Cheryl

Don,

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 🙂