Matthias Replacing Judas

[Brian A.]

"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 Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”

(Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

“For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

‘ Let his dwelling place 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 Lord Jesus 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.”

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 1:15-23

I have oft read this story thoughtlessly, but I have become quite fascinated by it these days. Something tells me there's more to it than there seems. Ellen White says this:

"In the first chapter of Acts, also, instruction is given regarding the choosing of men to bear responsibilities in the church. The apostasy of Judas had left one place vacant in the ranks of the apostles, and it was necessary that another be chosen to take this place."

GCB, June 1, 1909 par. 5

But why was it necessary for another to be chosen and to take his place?

Additionally, there appears to be some sort of type/anti-type relationship between Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons (tribes) and Jesus and the twelve disciples. Interestingly enough, just as one disciple was replaced in Acts 1 (Judas with Matthias), one tribe is replaced in Revelation 7 (Dan with Manasseh). What is the relationship here?

I don't have answers to these questions and they are totally perplexing me. Anyone have any insights?

[Brian A.]

Additional interesting related fact:

"All the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the sould were threescore and six; and the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten."

Genesis 46:26-27

"After these things the Lord appointed seventy also, and sent them two by two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."

Luke 10:1

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,"

Acts 1:21

Just as Manasseh, one of the seventy, replaced Dan, Matthias, very likely one of the seventy, replaced Judas.

Unfortunately, this still answers neither of the questions I had above, but it certainly is interesting!

[there buster]

Uh, look again. Er and Onan died before going to Egypt, and two women are named in the seventy. Something else is going on in Genesis.

Also, Joseph did not have a tribe in Israel. Instead, his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, each counted as half tribes.

[Brian A.]

Uh, look again. Er and Onan died before going to Egypt, and two women are named in the seventy. Something else is going on in Genesis.

Also, Joseph did not have a tribe in Israel. Instead, his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, each counted as half tribes.

Thanks for your insights, I'll look into that. I want to understand your position a little better though, so I have a few questions:

What about the inclusion of women makes a difference here? The scriptures seem to regard women as having equal value to men (i.e. testimony of women about the empty tomb, etc.).

Also, regardless of the fact that Er and Onan died before going into Egypt, Genesis 46:27 still states that there were 70; please sophisticate my understanding because I didn't understand your discreditation of this.

You state that there is something else going on in Genesis, and I assume you're referring to the listing of the progeny of Jacob in Genesis 46 (since that what we're talking about). What would you say the purpose of this list is?

Thanks ichabod!

[there buster]

Quote:

the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all.

I just finished a nearly 400 pp. manuscript on the life of Jacob. So I spent a good deal of time looking at the details of his story.

Er, Onan, did not 'go' to Egypt, as they were buried near Hebron. Manasseh and Ephraim were born in Egypt. They didn't go there either.

Women in the Bible are certainly more valued than they were in the contemporary culture, but they were not counted as heads of households in OT times. Certainly Dinah wasn't, since after her rape by Shechem, she is never recorded as marrying or having children.

As to what the purpose of the list is, I can only speculate. In a literary sense, this passage closes the age of the Patriarchs, which began with Abram. After this, there will be "the children of Israel." To get the number to exactly equal 70 takes some maneuvering. But this is another example of a Hebrew author using a number symbolically, rather than arithmetically (Matthew does this, too). In general, I think it symbolizes the transition from the single man of God: Noah, Abram, Isaac, Jacob, to the 'people' of God.

As an addendum, if any of the women in this period should count as the head of a household, the plucky and creative Tamar surely deserves it.

[Brian A.]

Thanks for stomping that for me before I took it too far. I almost want to keep my mouth shut now for fear of what I don't know! I guess it's safe to say that you see zero connection between Genesis 46:27 and Acts 1:21/Luke 10:1, correct?

Despite all of that, the connection between the apostles in Acts 1 and the sons of Jacob in Revelation 7 seems to be a little stronger...unless I'm just not seeing the big picture. Any insights from your background on this?

BTW: is that manuscript you wrote available for public viewing?

[there buster]

Not yet. Pacific Press has it now. They may or may not want to publish it. If not, I'll keep looking.

It is not a theological work. It is what they call a "Biblical Narrative," like Terry Fivash's "Joseph," for example.

[Gail]

Quote:

As an addendum, if any of the women in this period should count as the head of a household, the plucky and creative Tamar surely deserves it.

Resourceful- yep- that's her!

[there buster]

Quote:

connection between Genesis 46:27 and Acts 1:21/Luke 10:1

Oddly enough, I do believe there is a connection between Luke 10:1 and Genesis, but a different chapter. Genesis 10 has the "Table of Nations." You will find 70 names there. Based on this, Jewish tradition held that 70 nations comprised all the world.

Luke says there were 70 sent out 2x2, while Matthew claims it was 12 2x2 (Matt 10)

Matthew, a Jew, is saying in his very Jewish gospel that all (12 tribes) of Israel are included in Jesus' outreach.

Luke, a gentile, is saying in his very gentile gospel that all (70 nations) of the world are included.

Different number, same message, different audience.