There were to be exactly twelve. Not one more, not one less!
Many Christians believe that Paul was God’s chosen replacement for Judas Iscariot who betrayed Yeshua and fell from his office as one of the twelve apostles. Some even teach that Peter was wrong to call the Messianic believers together to choose a replacement for Judas. This they support with the argument that Peter did it before Pentecost. They say that Peter was still “in the flesh” (as opposed to “in the Spirit”), out of line, and without the authority to do such a thing. Some have even compared Peter to Abraham in that he chose the equivalent of Ishmael to be an apostle whom God rejected and later chose Paul. Of course, when it comes to accusing Peter of error, these teachers who are willing to say Peter was wrong in choosing a replacement for Judas, don’t consider the possibility that Peter was wrong in speaking kindly and considerately about Paul in the passage we dealt with in the previous chapter!
The office and title of “apostle”, as it is used in the NT, has been redefined and broadened by Paul and Luke to include anyone who believes they are a divinely appointed messenger sent by God into the world. No other writers in the NT ever refer to anyone other than the twelve as “apostles”. Moreover, notice that it says Yeshua chose exactly twelve, not one more, and not one less.
And when it was day, he called his disciples to him; and from them he chose twelve whom he also named apostles.
Luke 6:13 NKJV
Notice in the following passages that there is a direct correlation between the twelve apostles to the twelve tribes of Israel, and a direct correlation between twelve apostles and the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem.
“Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His Glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28 NKJV
Now the wall of the city (the New Jerusalem) had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Revelation 21:14 NKJV
If there can be more than twelve apostles, which tribes will they rule over, and which foundations of the city are their names going to be on? There are only twelve of each.
Bear in mind that there were over 100 others besides the twelve who followed Yeshua, but they were called “disciples”. All the apostles were of course disciples, but not all disciples had the distinction of being named apostles by Yeshua. Many of these disciples were there and heard these words when Yeshua spoke them. Paul was not one of them!
If Judas Iscariot’s name is not one of the twelve names on the foundations of the city, and he will not judge a tribe of Israel, the question remains, who is his replacement?
Yeshua’s requirements for an apostle
Yeshua’s requirements clearly stated that the twelve had to have followed and walked with him!
“Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His Glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 19:28 NKJV
Peter calls for a replacement for Judas
When Peter calls for a replacement for Judas, notice that he reiterates Yeshua’s requirements exactly. Also notice that this event is deemed necessary precisely because it was understood that there must be exactly twelve apostles …not one more, and not one less.
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Yeshua; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” … “For it is written in the book of Psalms; ‘Let his habitation be desolate, and let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’ “Therefore, of these men WHO HAVE ACCOMPANIED US ALL THE TIME that the Master, Yeshua, went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Acts 1;15-17, 20-22 NKJV
Peter is very serious about filling the office with a qualified person. In a detailed manner, he lays out exactly what the replacement’s qualifications must be which he based on what Yeshua said an apostle’s qualifications must be. The candidate had to have accompanied the other apostles and Yeshua the entire time, from the time that John baptized Yeshua, all the way through to Yeshua’s ascension. The replacement had to have been there, and seen and heard everything the 11 remaining apostles saw and heard.
In summary: There are no more than twelve apostles because there are no more than twelve foundations to the city of New Jerusalem, as well as there are no more than twelve tribes of Israel. Moreover, every one of the twelve apostles had to have been there and walked with Yeshua for his entire ministry. These Biblically documentable facts leave Paul completely out of the picture.
What kind of person would they choose?
What Peter had listed for requirements was the minimum criteria that he insisted be met. If a prospect who met these requirements had even more information concerning Yeshua from even before His baptism, say at his birth, this no doubt would have been considered a bonus. We must also keep in mind that Peter was looking for someone who would be a good witness. It would be pointless to choose someone to be a witness who they knew wouldn’t say much. Conversely, a candidate who demonstrated a great propensity to tell of what he had seen and heard would naturally be considered a solid nomination. The scene in Acts continues:
And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias, And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23-26 NKJV
Out of approximately 120 who were there, they reduced the number of possible prospects to two. These two must have been considered the cream of the crop, the very best of possible candidates. Both were well qualified in the eyes of the eleven. They could have made the choice between the two themselves and I believe their choice would have been recognized in heaven. Yeshua had given Peter and the other apostles that much authority when He said to them;
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them.”
Matthew 18:18-20 NKJV
But they desired that God make the final choice between the two. Many Christian teachers frown on the fact that the apostles resorted to casting lots. But the casting of lots to discern God’s will is not without precedent. The apostles were very familiar with the priest’s use of Urim and Thummim to determine God’s will… as well as the story of Jonah and the terrified sailors who cast the lot which God caused to indicate Jonah as the source of their problem. On an issue as important as determining who the twelfth apostle should be, their desire to seek God’s opinion would not have gone unnoticed in heaven. They prayed and cast lots and the lot fell on Matthias. So the simple answer to the question of who is the twelfth apostle is Matthias!
Who was Matthias?
Virtually nothing is known about Matthias. Aside from the fact that he must have fit Peter’s criterion well and had been there, we know only one thing…. his name. Yet, I have a pet theory about Matthias, which if true, would answer many perplexing questions dogging scholars today. It’s only a theory. The fact that it is quite plausible, and would answer many questions is the best evidence in itself. Here it is.
The author of the mysterious Q source?!
If I were a betting man, I would lay odds that Matthias is the author of the renowned “Q source” for a number of reasons. “Q” is the label scholars have given to a single written text from which the synoptic gospel writers gleaned a large portion of their information. The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the “synoptic” gospels because they are a condensed outline of the events surrounding Yeshua’s ministry, and they are similar in so many ways it appears clear that each was condensed from the same larger written source. A perfect example of this is the story of the Rich Young Ruler. This story is found in all three synoptic gospels. Each one contains information that the others leave out. We determine from all three that this person was rich. Matthew is the only one to tell us that he was “young”. And Luke is the only gospel to tell us he was a “ruler”. But no matter from which gospel it is read, it is still known as the “rich young ruler” account. To see a parallel comparison of the three accounts of the rich young ruler and how the original account in “Q” might have looked see The Rich Young Ruler Synoptic Parallel in the appendix.
Let’s take a hypothetical look at what might have happened at the time Peter called for a replacement for Judas. Remember, these are real people who act and think like we do. What if during the time of Yeshua’s ministry, there was among his disciples a person gifted in writing who faithfully recorded most everything that was done and said by Yeshua? I picture such a person sitting in the background recording everything in some form of short-hand. Then later after Yeshua ascends, Peter calls for a replacement for Judas and his requirements are that the replacement had to both be there and be willing to tell what he had seen and heard. Now as they consider the candidates and are about to make some nominations they realize that they have in their midst a man with a written diary/record of all that was said and done. Wouldn’t such a person be exactly what they would have been looking for?
I think that Matthias, the one on whom God caused the lot to fall, might well have been just such a person. This may sound like a plausible, yet quaint theory at first, but there is one more interesting bit of evidence to add to this picture. The name “Matthias” is simply the Greek version of the name “Matthew”! They are really identical… one and the same! So there were two apostles named Matthew just as there were two apostles named Simon and two apostles named Judas. Matthew the tax-collector is generally considered to be the author of the gospel of Matthew, but this is only a tradition. We really don’t know for sure who wrote the book because the book doesn’t say. The name Matthew was loosely associated with the earliest copies of the Gospel, and since a tax-collector would have had to have been literate, it is assumed that Matthew the tax-collector was its author. But there is a problem with this theory. The gospel of Matthew was not written from the perspective of an insider. Curiously interesting is the fact that all three of the synoptic gospels were written from the perspective of someone on the outside looking in! In the gospel of Matthew, Matthew the tax collector isn’t even mentioned or called until chapter 9. And strangely enough, the author of the gospel appears to go out of his way to distance himself from this Matthew the tax collector by saying that Yeshua, “saw a man named Matthew…”. Doesn’t it appear a bit odd that someone would refer to themselves in the second person like this? If the original record were written from the perspective of a person on the outside looking in who happened to have the same name, it would make perfect sense.
Here is what I think might well have happened. Matthias was a gifted writer who faithfully documented the words and events surrounding Yeshua’s ministry. Unlike Paul, he had been there! When Peter called for a replacement for Judas, Matthias’ name came up as a perfect candidate because he had the written record. God caused the lot to fall on him and he became the true replacement for Judas. His written record was the source that was used by the writers of the synoptic gospels. The authors of Mark and Luke who borrowed from this same document are generally accepted. But I think there was a third anonymous person who also used Matthias’ record to compose what is now known as the Gospel of Matthew. As a scribe of sorts, he condensed the stories that he deemed important much the way Mark and Luke did. He also added a little of his own commentary as did the others. In his case, he regularly tried to associate events in Yeshua’s life with prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures. Sometimes he made good connections, other times he made some serious blunders. But this scribe didn’t sign his name to his work or identify himself in any way. The book was left to others known only as being taken from Mathias’ (Matthew’s) record. Over time the tradition continued and somewhere along the line it became assumed that it was written by Matthew the tax-collector.
Conclusion
Whether Matthias is the author of “Q” or not, he is without question the only plausible 12th apostle, because he was there… thus fulfilling the requirements of both Yeshua and Peter. He also might well be the author of “Q”, the source from which the three synoptic gospel writers obtained most of their information. If he is, he is not just an insignificant number filling a vacant spot, but truly one of the greatest apostles when one considers his witness is responsible for most of the information contained in the Synoptic Gospels. If we were to compile from Paul’s letters every quote of Yeshua, and every event in Yeshua’s ministry that he referenced, we would know virtually nothing about what Yeshua said or did! Every single chapter in the Synoptic Gospels contains many times more information about Yeshua than do all of Paul’s writings put together. Is it any wonder why Paul virtually never quoted Yeshua considering he wasn’t there!
Notable quotes: Paul not quoting Yeshua
“Where possible, he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are especially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.”
Albert Schweitzer
“What kind of authority can there be for an “apostle” who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis of his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus… He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.”
Ferdinand Christian Baur theologian, in his ‘Church History of the First Three Centuries’,
“… Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the ‘Original’ or ‘pure’ form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the ‘Lord’s brother,’ was literally Jesus’ blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus…personally. So did most of the other members of the community or ‘early Church,’ in Jerusalem, including, of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first-hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he’d begun to regard as his ‘Savior.’ He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus’ teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus. As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder.”
From the book, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception” by Michael Bajgent and Richard Leigh (Corgi Books, London, 1991)
Back to Outline ——- Next Chapter ——- Home ——- Contact