Twelfth Apostle

Okay, I confess. I didn't resolve all the questions from the last posting. In fact I probably raised more questions. That would be good I think since questions help us eliminate the improbable and focus on logical answers.

Many of the questions and the assumptions that we build upon seem to be based on an unworkable paradigm. Which should make one ask what presuppositions are we using when we first begin to think about these issues. An even better question would be what framework should we be using?

Recently I had a conversation with a pastor over some of these same questions. It began with me asking him about his views on Hebrews 8 as the fulfillmen of Jeremiah's New Covenant prophecy (chap. 31). He informed me that we live under a new covenant, but not The New Covenant of Jeremiah and that the Heb 8 passage (and most of Hebrews) did not apply to the church at all. Following the same line of thought he said that before Paul began to write, no one understood the mystery of the church. That Jesus intended to set up an earthly kingdom and only later brought about the church.
Now that is a big mouthful and hopefully makes you say, "nuhuh." I hope you can see that following such a line of thought would affect many other points of interpretation.

I remember when I thought the selection of the 12th man worthy only of a question for Trivial Pursuit. After all, who ever heard of any thing that Mathias ever did after induction. Taking such an attitude now seems sinful to me. It marks us as exceedingly arrogant, willing to judge the Apostles 2,000 years later in such a manner as the historian Luke did not.

Maybe the way to untangle this is to look at the gospels for the beginning point of the twelve. They were chosen individually from among those who had been there from the beginning. The beginning, being the ministry of John the Baptist.None of them were baptized by Jesus, though they themselves baptized many people. (John 4) They were Jewish, called to minister to Jewish people.

Assuming that Jesus wanted to set up His earthly kingdom we would be able to see the twelve selected as having that specific purpose. They would rule His people. That also gives understanding as to why his people (mother and brothers) came out to take custody of him. They were not upset that He was having success healing people, it was the appointing of twelve that make them say He had lost His mind. Choosing the twelve would have been equated with a move to restructure the nation. Just as Adonijah asking for Abishag the Shunnammite as his wife was seen by Solomon as a claim to the throne of David, so Jesus appointment of twelve and later seventy was a recognizable claim to be the greater Moses.

Now so far we haven't said anything that my extreme dispensational brother could not have said, but here we will begin to see a different paradigm.

Choosing 12 and then choosing 70 was a deliberate tie that any Israelite should have been able to see. The twelve and the seventy would take one back to Exodus and the trip to Sinai. On the way they stopped at Elim where there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees. When they reached Sinai and the covenant was accepted, there were twelve tribes and out of the tribes seventy elders went up on the mountain to attend a feast prepared by God. Beyond even these points is the making of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of God's Hebrew text for the world. The common way of referring to the Septuagint in theological writings is LXX. (Seventy). Hmmmm, Twelve tribes sending the LXX out to the world.

Agreeing that Jesus was setting up a kingdom we should ask how would that be done without an insurrection? Well, the leader would gather around Himself a number of fine men and began to teach them. He would teach them the law (second Moses--greater Moses). He would give them one on one counsel. He would demonstrate His authority in many ways. He would show the weakness of the current governing structure. (scribes and pharisees). He would send them out to practice what they had learned. He would regather them for evaluation.

Twelve for twelve tribes, seventy for the world, how could we miss this. In choosing the twelfth man, it is easy to think that one of the seventy just moved up and filled that spot. Recognizing this pattern we should stop criticizing the twelve for not leaving Jerusalem. They obviously felt that they were fulfilling the very mission to which they had been called. The fact that they still had problems understanding the new wineskin and how to relate to their traditions should not keep us from accepting that they understood their mission.

Ruling on Twelve Thrones

`In this post I will attempt to address the questions regarding the new twelfth apostle, Matthias.



Why did the Apostles think it important to name a new apostle to replace Judas?



Were the Apostles expecting to sit on thrones ruling over Israel?



Were the Apostles hopes fulfilled or were they disappointed (postponed)?







For most of my life I considered Matthias to be one added to the twelve out of rash intemperate activity just prior to the sending of the Spirit. From that point I would look back at the disciples' fears and denials just a few days earlier and then remark that after they were endowed with the Spirit and they became fearless. Just so, I would assume that their decisions were ill-informed and would have been different just a few days later. Such seems now to be a bit irresponsible on my part.



Seeing this passage differently came very slowly as a result of embracing a different paradigm, first of Revelation and then of the New Testament and consequently Acts. Almost like seeing dominoes fall, changing assumptions forced a reevaluation of things that I had assumed or had been taught to be true.



Assuming that the disciples were heady rash and intemperate, I thought for years that Paul should have been the twelfth man. Clearly, Paul has been the most influential of the writers of the New Testament. Paul has the most phenomenal testimony of all the disciples. Paul clearly claimed the robe of an apostle. In our eyes he is far more qualified to be in the circle of twelve than is the no name, never done anything remarkable, never wrote a book, Matthias. So why would the disciples think it necessary to add this man before Pentecost.



The answer to this demands that we first go back and look at what Jesus said to the disciples.

In three of the four gospels the story is told of a rich young man coming to ask about eternal life. As the disciples watched the young man go sadly away Peter raised the question of what the disciples who had left everything could expect to receive. The answer Jesus gives should help us understand the issues from a disciples perspective.



This story, carried in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18 is the same in every way. Same context, same rich man, same question from the disciple, same answer with only slight variation in wording. So lets see what the disciples heard.



When the Son of Man will sit on HIs glorious throne you will:



sit on twelve thrones ruling the twelve tribes



receive a 100 fold return of houses and farms



receive a 100 fold return of brothers, fathers, mothers, wives, children



receive persecution



This will happen now



And in the age to come, eternal life.





The apostles fully expected to rule on twelve thrones and to receive persecution at the same time. They expected to see a hundred fold increase of their families (tribes) as a result of the coming outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Recognizing this means that we should be regarding the increase of the Kingdom, the ruling of the Apostles as fulfilling the promise of Jesus not in a carnal manner but in a spiritual one. Demanding that these promises be fulfilled in a literal manner with physical thrones should put one in the position of demanding also in the same literal manner a one hundred fold increase in the number of wives

The Rapture of Babies

Should we expect that babies will be raptured?



If babies are to be rapture, will it be because they are innocent?



If babies are to be raptured to avoid the Great Tribulation, will it be because God does not want them to suffer under His wrath?



If babies are to be raptured to avoid the time of God's wrath, then why were they never raptured in times of God's wrath in the past?













For me, asking these questions began as a reult of seeing "A Thief in the Night" back in the 1970's. The movie was an early version of the currently popular Left Behind series by Dr. Tim LaHaye. After the movie, the pastor made it a point to say the movie was wrong in showing babies present after the rapture. He ws very clear in saying that all babies would be raptured. This was an accepted view and is repeated in Dr. LaHayes series, where even the unborn babies are raptured.



Since the Bible never speaks about the rapture of babies, it must be obvious that answers must be derived not from direct statements of scripture but from some logical reference to a larger doctrinal position. In fact, the question would never be asked without the presentation of a pretribulation rapture.

Now to make the dilemma more obvious, let us proposte that all babies will be raptured just before a worldwide tribulation period begins. Agreeing with Dr. Lahaye's premise, all babies even those yet in the womb will be raptured. Assuming that much, it would seem necessary to include in the rapture all those infants, toddlers, and young children under the age of accountability. Arbitrarily determining the age of accountability to be twelve (because of the age for bar mitzvah) we would now see that the years of the great tribulation would begin with no child under the age of twelve left anywhere in the world.



To push this a bit further, assuming that God will remove all the children under 12 (or you pick the age) because He does not want the innocent to suffere in this period of HIs wrath, why would we think any new babies would be conceived for the next seven years? This would mean that among the billions of earth's population no one could/would conceive for the next seven years. So in this model, by the end of the Great Tribulation there would be no one alive under the age of 19.



Did you follow that camera guy?

Forgive my poor humor, but do you see what I am saying?



Now someone may insist that you can have the rapture and start conception again the nextday, but I would remind you that the reason for rapturing babies to begin with is based on the idea that God will not let the innocent go through the Tribulation. So what difference would a day make?



The apparent absurdity of such a picture coupled with the display of all history says that babies are not exempted from whatever happens to the world at large or to any particular society or nation. Babies suffer when men do evil.

Questions re end times issues; rapturing babies

Questions regarding end times:

Will babies be raptured before the great tribulation?

If babies are raptured to avoid the great evil, then why would we expect any new babies to be conceived during that time?

Does anyone seriously argue that no babies will be born during the great trib.

If babies were raptured to avoid the Trib. wouldn't that indicate that those babies were granted more mercy than babies down through history that died in war, famine, gas chambers, or according to scripture were eaten by their mothers?

If we argue for rapture of babies, would we argue for the babies of pagans to be raptured?

To press that further, suppose that Hitler and Eva Braun were having a baby at the time of the rapture (yes I know they are dead) would we expect their baby raptured?

If we argue for rapture of babies, how would we see this in comparison to the death of the children in Egypt whose families did not place blood on the door?



Obviously In this first post I have only placed questions. You are welcome to respond. It is my contention that the pretrib rapture is contrary to scripture and is revealed to be so in part by simple questions