Did Mattheius really replace Judas?

[friend of]

Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26

We dont hear much about Mattheus after this point. I've always believed that Paul replaced Judas and that he will be named after the pearly gates of Revelation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26

We dont hear much about Mattheus after this point. I've always believed that Paul replaced Judas and that he will be named after the pearly gates of Revelation.

Paul is the fulfillment of Joshua in a way, assisting the twelve in taking hold.

In the original 12 tribes, not much is heard from many of the tribe heads.

So, as for Matheus, he had an office to fill - and nothing notable was heard about him after that.

However, whenever the 12 were consulted, it is implied that he was there also.

 

[Albion]

Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26

We dont hear much about Mattheus after this point. I've always believed that Paul replaced Judas and that he will be named after the pearly gates of Revelation.

The surviving Apostles chose Matthias, but you're right about us not knowing much of him afterwards. However, that's also true of some of the original Apostles as well.

Paul was commissioned directly by God, having been struck off his horse while on the way to Damascus. So...we actually have 13 Apostles, counting Paul, at one time, even though we're accustomed to talking about the "Twelve Apostles."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26

We dont hear much about Mattheus after this point. I've always believed that Paul replaced Judas and that he will be named after the pearly gates of Revelation.

Yes, St. Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot.

St. Paul was never one of the Twelve.

The Acts of the Apostles isn't meant to be exhaustive. You'll note that the Acts don't talk about most of the Twelve Apostles. For example, we don't hear about St. Simon the Zealot, or St. Thaddeus, or St. Matthew, or St. Thomas, et al.

But just because the Acts doesn't talk about them and what they were doing, doesn't mean they weren't active in their apostolic work--they were.

It's just that most of what we know about what they did (and the same is true with Matthias) comes to us not recorded in Scripture, through general Church tradition--and, admittedly, sometimes legends, and also occasionally with conflicting accounts making it sometimes difficult to parse.

Meaning that Matthias the Apostle was active and fulfilling his apostolic vocation--we just don't have any record of it in the Acts of the Apostles or anywhere else in the New Testament.

It can be easy to forget that there is real history, real events and persons and things going on, the New Testament records some of it for us, but we don't get anything exhaustive. Even as we read the epistles of Paul, we are really prying in on correspondence between Paul and his audience, but we are also only getting one side of that correspondence, Paul's. Paul talks about people and things going on that his audience knew very well, but which we don't. For example, we know that 1 Corinthians wasn't the first letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he speaks of an earlier letter--one which is now lost to us (1 Corinthians 5:9). And we know that members of the Corinthian church were in correspondence with Paul, as Paul even mentions finding out about things going on in Corinth from "Chloe's [household]" (1 Corinthians 1:11).

Understanding that the New Testament is a slice of the things happening in the apostolic period is important, it grounds the New Testament in history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[paul1149]

Matthias may have been a super apostle for all we know. It's simply not recorded for us. But God works in unusual ways sometimes, so it's quite possible. Same goes for Paul, regarding God's ways. Lest we get too hung up in apostolic lineage, God chooses to call Paul after the fact, and in a most unusual, adventitious way. It was God who revealed the depths of the Gospel to Paul, not any man. It's another reminder that God is not dependent on man's religious structures to get His kingdom established. He uses who He wants when He wants, and we ought to be open to the unusual.

Another example of this kind of thing is the Tabernacle of David, which he set up to worship God outside of Jerusalem worship. He did so quite without authorization, it seems, but the purity of heart worship there was dear to God, such that it was to be restored, and I believe it is restored in Christ.

So no, I don't believe Paul was the 12th Apostle. I believe he represents a different lineage, just as genuine as the Twelve.