Posted on 08/15/2015 11:02:28 AM PDT by LearsFool
Some will tell you the Bible can't be understood. Others say you can't understand it without a theology degree, or an ordained teacher, or a special vision/revelation.
I challenge those claims, and invite everyone to read Acts 1 and see whether the following questions are too difficult. And when you're done, you might find you know more than your preacher. :-)
1. Acts is Luke's second book. What was his first book about?
2. What convinced the apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead?
3. Why didn't they begin proclaiming the gospel right away?
4. When would they receive power and be witnesses to Jesus?
5. What would these witnesses testify about?
6. A replacement for Judas had to be named. What were the qualifications?
7. How many candidates met those qualifications?
8. Extra credit: From what we read from this chapter, can just anyone be an apostle?
This assessment of mine refers to the passage verses 15-17, 20, and 21-22 where Peter elevated himself to be the new leader of the company in the absence of his Master, took over His Master's sole prerogatives, blatantly left a literal, grammatical, historical, cultural, contextual hermeneutic, and paired two irrelevant verses from the Psalms, read into them an application commended only by fallible unSpiritual human (il)logic, and forced a decision from the assembled fellow apostles based on premises that:
(1) Judas' place must be filled,
(2) the person filling it must be from the current Company,
(3) that the brethren present were authorized to make the selection up to a point,
(4) that casting of lots would be an infallible way to claim that God made the final decision (misapplying Proverbs 16:33), thereby
(5) if the selected one did not work out, the whole blame would be on God,
and not on the people who presumed and devised such an unguided and potentially damaging course of action.
In this situation, the company had been expressly ordered by Jesus to WAIT, but Peter could not let even a few days go by before plunging into an unwarranted program prior to the inauguration of The Church and before its (and Peter's) Pentecostal empowerment by baptism in and of The Holy Ghost Who would speak to them thence on behalf of its Head, the Lord Jesus Christ.
This was not the first misstep Peter had made, and it was a not the last. Any number of excuses have been offered in attempts to justify and validate Peter's preeminence and whitewash his inept ploy to assert dominance, but it is seen yo the spiritual observer that it did not work. Henceforth Peter was not accepted as principal spokesman for any local ekklesia, although he participated in forming and operating local churches of the Messianic (circumcised) denomination, and in opening the Way to Gentiles as well as to Jews.
In the end, the Lord Jesus Christ did fill that post, and He with foreknowledge planned exactly how in the fullness of time He was going to do it, and that was with the great Bible scholar and exegete of Scripture, Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1-13), not by Peter's wholly inadequate stop-gap measure of Matthias, who was never again mentioned in the New Testament Scripture by the Holy Spirit. LearsFool: Where is that found in the Bible?
From the commentator Adam Clarke on this:
Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms - The places usually referred to are Psalm 69:25 : "Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents." And Psalm 109:8 : "Let his days be few, and let another take his office," פקדתו pekudato, his overseership, his charge of visitation or superintendence, translated by the Septuagint, την επισκοπην, Vulgate, episcopatum; and We, following both, bishopric, but not with sufficient propriety, for surely the office or charge of Judas was widely different from what we call bishopric, the diocese, estate, and emoluments of a bishop. Επισκοπος, episcopos, which was corrupted by our Saxon ancestors into biscop, and by us into bishop, signifies literally an overseer or superintendent, from επι, over, and σκεπτομαι, I see, a person who had the inspection, overseeing, or superintendence of others. The ancient επισκοποι were persons who had the care of different congregations of the Church of Christ; who traveled, preached, enforced the discipline of the Church, and took care to prevent false doctrines, heresies, etc. Those who still deserve this title, and it is an august and noble one, walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing. Επισκοπος, episcopus, or bishop, is a scriptural and sacred title; was gloriously supported in the primitive Church; and many to the present day are not less ornaments to the title, than the title is ornamental to them. The best defenses of the truth of God, and the Protestant faith, are in the works of the bishops of the British Churches.
The words quoted from the Psalms were originally spoken against the enemies of David; and as David, in certain particulars, was a type of Christ, the words are applied to him in an especial manner who had sinned against his own soul and the life of his Master.
Going back to what the Scripture says and what it does not say, the only men commissioned as apostles by The Christ were The Eleven and Paul. They were authorized to recruit, baptize and teach disciples who were then, when trained, authorized to make more disciples, down through the ages. What they were not authorized to do was to make more apostles. That was solely the prerogative of The Lord Jesus Christ, Who was given all authority in heaven and on earth. He did not delegate the whole spectrum of that authority to His Disciple-Apostles, did he?
They were also prophets, eye-witnesses of the Only-Begotten-in-the-Flesh Son of The God and hearers of what He said. They were gifts to the churches which they planted (Ephesians 4:8, 11). On Beloved John's death, the last of the Apostles alive, the progressive Special Revelation ceased, and the canon of Scripture was closed. But we still have disciples being recruited and invested with the indwelling Holy Spirit through faith alone in Christ alone, with men of God being called--evangelists, pastors, and teachers, to lead their successors into spiritual maturity under the guidance of the Holy Comforter. The Apostles and prophets have done their job: completing the supply of the generative seed The Word, and broadcasting it onto good soil that it may multiply and prevail over the tares of Hell and damnation.
I think we need more sowers.
The problem is although you give some reasonable points about why you think “The Apostolic age passed with the death of Beloved John...”, that doesn’t not make it scriptural doctrine.
I think you should be a little more subjective by saying you think “The Apostolic age passed with the death of Beloved John...” and why, rather that being so doctrinaire. This is something you have personal, but not Biblically stated, reasons for believing.
Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes we have to infer certain things from the Bible. But we shouldn’t present those things as hard and fast Biblical doctrine, but more like something we have reason to believe.
My dear FRiend, as McLuhan said, and truly, "The medium is the message." In this matter, the absence of a command is the proof, and the message is that Jesus did not yield His prerogative of making Apostles to fallible men. He Himself crossed out Matthias as a contributor and Himself chose Paul fill out the complement of The Twelve:
"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14 AV),
Whose name will be the twelfth one? Judas Iscariot (he was named as an apostle, Matthew 10:2,4)? Matthias, whom Jesus did not give the title "apostle"? Or Saul of Tarsus, Paul whom Jesus called to be the last and final apostle of His choice?
1Co_9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
1Co_9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
1Co_15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
2Co_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2Co_12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
Gal_1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Eph_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Col_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
1Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
1Ti_2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
2Ti_1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Tit_1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2Co_11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him (Ananias), Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
(You're getting this, right?)
. . . I'm sticking with the apostles and dismissing your charges as mere slander.
And I'll stick with the Sword of the Spirit, which is The Word of God.
Please note that Luke was a faithful unbiased recorder of the observations of eye-witnesses. He just reported what happened, without putting any kinks in it. But I believe this vignette was placed squarely right there for the Holy Ghost to show all of us exactly what sinful men will do--especially in wresting the Holy Scriptures--when they are without the guidance of the Master (their mentor and corrector, who was but a few moments gone from them) and without the counsel of the Holy Ghost (who had not yet come). Luke mentioned no commandment of the Lord for the assembly to select a replacement for Judas, neither did Luke note that the brethren brought the issue to the attention of the Lord in prayer, waiting on Him for a Providential answer (which would have been what Jesus would have them do) before proceeding.
Rather than wait in patience. focusing only on the coming of Another Comforter with eager, trembling anticipation, Peter impatiently took them off in a completely different direction, whivh only served to create a previously nonexistent problem such that he could exercise control over the group.
For goodness sake, are you not aware of the ruckus about claiming dominance that Jesus had to quell and discipline Peter for directly after leaving the Upper Room and prior to entering the olive grove where He battled with Satan about going to he Cross? when Peter bragged of his loyalty to Jesus and was reproved in advance of his later six denials of association with the Nazarene? who impulsively struck off the ear of one of the captors, almost getting them all killed before Jesus could even get to the Cross?
Wow! How blinded can any reader of this account be, in view of the previous contexts?
Of course, with the indwelling Holy Spirit, Simon bar Jona did become somewhat manageable, but what an agonizing task it was to get him away from his own ego-driven actions and get him on the Lord's program for his life, to strengthen the brethren by putting aside his own interests. After he was converted, that is.
Luk 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
He was behaving just like every spiritual midget that needs a minder to teach him/her how to behave in the assembly. As Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy:
1Ti_3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
And, looking backward on his own career, Peter wrote:
1Pe_4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
What indeed? And your accusation is that I am a slanderer? Let God be true, and every man a liar.
It is for mainline Protestants and Baptists, and with a little more vigor.
It is quite safe to say that in spite of all the time spent in company with this band of men, Matthias was specifically not chosen by the Master to be of the original twelve, either before or after Judas' betrayal. Same for Joseph Justus, son of Saba. Or any other of the remainder of the 70. Acts 1 demonstrates that beyond the shadow of a doubt. The other thing not in doubt is the plans that Jesus had for Paul, unbeknownst by and unannounced to the pre-Pentecostal company, but quite evident in the completion of several books in the New Testament on Christian doctrine.
Poor Matthias bore the burden of being the whipping boy at the center of Peter's effort to do what he had been planning and working for all along: to establish himself as The Christ's right-hand man and earthly vicar, and sole interpreter of Scripture, which religious power mongers have perpetuated ever since. IMHO.
Me: Sometimes we have to infer certain things from the Bible. But we shouldn’t present those things as hard and fast Biblical doctrine, but more like something we have reason to believe.
You: It is for mainline Protestants and Baptists
Scripture: teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt 15:9, Mark 7:7).
**Matthias was specifically not chosen by the Master to be of the original twelve**
Neither was he specifically rejected by the Master. If it was SO out of order, then where is the rebuke by the Lord?
Instead we see the Lord continue to establish the leadership of Peter, who initiated the commissions of the Lord when He spoke Acts 2:38 and 39 to the Jews.
The Lord was with Peter, as he had to be present and laying on hands along with John, in order for God to give the Holy Ghost to the Samaritans (which happened probably a day or more after they believed and were baptized).
He had to be present for the first Gentiles to receive the Holy Ghost.
And the miracles:
Told the lame man, at the gate called Beautiful, “..in the name of Jesus...to rise up and walk”. Acts 3:2-6
Peter, by the Holy Ghost, knew that Ananias and Sapphira were lying, even knowing that Sapphira would receive the same fate as her husband; “..the feet of them that which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out”. (Acts 5:9).
Since we are this close to verse 12, let us go there:
“And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people..”. BUT NOT MATTHIAS! (oops, it doesn’t say that, does it)
On with that self absorbed, power crazed, Peter:
The Lord busts him out of jail free.
Some time later, Peter, in an upper chamber, prays, and then turns to a dead woman, and says: “Tabitha, arise”. (Acts 9:40).
**Poor Matthias bore the burden of being the whipping boy at the center of Peter’s effort to do what he had been planning and working for all along: to establish himself as The Christ’s right-hand man and earthly vicar, and sole interpreter of Scripture, which religious power mongers have perpetuated ever since. IMHO.**
Your HUMBLE opinion??? Peter’s effort?? Establish himself??
IMHO, I believe he was just doing as told, either by the Lord directly, or by the scriptures:
When the Lord asked his disciples who he was, and Peter answered, he told Peter (”Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona”)that it was so, and that it was revealed to him by the Father.
Unto which of the disciples did the Lord say: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen the brethren.”? (Lk 22:32)
Is the real objection of Peter, his words found in Acts 2:38?
Paul taught the same thing. I can go into detail on that, but not tonight. (A safe truck driver must get some needed rest.)
I was wondering last night and today if you were getting too tired, and asking the LORD to watch over your traveling. Glad to hear you still have enough energy left over to respond.
Hasta luega --
FYI, thought you might be interested in this...
As a preface, thought I’d mention that all I care about is the truth through the Holy Spirit teaching me (including the Holy Spirit using someone like my pastor or someone else to teach me - but one needs discernment as to whether it is of man or of God). I don’t want any “pet doctrines” of my own nor do I care for the commandments of men taught as doctrine.
Having said that, and having questioned the assertion that “The Apostolic age passed with the death of Beloved John...”, I was doing my regular Bible reading the other day and happened to be reading in Chapter 21 of the Book of Revelation describing the New Jerusalem when I read this...
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” Revelation 21:14.
It even goes on to describe how each of the twelve foundations were garnished with its own individual precious stone. So I thought, “Here the Bible seems to be telling me that throughout all eternity, only twelve apostles are recognized and memorialized” (what an incredible honor to have been chosen as a apostle).
So here, I see scriptural support for the “Age of the apostles” ending after the last apostle, apparently John, died. The Bible also says in Ephesians 2:20 that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, so it makes sense that once the foundation is built, apostles are no longer needed.
(Interestingly, the same passage in Ephesians says that the foundation also consists of prophets, but there’s nothing that I know of that says there were only twelve prophets and in fact prophecy is declared to be an on-going ministry and gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:10). Note there’s no gift of “apostleship” mentioned in 1 Cor 12:10.)
Now this also raises another issue about the Acts 1 situation and our friend Matthias. If there are only twelve apostles called to be the foundation of the church, then Peter and others had/have a problem because of Paul. Here is an interesting passage of scripture:
“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)” Galatians 1:1.
It is interesting that Paul goes out of his way to say that apostles are not chosen by man, but by Jesus Christ, as he did the first twelve, Judas Iscariot needing to be replaced.
So, putting it altogether, it would seem that that are only twelve apostles and if so, on the basis of heavy support of Scripture, it was Paul, not Matthias, who was the twelfth apostle as the replacement for Judas. I wouldn’t call this “doctrine” as it is certainly not central to our sonship in Christ, but it would seem scripturally a well-supported viewpoint, and something, I think, we can learn from.
You know, this brings up something else that I find delightful. How did Jesus teach much of the time and how is the majority of the New Testament taught? By conversations. I believe the Lord uses faith-filled conversation to open up issues and teach those of us who are teachable. I believe this will probably go on for eternity. (Scripture tells us, “that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of his grace in His kindness toward us through Jesus Christ” (Eph 2: 7). We don’t stop learning even after we’re in Heaven.
God bless.
Who knows? Not sure it really matters here, but I've thought that it may symbolize the fact that salvation came through the Jewish nation of Israel from Abraham culminating in the birth and death of the Son of David, Jesus Christ.
only ones sealed against the wrath to come are of the tribes of Israel. Again, what about us the Gentiles?
Again off point requiring a longer explanation not relevant here.
As for prophecy being an ongoing ministry, Paul says otherwise in the next chapter:
prophesies...tongues...knowledge...shall cease and be done away.
If your interpretation were true then knowledge should have ceased long ago.
I wish you would just prayerfully consider some of this stuff rather than reject out of hand anything that might challenge some sort of pre-conceived knowledge or previous teaching which may very well need adjusting. That's how we learn in the school of the Holy Spirit. Some stay stuck, hard and fast and don't continue to flow in the River of Life with the Lord. I hope you're not one of those who stay stuck.
Anyway, I didn't share this to get into some kind of theological debate. I wanted to pass on something that I thought was a blessing and worth consideration with scriptural basis. Take what you want and leave the rest. Or leave it all. It's up to you.
It's always encouraging to see more light and less heat.
I think if you go back in this thread you will see some helpful discussions in Posts 15 and 23 sent to you, and in Posts 21, 25, and 27 sent to others. It's possible you might find some things there that didn't come to your attention previously.
Regarding prophecy, you said:
. . . in fact prophecy is declared to be an on-going ministry and gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:10) . . .
There was a period of supernatural--but passing--spiritual gifts that were still being exercised while Paul's letters were being written, before the canon of New Testament Scripture was closed. The spiritual gifts of I Cor. 12:8-11 are no longer in the repertoire of God's servants, and their termination is discussed in 1 Cor. 13:8-10. "That which is perfect (complete)" is the canon of the ew Testament, and there has been no continuation of God's progressive revelation of Biblical truths since the death of the Apostle John. He was the last prophet, one of those to whom Jehovah spoke and showed heavenly things to be written down as inspired Holy Scripture. The "prophecy" of today is only forth-telling, or preaching, of God's Word, not any longer fore-telling.
Regarding the imparting of the Culture of Christ by personal instruction:
How did Jesus teach much of the time and how is the majority of the New Testament taught? By conversations.
That is called discipling, and there's not much of it going on today. The broadly preferred and practiced method is public hortation by Bible school and/or seminary graduates amassing groups (larger than, say, 1-12) for a one-way delivery system with very little detailed personal response and accountability.
Of late, a few are beginning to wake up to the dearth of real personal ongoing interactive discipleship, and fewer yet have a demonstrated Biblically valis method to teach how to make disciples and personally istruct them.
This is not a do-it-yourself boot-strap model. Rather, it is the one put in practice by God in Christ for about three and a half years, still being (rarely) practiced today.
You might want to check out the paragraph on
"HELP FOR DISCIPLES MAKING DISCIPLES" (about half-way down the page)
and
Well I’ve been part of churches that taught that all the supernatural gifts stopped after the first century and didn’t believe in the baptism of the holy Spirit. It all kind of goes together.
Many Christians are comfortable with that, but I’m not. I know he’s that same miracle-working God today as he ever was. I’ve seen his miracles many times including miraculous healings, words of knowledge, and prophecies.
The greatest miracle of all is salvation. Those discounting the power of the Holy Spirit usually don’t deny God’s continuing work in saving people. That is the greatest miracle of all. Why would he deny His child the lesser miracles of healing and abundant blessings after giving His on Son for us? It doesn’t make sense. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Romans 8:32
It’s OK. You are a beloved child of God through Jesus Christ and Heaven is your home. Praise the Lord. God wants to give us as much as we let him. The battle of life is letting God give us all that he has for us. The flesh ALWAYS says “No” to God (Gal 5:17). That is why we need the baptism of the Holy Spirit so by his grace and power, we are able to say “Yes” to Jesus.
I’m not interested in a theological discussion like I said. I copied you becasue I thought you were interested and might prayerfully consider this stuff. But there are basically two camps in the Christian world: those who have not or will not let Jesus baptize them in the Holy Spirit and those that have. Both camps are loved by God and all will go to heaven. But I believe one camp has a greater chance of walking into their divine destiny and victory now than the other. There were about 2 million or so Israelites who were delivered from Egypt but only two made it into their God-given destiny here on earth. I think that may be an indicative ratio of the Christian world today. Salvation is wonderful and thank God all believers will be in Heaven. But there is so much more God has for those who will receive it. I’m talking to myself as much as anyone.
“Lord, may I receive all that you have for me and may my brother also, in Jesus name, Amen.”
We often use the word “miracle” rather loosely - even speaking of “the miracle of birth” when it’s a completely natural process, and not supernatural at all. That’s not to say that God has nothing to do with it, of course. Because He most certainly does. He makes the sun to shine and the rain to fall. He does all these natural-world things by natural means.
Miracles in the Bible, by contrast, are things done in nature by supernatural means. This is what makes them “signs and wonders”, because they demonstrate God’s power and thereby authenticate the one performing them.
This is one of the main topics of Acts 1. The apostles were to be equipped not only with the knowledge of heavenly things in order to preach, but also with power to perform signs and wonders to authenticate their preaching. The fulfillment of this is seen throughout the story of the early church in the remainder of the book. So if we want to let the Bible interpret Jesus’ promise, all we have to do is keep reading.
In Acts 8, for instance, we find some people who had been utterly fooled by a fellow pretending to work miracles. If we could go back and talk to those folks, they might be embarrassed to admit they ever believed in that Simon fellow. And we wouldn’t want to rub it in.
I guess when they saw Philip doing real miracles, the difference was so great that Simon’s sham show was obvious. Even Simon himself obeyed the gospel preached by Philip, being amazed by the miracles.
I’ve talked to people who want to pit their own experiences against what the Bible says. They’ll hold up their experiences as proof that the Bible is wrong. If the Samaritans in Acts 8 had done that...if they had said to Philip, “Look, we already have a miracle-worker here, we’ve seen his miracles and you’ll never convince us that he isn’t the great power of God,” they would’ve really missed the boat.
If we hold to the Bible, and always return to it to “test all things”, then God will correct our errors. And if we do get fooled, it won’t be for long. It might be humbling to acknowledge our mistakes - just as it must have been for the Samaritans who had been duped by Simon. But being corrected by God will exalt us.
Thank you for doing this, LearsFool. It is the reason I am on this forum; to study, discuss, and come to a greater understanding of the Scriptures. I followed your link from Acts 3 so I can start at the beginning.
My approach will be to read your questions to see what I believe I already know, then read the chapter to find and provide the answers to the questions I do not know.
1. Acts is Luke’s second book. What was his first book about?
His first book was about all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up.
2. What convinced the apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead?
He shewed himself alive to them after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
3. Why didn’t they begin proclaiming the gospel right away?
He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
4. When would they receive power and be witnesses to Jesus?
They shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, but they shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon them.
5. What would these witnesses testify about?
These witnesses would testify about the commandments that Jesus through the Holy Ghost had given unto the apostles whom he had chosen.
6. A replacement for Judas had to be named. What were the qualifications?
The qualifications to be a replacement for Judas were limited to those men which have companied with the apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from them.
7. How many candidates met those qualifications?
The number of candidates who met those qualifications is not given; there were about 120 gathered together. They appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
8. Extra credit: From what we read from this chapter, can just anyone be an apostle?
From what we read from this chapter, only those among the 120 who met the qualifications could be one of the 12 apostles. Anyone who did not meet the qualifications would be no more than successors to the apostles.
I do find this exercise to be beneficial. I did struggle with question 5, in that I wanted my answers to come from Acts 1. I selected Act 1:2, which is supported by Matthew 28:20 (Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you) and John 16:13 (Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.)
With regard to Judas’ replacement, it never occurred to me to question Peter’s actions. In either case, the replacement would be different from the others, Matthias was not chosen by Jesus and Paul, as he himself wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, was as of one born out of due time and not meet to be called an apostle. As to how many were qualified, Luke was silent; he only tells us that two were chosen.
If there was any dispute as to whether the apostles were right to replace Judas, it seems to me that Luke would have mentioned it, as he did in reporting on the Council of Jerusalem in Chapter 15. James and John were strong personalities, as I am sure several others of the some 120 were. But just before Peter stood up, Luke says they all continued in one accord. So if Peter was wrong, they were all in on it together. I do not believe that to have been the case.
Peace,
Rich
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.