12 or 13 Apostles: Was St.Matthias the 12th Apostle and the Man in Luke 9:49-51?

[Gxg (G²)]

Concerning why I was writing..

St.Matthias is truly an amazing person - and his life is one that has been very inspiring for me to study on

​

St. Matthias​

ST. MATTHIAS was truly an amazing person - and I've been blessed studying up on him. According to Nicephorus (Historia eccl., 2, 40), Matthias first preached the Gospel in Judaea, then in Ethiopia (made out to be a synonym for the region of Colchis, now in modern-day Georgia) and was later crucified in Colchis. Apparently, a marker placed in the ruins of the Roman fortress at Gonio known as Apsaros in the modern Georgian region of Adjara claims that Matthias is buried at that site..even though this is unverifiable as the Georgian government currently prohibits digging near the traditional gravesite.

• MYSTAGOGY: The Grave of the Apostle Matthias in Georgia

Another tradition says he was stoned to death in Jerusalem and then beheaded. There are many other traditions besides that - suffice to say that the history is variable. And even his name is variable: the Syriac version of Eusebius calls him not Matthias but “Tolmai” – not to be confused with Bartholomew, the Son of Tolmai, who was one of the original twelve. Clement of Alexandria says some identified him with Zaccheus. And there are many more theories and speculations.

Ultimately, even with the histories varying on his background, none of them explain why this man – who is mentioned nowhere in the Gospels, and makes no further impact on the story of the Apostolic Church in the New Testament – was chosen to join the Twelve.

Reading through the scriptures shows how the Lord personally selected his Apostles rather than someone else - and when he did so, He spent the entire night in prayer prior to doing so (Luke 6:12-13 ) , compared to the eleven Apostles appointing two candidates for the Lord to choose from....as it shows they did not pray all night before they appointed the two candidates, but afterwards they prayed, asking which of the two appointees were worthy to replace Judas (Iscariot), then they drew lots to see which one the Lord would pick, (Acts 1:15-26).

Others have also noted that it seems like Mattias was chosen not by Christ - but by the apostles since Christ appeared personally to Paul in Acts 9 when on the road to Damascus....and thus, in their mind, Paul was meant to replace Judas as the 12th Apostle...and therefore, Mattias was chosen prematurely.

In studying the issue, although it doesn't seem to record in scripture where the apostles prayed all night, I think it's noteworthy that there are a host of historcal practices which set precedent ...and that one would have to overlook in order to conclude that the apostles themselves were wrong to do as they did with Matthias. For the apostles lived within a culture that loved God's Torah/Law--and the Torah gave many examples of others casting lots in order to discern the Will of the Lord..with the Lord giving divine guidance on things through that methodology. ..including things such as Urim and Thummim.

One would walk in wisdom, of course, in making decisions...but it was perfectly acceptable to cast lots on important decisions, no different than praying and asking the Lord to reveal something in a dream or a vision or a sign for confirmation (more elsewhere in #5#19 and #25 as it concerns the Biblical history of casting lots). The apostles did pray/ask the Lord to reveal whom to chose...and it fell to Mattias. And as they were always praying in the Upper Room as Acts 1:14 notes, there does seem room for saying that they were in a spirit of prayer when Mattias was chosen.

As it was matter of having an eyewitness of CHrist and knowing him to be an apostle, it makes sense that Mattias was chosen---and history does not show that choice in vain since the man died as a martyr. As said earlier, one tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded. (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7).

Studying on Mattias, as it concerns being an apostle, part of me has been processing on how even Christ himself didn't always hand-pick people who walked in the power that the apostles did.

Mark 9:37-39Mark 9
36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Luke 9:49-51

Jesus Predicts His Death a Second Time

While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
​

Who was the man casting out demons in the name of CHrist as the apostles did? Who knows..but it's interesting that he was doing things that Christ had comissioned the apostles to do---and even if saying (as some do) that the man could've been one of the 70 empowered for ministry after the apostles were, the reality is that this situation was done BEFORE that time frame. What you have is a man casting out demons in the name of CHRIST (as the apostles were doing) long before Christ had the 70 sent out for ministry in Luke 10 and right after the 12 had been commissioned for ministry to heal the sick/cast out demons in Luke 9:1-3 .

I would be curious to see who that man was that Christ told the apostles to leave alone...as they were thinking that He hadn't handpicked that man for work they felt qualified alone to do, but not all of God's dealings are ever listed fully in scripture. We can't rule out the ways the Lord has often spoken to people who may've seemed disconnected from others. Christ could have come to the man when the apostles were unaware and told him things, or the Lord could have revealed it in a dream what he was to do. And the man did well on something that even the apostles struggled with later inLuke 9:37 even after Christ commissioned them:

You never know the people God has in place, just as it wasn't the case that Abraham wasn't the ONLY person God ever talked to since there were others in that era the Lord worked with (Job being one of them, as he was known to live in that time period). Job himself was a righteous man after God whom God highly favored---with many scholars saying that Job actually existed way before Abraham did. The Israelite author presents Job as a person living in Uz, which is outside the borders of Israel itself ---and His piety (Job 1:1) exemplifies the ideal in Israelite wisdom and He invokes the name of Yahweh (Job 1:21).

But at the same time, his relationship to Abraham's offspring remains a mystery. The events of the book seem to be set in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The way Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20 refer to Job along with two others apparently from ancient times enhances this impression....and so do the favorite names for the deity, God" (Hb. 'Eloah, the singular of 'Elohim) and "the Almighty" (Hb. Shadday), which seem more suited to the days before the Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 6:3 instances. The name Yahweh, the Lord, appear only in Job 1-2 and Job 38-42, with one lone exception in the middle of the book, 12:9). Again, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Job along with Noah and Daniel, and this seems to imply that he took Job as a real perosn. This is also the implication of James 5:11. With what was noted by Ezekiel, its interesting to see Noah and Job listed together---as Noah and Job are well-known righteous men of the past (Genesis 6:9, Job 1:1)..and Noah existed before the era after the Flood. Its possible that Job either existed at the same time as Noah or came directly after Him.

But the text makes clear Job was in the form of a priest, making sacrifices for the sake of his children/family and intercedding for them....with no connection to Abraham or awareness of what the Lord was doing all over the world.

The LORD Works with many you'd never know about. Thus...there's nothing to say Mattias wasn't chosen by the Lord. simply because no record exists of Christ hand-picking him in front of the other apostles. It's even possible that the man himself casting out demons was actually Mattias in an earlier state before the early church began

As another noted best on the situation of Luke 9:49-51 (even though it was from a Baptist perspective - but still engaging, IMHO):

Acts 19:13-17 "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified."
​

These sons of Sceva and others, took it upon themselves to try to accomplish something that they were not authorized to do. The verses above declare the results of their insolence. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that the same sort of fate would have befallen the man in Luke 9:49 if he was not working in the authority of Jesus? I believe so. Plus, Jesus would never have endorsed this man’s work if it were being done on his own, separate and apart from the authority of Jesus. I might also mention here that, although the Holy Spirit was not given in the fullness spoken of in John 14 and fulfilled in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit indwelled Christ’s church, the disciples of Jesus worked within the bounds of His limited commission.
​

__________________

If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear. Do you feel that Mattias was the one who was casting out demons in the name of CHRIST in Luke 9? Also, why do you think Matthias was chosen as a replacement for the apostle Judas - and how to reconcile that with the fact that the Apostle Paul was chosen as well - making 13 apostles rather than 12 alone?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear. Do you feel that Mattias was the one who was casting out demons in the name of CHRIST in Luke 9? Also, why do you think Matthias was chosen as a replacement for the apostle Judas - and how to reconcile that with the fact that the Apostle Paul was chosen as well - making 13 apostles rather than 12 alone?

On the 13th Apostles issue,

Part of me has been really wondering on how it all lines up - and what follows thus far is what I've been wondering..

That Paul was one chosen by the Lord as an apostle included in the primary group of the 12 is not something I see as in conflict with the ideology of other apostles existing outside of them....for to me, its an issue of levels/establishing rankings. The 12 apostles are the "chief" apostles, whereas the others are also apostles but in a differing sense---lesser, but still carrying authority.

And we see this plainly when seeing the many others noted to be apostles/in the position of apostle in Acts. Take Barnabas...one who was a Levite/trained in Levitical Law and who trained Paul at one point/sponsored him before the other apostles...and his word counting for much due to his position, as well as the ways he looked out for people in the community

Acts 11:24
for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.


​

Paul mentioned him favorably later when speaking of the rights of an apostle:

1 Corinthians 9:6
Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
​

Its interesting to consider the example of Barnabas when it comes to the definition of what it means to be an "Apostle"---for some would say that the apostles themselves could only be the ORIGINAL 12 and no one had the right to challenge them....but it seems that both Paul and Barnabas did---and later on, it seems that the churches that both Paul and Barnabas started in Antioch were able to survive/thrive FAR better than those in Jerusalem where the original 12 were.

When it comes to saying what the original criteria is for being an apostle, most will go to Acts 1:21-26 (KJV):

Wherefore of these men 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. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
​

The problem here is Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement..but Acts 9-10 show clearly that Paul was visited BY Jesus.

Regarding the replacement of Judas, it appears that there was a group of men who did indeed met this criterion, from which they selected Barsabas and Mathias. ...and thus, in many ways, Paul was an exception. In saying he was an exception, we also declare the requirements stated in Acts 1 null and void for future apostles. Paul did not accompany the original apostles from the baptism by John to the day He ascended into heaven. For some reason, however, many critics claim that this is the lone exception and thus, the Lord would not allow any others. Certainly, one is free to make such a claim, but the Bible contains no foundation for it.

All can usually agree that Paul is an exception...bu there were there other Apostles..

First, there was Barnabas. Acts 14:14 records,

"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,"


​

There was also Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:6-9,

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another…For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.


​

Then, there was James, the brother of Jesus Christ, who was not one of the original Twelve (and there were two other apostles named James). In Galatians 1:19, Paul says, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And James helped in the leadership of the early church and had as much authority as the other apostles.

Additionally, there was also Silvanus and Timothy. In 1 Thessalonians, we find Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, writing to those in Thessalonica:

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2)

​

Later, they're referenced as Apostles...

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. (1 Thessalonians 2:4-6)


​

There are two others that could be considered apostles, as in Romans 16:16-17 Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." The language issue/translation is mainly why there's debate, but there are many academics who've been of the mindset that having a female translation was the correct one ....and with that one, it always seems to be something that gets ALOT of people upset--for many cannot handle the idea that women were actually ministers of the Gospel just as the male apostles were. For more info, one can investigate a thread entitled Women rabbis (which examines the many female leaders of high rank in the world of the apostles).

Also, some good resources to consider on the matter:

• The Apostle Junia - God's Word To Women
• Junia . . . Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7)
• Junia or Junias, what does the evidence tell us ... - Michael S. Heiser

Using the New Testament text, it seems clear that there are a significant number of men with the title of "Apostle"----and logically, one must ask "Did all 19 or 21 see the resurrected Lord?"...to that question, we don't know. If they did, it is not recorded in our current New Testament or there to our knowledge. Suffice it to say, there were several other Apostles, in addition to the original 12. And while the original 11 (minus Judas) were chosen from men who had been with Christ throughout His ministry, it doesn't seem that this was never declared a universal requirement........

With St.Paul in comparision to St.Matthias, I've always been of the thought that Paul was not necessarily God's FIRST Choice---but rather the choice the Lord decided to utilize after the apostles didn't seem to get the job done that He had entrusted to them. There were already lots cast to fulfill the position of Judas when it came to the choosing of Mattias in Acts 1:12-25. Peter followed indicates that Matthias was a reasonable choice from their point of view...and lots were used to decide issues many times (Leviticus 16:7-9, Numbers 26:54-56 , Numbers 33:53-55, Numbers 34:12-14 , Joshua 18:5-7 / Numbers 36:1-3 , Joshua 14:1-3 , 1 Samuel 10:19-21 , 1 Samuel 14:40-42 , 1 Chronicles 24:30-31, Nehemiah 10:33-35, Nehemiah 11:1-3 , Esther 3:6-8 , Proverbs 16:32-33, Proverbs 18:17-19 , Jonah 1:6-8, Luke 1:8-10 , )...... although others argue that it’s not clear from Acts 1:12-26 that the Lord actually prompted the disciples to fill the vacancy in their rankss. None of the other apostles gave any objection to Paul’s description of himself as an Apostle chosen by God, (all his letters except for Philippians, Thessalonians and Philemon begin with him introducing himself this way)

Some of this is interesting to consider from a larger perspective when it comes to the exception of the apostle Paul among the apostles. For his position as the thirteenth reigning apostle can be reconciled by more closely examining Jesus' description in Matthew, "upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel". A light survey of the the Old Testament will reveal that Israel's tribes eventually numbered thirteen, although they began with twelve sons! Generally, each of the tribes of Israel was called by one of the twelve sons of Israel (Jacob), who fathered the respective tribe. However, the tribe belonging to Israel's son, Joseph, was split into two more tribes, named after Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Mansseh (Genesis 48:1-6). They were numbered with Israel's sons as his sons. Apparently, Joseph was blessed with a "double portion" of sorts (Genesis 48:21-22). In spite of their being thirteen tribes, the tribes of Israel continued to be called the "twelve" after the twelve original sons of Israel (Genesis 49:22-28; Exodus 24:4).

Likewise, the office left vacant by Judas was split into two offices, which were filled by Matthias and Paul. This spiritual figure is enforced by Jesus, Who linked their reign upon twelve thrones to the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:27-28). Therefore, there were and are twelve apostles - figuratively: Twelve appointed originally, but the twelfth office was split into two, just as the twelve original tribes of Israel were eventually numbered as thirteen. If that figure seems strange, please consider that the entire statement is figurative. The apostles' reign was ultimately over spiritual Israel, not physical Israel, since the apostles were sent to all nations in all the earth (Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 9:3, )....and the sure and ancient end of appointing modern apostles is confirmed by the last apostle, Paul, writing of the different witnesses and apostles who saw Jesus after His resurrection:

"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (I Corinthians 15:7-8)
​

Just as the youngest child in a family may be born "unexpectedly" and several years after their older siblings, so the apostle Paul was like "one born out of due time". Figuratively speaking, there were only twelve apostles (thirteen literally), who were appointed by Jesus and remain so even today - but Paul was designated for the Gentiles.

Romans 11:12-14
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
​

Galatians 2:8
For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
Galatians 2:7-9
​

Acts 9:13
13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
​

 

[Thekla]

Just some (scattered) thoughts:

although there is the usual reference to "the 12", there is also the general usage of those who are sent out (the 70 and beyond) (Like St. Mary Magdalen, who is called "equal to the apostles").

There is also the nagging memory of the disappearance of the tribe of Dan; I wonder how that might fit. And for no good reason, Rachel's children ... though I'm not clear on the association I am making ...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just some (scattered) thoughts:

although there is the usual reference to "the 12", there is also the general usage of those who are sent out (the 70 and beyond) (Like St. Mary Magdalen, who is called "equal to the apostles"). ...

Was not aware that St.Mary Magdalen was called "equal to the Apostles" - but will have to investigate that dynamic - and if you have any resources/references on the issue, would greatly appreciate it.

There is also the nagging memory of the disappearance of the tribe of Dan; I wonder how that might fit. And for no good reason, Rachel's children ... though I'm not clear on the association I am making

In regards to the 12 tribes of Israel being represented, what occurred with the Tribe of Dan is highly interesting..

Revelation 7

144,000 Sealed

1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.


5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.




​

Its interesting to consider how the Tribes of Dan and Ephraim are missing from the list. Though there are some who feel it is a translation error and more is there when studying the text. One believer, know as Steve Collins, actually spoke more in-depth on the matter---as seen here.

Of course, others are of the mindset that the tribe of Dan was not included because of how they may've fallen into extreme idolatry/immorality....and thus, the Lord wiped them out. The tribe of Dan as a whole was guilty of gross idolatry—even to the point of stealing the idols they used to practice their religion (Judges 18:14-31).

Theirs was the first organized idolatry in ancient Israel, and the longest in duration..and it continued "until the day of the captivity of the land," nearly 500 years later (Judges 18:30). Some say that Ephraim and Dan are connected in their being not listed, as idolatry is the same thing that Ephraim fell into like Dan (compare Judges 17:1-3 and Hosea 4:17). However, that may not be a valid argument since both the tribe of Manasseh and the tribe of Joseph are listed. Ephraim and Manasseh were the two sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:1). Since Manasseh is one of the two tribes descended from Joseph, "the tribe of Joseph" mentioned in Revelation 7:8 must refer to Ephraim. From this, we can learn that Ephraim, being the leading tribe of the house of Joseph, sometimes bore the name "Joseph"--and thus, it may not be the case that Ephraim was wiped out.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Thekla]

Was not aware that St.Mary Magdalen was called "equal to the Apostles" - but will have to investigate that dynamic - and if you have any resources/references on the issue, would greatly appreciate it.

This was easier almost than I wanted it to be
Equal-to-apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It mentions all those that I'd known of, but that doesn't mean there aren't more of course.

Aside: Georgian chant is amazing; a priest from Georgia has started a monastery in PA and so we were able to hear this chant in our Liturgy.
Here's the kontakian of St. Nina/o equal to the apostles.
(The flow of this hymn sounds like a musical description of mountainous topography or a stream coursing in its bed ...)
KONTAKION OF SAINT NINO - Sacred Georgian Chant - YouTube

In regards to the 12 tribes of Israel being represented, what occurred with the Tribe of Dan is highly interesting..

Revelation 7

144,000 Sealed

1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.


5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.




​

Its interesting to consider how the Tribes of Dan and Ephraim are missing from the list. Though there are some who feel it is a translation error and more is there when studying the text. One believer, know as Steve Collins, actually spoke more in-depth on the matter---as seen here.

Of course, others are of the mindset that the tribe of Dan was not included because of how they may've fallen into extreme idolatry/immorality....and thus, the Lord wiped them out. The tribe of Dan as a whole was guilty of gross idolatry—even to the point of stealing the idols they used to practice their religion (Judges 18:14-31).

Theirs was the first organized idolatry in ancient Israel, and the longest in duration..and it continued "until the day of the captivity of the land," nearly 500 years later (Judges 18:30). Some say that Ephraim and Dan are connected in their being not listed, as idolatry is the same thing that Ephraim fell into like Dan (compare Judges 17:1-3 and Hosea 4:17). However, that may not be a valid argument since both the tribe of Manasseh and the tribe of Joseph are listed. Ephraim and Manasseh were the two sons of Joseph (Genesis 48:1). Since Manasseh is one of the two tribes descended from Joseph, "the tribe of Joseph" mentioned in Revelation 7:8 must refer to Ephraim. From this, we can learn that Ephraim, being the leading tribe of the house of Joseph, sometimes bore the name "Joseph"--and thus, it may not be the case that Ephraim was wiped out.

Just some thoughts...

The problem of Dan is interesting -- from what little I recall of a discussion years past, it was some sort of general apostasy that led to the deletion (fwiw).

I do of course associate Paul with Benjamin (who inadvertently ended his mother's life), but also find interesting the role of Rachel as the mother of the Jews, much like Panagia is the "mother" of Christians. (I stumbled onto this when reading the Stone ed. Tanakh, and the origin of prayers to Rachel with Joseph's plea to her as he was carried into slavery).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I do of course associate Paul with Benjamin (who inadvertently ended his mother's life), but also find interesting the role of Rachel as the mother of the Jews, much like Panagia is the "mother" of Christians. (I stumbled onto this when reading the Stone ed. Tanakh, and the origin of prayers to Rachel with Joseph's plea to her as he was carried into slavery).

Rachael's tomb is indeed interesting...

The Jews have been asking the matriarch Rachael for her intercessions since (according to one Jewish source*) the time of Joseph, who first asked his mother for her intercession as he passed her tomb on the way to his captivity. Her tomb is, to this day, a pilgrimage site as the devout still ask for her prayers.

Per this, the passage in Jeremiah (Rachel crying for her children) is interpreted in Judaism as her intercessions to God.

* Tanach, Stone edition, in a footnote.

For more, as seen here at Judaism.com:

Ever since her passing, thousands of men, women, and children have journeyed to the Tomb of Rachel (Kever Rochel) to request her intercession on their behalf. The barren pray for children. The sick pray for health. The lost and the troubled pray for release and relief. And no one ever leaves empty-handed. For Emeinu (Our Mother) always gives her blessings.

Jacob must have known that her resting place would become, like Jerusalem, a destination for pilgrims. Therefore, the Bible writes, "Over her grave Jacob put up a pillar, it is the pillar at Rachel's grave to this day." (Genesis 35:20-21)
​

For some good resources to investigate, there are two editions of the OT; the LXX, and the Stone edition of the Tanach (Masoretic, tr. by a board of Rabbis). Amazon.com: Tanach: The Stone, Student Size Black (9781578191123): Nosson Scherman: Books That Joseph -3,500 years ago - was the first to request the prayers of his deceased mother, Rachel, is described in a footnote of the Tanach.

• The Tomb of Rachel

• 
  [*]Rachel’s Tomb: The Bible vs. Tradition
  [*]

• Rachel's Tomb :: Jewish Media Resources

• Rachel Weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb

Prayers are also requested of the other matriarchs and patriarchs..and on the issue, it is with this context that many early Jewish believers had no issue with prayers unto Mary before Lord Jesus. Just as Rachel is the mother of the Jews, though literally the mother of Joseph, the use of the term "queen" for Mary is also a reference to her Son Jesus Christ as "King". Of course, the kingship of Christ is not in the worldly sense, as He does not act like worldly rulers (see the passages where Christ describes this). Rachel was for sometime a sort of "symbol" of Israel (in part because of her intercession, recorded in Jeremiah). For Mary to be both a particular person and a "symbol" of the whole has precedent (as her life also parallels, as well).
__________________

If you search the scriptures, it can be noted that there is no mention condemning this contemporary (and ancient) practice of asking for Rachel's intercession. Granted, the context of "Rachael weeping for her children" (as seen in Mt. 2:18 and Jer. 31:15.) is used differently in the NT, but this does not negate the older witness or the contemporary practice; it adds an interpretation but does not subtract. Asking for intercessions was and is common in Judaism, and contemporary with the ministry of Christ and the writing of the NT. This practice is not condemned in the NT. There is not a teaching from Christ or the apostles against this common contemporary practice and belief.

God Himself tells Jeremiah about (the dead) Rachels' prayer, and His answer to her. How could the dead be unaware, yet in Jeremiah 31, (the dead) Rachel know's of her people's (children's) exile. As I have mentioned before, Jeremiah (31) records that Rachel was not only conscious after her death, but indeed knew of the Jewish exile, pleaded with God on the behalf of the Jews, and God answered her prayer.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The problem of Dan is interesting -- from what little I recall of a discussion years past, it was some sort of general apostasy that led to the deletion (fwiw).

.

With Dan, I'm still processing what to make of it.

As another said best when it came to their giving conjecture:

Maybe the tribe of Dan is not mentioned because they became so involved in idolatry (Judges 18:30-31). The Lord hates idolatry, and this was the very thing that led God to give up on the early inhabitants of the “promised land” given to Israel. The Lord warned Israel that they were not to study or practice any of the pagan rites of the heathen nations that were overthrown by God to make way for the Children of Israel to become a nation (Exodus 23:31-33, Leviticus 18:1-5 & verses 24-30). Every thing connected with idolatry was to be burned or put to death as they entered the land to possess it (Deuteronomy 7:1-6 & Joshua 6:15-21).

​

Others are of the mindset that Israel, at the eve of the Lord's coming, shall be found re-embodied as a nation...with its tribes distinctly specified and Joseph being substituted for Dan---and possible reasons others feel are that either Dan is replaced because the Antichrist is to come from Dan....or Dan is to be Antichrist's especial tool. One can compare Genesis 49:17, Jeremiah 8:16 and Amos 8:14 when it comes to the possibility of Dan being one who won't be used except for wrong.. just as there was a Judas among the Twelve.

For myself, I don't think its necessarily the case that Dan has no place in the future. For Ezekiel 48:31-34 also specifies a gate to the city of Jerusalem for each tribe. "And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi. And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan. And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures: and three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun. At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali."

These same gates are also mentioned in Revelation 21:12-13, in the middle of the description of the new Jerusalem after the future 1000 year kingdom. "... had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates."

As Dan is mentioned first in the apportioning of land in the soon-coming Millennium (Ezekiel 48:1) and the apostle Paul assures us, "All Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26), I don't know I could say that Dan's fate is lost.

 

[Thekla]

Rachael's tomb is indeed interesting...

The Jews have been asking the matriarch Rachael for her intercessions since (according to one Jewish source*) the time of Joseph, who first asked his mother for her intercession as he passed her tomb on the way to his captivity. Her tomb is, to this day, a pilgrimage site as the devout still ask for her prayers.

Per this, the passage in Jeremiah (Rachel crying for her children) is interpreted in Judaism as her intercessions to God.

* Tanach, Stone edition, in a footnote.

For more, as seen here at Judaism.com:

Ever since her passing, thousands of men, women, and children have journeyed to the Tomb of Rachel (Kever Rochel) to request her intercession on their behalf. The barren pray for children. The sick pray for health. The lost and the troubled pray for release and relief. And no one ever leaves empty-handed. For Emeinu (Our Mother) always gives her blessings.

Jacob must have known that her resting place would become, like Jerusalem, a destination for pilgrims. Therefore, the Bible writes, "Over her grave Jacob put up a pillar, it is the pillar at Rachel's grave to this day." (Genesis 35:20-21)
​

For some good resources to investigate, there are two editions of the OT; the LXX, and the Stone edition of the Tanach (Masoretic, tr. by a board of Rabbis). Amazon.com: Tanach: The Stone, Student Size Black (9781578191123): Nosson Scherman: Books That Joseph -3,500 years ago - was the first to request the prayers of his deceased mother, Rachel, is described in a footnote of the Tanach.

• The Tomb of Rachel

• 
  [*]Rachel’s Tomb: The Bible vs. Tradition
  [*]

• Rachel's Tomb :: Jewish Media Resources

• Rachel Weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb

Prayers are also requested of the other matriarchs and patriarchs..and on the issue, it is with this context that many early Jewish believers had no issue with prayers unto Mary before Lord Jesus. Just as Rachel is the mother of the Jews, though literally the mother of Joseph, the use of the term "queen" for Mary is also a reference to her Son Jesus Christ as "King". Of course, the kingship of Christ is not in the worldly sense, as He does not act like worldly rulers (see the passages where Christ describes this). Rachel was for sometime a sort of "symbol" of Israel (in part because of her intercession, recorded in Jeremiah). For Mary to be both a particular person and a "symbol" of the whole has precedent (as her life also parallels, as well).
__________________

If you search the scriptures, it can be noted that there is no mention condemning this contemporary (and ancient) practice of asking for Rachel's intercession. Granted, the context of "Rachael weeping for her children" (as seen in Mt. 2:18 and Jer. 31:15.) is used differently in the NT, but this does not negate the older witness or the contemporary practice; it adds an interpretation but does not subtract. Asking for intercessions was and is common in Judaism, and contemporary with the ministry of Christ and the writing of the NT. This practice is not condemned in the NT. There is not a teaching from Christ or the apostles against this common contemporary practice and belief.

God Himself tells Jeremiah about (the dead) Rachels' prayer, and His answer to her. How could the dead be unaware, yet in Jeremiah 31, (the dead) Rachel know's of her people's (children's) exile. As I have mentioned before, Jeremiah (31) records that Rachel was not only conscious after her death, but indeed knew of the Jewish exile, pleaded with God on the behalf of the Jews, and God answered her prayer

That's the edition of the Masoretic OT that I use

It was recommended to me by a Greek Orthodox sister; as she noted, and I have also, learned so much about our Jewish heritage this way.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I do of course associate Paul with Benjamin (who inadvertently ended his mother's life)

Paul's background and story make interesting sense on many things...

Interesting that Christ - of the Tribe of Judah - was one whom Paul did significant work for as a member of the Tribe of Benjamin (the tribe Judah risked his life for and that always stayed close to) - and when seeing the parallels of how David/Saul clashed, it is interesting. For King Saul was of Benjamin while David was of Judah - and even though Saul was cursed, God still used Benjamin to watch over Judah for a long time. ..with Benjamin being redeemed in many ways with Saul being used to proclaim the Seed of Judah (Christ)

And although not all in Benjamin were guilty for Saul's actions (or cursed like he was), it is interesting to see God's choices.


With Paul, before going further, here is some brief information on Paul's background from the ministry. Paul made clear that His message was directly from Christ in Galatians 1:12, seeing that he was an observant Jew (Galatians 1:13-14) and had a special conversion experience....being confirmed in His ministry by the other apostles who had been with Jesus and knew intimately what the Lord talked about. Paul previously had been one of the most religious Jews of His day, scrupulously keeping the Law and relentlessly persecuting Christians (see Acts 9:1-2). Before His conversion he had been even more zealous for the Law than the Judaizers were whom He came against in the book of Galatians.. He was sincere in his zeal---but he was wrong....and when he met Jesus, His entire life was changed and he dedicated all of his energies toward building the Christian church.


As it concerns the rest of his life, on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:3-19), he came to faith and ended up staying there with the Messianic Jewish believers briefly, evangelisng in the synagouges (Acts 9:20-22). He immediately went off to Arabia ....and he was gone for a limit of about three years. Afterward, he returned to Damascus where he continued evangelising Jewish people until some of them hacthed murder plot, so that he had to escape by being lowered over the city wall in a basket (Acts 9:23-25, II Corinthians 11:30-35). Only then did Paul go up to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30) but just for two weeks. Paul wrote how he went to make Peter's acquaintance...but did not see any of the other emissaries/disciples except James, the brother of Christ. Of course, Barnabas was noted from leading Paul to the other emissaries in Acts 9:27 and techincally it was that Paul was introduced to all or most of the emissaries but spent no extended amount of time with them recieving instruction or discussing his version of the Good News......which was key for the Gentiles in their acceptance, as Christ intended.

Next he went to Syria and Cilicia, specifically to Tarsus (Acts 9:30) where he remained for a number of years until Barnabass brought him to be his assistant in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). After some time, they both went to Jerusalem with the Anthoch congregation's contribution for the relief of the Judean Brothers (Acts 11:29-30, Acts 12:25) so that Paul's second visit here was only after foutteen years (Galatians 2:1)....and during this visit, He and Barnabas (Galatians 2:1) reached an agreement with the Jerusalem leaders on principles on Gentile Evangelism, as described in Galatians 2:2-10, After this, he and Barnabas evangelized the Gentiles (Acts 13:2 and Acts 14:1-23) and Paul wrote them thie letter from Antioch either during the "some time" of Acts 14:29 or after the events of Acts 15:1-2. At the time that the letter of Galatians was written, the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:3-29) had not yet happened..so that its more specific directives concerning how the Gospel was to be presented to Gentiles were announced to the Galatians by Paul only at a later time.

What Jesus did through the ministry of Paul was to show how Christianity is truly transcultural Judaism. For during the time Paul spent in Arabia, away from the company of others and guided by the Holy Spirit, Paul put together the outline of how the Gospel, hitherto confined within an ethnically Jewish framework, could be made independent of Jewish culture and thus fully available not only to Jews....but also to Gentiles without their having to convert to Judaism (Galatians 2:2, Galatians 2:6-9, Galatians 5:2-4, etc). Paul must had seen at once that the Pharisaic Judaism that he had learned fom Rabbi Gamliel (Acts 22:3) had been shaken by the coming of Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah. But it must have taken him considerable time to think about the various specific issues------the nature of atonement and forgiveness, the authority of the written and Oral Torah, the meaning of the Messianic Prophecies, the role and future of the Jewish people, the preeminent requirement of trust for salvation, the role of ethics, and other essential theological matters---and to formulate and refine his views to what they were when he wrote the letters. As soon as he experienced God's call to be an emissary to the Gentiles, he must have realized that His need was not to be instructed in the Gospel as it had been presented to the Jews.....but to think and meditate privately on its implications for Gentiles.

No one could guide him in this, for he would be pionerring...but his training as a Jewish scholar by Gamliliel uniquely equiped him to investigate these matters in a fundamental way.

The development of Paul's faith would have been a simpler process had the acceptance of Jesus been for him, as it was for some of his fellow Jews, merely adding to traditional Judaism the belief that Jesus is indeed the long-awaited Messiah. And it would have been simpler if the acceptance of Jesus had been for him what it doubtless was to many Gentiles he led to trust, namely, the acceptance of a new religion that displaced former pagan values and practices. To Paul, the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God meant neither of these, but a radical reexamination of all his former beliefs, which issuwed in a conception of religion that differed from the other emissaries. Messianic Judaism perhaps even more than theirs differed from then-current Non-Messianic Judaism. Only prolonged thought could enable him to see just how much of the old was to be abandoned, how much revised, how much retained unchanged. So although he wasted no time before plunging enthusiastcally into evangelizing (Acts 9:20, Acts 9:22-28), his real work was developing the implications of the Messiah's coming in the light of his deep knowledge of Judaism and in the light of God's call on him to communicate this Jewish truth to the non-Jewish world.

Thus, Paul's example was the perfect example of what Jesus was talking about when he said the following in Matthew 13:52:

Matthew 13:50-5251
“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.
“Yes,” they replied. 52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

From his vast treasure of Jewish knowledge, his many years in the Gentile world, and his personal experience with the Messiah Paul developed the foundations of the transcultural Judaism which came to be known as Christianity.....

Some of what Paul noted is actually very much in harmony with what Christ taught--and much of that can be better understood if understanding the times which Jesus lived in. For many scholars have often noted how Jesus was most likely a Pharisee---an issue that wouldn't have been a problem in light of the variations of Pharisees that existed in the days of Christ. For they were divided into at least three schools: the disciples of Shammai, Hillel, and Gamaliel. These schools were especially concerned about the proper administration of the temple. The school of Shammai, who represented the more conservative wing of the group, were dominant before the destruction of the temple in A.D 70 (Mishnah, Shabbat 1.4).

But Hillel, representing a more liberal interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, had moved from Babylon to Jerusalem about a generation before Jesus, and gained influences as well. Jesus historically quoted often from this school---with many of his teachings going counter to those of the school of Shammai, the school which often composed the group of Pharisees he came against....especially as it concerns how to treat Gentiles.....and it is because of this that Jesus often came to blows with the type of Pharisees he did. For he was not with the camp saying the Gentiles had to adopt all Jewish customs. His parable of the Good Samaritan is evidence of that since the main hero is one whom Jews would've hated at the time.

With that being said, when I consider the history of the Jerusalem Church, I'm not surprised seeing that Paul was chosen to be an apostle. For the Jews there mainly kept to their own…even avoiding those who were Samaritans (Half Breed Jews) until forced out in Acts 8 by the persecution of Paul in his pre-saved state......and that’s odd to see the church do that since Jesus Himself had a heart for Samaria ( John 4:4-6, Luke 9:50-56, Luke 17:10-19, )—-and he told them SPECIFICALLY that the power of the Spirit was to go to Samaria and all the ends of the earth (Acts 1:7-9 , Matthew 28).

Though the early church prospered where they were, it seems things got inward and no action was going OUTWARD—and thus, the persecution sent them/the apostles toward Samaria anyhow ( Acts 8:1-3, Acts 8:4-6 , Acts 9:30-32 ). The church has been given a command to spread out and fill the earth as well (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). But like all people, the apostles struggled with the temptation to settle in one place and build—-and some of this may’ve been due to their desire to not go through so much transition since they already had to deal with being a new movement and seeing their Lord ascend into Heaven.

Again, Jesus commanded the first disciples in Acts 1:8 to spread out from Jerusalem until the ends of the earth are filled with the power of God. However, they all stayed in Jerusalem. Just as God forced decentralization in Genesis 11 with languages, he forced decentralization in Acts by allowing persecution (Acts 8:1) through Saul....

The resistance of Peter and the other apostles to Paul at times is interesting. For many Jewish scholars have noted that Paul actually lined up with Peter on most issues when it came to the Gentiles...with Peter doing the same thing Paul said in his letters when seeing Acts 10-11 and Acts 15 in his acknowledgements that the Holy Spirit would fall on Gentiles as well as Jews and that the Lord was not a respector of persons, but favored all who sought His face---and he noted that the Gentiles were never to feel as if they had to keep all aspects of Mosaic since it was not given to them.

Paul later confronted Peter on the issue, seeing that Peter didn't do as Christ commanded in going into all the world and treating others the same as Christ treated Gentiles...and Paul taught exactly what Christ lived out--be it in his work in Mark 5 with the demonized Gentile he healed/told to remain with his people and proclaim who he was...or with the Roman Centurion whose servant he healed and whom he noted had greater faith than all in Israel in Matthew 8...or with the woman in Matthew 15 who was a Gentile/had her daughter healed due to her great faith in Messiah...or with the woman at the Well who was a Samaritan/remained one even though she came to trust in the Messiah (and Samaritans differed from Jews at multiple points). The same thing goes for the ways he touched those with skin diseases/issues of blood and even dead bodies (as seen in Mark 6 with the little girl healed in Mark 9:18-26/Luke 8:26-56 and Luke 7:11-13 when he touched the dead body matt didn't become unclean even though the Torah warned against it...and the ways he ate with tax collectors/sinners and other unclean Jews and was willing to be criticized for it because God's Love was more important than the regulations alone.

As it concerns the effectiveness of Paul's ministry in comparision with Peter's, the history of the Book of Acts is generally where it seems to get interesting. Its funny, when reading Acts 6:1-8, that the Jerusalem church had a great feeding program going at one point, while the Corinthians and the Thessalonians really looked out for their Jerusalem counterparts when famine hit that region. And this is significant since it seems that the church in Antioch is the first multiethnic church with intentional missions and church planting as its model. We do not know exactly who started this …although we do have a list of its leaders in Acts 13:1-3 (Acts 11:21-26, Acts 15:30). Some of the names are Greek and others are Jewish–those showing that it was not simply an “ethnic” church with programs only for one group at the exclusion of others. There was multi cultural mixture happening…

The Church in Antioch was radically different from others seeing how they sent their very best (Paul and Barnabas) out into uncharted territory rather than keep things within the camp—and whereas the Jerusalem Church looked out for its own, it didn’t do so for others abroad….and had to LITERALLY be forced through persecution to spread out. To see how the Gentile Churches had to literally keep sending support to the Jerusalem Church (Romans 15:25-28, I Corinthians 16:1-23) is amazing, especially seeing how the Mother Church of Jerusalem was responsible for so much


In regards to the OP, the fact that the other apostles (including Matthias who was chosen afterward to replace Judas amongst the 12) do not seem to have been comfortable with doing what Christ commanded them seems to indicate that Paul was truly chosen to get the job done that they dropped the ball on - and although Matthias did many amazing things, I do wonder if perhaps he....or any other of the disciples...could've done what Paul did/was remembered for if they had chosen to go out.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This was easier almost than I wanted it to be
Equal-to-apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It mentions all those that I'd known of, but that doesn't mean there aren't more of course.
).

Interesting - and thanks for sharing on the issue

It'd be interesting to see how many apostles may've been present that we do not know about - almost as if they're "unsung heros" like soldiers in battle you never hear of due to the missions they were given (many covert and special operations) and often living lives no one knew of because they were in the background....yet the ones who were seen get all the credit for making the mission successful. From a sci-fi perspective, the best analogy (flawed as it may be) which I can think of is from Star Wars...if ever hearing of something called the "Emperor's Hand "- a Force-sensitive operative recruited, trained, and employed by Emperor Palpatine to perform missions that were impossible, secret, or both (most being assassins, spies, and operatives ) - for he used his hands to address enemies where his more obvious tools, like Darth Vader or the Imperial Navy would be ineffective, too public, or inappropriate ( and common targets included rogue governors, traitorous commanders, rebellious leaders, or other internal or external concerns).

The concept always stood out to me due to the fact that the same principles apply to the Church in many ways - from a GOOD SIDE - for there are times other leaders have too much image/prestige to do certain things in other venues...and thus, it's beneficial to have other leaders who are less public" than others

As mentioned earlier, the man in Luke 9 (who was casting out demons in the name of Christ) comes immediately to mind For we have no idea of the fullness of what Christ did with others OUTSIDE of the 12 - and we shouldn't be surprised that He did things. For some who he utilized as missionaries of His Gospel, they were not allowed to be seen publically with the apostles wherever he went. In example, with the Demoniac he healed - as Jesus sent him away with purpose. ...for as the text says, “ As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19 Jesus did not let him, but said, Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19 / Mark 5:1 /Mark 5:20 ). The next time Jesus came to the region, there were some 4,000 others waiting to hear from Him (Mark 7:31 /Mark 8.1). ..and the man, as a Gentile, did what he did in reaching OTHER Gentiles where they were at/telling them of Jesus in a way Gentiles could understand. Surely this man played a key role in creating this second scene by his faithful witness. And yet you have to wonder - was there any follow up with the man and the Lord? Surely there had to have been some sort of encouragement for him in his work if he struggled - and as the Lord is able to communicate with others beyond speaking one on one/in person, I'd not be surprised if Christ had dialouges with him via the Holy Spirit or messengers while the other apostles were busy doing other things.

There was the reality that the Lord works with others in differing ways - regardless of where they are at....and scripture doesn't have to always record all the details.

And with that man who was doing apostolic work with casting out demons on the level the Apostles did and others, I have to wonder.

Aside: Georgian chant is amazing; a priest from Georgia has started a monastery in PA and so we were able to hear this chant in our Liturgy.
Here's the kontakian of St. Nina/o equal to the apostles.
(The flow of this hymn sounds like a musical description of mountainous topography or a stream coursing in its bed ...)
KONTAKION OF SAINT NINO - Sacred Georgian Chant - YouTube

Very melodic and St.Nina is amazing

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That's the edition of the Masoretic OT that I use .

It was recommended to me by a Greek Orthodox sister; as she noted, and I have also, learned so much about our Jewish heritage this way

Sweet