Jonah's Gourd

[hillsbororiver]

From LOF Part 9;

SATAN ALWAYS SHOWS UP WHERE HE IS NEEDED

Satan entered Eden as "that Old Serpent [Satan]" and deceived Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. Satan didn't sneak into the garden against God's will. He performed a needful task with our first parents. God knew what Satan was going to do to Adam and Eve. God did not try to prevent it. It is all part of God's master plan.

Just as God has provided food for mankind, He has also provided food for Satan. And just what kind of food does Satan dine on?  Satan dines on mankind.

"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and DUST SHALL YOU EAT all the days of your life" (Gen. 3:14).

This is, of course a parable. That "serpent" in the garden was none other than

"...that OLD SERPENT, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world..." (Rev. 12:9).

And this is the same serpent that "deceived" Eve.

Man is the "dust of the earth" upon which Satan dines: "The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthy [dust]..." (I Cor. 15:47). Man IS 'dust.'

"...for DUST you are, and unto DUST shall you return" (Gen. 3:19).

When God told the serpent devil Satan that he would eat DUST, He was telling him that he would eat MAN (adam). And this is exactly what Peter tells us in his epistle:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour [Gk: swallow down/eat]" (I Pet. 5:8).

Satan dines and thrives on the meat of the "carnal [Greek: sarx; flesh] mind [which] is enmity [hostility/hatred] against God: for it is not subject to the [spiritual] law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7).

Satan does not seek to devour everyone for food; only those who are carnally [fleshly] minded represent a great steak dinner to him.

Satan even had King David for dinner:

"And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel" (I Chron. 21:1).

But always remember, Satan never operates beyond his God-given parameters as we will see in the case of Job.

God gave Satan charge over Job, his body, and all his possessions, to try him severely before God:

"And the Lord said unto SATAN, Behold, he [Job] is in your hand; but save his life" (Job 2:6).

It was GOD'S idea to severely try Job, not Satan's. But Satan took strict orders from God as to just how he could try Job. Satan got permission from God at each and every step of this severe trying of Job. Do we think God does it differently today? Do we think Satan now has "free reign"- "free will?" Do we think that God "changes?" Nonsense: "For I am the LORD, I change not..." (Mal. 3:6).

David prayed for God to use Satan in judging his enemies:

"Set you a wicked man over him: and let SATAN stand at his right hand" (Psalm 109:6).

Are not these activities of Satan necessary? Does God use Satan for no good purpose? Then why can't men see that God also CREATED Satan for these very purposes?

Satan is constantly finding fault with God's Chosen ones:

"And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and SATAN standing at his right hand to resist [accuse] him" (Zech. 3:1).

Remember, Satan can do NOTHING without God's approval. When God completed His creating, He said

"And God saw EVERY THING that He had made [including Satan, the Adversary], and, behold, it was VERY GOOD..." (Gen. 1:31).

Satan was not only necessary, but he was, in fact, PERFECT for the job that God created him to fulfill.


http://bible-truths.com/lake9.html

[hillsbororiver]

From LOF Part 10;

THE FOLLOWING FOR MATURE READERS ONLY

I stated that Satan has his part in the spiritual salvation of mankind. When God created our first parents in the Garden of Eden—Satan was there. When God called out the nation of Israel—Satan was there. When God wanted to test Job, one of the most perfect and righteous men who have ever lived—Satan was there. Whenever God chose to show mercy rather than condemnation on His people—Satan was there. When our Lord was being tested in the wilderness in preparation for His ministry—Satan was there. When Jesus chose Peter to possess the keys to the kingdom of God—Satan was there. Wherever God's true gospel is preached in the world—Satan was there. Whenever God first shines the light of His Truth in man's heaven—Satan was there. When God wanted to Sacrifice His Son for the sins of the world—Satan was there. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to God's Holy Spirit—Satan was there. When Paul needed assistance in correcting a fornicator and a blasphemer—Satan was there. Whenever saints are tempted to disobey—Satan was there. When Paul himself was in danger of being lifted up because of transcendent spiritual revelations—Satan was there. Whenever, even the saints are fooled by great power and lying signs and wonders—Satan is there. When we look for the source of all the lying deception of the whole world—again, Satan is there.

BUT WHERE IS SATAN NOW?

In previous lessons I spent a great deal of time proving that although the Seven Churches of Asia had specific characteristics, nonetheless, all of these characteristics are representative of ALL the churches down through the centuries. It is stated that Ephesus "left her first love." Did not Sardis also "leave her first love." How could the Sardis church be "dead" except that they too, left their first love? And so, they all left their first love, and they ALL committed ALL of the sins that all the rest of the seven churches committed. Likewise, Ephesus was promised the "tree of life" for those who repented and "overcame." ALL OF THE CHURCHES ARE PROMISED THE "TREE OF LIFE" if they repent and overcome. What applies to one church applies TO ALL!

http://bible-truths.com/lake10.html

[Kat]

Hi Joe,

I just wanted to make a comment on Matthias.  There was a necessary requirement in who they would consider. 

Act 1:21  "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
v. 22  beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

It had to be someone who had been a disciple for the whole ministry of Christ and was a witness to it all and His resurrection.

It seems that the casting of lots is shown used in the OT and here is a reference in Proverbs.

Pro 16:33  The lot is cast into the lap,
       But its every decision is from the LORD.

I believe that this lot casting was done before Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit.  So I think that they resorted back to a common practice, but after they received the indwelling of the Spirit they would not have needed to used lots any more.
I'm just thinking that as Matthias' being added is a part of the Scripture, so then that seems proof it was the right choice.  But I just thought I would add this on the subject.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Joe,

Hi Kat,

I just wanted to make a comment on Matthias.  There was a necessary requirement in who they would consider.

But who's requirement was it? This is Peter speaking as you noted before Pentecost, before being filled with His Spirit. Didn't Jesus tell His disciples that it was He who did the choosing? What I have found interesting is that perhaps this office of the 12th apostle belonging to Judas/Satan continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas. So maybe the Synagogue of Satan had it's beginning (conception) at the very start of the church and only got worse as the other disciples died and the only original "chosen" (by God) apostle still around after 2000 years is Satan! 

Act 1:21  "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
v. 22  beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

It had to be someone who had been a disciple for the whole ministry of Christ and was a witness to it all and His resurrection.

What caught my attention was actually the lack of a directive from Jesus or Jesus Himself choosing a replacement during the 40 days He spent with His disciples after the resurrection, if this was a matter of supreme importance it is interesting that Jesus never addressed it. Look at the verse preceding the one you quoted.

Act 1:20  For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take.

No Man? Could this be saying this bishopric would be filled by another who is not a man and even Peter did not understand the full implication of this?

(Here is the verse from Psalms: Psa 69:25  Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.)

Is it a stretch to say Satan has been the Bishop of the church through the years and even at this time?   

It seems that the casting of lots is shown used in the OT and here is a reference in Proverbs.

Pro 16:33  The lot is cast into the lap,
       But its every decision is from the LORD.

That is very true but do an Esword search on casting lots and you will see more often than not that good results were the exception rather than the rule.

I believe that this lot casting was done before Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit.  So I think that they resorted back to a common practice, but after they received the indwelling of the Spirit they would not have needed to used lots any more.

As Ray has taught the apostles were not truly converted until after Pentecost so resorting to common practice was actually reverting to the wisdom of man, it seemed to be the right thing to do.

Pro 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Peter is/was well known for being impulsive and impatient, that he made this decision before actually being converted (at Pentecost) has made me rethink this traditional doctrine about this choosing of Matthias.

It kind of struck me that it (Matthias' appointment) takes one's eyes off of the placement of "a devil" into the church from the very beginning, by the will of God!

I'm just thinking that as Matthias' being added is a part of the Scripture, so then that seems proof it was the right choice.  But I just thought I would add this on the subject.

Kat I always appreciate your input, I don't think that this idea conflicts with what the scriptures say and Ray teaches, Satan is always right there to thwart those who are called by God, Peter was mistaken about the inclusion of the Gentiles (and other things) until he was corrected by His Spirit.

Of course everything fits perfectly into God's ultimate plan but the more I study the more it becomes apparent that everything the church(es) teach is wrong, that there is so much to rethink, reevaluate as we pray for a deeper understanding.   

mercy, peace and love
Kat

His Peace to you Sister,

Joe

[Kat]

Hi Joe,

I must say I have not thought of all the implications that you brought up.  Interesting subject indeed and that gives me a lot more to consider.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[ericsteven]

Hi Joe,

Your conclusions about Mathias's replacement of Judas all sound very well-thought out, but I take issue with a few of the things you said (and these are of course just my opinions):

What I have found interesting is that perhaps this office of the 12th apostle belonging to Judas/Satan continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas.

Where in Scripture does it say that Satan ever held the office of apostle in the first place?  Yes, Scripture says that Satan entered into Judas at a very specific point in time, but up until then, whether for good or ill, it was actually Judas himself that occupied that position as apostle.  Satan did not enter Judas until the time had come for the betrayal.

Luke 22:3ff   Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.  And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

In Revelation, the wall of the New Jerusalem is said to be built on twelve foundations in which are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.  (And yes, I understand this is not a literal wall.)

Revelation 21:14   and the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

I'm sure we can all agree that Judas' name is not included in these foundations because he died before the Spirit was given, but are we to believe that Satan's name is included in these foundations because that 'office...continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas?'  I hope not.

Some may say that Paul was the true choice of God to fulfill those Scriptures, but nowhere is Paul referred to nor does Paul refer to himself as one of the twelve.  In fact, Paul refers to the twelve as distinct from himself:

I Cor 15:5   And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Obviously Mathias was not officially chosen at this point, since he was not chosen until after the ascension, but since one of the requirements spoken by Peter was that the one chosen must have been present from the beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry til His ascension, Paul could say without contradiction that He appeared to the twelve.

What caught my attention was actually the lack of a directive from Jesus or Jesus Himself choosing a replacement during the 40 days He spent with His disciples after the resurrection, if this was a matter of supreme importance it is interesting that Jesus never addressed it.

We are told in John 21:25...

John 21:25   And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Included in that statement, I would think, would be things that Jesus spoke as well.  So there are obviously things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded for whatever reason that could have had a bearing on their understanding, but of which we will not know until we have the opportunity to ask Him/them ourselves.

That said, we DO know that Jesus opened up their understanding of the Scriptures after His resurrection concerning those things that must be fulfilled from the Law, the prophets and the psalms concerning Him.

Luke 24:44ff    And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.  Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Now before anyone says that this was only those Scriptures concerning Jesus specifically, let me point out that the gospel writers quote several OT Scriptures having to do with the coming of John the Baptist in a way that they probably would not have known unless Jesus opened their understanding to them.  So though they weren't specifically speaking of Jesus, they concerned Jesus because John was the one who was to prepare the way for Him.  In like manner, I'm sure Jesus would have opened up their understanding of the Scriptures concerning Judas and his replacement because obviously anything having to do with Judas as Jesus' betrayer concerns Jesus. 

Peter knew what those Scriptures now meant because Jesus opened up his understanding of them.  Just because it is not recorded that Jesus did not tell them how they were to be fulfilled does not mean that He didn't. 

I guess I just do not understand why you don't think Mathias was chosen by God.  You say...

No Man? Could this be saying this bishopric would be filled by another who is not a man and even Peter did not understand the full implication of this?

I believe that your focus on this word 'man' is misdirected.  The Greek word for 'man' (anthrōpos) is not even used in that verse.  The word is mē and is often translated as 'not' or 'no' or 'no one' and a few times as 'none,' depending on the translation.  Here is how a couple of other translations cite that Scripture:

Acts 1:20   for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.  (YLT)

Acts 1:20   For it is written in the scroll of the Psalms, Let his domicile become desolate, And let no one be dwelling in it, and 'Let his supervision be taken by another.'  (CLV)

If the word 'man' had been used in this verse, your statement could very well be accepted, but since it does not, I don't see how you can use that as a point of logic to say that Satan, not being a man, was the one to fill Judas' position.  While I don't think Satan is even in view in these verses, even if he was, he would definitely fall under the umbrella of 'no one' dwelling in Judas' habitation, whatever one takes that to mean.

The truth is a man, Mathias, was placed in that position.  To deny that he was chosen by the Lord, I think, is to deny that he was himself filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and that he stood with Peter and the other apostles before the men from every nation.

Acts 2:1     When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord (including Mathias who was chosen just before in the last chapter) in one place.

Acts 2:4     And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:14     But Peter, standing up with the eleven (including Mathias, not Satan), raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words...

Peter is/was well known for being impulsive and impatient, that he made this decision before actually being converted (at Pentecost) has made me rethink this traditional doctrine about this choosing of Matthias.

Yes, Peter was impulsive and impatient, there is no doubt.  But why wouldn't he, once he was filled with the Holy Spirit and gained the knowledge that, "Hey maybe Mathias wasn't the fulfillment of that prophecy after all," do something to try and rectify the situation?  Whether or not one believes Peter was acting impulsively or not (which I don't think he was in this instance), Jesus put His stamp of approval on Mathias when He sent the Holy Spirit on him as one of the twelve standing on the day of Pentecost.

Peter was mistaken about the inclusion of the Gentiles (and other things) until he was corrected by His Spirit.

Again, if Peter was corrected about the inclusion of the Gentiles by the Spirit, why is it not recorded anywhere that he was corrected by the Spirit concerning his impulsiveness in regard to the choosing of Mathias?  If Mathias was the wrong choice chosen by a faulty wisdom of men, then I would think the Scriptures would have more to say on the rectification of that mistake.

It kind of struck me that it (Matthias' appointment) takes one's eyes off of the placement of "a devil" into the church from the very beginning, by the will of God!

Yes, the devil was in the church from the very beginning by the will of God, but not, I don't think, because he replaced or retained the office of Judas as the twelfth apostle.  Here are 2 reasons that I can find.

1) He was cast out from his place in the heavens to the earth at the resurrection of Jesus.

Revelation 12:9   And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Even Jesus referred as much to His disciples before His death:

John 14:30   I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;

Satan was coming into the world, but he had no power over Jesus because Jesus had already died to His flesh, and would, in a matter of hours, die in the flesh and be resurrected in glory three days later.  The Accuser would have no more power in the heavens once Jesus took His place on the throne of God; his only task at that point would be to deceive the inhabitants of the earth, and deceive he has.

2)  According to Scripture, Pentecost is a leavened feast.

Lev 23:16   Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Lev 23:17   Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

The Israelites at Mount Sinai were not given the ability to want to hear the voice of God as He came down on the mountain in fire to give them His Law.  They retreated from Him in fear and bade Moses to speak to them on God's behalf.  By doing so, they refused to move beyond their Passover understanding of whom God is (the blood on the doorpost) and move into their Pentecostal understanding (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit). 

In Acts, the ability to hear and accept the fire of God as it descended upon them as tongues of fire moved the believers into the Pentecostal understanding of who God is, but that understanding was still leavened by the hearts and traditions of men.  In that way, the fulfillment of Pentecost in the first century was never designed of itself to manifest in their fullness the sons of God.  The leaven must be exposed to the fire of God in order to get rid of it, and that is what we see happening to a very few since that day in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago.  It is not until the last trump that the Tabernacles understanding of God comes upon the elect and they will experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit, when the leaven will have 100% been burned out of them and they will reign with Jesus in His kingdom.  Unfortunately until then, the leaven has increased and will increase exponentially within the church, partly because Satan has been diligently at work deceiving mankind to follow and believe the leaven within their hearts, keeping them from truly wanting to hear and accept the fire of God which is the only way to burn out the leaven within them.  A majority of the church, like the Israelites of old, are much more comfortable having someone else tell them what God is saying rather than go up the mountain, listen to God Himself and submit to His chastening fire.

So that is my take on what you've presented concerning Mathias.  Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters even more, and I look forward to hearing others' take on it as well as the original topic of Jonah's gourd.

God bless,

Eric   

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Joe,

Hi Eric,

Your conclusions about Mathias's replacement of Judas all sound very well-thought out, but I take issue with a few of the things you said (and these are of course just my opinions):

What I have found interesting is that perhaps this office of the 12th apostle belonging to Judas/Satan continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas.

Where in Scripture does it say that Satan ever held the office of apostle in the first place?  Yes, Scripture says that Satan entered into Judas at a very specific point in time, but up until then, whether for good or ill, it was actually Judas himself that occupied that position as apostle.  Satan did not enter Judas until the time had come for the betrayal.

In John Chapter 6 we read of this exchange between Jesus and all His disciples including the 12.

Joh 6:65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Joh 6:66  From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

Joh 6:67  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Joh 6:68  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Joh 6:69  And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Joh 6:70  Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?

Joh 6:71  He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Luke 22:3ff   Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.  And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

We have the words of Christ testifying that one of His chosen is a devil way before Judas actually betrayed Him to the Chief Priests.

In Revelation, the wall of the New Jerusalem is said to be built on twelve foundations in which are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.  (And yes, I understand this is not a literal wall.)

Revelation 21:14   and the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

I'm sure we can all agree that Judas' name is not included in these foundations because he died before the Spirit was given, but are we to believe that Satan's name is included in these foundations because that 'office...continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas?'  I hope not.

No that is not what I am saying at all! I am speaking of the present earthly, church kingdom not the restored, spiritual Kingdom (yet to come) of heaven. This present kingdom, body of Christ church system is defiled with the doctrines of devils is spoken of in scripture as the Synagogue of Satan, as far as the 12 foundations in the spiritual wall of the city is God not capable of drawing His own 12th apostle, perhaps from one who may be alive at His return?

Some may say that Paul was the true choice of God to fulfill those Scriptures, but nowhere is Paul referred to nor does Paul refer to himself as one of the twelve.  In fact, Paul refers to the twelve as distinct from himself:

I Cor 15:5   And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

This is a whole other topic in regard to Paul who said he was of an untimely birth (1Cor 15:8), was he perhaps speaking of being born too early to be alive at the return of Christ even filling the 12th position?

Obviously Mathias was not officially chosen at this point, since he was not chosen until after the ascension, but since one of the requirements spoken by Peter was that the one chosen must have been present from the beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry til His ascension, Paul could say without contradiction that He appeared to the twelve.

It may well be that Peter was using his own reasoning just as he did in regard to the Gentiles being excluded, Peter became a spiritual giant to be sure but he was not perfect or infallible, especially before Pentecost! We have the "requirements of Peter" not of the Lord.

Certainly, to the 12 as they were to themselves and the church and the Jews, but there is much that Paul did not reveal, in fact did not reveal in regard to his visions of seeing the "third heaven" and the things seen were "not lawful for a man to utter." In 2Cor 12 we have Paul speaking of himself in the 3rd person as well as comparing himself favorably to the "chief apostle."

What caught my attention was actually the lack of a directive from Jesus or Jesus Himself choosing a replacement during the 40 days He spent with His disciples after the resurrection, if this was a matter of supreme importance it is interesting that Jesus never addressed it.

We are told in John 21:25...

John 21:25   And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

That could be used in any number of ways that could be misconstrued to suit virtually any supposition.

Included in that statement, I would think, would be things that Jesus spoke as well.  So there are obviously things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded for whatever reason that could have had a bearing on their understanding, but of which we will not know until we have the opportunity to ask Him/them ourselves.

Very true, but to state that He definitively did a specific thing that was not recorded just because He could of or might of leans toward adding to the scriptures.

That said, we DO know that Jesus opened up their understanding of the Scriptures after His resurrection concerning those things that must be fulfilled from the Law, the prophets and the psalms concerning Him.

Certainly, but it was a beginning not the culmination of all spiritual wisdom, they knew virtually nothing before, during the ministry of Jesus they were as clueless as the multitudes regarding the parables.

Luke 24:44ff    And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.  Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Now before anyone says that this was only those Scriptures concerning Jesus specifically, let me point out that the gospel writers quote several OT Scriptures having to do with the coming of John the Baptist in a way that they probably would not have known unless Jesus opened their understanding to them.  So though they weren't specifically speaking of Jesus, they concerned Jesus because John was the one who was to prepare the way for Him.

As stated before this was a beginning for the apostles not the culmination of all scriptural knowledge and wisdom, as we read through the Acts of the Apostles it becomes clear very quickly that they were in a learning process.

  In like manner, I'm sure Jesus would have opened up their understanding of the Scriptures concerning Judas and his replacement because obviously anything having to do with Judas as Jesus' betrayer concerns Jesus.

Pure speculation, if replacing him was imperative why wasn't this done during the 40 days Jesus was with the disciples, He personally chose the others (including Judas) not by drawing lots but from knowing the will of His Father, that Peter chose Matthias does not make it automatically a legitimate appointment, perhaps Christ had everything in place just as it was and it was a presumptuous act for Peter and the rest to choose another at that moment, was it not intended by God for the earthly kingdom to become defiled, to morph into the Synagogue of Satan?

Peter knew what those Scriptures now meant because Jesus opened up his understanding of them.  Just because it is not recorded that Jesus did not tell them how they were to be fulfilled does not mean that He didn't.

And conversely it does not mean He did, Peter did not have perfect wisdom at that point, he was not even converted yet, this was before Pentecost. The apostles were still fearful, timid and unsure it was not until Pentecost that they displayed the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit.

I guess I just do not understand why you don't think Mathias was chosen by God. 

He may very well have been chosen by God but not as an apostle but to be used for the delusion that the church was to experience, maybe one of the things Jesus said that is not recorded is that Satan will infiltrate the church and will defile this earthly christian kingdom as he defiled the Garden, the Exodus and everywhere else he has been allowed to operate. Maybe Jesus revealed this to them maybe He did not but either way we know that Satan was given authority to not only deceive but to take over the church.

In a previous post in the thread from LOF Part 10;

THE FOLLOWING FOR MATURE READERS ONLY

I stated that Satan has his part in the spiritual salvation of mankind. When God created our first parents in the Garden of Eden—Satan was there. When God called out the nation of Israel—Satan was there. When God wanted to test Job, one of the most perfect and righteous men who have ever lived—Satan was there. Whenever God chose to show mercy rather than condemnation on His people—Satan was there. When our Lord was being tested in the wilderness in preparation for His ministry—Satan was there. When Jesus chose Peter to possess the keys to the kingdom of God—Satan was there. Wherever God's true gospel is preached in the world—Satan was there. Whenever God first shines the light of His Truth in man's heaven—Satan was there. When God wanted to Sacrifice His Son for the sins of the world—Satan was there. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to God's Holy Spirit—Satan was there. When Paul needed assistance in correcting a fornicator and a blasphemer—Satan was there. Whenever saints are tempted to disobey—Satan was there. When Paul himself was in danger of being lifted up because of transcendent spiritual revelations—Satan was there. Whenever, even the saints are fooled by great power and lying signs and wonders—Satan is there. When we look for the source of all the lying deception of the whole world—again, Satan is there.

You say...

No Man? Could this be saying this bishopric would be filled by another who is not a man and even Peter did not understand the full implication of this?

I believe that your focus on this word 'man' is misdirected.  The Greek word for 'man' (anthrōpos) is not even used in that verse.  The word is mē and is often translated as 'not' or 'no' or 'no one' and a few times as 'none,' depending on the translation.  Here is how a couple of other translations cite that Scripture:

Acts 1:20   for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.  (YLT)

Acts 1:20   For it is written in the scroll of the Psalms, Let his domicile become desolate, And let no one be dwelling in it, and 'Let his supervision be taken by another.'  (CLV)

If the word 'man' had been used in this verse, your statement could very well be accepted, but since it does not, I don't see how you can use that as a point of logic to say that Satan, not being a man, was the one to fill Judas' position.  While I don't think Satan is even in view in these verses, even if he was, he would definitely fall under the umbrella of 'no one' dwelling in Judas' habitation, whatever one takes that to mean.

Eric I believe you are splitting hairs here as the word "man" (G2077) comes from estō estōsan (second person singular present imperative and third person of G1510; be thou; let them be: - be). Man or person is there any way Satan can be considered a "person" could this word include those in the spirit realm?

The truth is a man, Mathias, was placed in that position.  To deny that he was chosen by the Lord, I think, is to deny that he was himself filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and that he stood with Peter and the other apostles before the men from every nation.

I don't catagorically deny it but you have little to no evidence he did anything noteworthy at all, Matthias is not mentioned again Yes, Matthias was placed there but we have no scriptural authority that it was God who chose him as an apostle, Peter and the others made other "choices" or selections in regard to the ministry that did not work out as they had hoped or thought. There were about 3000 who were filled with the Spirit on Pentecost, I think we both would agree they were not all apostles. 

Acts 2:1     When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord (including Mathias who was chosen just before in the last chapter) in one place.

Acts 2:4     And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:14     But Peter, standing up with the eleven (including Mathias, not Satan), raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words...

Peter is/was well known for being impulsive and impatient, that he made this decision before actually being converted (at Pentecost) has made me rethink this traditional doctrine about this choosing of Matthias.

Yes, Peter was impulsive and impatient, there is no doubt.  But why wouldn't he, once he was filled with the Holy Spirit and gained the knowledge that, "Hey maybe Mathias wasn't the fulfillment of that prophecy after all," do something to try and rectify the situation?  Whether or not one believes Peter was acting impulsively or not (which I don't think he was in this instance), Jesus put His stamp of approval on Mathias when He sent the Holy Spirit on him as one of the twelve standing on the day of Pentecost.

I believe I answered this above, 3000 were filled with the Spirit at that time and Matthias could have been part of the "strong delusion" sent to the earthly church, keeping their eyes off of Satan and what he was going to be allowed to do, it may or may not have been with the knowledge (at least at that time) of the other apostles

Another presumption as they were increased with knowledge but not perfected in knowledge and spirit, if they were so bold and infallible from Pentecost forward what about the fear of Saul after the stoning of Stephen? 

Peter was mistaken about the inclusion of the Gentiles (and other things) until he was corrected by His Spirit.

Again, if Peter was corrected about the inclusion of the Gentiles by the Spirit, why is it not recorded anywhere that he was corrected by the Spirit concerning his impulsiveness in regard to the choosing of Mathias?  If Mathias was the wrong choice chosen by a faulty wisdom of men, then I would think the Scriptures would have more to say on the rectification of that mistake.

You really do not understand the point of this at all, let me restate it as succinctly as possible;

Jesus knowingly chose "a devil." What happened when Judas died? Did Satan go away or did he continue in the ministry and church albeit as an adversary of truth disguised as an angel of light. This was all laid out from the very beginning where the church would become the Synagogue of Satan and a chosen or elect group would be called out of Satan's church.

Even though I believe that Matthias is not truly an apostle I am not denying he was placed where he was by God but not for the same reason Peter and the others thought at the time, perhaps Jesus laid out what was to become of the church with all the details and how it would unfold including how Matthias would be a decoy for the real apostle of the earthly kingdom, the one who inspires it's greed, lies and deception.

Satan was chosen by God to do a work in the church, Matthias was chosen by lot by men.

It kind of struck me that it (Matthias' appointment) takes one's eyes off of the placement of "a devil" into the church from the very beginning, by the will of God!

Yes, the devil was in the church from the very beginning by the will of God, but not, I don't think, because he replaced or retained the office of Judas as the twelfth apostle.  Here are 2 reasons that I can find.

1) He was cast out from his place in the heavens to the earth at the resurrection of Jesus.



Revelation 12:9   And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Even Jesus referred as much to His disciples before His death:

John 14:30   I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;

How does that relate to anything, where was Satan when he tempted Jesus or tempted or tormented anyone?

Satan was coming into the world, but he had no power over Jesus because Jesus had already died to His flesh, and would, in a matter of hours, die in the flesh and be resurrected in glory three days later.  The Accuser would have no more power in the heavens once Jesus took His place on the throne of God; his only task at that point would be to deceive the inhabitants of the earth, and deceive he has.

We are in total agreement here!  ;)

The following is a whole different topic, worthy of another thread, I am familiar with some of the differences between Pentecost and Passover, leaven and unleavened bread, wheat, barley, etc. Start a topic in regard to this and I would be more than happy to participate.

Peace to you and thanks for you comments, critique and participation Brother,

Joe

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Eric, I had to cut this out and put it here as my last post exceeded the maximum,  

2)  According to Scripture, Pentecost is a leavened feast.

Lev 23:16   Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Lev 23:17   Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

The Israelites at Mount Sinai were not given the ability to want to hear the voice of God as He came down on the mountain in fire to give them His Law.  They retreated from Him in fear and bade Moses to speak to them on God's behalf.  By doing so, they refused to move beyond their Passover understanding of whom God is (the blood on the doorpost) and move into their Pentecostal understanding (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).  

In Acts, the ability to hear and accept the fire of God as it descended upon them as tongues of fire moved the believers into the Pentecostal understanding of who God is, but that understanding was still leavened by the hearts and traditions of men.  In that way, the fulfillment of Pentecost in the first century was never designed of itself to manifest in their fullness the sons of God.  The leaven must be exposed to the fire of God in order to get rid of it, and that is what we see happening to a very few since that day in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago.  It is not until the last trump that the Tabernacles understanding of God comes upon the elect and they will experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit, when the leaven will have 100% been burned out of them and they will reign with Jesus in His kingdom.  Unfortunately until then, the leaven has increased and will increase exponentially within the church, partly because Satan has been diligently at work deceiving mankind to follow and believe the leaven within their hearts, keeping them from truly wanting to hear and accept the fire of God which is the only way to burn out the leaven within them.  A majority of the church, like the Israelites of old, are much more comfortable having someone else tell them what God is saying rather than go up the mountain, listen to God Himself and submit to His chastening fire.

So that is my take on what you've presented concerning Mathias.  Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters even more, and I look forward to hearing others' take on it as well as the original topic of Jonah's gourd.

God bless,

Eric  

[Beloved]

I said in a previous post about the meaning of ... the sign of Jonah that the

Jesus denounces the people who are seeking a sign and saying to only sign that will be given to them is the sign of Jonah, ....is it being in the belly of the fish or ....that the foreigners and outsiders repented at the word while they, the current insiders, were not repenting.

Today I see a more universal theme and Jonah himself pointed it out

(Jon 4:2)  And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Now isn't this is a recurrent theme of the throughout the entire Scriptures

This magnificent declaration was first uttered by God to Moses. The problem is that Jonah objects to it as applying to others. He speaks powerful and well-worn words, but he thoroughly disapproves of their being true for just anybody.


Exo 34:6  And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,  God said it directly to Moses

Deu 7:9  Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations  Moses says it to the people

Neh 9:17  And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not     Nehemiah says it

Psa 86:15  But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.

Psa 103:8  The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

Psa 145:8  The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy   David says it in multiple ways

Joe 2:13  And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.  Joel

ete etc etc

Jonah representative of all those people who profess their belief in God, the compassionate creator of all humankind, but who deny their own compassion to those of God's creatures that are outside their own group.

The most thoroughgoing rejection of God's will often takes place in people who observe a certain form of piety and in their own minds and count themselves believers

When the story ends , do we know what happened to Jonah? Did he remain in his hardness of heart?  How could he resist so gracious a God? Was he touched by divine compassion, so that compassion was kindled in his own heart? We are never told!

What does this mean to any of us?  Do any of us resist this loving, gracious God? Will we finally turn out to be like Jonah or the God of Jonah?

What kind of God is this who listens to the suicidal elegy of His prophet who can't even remember what he himself said to God: "I will sacrifice to thee with thanksgiving, my vows I will pay."

Why does God allow all this madness to vent itself upon His own heart and  why does He swallow up this all this poor behavior?

He is the God of love, who loves us with an everlasting love. Even a God who loves the Jonahs of this world.

Jonah was no minor prophet...he was probably more successful in preaching than Isaiah or Jeremiah...look at the breathtaking response of the Ninevites ...wow this would even put today's telelvagialists to shame.

Jonah was sent on this particular journey because ..Jonah has something to learn,....

Jonah was inspired to write this book because most of us need to learn the same lesson.

beloved

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Carol,

Actually I have come to see there really is no such thing as a "minor prophet" as some of these shorter, less known Books are chock full of wisdom, prophecy, etc. I should have put a  wink by my statement. 

There is so much going on in these 4 short chapters by a minor prophet.......

I believe your quote below reflects the "scholarly" conventional wisdom used in commentaries and such as they divide (especially OT) writers into these major/minor catagories that don't really reflect the profound words contained within all scripture. Knowing your approach to study I am sure you don't believe any of His Words are "minor" no matter who was chosen to record them.

  He is not a major prophet but a minor and he is also mentioned in 2 Kings.

Jonah was no minor prophet...he was probably more successful in preaching than Isaiah or Jeremiah...look at the breathtaking response of the Ninevites ...wow this would even put today's telelvagialists to shame.

I totally agree with that sentiment!

Today I see a more universal theme and Jonah himself pointed it out

(Jon 4:2)  And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Now isn't this is a recurrent theme of the throughout the entire Scriptures

This magnificent declaration was first uttered by God to Moses. The problem is that Jonah objects to it as applying to others. He speaks powerful and well-worn words, but he thoroughly disapproves of their being true for just anybody.

Yes! This has been a consistant theme all through scripture up to this very day, it was there with the Jews, in the church and unfortunately even with some who believe in UR who salivate at the prospect of some Christians having to endure torment and suffering in the Lake Of Fire.

Excellent post (as usual)!

There is more I would like to comment on but I have to run to a meeting.

Peace,

Joe 

[hillsbororiver]

When the story ends , do we know what happened to Jonah? Did he remain in his hardness of heart?  How could he resist so gracious a God? Was he touched by divine compassion, so that compassion was kindled in his own heart? We are never told!

What does this mean to any of us?  Do any of us resist this loving, gracious God? Will we finally turn out to be like Jonah or the God of Jonah?

What kind of God is this who listens to the suicidal elegy of His prophet who can't even remember what he himself said to God: "I will sacrifice to thee with thanksgiving, my vows I will pay."

Hi again Carol,

You have some very interesting and compelling observations here, what did become of Jonah? Was his heart hardened even more or did he learn more about his own shortcomings and bitterly repent of them? The vow Jonah made "I will sacrifice to thee with thanksgiving, my vows I will pay" sounds exactly like prayers or vows we ourselves would make...... when things are going well for us.

Thanks for your response.

Peace,

Joe

[ericsteven]

Hi Joe,

This is probably one of those subjects where you and I will more than likely end up agreeing to disagree.  I can tell definitely sense your deep convictions concerning this belief about Mathias.  Nevertheless, I'll give it at least one more go, if no more reason than to keep conversing with a man in Christ whom I truly respect.

You used John 6:65-71 as an example where Jesus chose someone knowing that they were "a devil."  And we are both familiar with Paul's views on this in Romans 9 concerning how God chooses some for honor and some for dishonor.  Surely, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Judas, even Satan himself were all chosen as vessels of dishonor to further God's plan for His people.  There is definite precedence in the Scripture for God acting in this manner. 

But nowhere in Scripture or even in any extra-Scriptural writings can we find one reason to carry this precedence over into the choosing of Mathias.  Everything we know directly about Mathias is contained in one chapter in Acts.  There are no Scriptures or other writings that directly say he did great things and there are none that directly say he was a source of evil within the church.  So any attempt on either one of our parts to say definitively that Mathias in his later life either remained in the faith to the honor of the church or became a vessel of evil to its detriment is purely speculation.

That said, I believe there are more clues in the Scriptures that could possibly lead one to the conclusion that he remained faithful than there are that prove your theory.

For example consider the following Scripture:

Acts 6:2   And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables."

Five chapters after the choosing of Mathias as the twelfth apostle, we see here that there are still twelve apostles, agreeing in one mind to continue preaching the word instead of serving at tables.

Her are other verses that occur before the mention of the twelve still being intact in Acts 6:

Acts 5:14   And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.) 

Acts 5:29   But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."

I may be just seeing things, but I think it's clear that Mathias is definitely included as one of the twelve apostles in these verses.  There are no Scriptures to my knowledge that say one fell away or that Mathias decided to go his own way and another was added.  So here is proof that all the apostles, including Mathias as one of the twelve, were acting in a way that is consistent with being of one mind in our Lord. 

So what I am understanding from your theory, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that since everything is according to the plan of God, the choosing of Mathias in Acts 1 coupled with Mathias's actions with the apostles in the above verses are simply a deception technique (strong delusion, if you will) to get everybody used to thinking of him as the good guy when all along God is eventually planning to use him as the bad guy, similar to Judas as "a devil."

*******Sarcasm alert*******

You know, perhaps you're right.  Perhaps there's some long lost letter or gospel out there (since there's obviously nothing in Scripture) that sheds light on the misdeeds of Mathias as he relates to the building of the church.  And perhaps it will be discovered or brought to light, and then just perhaps some author out there, say Dan Brown, will write an exciting fiction based on these writings that will finally shed light and truth on this most mysterious, yet evil, of apostles.

******End of sarcasm****** 

Who knows?  As I pointed before and you even mentioned in your response, there is no evidence for any specific noteworthy acts mentioning Mathias by name in regards to the church of the first century, whether for good or evil, after his appointment in Acts 1.  So, just as you believe that the understanding of the church, and myself for that matter, is purely speculative in nature, I would have to say the same thing about yours.

To address your thoughts on Peter's actions in regard to Mathias' appointment, I submit the following:

One of your basic contentions is that Peter was impulsive and impatient, and that the condition that Peter put forth concerning how Judas' replacement must have been a witness of everything from the beginning of Jesus' ministry to that present moment was only a product of Peter's own carnal or imperfect reasoning - that this was only a "requirement of Peter" and not the Lord.

First, was Peter acting impulsively and impatient in this instance? 

Acts 1:13   And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 

Acts 1:14   These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

It was during this time being in one accord in prayer and supplication that Peter stood to address the followers of Christ concerning Judas. 

The passage later shows that before any final decision was made, they prayed, recognizing that it was God who was in control of any decision.

Acts 1:24   And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Acts 1:25   That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Based on this passage, the only passage in Scripture where Mathias is spoken of directly by name, I just don't understand how you can say that Peter and the others in this room were acting in an impulsive and impatient manner.  To me it looks like they did everything they were supposed to do, and what is even encouraged by most people on this forum, which is to pray to the Lord in recognizance of His sovereignty before making any big decisions.

The people in that room specifically asked the Lord to show them whom He had chosen.  How did He show them?  By lot.  Do you really believe that the Lord had no hand in that process?  Is there anything in the Scriptures that leads you to believe that they were not praying with a sincere heart to know the mind of the Lord on this issue and therefore lead the Lord to not be directly involved? 

Of course, even if you concede that God did have a hand in that process, you'd probably qualify it by saying it was for the reason of choosing a vessel of dishonor, even though most if not all of the people who prayed that prayer did not realize it.  Like I said, I guess I'll just have to wait for the lost book of the Bible to be found and exploited to corroborate your assertions.

To address that the requirement spoken by Peter was only of Peter's carnal reasoning, I would have to ask, Do you really think that Jesus would have had a radically different requirement for the man who was to "take part in this ministry and apostleship?"  It wasn't as if Mathias was a newbie, not knowing anything concerning Jesus and His ministry.  He was there; he was a witness of everything.  And that, I would argue, was the requirement that Jesus Himself gave:

Luke 24:46   And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Luke 24:47   And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:48   And ye are witnesses of these things.

And Peter reinforces this statement in response to the teachers of the law who were questioning why they, the apostles (of which Mathias was one), continued preaching the Word even after being commanded not to:

Acts 5:32   And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

I might point out that that last Scripture says that God gives the Holy Spirit to all who obey Him.  If Mathias was a vessel of dishonor, someone who would end up not obeying the word of God, as you claim, then why was he given the Holy Spirit on Pentecost?  To merely reinforce the delusion?  And then He ended up taking it away at some point?  One can say that there have been many who have accepted Jesus as Savior and did many wonderful things in the name of God and then fell away, and use that as proof of your theory.  But then, perhaps they didn't even have the Spirit to begin with at all.  I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any precedence in Scripture to show that God gives the Spirit and takes it away again.  If someone falls away, it's probably because they never had the Spirit to begin with, they never moved past the Passover experience and into the Pentecostal experience, as I alluded to in my previous post. 

As one of the twelve apostles, being a witness of all these things was a very big deal, apparently to Jesus Himself.  So I'm wondering here – honestly – what different criteria do you suppose the Lord would have had that was different than the criteria to which you refer to as Peter's "own reasoning" and "not of the Lord?"

Another point you keep returning to is that if the filling of the position was so important, why would Jesus have not done it Himself during the 40 days He spent with them after the resurrection?   

My answer is, I don't know.  Sincerely, I don't know.  You seem to be of the opinion that this is proof that since it was not important to Jesus at this time, then it was entirely too presumptuous of Peter to go ahead and initiate the process himself after Jesus had gone away.  As I've noticed another poster is often fond of saying, "Scripture, please?"  One other opinion might be that Jesus wanted to use this appointing of the twelfth apostle as the first act of reinforcing their dependence on Him, using the knowledge of the Scriptures and of Himself that He had spent over three years giving them.  I mean, what better way to do that than to wait until after He had gone, so that they would truly have to begin developing and trusting their "eyes" and their "ears" in regards to the faith given to them by Jesus?  I'm sure there are other opinions out there, but the truth is the Scriptures do not say.  So you're opinion is just as valid as the next person's when it comes to the silence of the Scriptures on this question.

You really do not understand the point of this at all

Though I may not have seen fully understood in my first response what your theory entailed, I'm pretty sure I understand now.  And I apologize, I for one, cannot put my hat in the ring with you one this one.  Perhaps my eyes are not open or I'm just being stubborn (not an uncommon trait that I exhibit).  If that is the case, I pray and hope that God will forgive me and hopefully open my eyes to what you seem very sure of.

I look forward to reading any response you may feel led to give.

God bless you, my brother,

Eric

[hillsbororiver]

 

So what I am understanding from your theory, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that since everything is according to the plan of God, the choosing of Mathias in Acts 1 coupled with Mathias's actions with the apostles in the above verses are simply a deception technique (strong delusion, if you will) to get everybody used to thinking of him as the good guy when all along God is eventually planning to use him as the bad guy, similar to Judas as "a devil."

*******Sarcasm alert*******

You know, perhaps you're right.  Perhaps there's some long lost letter or gospel out there (since there's obviously nothing in Scripture) that sheds light on the misdeeds of Mathias as he relates to the building of the church.  And perhaps it will be discovered or brought to light, and then just perhaps some author out there, say Dan Brown, will write an exciting fiction based on these writings that will finally shed light and truth on this most mysterious, yet evil, of apostles.

******End of sarcasm****** 

Who knows?  As I pointed before and you even mentioned in your response, there is no evidence for any specific noteworthy acts mentioning Mathias by name in regards to the church of the first century, whether for good or evil, after his appointment in Acts 1.  So, just as you believe that the understanding of the church, and myself for that matter, is purely speculative in nature, I would have to say the same thing about yours.

To address your thoughts on Peter's actions in regard to Mathias' appointment, I submit the following:

One of your basic contentions is that Peter was impulsive and impatient, and that the condition that Peter put forth concerning how Judas' replacement must have been a witness of everything from the beginning of Jesus' ministry to that present moment was only a product of Peter's own carnal or imperfect reasoning - that this was only a "requirement of Peter" and not the Lord.

First, was Peter acting impulsively and impatient in this instance? 

Acts 1:13   And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 

Acts 1:14   These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

It was during this time being in one accord in prayer and supplication that Peter stood to address the followers of Christ concerning Judas. 

The passage later shows that before any final decision was made, they prayed, recognizing that it was God who was in control of any decision.

Hi Eric,

The feeling is mutual in regard to this opportunity to discuss this subject with someone who is putting much study into a matter, although we may end up disagreeing we will not be wasting our time by searching, studying, praying and seeking His will and wisdom.

It is a very real possibility that I have not really explained my position as well as I could if only I was more articulate expressing myself in writing, I will make another attempt to clarify where I am coming from.

I am not trying to imply that Matthias was evil or a detriment to the other apostles in their ministries, only that he very well may be an illegitimate apostle since I can find no directive from Christ to choose another apostle, Jesus Himself stated that The Father and Son exclusively do the choosing.

I appreciate your point in regard to Peter not displaying the "by the seat of his pants" type of impulsiveness by imploring everyone to prayer over this matter but it is still impulsive when someone takes upon themselves a duty they do not have the proper authority to execute, we can earnestly pray for something that is outside of God's will and that prayer although done in a humble spirit will still not be answered (in the manner we desire), our prayers must line up with God's plan and purpose for them to be answered. In a sense this prayer very well was answered, just not in the way they (at least at that time) perceived it to be.

What I meant by Matthias being used as an instrument for strong delusion has absolutely nothing to do with what he may have ever said or done but only that with this supposed addition of a 12th apostle everyone's eyes would be taken off of the spirit of the other 12th apostle still alive and well in the church, Satan! I don't think any of us can deny that the spirit of carnality is very much alive and well in the church.

Most all of scripture has a physical and spiritual application, Matthias may have served a dual purpose in being a physical helper in an earthly ministry but he may also have been used as a kind of decoy to take (most) eyes off of what position Satan was given (chosen for) within the church(es). If we believe that Matthias was the legitimate replacement then we might also believe that Satan's (negative) role in the ministry ended with the death of Judas, we know that is not the case, his influence is pervasive!

Again I sincerely thank you for all the thought, time and effort you put into your responses, even though we may end up agreeing to disagree I think we both have spent our time well in seeking a better understanding.

His Peace to you Brother,

Joe     

[ericsteven]

Hey Joe,

Again I sincerely thank you for all the thought, time and effort you put into your responses, even though we may end up agreeing to disagree I think we both have spent our time well in seeking a better understanding.

Amen, my friend, Amen.

Now, getting back to your original subject of Jonah's gourd, which Beloved has perhaps tried diligently to keep our eyes focused on and I have, it may have seemed to some, been diligent in trying to divert your attention away from (sorry Beloved).    Here are some thoughts that I had while studying this book that I hope may contribute to our understanding. 

Perhaps the only things that link Jonah to Jesus are the events on the boat and the subsequent three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish.  His attitude throughout the book is definitely far from what could be considered Christ-like.  But what I also see is a parable of the process that many of us take as He drags us in our journey to understand Him and His dealings with His creation.

From the moment the book of Jonah begins, it seems Jonah's heart is filled with anger.  Jonah was a prophet to Israel.  II Kings 14 tells us that he prophesied during the time of the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash of the northern kingdom of Israel.  By this time, the nation of Israel had been split in two and the two separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah had begun warring against each other.  So, when called by the Lord to go to Nineveh, a pagan city and capital of the Assyrian empire, he may have felt that he was being pulled away from his calling to affect some kind of change for his own countrymen.  Why would God want to even bother with these fish-worshiping people in Nineveh when there's so much more work to be done with His chosen people, the Israelites?  So he runs away, an attempt at rebellion to show God that He is in the wrong and he, Jonah, is in the right.

I think perhaps Jonah at this point in time may represent those who don't really know God.  They may or may not believe in God, but either way they run and run, trying to get away from this idea of a Creator, a being who created everything and is in control of all.  They become angry at God for trying to control their lives.  They want to be their own person without the constraints of God telling them what to do.  They have their own plans for their lives, and anybody outside of the scope of those plans is not really that important.  "Can't make me if I don't want to," seems to be the phrase of the day.

But then, lo and behold, something comes along and just mucks up that idea.   One minute they're asleep, content in their belief that they've done the right thing, and the next, BAM!, they wake up to find that not only have their actions brought on a serious "rough and tumble," but that serious "rough and tumble" is affecting all those around them. 

It's at this point that what I like to call, the "Altar Call Experience" occurs.  They realize that in order to calm the "storms of life" that rage around them because of their disobedience, they must give up their plans for their own life and accept Jesus as Lord.  They're thrown overboard into the sea where they lay dying in the belly of a great fish for three days and three nights.  Through much prayer, they begin to recognize that God is in control and promise with all their heart to follow His ways.  Then, miraculously, they're resurrected into a new life, a new understanding of God and His ways.

Just as Jonah went straight to Nineveh in obeisance of God's command, so too do these new Christians feel empowered to go out and "save the world for Christ."  They do everything they feel God is telling them to do with great joy.  They talk of "spreading the fire" and "saving the lost."  But although they have a new understanding of God after their fish experience, that understanding is only in its infancy.  Although intellectually, they understand that God is "slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity," in their heart they long for all those evil and disobedient people out there to be destroyed, to "burn in the fires of hell" forever, because that's what they deserve for disobedience.

But when that doesn't happen, in fact, God chooses to save those people that they thought should "go to hell," they get angry, similar to the attitude of the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.  Then, in their stubborn self-delusion, they go off to pout, thinking surely their pouting will move God to remove His mercy from those heathen people.  In doing so, they take solace in their own works.  Just as Jonah built his little shelter to give him comfort as he waited for the destruction that he believed was coming, they believe that doing good works will comfort them as they wait for the fires of hell to consume the wicked. 

But, alas, those shelters, those works of their own doing do not last.  That Jonah's shelter, which gave him shade for a time, did not last is evident from the fact that God had to send the gourd to grow up over Jonah to now give him shade.  And when that happens, anger again takes hold.

Here are a couple of explanations (not mine) of what kind of plant Jonah's gourd may have been:

...a plant very commonly used in Palestine and elsewhere to cover and give cooling shade to arbours...its rapid growth and large leaves admirably adapting it to such a purpose, while the extreme fragility of its stem exposes it to a striking suddenness of decay, should a storm strike it or a caterpillar gnaw its root. One day it may be seen in its glory; the next, it hangs withered and dried up. This would exactly suit the narrative.

...bottle gourd which belongs to Cucurbitaceae family.  Cucurbitacins are complex compounds found in plants belonging to the cucumber family (Cucurbitaceae). The tetracyclic triterpenoid Cucurbitacins compounds are responsible for the bitterness in vegetables like cucumber, squash, eggplants, melon, pumpkin and gourds and are highly toxic to mammals.

The latter article continues by saying that although the bottle gourd is not toxic to humans, it is only because of its bitterness that that is the case. 

And Jonah's life attitude, for the most part in this story, has certainly shown a tendency towards bitterness and anger.  When things don't go our way, we tend to relax back into those feelings and attitudes in which we are most comfortable.  Even if those feelings are anger and bitterness, we tend to gravitate, usually unconsciously, towards those feelings that give us the most comfort, even if they are detrimental to us. 

The truth of this can be seen in many psychological studies that show how some people tend to pick mates based on traits that their parents exhibited, even if those traits were ones that the grown children had consciously determined to steer away from in their selection process.  They grew up being constantly being exposed to those negative traits from their parents, and that is what they're used to, so when a possible mate comes along that exhibits those same traits, unconsciously they dismiss or overlook them because of the immediate feelings of "love and happiness." 

In that way, Jonah became happy and comfortable in his bitterness because that's the attitude that he was used to having, it's what he was comfortable in.  I see the gourd, however, as not only representing Jonah's life and his experience of dealing with his carnal attitudes, but also as a representation of all mankind and our experiences overcoming our own carnality, which many of us find hard to give up.  A life based on carnal living may seem green and full of life, but in reality it is a life that keeps one susceptible to "extreme fragility" and " a striking suddenness of decay."  I suppose it could relate to the parable of building upon the Rock vs. the sand.

But then along comes the worm.  The Hebrew word here is towla`, and in addition to being translated as 'worm' throughout the OT Scriptures, it's also translated as 'scarlet'.  Some scholars believe this is because it refers to the 'coccus ilicis' worm.  Here are one description:

When the female of the scarlet worm species was ready to give birth to her young, she would attach her body to the trunk of a tree, fixing herself so firmly and permanently that she would never leave again. The eggs deposited beneath her body were thus protected until the larvae were hatched and able to enter their own life cycle. As the mother died, the crimson fluid stained her body and the surrounding wood. From the dead bodies of such female scarlet worms, the commercial scarlet dyes of antiquity were extracted.

I see this worm as representing Jesus and his sacrifice to cover all of us with His blood.  Though worms can be thought of in Scripture as bad things, here is one Scripture that could be prophetically used to describe our Savior.

Psalm 22:6ff     But I am a worm (towla`), and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.  All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

I could be off base, but that is what I currently see.  Just as the worm destroyed the bitter gourd, so too Jesus - as the One who was despised and rejected of men, taunted on the cross to save Himself as He saved others - destroys the bitterness within our hearts through His sacrifice on the cross, staining and covering us with His blood

And it's after the true acceptance of that sacrifice that, whether now for the elect or later in the judgment, God will send His east wind to judge us and usher us into our wilderness experience. 

The east wind in Scripture is many times associated with judgment.  It was the east wind that brought the plague of locusts to Egypt.

Exo 10:13   ...and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

The east wind is associated with the seven years of famine in Joseph's time, represented by the seven thin ears of corn in Pharaoh's dream.

Gen 41:6   And, behold, seven thin ears and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them.

It can also describe the beginning of a type of wilderness experience where we are taught to lean more on the blood of Christ for our sustainment.  For example, the east wind is the one that dried up the Red Sea during the Exodus, through which the Israelites crossed and then entered into their own experience of God in the wilderness.

Exo 14:21   And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided.

Ezekiel describes the nation of Israel as being dried up by the east wind and planted in the wilderness.

Eze 19:12ff   But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them.  And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground.

This is obviously not an easy time.  Jonah is now angry because the 'worm' took his only comfort away and now he's suffering through the east wind in the wilderness.  I think we've definitely seen examples of this lately in our own forum here where the carnal nature is loathe to release its grip in the face of trying circumstances.  Even with our acceptance of the blood of Christ, we are still veiled with flesh and blood, which will keep us from fully experiencing the glory of God by allowing our carnal attitudes to occasionally present themselves.  But it's all for a purpose.

God reminds Jonah:

Jon 4:10   But the Lord said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight.

This sounds a lot like James:

James 4:14   Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

It is God who sustains us in all things.  It is God who will deliver all of us from this flesh, each in our own time as planned by God.  And whatever troubles we have now, we can take heart, because it is nothing compared to the glory that will be revealed at His coming.

I'm sure there's much more to be dug out, but that's just the way I see the story right now.  Then again, perhaps I'm reading too much into it. 

Thoughts?

God bless,

Eric

[Beloved]

BOB Since the purpose was to change Jonah's mind about serving God and also to get Jonah to Nineveh in one piece,  could it be that the journey in the "fish" or a swimming mammal perhaps was a little more comfortable yet traumatic enough to make the point?  Since Jonah needed air, then an air breathing "fish" would seem more appropriate.  Also large fish may live off of body fat when the feeding is sparse and perhaps the throat cavity wasn't as acidic as would otherwise be the case.  Then again since the Bible says that God "prepared" a fish we could presume that this particular fish was not a standard species.

I mention this because God usually can get our attention without torturing us beyond what is necessary and to me just being inside an animal would get my undivided attention for quite a while

You may be right Bob afterall, Look at Daniel in the lions den and the three guys in the hot oven...they were all safely enveloped in Gods LOVE....so you see He even provided oxygen in the latter situation. 

Since I have a KOI pond and have four big "whales" in my pond, I love the fact that God PREPARED this Great Fish....He must have been kept that baby around for some time and it grew and grew and grew....

Here are links t two types of digestion

http://www.aarluk.com/en/bio/files/digestion.htm

http://www.pond-doctor.co.uk/longdigestion.html

It had to be dark, perhaps smelly and perhaps sqirming and squishy things going on all around you.   

Eric I liked your study of Jonah, it really does have all the elements in it. I knew about the gourd and the worm things and I am glad you shared them with others here on the board...I love these little facts and side bars...they add more color to the story.

Joe regarding the "major" and "minor" I realize that these nametags come about by the people who compiled the books, they grouped them by size...and people who read them may have thought them less significant in contnent...it is a wonder that poor Obadiah even got in ...one book with one chapter.    There ar gems in all of them

When I uses the terms major and minor I only was looking at a different aspects, but if the job of a prophet is to relay God message ...then he appears to have had the most successful response...the other prophets preached but the recipients were stiffnecked and faced judgement. No man however can boast...because God is sovereign and are all fish are ready to be dragged in.

beloved

[Deborah-Leigh]

Matthias was used for a great deception. Indeed this is truth. How can any not see the obvious?

Would God leave us no examples of those who come out of Mystery Babylon? Carol identifies a list of a few changes of heart that God created in the OT. Should we think that God was remiss in the NT? Did God go on a tea break after the OT? Is God inconsistent? Enter Matthias!

Can God be so tricky, invisible and not so obvious? Of course He can and IS! Is Matthias the first to come "out of her." Was Matthias suddenly to find himself promoted to the status of one of the twelve, and then to not so suddenly but very apparently to us reading little evidence of him later meaning that God shows us that Matthias went OUT not of the party of twelve but of Babylon the Harlot. 

Good ole Matthais obeyed! He was appointed anointed and went out! No mistakes with God. No slip ups or accidents or Satan getting the better of God. God appointed approved and designed that good ole Mat. would get the vote and become the 12th appointment to the office of Apostle. If it were not so it would not have happened! Right? Any disagreements here? No I did not think so! We are well versed here at BT on God and HIS Plan Purpose and fact that non can thwart God or His Pleasure and Council. I know I know, no one was arguing that point but it is a point of agreement right. Right.

Matthais was appointed whether it was with or without the directive.....neat new word to put a spin on the wheels and create a lot of dust! ...."Directive" is a word we should pay attention to.  God IS the directive, HE is calling the shots and is in control of everything. Would a wise and Sovereign God not present an example ?  These things are written for our admonition. I do not see anywhere that Matthias was another devil that sequestrated the official appointment of the office of Judas. The appointment of Judas was not a separate office that was different to the eleven other appointees. There was no special different CV criteria that Judas has except he was a devil of his father the Devil and father of lies. His office was no different to Matthew Mark Luke or John and co. HE WAS DIFFERENT. Judas was different. THE OFFICE and appointment was the same thing.

To even discuss that Matthais was not according to God but only to man, and to believe that Mat. was a selection of carnal man remiss of any "directive" from God is to gain access to the office of Elijah which opens other doors to other than the appointment of  the 12th Apostle.  To disbelieve the Scriptures is folly. 

When Elijah spoke to God He heard. When Moses spoke to God He heard. When Jesus spoke to God He heard. When the eleven Disciples prayed to God was He suddenly deaf? Can you not see how pathetic this gets?

Acts 1 : 24 Then they prayed (The eleven Apostles prayed)  "Lord, you know everyone's heart. SHOW US which of these two YOU have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs (  that being to the place deserted with no one to dwell in it...vs 20....

So was the Lord not listening when the eleven petitioned Him. Did someone else answer them with the lot falling to Matthias. Was God on the toilet at that time or was He sleeping perhaps? NO. This event happened as God DIRECTED.

God is One and He does not screw up. If it happened it was in the Plan and Purpose of God. Mat was appointed then went off the record.  Why? Was it not because Mat came out of her My People.... Only a devil coming out of the house brings back seven more to raid the property. There is a devil in the house and that is right alongside what Ray our teacher teaches....( TEACHER office...one of five appointments...you know, some apostles, some prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers Ephesians 4 : 11 ) Who makes this appointment? HE gives some to be teachers and apostles. Who is HE?  Christ of course. Are there counterfeits today. Sure there are but non would have the landslide unanimous vote of eleven Disciples of Christ and get it wrong I do not think.

Has God left the eleven to go save the one? Well that question might open a whole new "other" gospel! We can be sure about the warning not to embrace or believe those other gospels can we not?


Arc

[Beloved]

I have not said anything about the twelves apostles but would add one small point...at Pentecost there were 120 people that received the Holy Spirit ....

The way I look at it is ...the 12 to the 120 signifies that there was a raise in the notch of spiritual government....12,000 x 12 will be the completion I do not think that this is actual  number of people but rather it represents the ultimate power level.

Now isn't it interesting but the very last verse in Jonah speaks to this topic...this is God talking now

(Jon 4:11)  And was not, I, to spare Nineveh, the great city,-wherein are more than twelve times ten thousand human beings, who cannot discern between their right hand and their left, besides much cattle?

This repentance at Nineveh was a parable. I think it represents the bringing in the wheat...those who profess in believing in Jesus,  the number is not complete ....12 x 10,000 is 120,000.... The phrase is that they do not know their right hand from their left .....aptly describes them ....Christians have some understanding of what God teaches but they lack discernment to act on doing what is right. They do not obey His commandments. 

Did you catch the last phrase...besides much cattle....is God going provide salvation to animals....I think not ....Then why does He mention them.....

The way I see it , the cattle represents the rest of humanity,  the bringing in of the grapes....the ungodly, they are totally clueless , they do not know God's Way or His commandments. That is why ....when God told Israel to wipe out a people he also told them to wipe out their livestock too. 

When the third harvest is brought in, then the number will be reached and All will be in All.

Beloved