Peter, the Old Testament, and Matthias. Acts 1:1-15

Jesus is confronting the Pharisees in Matthew 15:7 ^NASB "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: [8] 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. [9] BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN'" The question about verse 7 is: did Isaiah literally prophesy about the Pharisees? Then in verses 8 and 9 is a quotation from Isaiah 29:13. If we go back to Isaiah 29:13 it is talking about a historical event. The people of Isaiah's day who are rejecting his message and ignoring what God is saying to them, and it is their negative volition that is being rebuked by Isaiah. But when the Lord said this He was applying it typologically to the present day. The negative volition of the Jews at the time of Isaiah is a type of the antitype which is the Pharisees negative volition at the time of Christ. Isaiah is not making a literal prophecy in Isaiah 29:13, he is specifically rebuking his generation, so the Lord is just applying this.

Then there is the third use which is literal history, and then it is simply applied to a current situation. There are several things that are said in the original passage, the original historical context, several things that characterize the present context of the writer of Scripture, but there is one point of commonality that is the area of analogy. This is why the writer under inspiration of Scripture says this. Matthew 2:17 ^NASB "Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: [18] 'A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH, WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING, RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN; AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED, BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE.'"  This is a quote from Jeremiah 31:15. The only point of similarity between the two reference is the mothers' of Israel who are pictured by Rachel, the wife of Jacob, weeping because they won't see their children again. The reason differs, the place differs, but there is only that one point of similarity and so an application is made of the historical passage to the current passage. This is done under divine inspiration.

Then the fourth use is one of the most interesting because this happens several times in the New Testament. There is an example of this from rabbinic literature in Midrash […] 63:11 where is says: "Hence it is written as in the verse, 'And I will no more make you a reproach, a famine among the nations.'" This particular prophecy is not stated in any one particular location in the Old Testament. There is no actual verse that reads like this but it is a combination of concepts that are found in Ezekiel 36:30 and Joel 1:19. So here is an example straight out of a commentary written about the same time, the first century or a little earlier, where they use this same approach, pulling together the main ideas of several verses in the Old Testament and stating that as a fulfilment. We see it in Scripture in Matthew 2:23 ^NASB "and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. {This was} to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" There is no passage anywhere in Scripture that states that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.

As we get into our passage here there are three or four citations from the Old Testament which we need to look at and understand how they are being used, and evaluate the legitimacy of that and also see how that fits within the pattern of the New Testament. When Peter gathers the 120 together in the upper room we are told: Acts 1:15 ^NASB "At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, [16] 'Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.'" What Peter says is a statement that the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas. So where did this occur? Where in the Psalms do we find David mentioning Judas? We don't, so this isn't an example of literal prophecy, literal fulfilment. It could be summary. We think that in Acts 16 he is simply summarizing what is said in various messianic psalms which speak of the enemies of the Messiah. We need to realize that the royal psalms all anticipate something that is similar between what is going on with the Davidic king, David, and with the future son of David, the Son of Man, the future King, future Messiah. So there are parallels that take place. In verse 16 we really have a summary usage.

There is no specific passage that we can go to for this. There are, though, a number of different places that indicate that they are clearly royal psalms, messianic psalms, and when they speak of the enemies of David that is a pattern of type of the enemies of the Messiah. One such verse is found in Psalm 41:9 ^NASB "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me." The original verse may be summary but if this verse is the verse that Peter had in mind (and we don't know because he doesn't quote it) then it would have to do with typology. Summary is probably the best way to categorize this: that "the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas."

Psalm 41:1 ^NASB "How blessed is he who considers the helpless; The LORD will deliver him in a day of trouble. [2] The LORD will protect him and keep him alive, And he shall be called blessed upon the earth; And do not give him over to the desire of his enemies. [3] The LORD will sustain him upon his sickbed; In his illness, You restore him to health." That is a reference to the Davidic king, to David himself. [4] As for me, I said, 'O LORD, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.' [5] My enemies speak evil against me, 'When will he die, and his name perish?'" And so in the Psalms the enemies of David are parallel to the enemies of the Messiah, the greater son of David. [6] "And when he comes to see {me,} he speaks falsehood; His heart gathers wickedness to itself; When he goes outside, he tells it. [7] All who hate me whisper together against me; Against me they devise my hurt, {saying,} [8] A wicked thing is poured out upon him, That when he lies down, he will not rise up again. [9] Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me." Verse 9 is usually thought to refer to Ahithophel who betrayed David and then hung himself, 2 Samuel 16:20-17:3. Yet it is not certain, of course, that this is exactly the verse that Peter had in mind, but it is one of several places in the royal psalms that depict this.

Luke quotes from Peter in Acts 1:16, 17 and then in verse 18 we have a parenthesis; this is Luke writing. Peter didn't say verses 18 and 19, Luke is inserting this because he is writing to Theophilus, a Gentile, and he is explaining who Judas was. [18] ^NASB "(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out." Critics will question this and say Judas didn't purchase a field, he hung himself but he didn't fall down and split open. [19] "And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)" This is a fulfilment and it fulfils and Old Testament prophecy related to the betrayal of the Messiah, Zechariah 11:12, 13 ^NASB "I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give {me} my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty {shekels} of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, {that} magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty {shekels} of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.'" This event is a type of what happens with Judas and it is alluded to in Matthew 27:3-8 ^NASB "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.' But they said, 'What is that to us? See {to that} yourself!' And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, 'It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.' And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day." So this is the literal fulfilment of the betrayal prophecy.

How do we solve the problem of "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out." It is conceivable that when he hung himself the branch broke, or something like that, and his body fell down and this is what happened. Or it could be that when he was discovered it might have been a day or two later and the body had already gone through a level of putrefaction, so that when they cut the rope he was hanging by then his body fell down and split open. So there are ways of explaining that without saying, Oh golly, now we have a contradiction in Scripture. 

Acts 1:20 goes back to Peter, so this shows us Luke's personal inspired commentary and approval of what Peter is saying because he is coming in and giving further inspired explanation of what Peter is saying and why he is saying it. ^NASB "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'" Peter is going into the Psalms. It may appear to us that he is doing this just willy-nilly, just grabbing a phrase here and grabbing a phrase there, but there are so many places in Acts where we find this kind of thing and if we stop and analyse those what we see is that the disciples are thinking profoundly about the meaning that is in the Psalms and are taking these phrases and words and weaving them together to create an argument. What Peter is doing here is taking two different passages in the Old Testament, Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. Psalm 69 is an Old Testament passages that is clearly speaking of the Messiah and there are a number of verses that are taken out of the psalm and applied by Jesus or by the disciples to events in Jesus' life. It is a psalm of David and is considered to be another royal psalm, another messianic psalm that is applied to the Messiah. It starts off when David is crying out to God for help when he is under attack by his enemies.

Psalm 69:1 ^NASB "Save me, O God, For the waters have threatened my life. [2] I have sunk in deep mire, and there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and a flood overflows me. [3] I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched; My eyes fail while I wait for my God. [4] Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head…" That is going to be quoted in the New Testament but what is the original context here? He is talking about the enemies, whether it is Saul or whether it is at the time of Absolom there are numerous enemies who are chasing David.  This is a historical situation. "…Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies; What I did not steal, I then have to restore. [5] O God, it is You who knows my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from You." Obviously the one who is writing is a sinner, he is not putting these words in the mouth of the Messiah. He is talking about his original historical context. [6] "May those who wait for You not be ashamed through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; May those who seek You not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel."

John 2:17 ^NASB "His disciples remembered that it was written, "ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME." After the resurrection Jesus' disciples are going to remember that this was written. So John is applying something from the Old Testament in Psalm 69, the zeal that Jesus had for the temple, to Jesus. We find this in Psalm 69:9 ^NASB "For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me." The first half of that verse is quoted in John 2:17; the second half is going to be found also in the New Testament. If we just look at this in terms of John 2:17 it looks as if the disciples are just grabbing this phrase out of Psalm 69 because it seems to be similar to, and applying it. But this is done under divine inspiration. This would be a historical event with typology because David is using it to refer to himself as the royal king and the type is the Messiah as the royal Messiah.

Another example is John 15:25 ^NASB "But {they have done this} to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, 'THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.'" Here is Jesus taking a phrase in what might appear to us to be out of context and it comes out of Psalm 69:4. All Jesus does is slightly change the pronouns. So there is a typology here from the historical event in David's life to the circumstance of rejection of the Messiah by the leaders in Israel.

Then Romans 15:3 where Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit does the same kind of thing. ^NASB "For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, 'THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME.'" This is a quote from the second part of Psalm 69:9. So from reading Psalm 69 we wouldn't necessarily see anything there that is a prophecy related to Jesus, but under inspiration Paul takes a phrase and says, see, this applies to that circumstance. So this shows the pattern of how these psalms are used.

Romans 11:9, 10 ^NASB "And David says, 'LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER.'" Paul is dealing with the plan for Israel and God's future for Israel. This comes from Psalm 69:22, 23 ^NASB "May their table before them become a snare; And when they are in peace, {may it become} a trap. May their eyes grow dim so that they cannot see, And make their loins shake continually." In the original context this doesn't have anything to do historically with what is going on in Romans chapter eleven. But there is a type, a pattern there that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is taking and applying to the rejection generation of the Jews at the time of Jesus in the first century.

So all of those uses coming out of Psalm 69 fit the same pattern and the same way that Peter quotes from Psalm 69:25 when he takes that first phrase, "Let their dwelling place be desolate, let no one live in their tents." Peter says: Acts 1:20 ^NASB "It is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'…" He is applying that to Judas. If we look at the context there is a condemnation being made against those who have rejected David, and verses 22 and 23 are then lifted and applied in Romans 11 to the rejection generation of Jesus' time. 

Psalm 69:24, 25 ^NASB "Pour out Your indignation on them, And may Your burning anger overtake them. May their camp be desolate; May none dwell in their tents." So the original historical context is talking about God bringing a harsh judgment against the enemies of the Messiah. Peter picks up that verse and applies it to the judgment that God brought on Judas, the sin unto death, causing Judas to hang himself and to have such horrible guilt and remorse before he did that. That is an application and use of Psalm 69:25 which fits consistently with all these other passages that are quoted out of Psalm 69 by Jesus, John, Paul and others.

Then that second quote that we find in Acts 1:20: "and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'" This comes out of Psalm 109:8 ^NASB "Let his days be few; Let another take his office." We have studied Psalm 110 and it fits within a pattern that we find in the structure of the psalms from Psalm 107 to Psalm 113. In Psalms 107-109 the main theme is a cry or plea on the part of Israel for a deliverer. In Psalms 110-113 the main theme is that there is a praise to God for providing a deliverer. What is sandwiched between them is the hinge psalm, Psalm 110, which is all about God's provision of this deliverer who sits at His right hand. At the beginning of the Psalm He is the one who is seated at the right hand and is the one who is going to rule. In the last part He is the one who is going to bring victory. In between is verse 4, the focal point of the psalm, which says He is going to be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Psalm 109 comes at the end of those introductory psalms which express a plea for deliverance. This is also seen and understood historically as a messianic psalm. The verse in question: "Let his days be few; Let another take his office."

Reading the context: Psalm 109:1 ^NASB "O God of my praise, Do not be silent! [2] For they have opened the wicked and deceitful mouth against me; They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. [3] They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, And fought against me without cause." This is all said by David in terms of his historical situation but it is also applied as a messianic psalm typologically to Jesus. This is true of Jesus as the greater son of David. The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are accusing Him of all manner of false things and slandering Him. He is innocent; He is not guilty of any crime or any sin.  [4] In return for my love they act as my accusers…" That is applied to Jesus who is perfect love towards all of Israel and yet they rejected His love and they are accusing Him. "… But I am {in} prayer. [5] Thus they have repaid me evil for good And hatred for my love." All of this applies to the rejection of the Messiah. [6] "Appoint a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand." This is applied to Judas as the one who betrayed Jesus and brings accusation against Him. [7] "When he is judged, let him come forth guilty, And let his prayer become sin. [8] Let his days be few; Let another take his office." So Peter is taking this in a context of messianic rejection that speaks of the one who would betray the Messiah and then he is applying that to Judas, "Let another take his office."

Back in Acts chapter one Peter is structuring his rationale for replacing Judas according to a use of Scripture that fits the pattern of the interpretation of these psalms in context. So he draws a conclusion. Acts 1:21 ^NASB "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—[22] beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these {must} become a witness with us of His resurrection." He sees the primary purpose of this person as being a witness of the resurrection, but he had to also be a witness of His entire life.

Normally when we look up in any commentary and read anybody who is talking about the qualifications of an apostle, no matter who they are or whether they accept this or not as a legitimate decision on the part of Peter, they all seem to think that part of the qualifications for being an apostle is that they are a witness of the resurrection and of Jesus teaching. They quote this as if this is right. If we did not believe this was a legitimate decision we wouldn't be quoting Peter here as giving legitimate qualifications for an apostle. He is either right or he is wrong, we can't say he is wrong on part of it and right on the other part. Nowhere else in Paul's defence of his apostleship does he repeat both of these qualifications; he just repeats the fact that he has to be a witness of His resurrection. That would not in and if itself negate the other part.

What they do at that point is appoint two men. They are thinking about this, giving this serious thought. They are looking at all of those who have been with them for the last three plus years and they realize that there are only two men who have a solid reputation and were believers from the very beginning. Acts 1:23 ^NASB "So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias." These are the only two who could possibly qualify as being with the disciples.

The next thing they do is pray about it. We all know that just because somebody prays about it doesn't mean it is so. There is not a single example of the disciples praying anywhere in the book of Acts that is condemned. Acts 1:24 ^NASB "And they prayed and said, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen." So they are recognizing the principle that Jesus is the one who would choose a disciple. They are not making that choice, they have selected two. But a question: Maybe they should have just left it alone and let Jesus choose whomever out of the whole group instead of from just those two. [25] "to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. [26] And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles."

What is all this about casting lots? This is a major issue for a lot of people. We don't know exactly how this worked. It is not throwing dice. It was something like drawing straws, something of that nature, but there was an element of chance to it that God would provide the answer. This is a legitimate means of decision making that is seen throughout the Old Testament. God never rebuked it, in fact there are a number of different occasions where using the lot to make a decision was commanded by God. In Leviticus 16:8-10 the selection of the scapegoat was made by lot. ^NASB "Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat. Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat."

In the allocation of tribal lands and in heritance after the conquest was done by casting lots. Numbers 26:55, 56; Joshua 14:2 and others; Judges 1:3. It is also seen in the determination of families who had to relocate after a war or devastation of some sense. Nehemiah 11, as well as in Judges 20:9. In determining the order of the priests and their duties this was also done by lot, based on 1 Chronicles 24:5-19; Nehemiah 10:34. It was done to determine an offender. One of the clearest examples of using the lot was in identifying Achan, the man who disobeyed God in the conquest of Jericho. So it is very clear that the use of casting lots was a divinely authorized means of decision making in Scripture. It was done in a number of other situations and Proverbs 16:33 states that the decision of casting the lot is from the Lord. ^NASB "The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD." This was used legitimately in the period when the canon of Scripture wasn't closed, when there was still direct special revelation going on. There is nothing negative ever said in Scripture about casting lots in order to determine a decision. Peter is doing this on the basis of an accepted normative practice of interpreting the Old Testament and he is not doing this apart from the Holy Spirit.

One well-known radio broadcaster stated three reasons why he didn't believe this was legitimate. He said: "The strongest argument is that it is not the leading of the Holy Spirit; neither was it God's leading in the casting of lots." In light of what Scripture says there is a problem with anyone saying it is not the leading of the Holy Spirit. In John 20:22, 23 ^NASB "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, {their sins} have been forgiven them; if you retain the {sins} of any, they have been retained.'" Verse 23 is a statement that is made several times by Jesus in reference to their apostolic authority. John 20 is in the same scene where Thomas has put his hand on the wounds of Jesus and in that same scene Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit on them, commissions them as apostles and gives them new authority as apostles from His resurrection body. So it is very hard to say that these guys are operating without the Holy Spirit in light of John 20:22, 23. As for the second statement saying to you can't say it is God's leading in the casting of lots, it is still in a period before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit hasn't been given as a whole, a period when no New Testament revelation has been given, and the church hasn't been given birth to yet. Both of his arguments violate several laws of logic, so you can't really go there to argue that case at all.

In his third argument he asks the question: Is Matthias actually the one who took the place of Judas? He said: "I don't think so, I believe that in His own time the Lord Jesus himself appointed one to take the place of Judas Iscariot." Okay, what is his basis for that? That is the question. His is not a Scriptural basis, it is expressing an opinion and it is not basing it on an exegetical argument. Then he says: "The reason for this is we don't hear another word about Matthias; nothing is recorded of his ministry." Nothing is recorded of the ministry of Nathaniel, Bartholomew, Matthew or any of the others. The only ones we ever hear anything more about in Scripture are Peter and John, and James's name is mentioned in Acts but nothing he said. So nine of the twelve (or eight of the eleven if we don't want to include Matthias) are never mentioned again in Scripture. But we do have historical allusions to them in the first century, except Matthias as an apostle and others, and tell us where they went and what they did. Some of it is legend; some of it contradicts in that what one person says contradicts what another says, so the data is not always the best.

At the end of the day the strongest argument against Matthias is that Jesus didn't directly choose him. But that only works if the lot argument is invalid. If the casting of the lots isn't right, that it was done illegitimately, then we can say that Jesus did not directly choose Matthias. The main weakness with Matthias is the textual argument. If we say it wasn't right to choose Matthias because Jesus didn't directly choose him that is a theological deduction, not a textual argument. The text never says that, that is a deduction from an observation. The text, though, in Acts 6:2 says "the twelve." ^NASB "So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, 'It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.'" There is one place in John 20 where it speaks of the twelve but there is only eleven, but Judas may not have hung himself yet. We are not sure on the chronology there. It is very clear from Matthew 28:16 they were called "the eleven": ^NASB "But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated." In Mark 16:14 they are called the eleven; in Luke 24:9, 33 they are called the eleven. So on these four distinct occasions the disciples minus Judas are called the eleven. At the end of Acts chapter one Matthias is numbered with the eleven, so he is added to the eleven. Then in Acts 2 Peter speaks along with the eleven. They are seen in Acts 2 as twelve; they are seen in Acts 6:2 as twelve. So it is clear that they included Matthias in their number, and that is a textual argument. Frankly, it seems a textual argument always trumps a theological deduction.

So there are problems with the selection of Matthias. But having gone through all of this what we see is very likely God the Holy Spirit who has been breathed out by the Lord Jesus Christ in John 20, and who is guiding and directing the eleven until the day of Pentecost, means that they are not just operating on their own apart from the Holy Spirit. The injection by Luke of his own explanation, in the middle of Peter's sermon in verses 18 & 19 describing what happened to Judas, indicates that he is not being judgmental of what Peter is doing. He is writing this thirty years later. So if this was a mistake and Matthias wasn't part of the twelve why does it matter thirty years later unless what Luke is showing is how God is overseeing and expanding the church from this base.

The other problem that we run into is Revelation chapter twenty-one which speaks of the twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel. If that means, and we are not sure that it does, that there are only twelve apostles and no more then Matthias isn't legitimate and the apostle Paul would have to be the twelfth. But if that means of the twelve that Jesus originally chose—and He spoke to them in the Gospels clearly and said they were the ones who would judge over Israel (that is not envisioning Paul at that point)—He could easily be saying those twelve are related to Israel and the Jews, and they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel, but Paul as the unique apostle to the Gentiles is distinct and is not considered part of the twelve, he would be the thirteenth apostle saved as one out of time.

So we get to make the decision. One the one hand Jesus didn't directly choose Matthias and was the only one who wasn't chosen directly by Him. But if you say that you have to say the lot is not a legitimate decision maker and you have a problem with a lot of the Old Testament. On the other hand, if Matthias is chosen we can't argue that he was never heard from again because most of the rest of them were never heard from again. It is just showing how at this early stage before the day of Pentecost the apostles are trying to organize themselves and the Lord gives them a freedom, and as we get into Acts we will see that He gives a freedom to the apostles in the decision-making to organize themselves. It is done under the supervision of the Holy Spirit but what we end up with is something that moves beyond the apostles. They are just the foundation and it moves by the time we get to the end of the book of Acts to a circumstance where the church is led by local leaders, by the pastor, the deacons and the local congregation.

The bottom line is, in some ways it doesn't matter because we don't hear from many of the others again although they do have a great role in the plan of God.