Cheryl Schatz

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.