|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Eleven
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
OK, so something struck me as odd when we read the familiar Pentecost reading this morning. Nothing profound, just odd.
Acts 2:14. But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them ...
Eleven? Why eleven?
Just prior to this we read of the disciples meeting to select a replacement for Judas so that they were back to Twelve. I know it's there, I preached on it last week.
I had a skim through a variety of translations on Biblegateway, since I don't know Greek it's the best I can do. And, none of them have "Peter and the other eleven", which would make twelve. I could accept that as a reading, but none of the translations I read would seem to allow it ... they all seem to me to be saying the eleven stood up, and Peter was the spokesman.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
In Greek it’s Statheis de ho Petros syn tois hendeka - Standing up/stepping forward Peter with the eleven, more or less literally.
It's indeed without "other" but I think the order of words suggests that Peter is singled out in the first part of the sentence: Statheis de ho Petros - stood up Peter - syn tois hendeka (together) with the (other) eleven.
I have found this translation here: Then Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles (New Living Translation).
Greek syntax is quite flexible and you can "rearrange" words depending on what you're trying to say. It doesn't always translate well.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I wonder if, in spite of best intentions, the general run of disciples couldn't get used to thinking of Matthias as one of the Twelve. Or maybe he just wasn't present on that occasion.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
I think that’s possible, but while the Greek text is ambiguous here, a few verses later in the same chapter Peter is again set apart from the other apostles: […] tov Petron kai tous loipous apostolous - Peter and the rest of the apostles (Acts 2:37).
I suppose “the eleven” (v14) is just another way of saying “the rest of the apostles” (v37) in which case Matthias is included.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wonder if, in spite of best intentions, the general run of disciples couldn't get used to thinking of Matthias as one of the Twelve.
I wonder about this too. We once had a pastor at our church who had the theory (entirely unsupported by anything in Scripture, and he was good enough to say this and emphasize it was just his own particular theory) that the post-Judas Eleven had jumped the gun on drawing lots and choosing Matthias as #12. He believed that if they had just sat still, not worried about reaching the magic number 12, and waited on God's timing, he would have sent them the REAL twelfth apostle, who (the pastor though) was Saul/Paul.
Interesting theory; don't know if others have held it too, but as I said there doesn't seem to be anything in the text to support it. If they were defining apostles at the time as either witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, or people who had been disciples during His lifetime, they surely had plenty to choose from, and Paul wouldn't have qualified on either count.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I'd never noticed this before, but it does seem important. At first I thought that maybe the author is uncomfortable referring to the new group as "The Twelve," but then I did a search and found that he does so in Acts 6:2
quote:
And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait at tables.
I wonder if what we're seeing is a step in the direction of Peter being seen as more of a leader here, not just 'one of the guys.' The first few chapters of Acts, before Paul comes on the scene, are very much his story (in terms of human characters at least).
Interestingly, one 5th Century manuscript (Bezae) has "ten" there instead of eleven. In Greek, this only involves missing off two letters (eleven is one-ten), but there's no obvious trigger for parablepsis.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Trudy, I've wondered whether Peter didn't jump the gun too--not because the place should have been held for Paul (several of his generation of leaders were called apostles, notably Barnabas) but rather because AFAIK the only thing the disciples were told to do was to sit tight until the Holy Spirit came. So holding elections etc. pre-Pentecost seems to me a bit hasty. Not that I think it really matters! Though maybe it would do some of our congregations some good to wait a bit longer before making their own decisions. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
To be fair to Peter, Jesus had only told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem, which they did.
Since they were expecting the restoration of Israel and saw the promise of the Holy Spirit as a fulfilment of scripture, I can see why they wanted a twelfth apostle before the actual event, so that all Israel would be present, symbolically.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Their mistake was not including a "none of the above" option in the lots.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I have heard many times the theory that the replacement apostle should have been Paul and that Peter and the others made a pre-Pentecostal boo-boo. I don't buy it.
a) Luke (one of the Paul's companions, let us not forget) never for an instant makes any hint that this decision was wrong. God had spoken through the drawing of lots - end of story.
b) The fact that Matthias isn't mentioned again is irrelevant. Neither are almost all the other Twelve.
c) If you are going to argue that Paul should have been the replacement, you could equally argue the same for James, the brother of Jesus, who quickly became a very important leader in the Church in Jerusalem. People arguing for Paul usually do so because they are already a fully paid-up member of the Pauline fan club.
d) The drawing of lots should not be seen as "unspiritual". It was a tried and tested traditional method of making an important decision. One that the Coptic Church still employ in the election of their leader.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I've no certainty on this issue. But I will say that Luke is just like the rest of the Gospel writers/historians etc. in the Bible, in that he generally feels no need to draw moral conclusions at the end of an episode. He leaves the readers to do that, if necessary.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
I don’t know what would have been different if Paul had been the twelfth apostle instead of Matthias or why it would matter.
Paul has been accepted as an apostle regardless and Matthias had been a follower of Jesus from beginning to end. So I don’t see how he could somehow be wrong or inferior as a replacement.
I don't think God had reserved the place for someone special anyway or that there was a "real" person.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
How long a time was it between the crucifixion and Paul's conversion? I have always assumed it was at least a year.
If it was that long a time, should the apostles simply have waited to see what would happen?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
This time line suggests that it was about four years to the conversion of Paul, and of course it took longer than that for him to be accepted. (Eighteen years if we say that his first missionary journey marks his acceptance, twelve-ish if we identify it with his work with Barnabas in Antioch)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
It seems obvious that Matthias is one of the eleven, as Judas is deceased. If Matthias is not counted, then we have Peter and the ten.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Their mistake was not including a "none of the above" option in the lots.
I see two mistakes.
The first is their list of criteria. What "that's not how God thinks" aspects are included? Considering how often they didn't understand Jesus, one might expect a bit of caution; but no, they charge ahead with "we know all the specific criteria are for being an apostle."
The second is, as you say, assuming their short list of names intersected with God's choice. Even based on the criteria they listed, I'm startled if only two people fit the bill out of all the many disciples swirling around Jesus, including some women who managed to be more faithful than a bunch of the men, showing up at cross and grave.
I suspect some unspoken, unquestioned, but possibly ungodly assumptions guided their short list.
The problem is, not just did the wrong man get named blocking us from knowing God's choice, but if he was the wrong man - did it harm him? Did his being named to a wrong-for-him "position" diminish his ability to respond to God and serve God and others in the best way for him?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Reading the account in Acts, I wonder what happened to Barsabbas (aka Joseph, aka Justus).
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I suspect it's intentional that Matthias rounds it out to twelve and then Paul becomes an apostle. He's the apostle to the Gentiles, after all. He represents the message of Christ breaking out of its boundaries, overflowing its original confinement to Israel. Had Paul become #12, that would be a bit less obvious, perhaps.
I imagine something along these lines: "OK, phew, we've restored our number to a nice, round, comfortable 12, representing the tribes of Israel. Wait, who's that guy?!?"
It's been said that between Peter and Paul, Peter represents the institutional Church, and Paul represents the charismatic element of the Church - the Spirit blowing where it will. There's a literal tension between the two men, and there's an ongoing tension between those two "poles" today. It's actually a healthy tension, but doesn't always play out in healthy ways because, you know, humans are involved.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I imagine something along these lines: "OK, phew, we've restored our number to a nice, round, comfortable 12, representing the tribes of Israel. Wait, who's that guy?!?"
I like this: the 12-ness of the apostolic college is shattered by the expansion of the Gentile mission.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
