MATTHIAS AND THE ELEVEN

Throughout the Gospels, the designation "the twelve" is often used for the disciples (Greek: mathetes, learner or pupil) of Christ whom He also called Apostles (Greek: apostolos, delegate, messenger, one who is sent).

Toward the end of the Gospels (Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:9,33), after the betrayal by Judas, "the twelve" is amended to "the eleven."Acts 1:26 tells us that Matthias was "numbered with the eleven apostles." This brought the number back to twelve; we are also told that Peter stood up with the eleven (Acts 2:14), again showing the total number to be 11 plus Peter, or 12.

Commentators have debated for centuries about whether or not the election of Matthias was valid, or if the Apostle Paul was designated by God to be Number 12. We know there is future glory for those who were the twelve, for their names are in the foundation of the New Jerusalem. We know that this could not mean Judas Iscariot, but men could debate as to whether it would include Paul or Matthias.

The answer is found in 1 Corinthians 15. Speaking of post-Resurrection appearances of Our Lord, we read in verse 5 that He was seen "of the twelve." This view of the Lord Jesus Christ came before the conversion of Saul (later known as Paul), so he could not have been included in this number. Therefore, it must have been Matthias.

A little later on in the chapter we have what seems to be a redundancy. In verse 5 He was seen of the twelve, and in verse 7, "of all the apostles." Although Paul did not consider himself worthy to be called an apostle, even though he considered himself "least of the apostles," he still was an apostle. That makes thirteen.

During the Book of Acts, the word "apostle" is mainly restricted to the twelve, although in Acts 14:10 Barnabas is called an apostle. That makes fourteen.

Then in Romans 16:7, Adronicus and Junia are called apostles. That makes sixteen, including a woman. The names are rounded out by naming James, Jesus' brother, as an apostle in Galatians 1:19.

Are these apostles who, according to the definition, are sent on a specific calling by Christ? Do we still have apostles with us today?

Those whose only theological argument against the misuse of tongues as an "apostolic" gift, would stand by their theory that, in order to be an apostle, one has to see the Lord Jesus Christ. This, they feel, is backed up by 1 Corinthians 9:1, "Am I not an Apostle? . . .Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" But the Bible does not say seeing the Lord Jesus Christ is a necessity of apostleship; it merely states that Paul had seen the Lord.

The Bible assures us that all are not apostles; there have been some who have been called to a specific purpose, but those who have not received this special calling are still under the general calling of our Lord Jesus Christ. In every Commission (Matthew 28:19,20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; John 20:21; Acts 1:8) He stressed the need to go and proclaim the Gospel.

It doesn't matter where you are, as long as you are where God wants you to be and are doing what He wants you to do.