act of picking a replacement, I do not see any proof in the passages that Jesus himself chose and commissioned Matthias. This is very important to me because if Jesus had chosen Matthias surely there would have been an ordination from Jesus as he had personally ordained the rest of the eleven. I see this ordination in Paul and Paul’s “proofs” have convinced me. I see no verification that Matthias was Jesus’ ordained pick.
I also really feel for Paul because I can see how hard it would be in that day and age where the replacement for Judas was already a “done deal” to try to convince others that he was legitimately picked by Jesus as an apostle of the resurrection with the same mandate as the other eleven. No wonder so many didn’t believe him. No other mere apostle ever appeared to have to defend their apostleship. Why did Paul have to defend his apostleship? Personally, I believe it because he wasn’t just an ordinary apostle. I believe that we will witness his name written on one of the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem and I believe that he will be sitting on a throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel just as the other eleven will sit.
Now if Matthias had claimed to be personally picked by Jesus as one of the twelve and had claimed that he was one of the twelve and proved it was so by his signs and miracles, then that would help. His ordination was an ordination of man’s choice brought before God. The disciples didn’t ask God if he wanted one of these men. They simply asked him to chose which one and then they didn’t wait on his voice, they cast lots. This doesn’t sit right with me and it doesn’t match what Jesus did for Paul. If Jesus personally picked Paul, and Paul was merely a second class apostle, then why couldn’t Jesus have personally picked Matthias too in the same miraculous ways as he did for Paul? The mode of picking plus the inspired words in the OT that say that the one is to “take” his place not be elected to the position, just leaves things hanging and seems misplaced compared to Paul’s claims.
If the only thing that would stop me from believing Paul’s ordination, is that the eleven couldn’t be wrong, I have no problem accepting that they could have stepped outside of their authority and made a mistake before they were empowered by the Holy Spirit. If not, why did they even need the Holy Spirit? He wasn’t needed in picking the replacement…or was he? If he was, then his job was done after Pentecost and Paul is right there in our face 🙂
Cheryl Schatz
2008-06-21
★
Don,
You said:
On 2, lots may be votes or they might be random, it is not clear. Even if random the lot is in the hands of the Lord as they were acting in faith.
There is no other place in scripture where lots means voting so the ordinary meaning must stand. They used the random lot to make the decision. This was the question of my point. If choosing Matthias was an action of their authority, they did not exercise their authority by this action. I agree that they thought they were acting in faith. The question is still whether they had the right to make this decision and thus were exercising their authority. It appears clear to me that they did not come to a consensus regarding whom the group wanted to put into Judas’ place. They could not exercise this authority because they said that they did not know the hearts of these men. Since the decision was a matter of the heart, they did not have the authority to make the decision and were trusting that God would by the casting of the lot choose for them. The very act of casting the lot proves that were not taking their authority.
Before one might think Paul was the 12th you need to knock Matthias out of the running. The question does not even come up if Matthias is the 12th.
This has been my point all along. Paul would have been accepted as an apostle by the church because of his claims, because of his authority and because of his miracles if Matthias had not been chosen by the apostles as one of the two candidates that they cast the lot for. It was because of the apostle’s actions and the subsequent naming of Matthias to the twelfth position that Paul had to defend his apostleship. There is no other reason why Paul had to fight to be accepted as an apostle. It does no good to claim that Paul wanted to be considered as high as the false apostles. Paul was not arrogant. Whether people considered him as high as others was not his point. The point was that he was a legitimate apostle thus his claim that he was picked by Jesus himself and not by men. No one else had to fight for their apostleship. That is because everyone else was a secondary apostle not one of the ones specifically picked by Jesus himself. So it was Paul’s claim to apostleship that was in question not how high up he was in that apostleship.
Here Jesus promised to be with the 11 (the you is plural) always. Here is one reason I claim the 11 acting as the 11 COULD NOT make a mistake in choosing Matthias.
Jesus said that he would be with them. Does this mean that he would make them infallible in everything they do? And is this just for the twelve? Jesus said the same thing to Paul:
Act 18:9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent;
Act 18:10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.”
Jesus promised to be with all of us because he would indwell us. This is the blessing of belonging to God. It does not mean that whoever Jesus will be with can never make a mistake.
Since Jesus said that he would be with Paul, why would Paul submit himself to being tested by scripture? Paul commended the Bereans for testing Paul’s teaching against the OT scriptures. Paul didn’t claim that the apostles were infallable.
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Paul says that if an apostle or even an angel were to preach a gospel contrary to what has already been preached (and which lines up with the OT scriptures) that apostle or that angel is to be accursed. Everything is to be tested by the foundation that has already been laid and no apostle can lay another foundation and claim infallibility. Paul says even if “we” preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached. Here he lays the claim that even if they all agree to another gospel in agreement as a group, they are not infallible if the new “gospel” is contrary to the gospel already preached. This means that everything must be tested by the scriptures and the foundation that had already been laid.
So my question is now and still is, where do the scriptures say that the apostles have been given authority to pick the twelfth apostle?
On the authority to do so, there is the bind and loose verse.
Mat 18:18“Positively, I say to you*, whatever [things] you* bind on the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever [things] you* loose on the earth will have been loosed in heaven.
Okay, so let’s test this out to see if this passage gives the apostles ultimate authority in everything that they do. What is the context of Matthew 18?
Mat 18:15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
Mat 18:16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Mat 18:17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Mat 18:18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
In this passage Jesus is giving a general principle about how to handle conflicts between Christian brothers. When a brother sins against you, Jesus said, go to him privately to confront him about his sin. If he doesn’t listen to you take one or two witnesses with you so that you fulfill the “two or three witnesses” requirement of a judicial matter. If he still won’t listen take the matter to the entire church. If he won’t listen to the church then treat him not as a Christian brother but as an unbeliever.
Jesus then goes on to promise that he will be with the church as they are gathered together in his name. Although scripture already promises that Jesus will be with us individually because he will be in us, he is now promising that he will be with the body of Christ that is gathered even if the body is only two or three strong. The binding and loosing is given to the church not only to the twelve. This is not a promise of infallibility of a few but a promise of Jesus to be with the church as they act in discipline against an erring brother. The binding refers to restricting that person outside of the fellowship and the loosing refers to forgiveness. This entire passage is referring to a brother sinning against another brother and the discipline that the church takes regarding that sin. The proof in context that this is what is meant is the very next verse. After Jesus has said that two or three strong would constitute the body of Christ in a setting and after promising to be with them in making judgment calls regarding a charge of sin, Peter then gives a question about the “loosing” or the forgiving of the sinning brother. Peter asks:
Mat 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
We can see the act of “loosing” a person’s sin when Stephen forgave those who killed him. Jesus also “loosed” his Roman executioner’s from the sin of killing him. Jesus says that if we fail to forgive and give mercy to those who ask us for forgiveness, then we will not be forgiven.
The passage has nothing to do with infallibility of the twelve. It has nothing to do with decision making of the apostles as a whole. It has to do with church discipline, the necessity of forgiving (or loosing from the charge of sin) towards the repentant brother and the binding decision to cast an unrepentant brother out of their midst.
Where in this passage is binding and loosing given only to the twelve? Where are the twelve given infallibility in any action that they do as a unit? It certainly isn’t in this passage.
Another point that I had made previously was that the Holy Spirit was necessary for the apostles to get the job done. The foundation of the church would not be built without the Holy Spirit. I believe that they would not have made the decision to appoint the twelfth apostle if they had waited for the infilling of the Holy Spirit since he would lead them into all truth.
Joh 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
Joh 16:14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
The apostles needed to wait for the Holy Spirit. If they were infallible before the Holy Spirit came, then he really wasn’t needed.
This is using rabbinic terms to say that they (you plural again) can make decisions on things that have not already been decided. They use this authority in Acts 15 and I claim they also use this authority in choosing Matthias.
While Acts 15 could be taken as a church disciplinary decision to deal with the men who were trying to bring in legalism into the church, it is a united church that debates the issue and checks scripture to make sure that they are right (Acts 15:15-18). It wasn’t just the twelve that came together but the apostles and the elders. They had much debate. They checked the scriptures and they listened to the testimony regarding how the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit as they had and the miracles that were done amongst the Gentile believers. All of this brought them to the decision that if God accepted these believers as they were and they were accepted in the family of God by faith just as the Jews were, then there should be no burden placed on them other than what is needed to not be a stumbling block to the Jews and to keep themselves from sexual sin.
This passage cannot be used to say that only the twelve had infallibility because it wasn’t just the twelve who made the decision. The reason why their decision was infallible here was because the scriptures were looked to for guidance and the witness of the Holy Spirit was accepted. Was this something special given only to them? I don’t think so. We too can make judgment calls by testing all things by what has already been written.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more