Paul Was Not One of “The Twelve”

The qualifications for the position that Judas held are clear.

“Wherefore of these men (Mathias and Joseph Barasas) which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). The “lot” therefore fell to “Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).

These are Paul's inspired words. “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office” (Rom.11:13). As we have already stated, Paul is not one of the Twelve Apostles as many teach today and certainly was not chosen to take Judas' place. Acts 1:16-26 gives ample proof that Saul of Tarsus did not even qualify as a follower of Jesus Christ at that time, he was an unbeliever! He had not followed the Lord from John's baptism “unto that same day that (Jesus) was taken up from us” (Acts 1:22).

Note Paul's own testimony as he later recounts his conversion before King Agrippa: “And I punished them (the Jewish Christians) oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities” (Acts 26:11). Paul was at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7:58. Paul next comes upon the scene in Acts 9:1-2, which describes him as “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” (ITim.1:13), on his way to imprison and “put to death” Jesus' Messianic followers at Damascus (Acts 26:10). This is a far cry from Paul being eligible for the position that Judas held with the disciples of the Lord. Paul was therefore most ineligible to be one of “the twelve.” He had not even seen Jesus of Nazareth during our Lord's earthly ministry and certainly had not walked with Jesus as the twelve had.

Later, when Saul finally did get saved, it was the Lord Himself who stopped Saul in his tracks and saved him from further persecution of Messiah's followers: “And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? ... And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus” (Acts 22:7-11).

Thus, Paul was specially “chosen” by God through whom God's Son is to be revealed to all nations (Gentiles) since the favored nation, Israel, refused to accept the Messiah under the so-called “Great Commission.” This is what makes Paul's ministry and apostleship so very distinct from that of the Twelve, and their kingdom gospel.

Furthermore, Colossians, chapter one, makes it clear that God began something very new and different with Paul's conversion – “the Church, which is the Body of Christ:”

“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my (Paul’s) flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church:

“Whereof I (Paul) am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me (Paul) for you, to fulfil (complete) the Word of God;

“the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints (believers): “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col.1:24-27).

Seeing these great differences between “the twelve” and Paul, then how foolish and wrong it is for any of us to take just any scripture in the Bible to determine the Lord's will for us today. By this I mean, what right do we have to choose some particular segment of our Lord's instructions to “the twelve” or “the eleven” Apostles, to whom He spoke of Messianic kingdom as promised to Israel, and try to apply these instructions to ourselves or to the church today? The Lord gave only those Apostles those instructions as He spoke to them things that pertain to the Messianic “kingdom of God” to come to earth, as promised to Abraham’s seed. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that our Lord “showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3), which was promised to Abraham’s literal seed. Thus the object of Jesus’ teaching immediately after the cross was still “thy kingdom come…on earth,” as promised to Israel.

In those forty days then, one Person, our Lord Jesus Himself, spoke to the eleven Apostles. He gave them instructions as to the program they were to carry out after His ascension. Those instructions were to continue what Jesus had begun, as we see in the Gospels. In every single case it is crystal clear that these commands were not directed to any other persons who were to live at some future date. Only these Apostles were to commence to carry out His instructions after Jesus’ departure, and after the Holy Spirit would endue them (come upon them to clothe them) with power to minister in this way with miraculous “signs following” (Mark 16:20), and for that time only.

This is emphasized by the phraseology found in all five records of the so-called “great commission” that Jesus spoke to those specific disciples only. Matt. 28:19 “Go ye”; Mark 16:15 “Go ye”; Luke 24:48 “Ye are witnesses”; John 20:21 “So send I you”; and Acts 1:8 “Ye shall be witnesses.”

It is preposterous to argue, as so many hard-pressed theologians have done, that one or more segments of the “great commission” are to be carried out by another generation and dispensation at a later time than that in which it was spoken. If this commission was to be binding upon “the church, which is His body” today, as they often seem to imply, what authority would we have to choose which part or parts of that commission we shall obey? Shall we cast aside Jesus’ command to “take up serpents” (Mark 16:18), as Jesus proclaimed to His Jewish Apostles? Shall we “have all things in common” as they the Jerusalem Pentecostal church had in the early Acts period? To do so would be to play fast and loose with our Biblical interpretation; robbing from those who were actually being addressed by the Lord at that time and in regard to their calling under “the gospel to the circumcision.”