Where Are the Apostles?

 

A reading of Acts makes one thing clear: there were more than 12 apostles.

(A quick note: I was supposed to get back to my Elder Elder and Elder Benjamin stories today, but alas -- my new upgrade to Mac Ventura has destroyed my Scrivener install, and I can't get to the stories -- but don't worry. Apple's shortcomings won't stop the story telling. You just get some good non-fiction musings this week.)

We all know how this story begins. Jesus calls 12 apostles. They were chosen to do missionary work, perform miracles, and lead the Church in His absence. We also know that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and then killed himself after the death of Christ. This left 11 apostles.

So what comes next? The Book of Acts 1 continues the story, starting in verse 15. In a meeting with the apostles and others, Peter talked about Judas Iscariot, and in verse 20 he quotes Psalms:

Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

And then they discussed who Judas' replacement should be. They named two men: Barsabas and Matthias. They then prayed and drew lots, and Matthias was chosen. Then their number were 12 again. One might think this was the end of Barsabas, who was rejected -- but no ... his story continues.

The Book of Acts goes on, telling the story of how apostles begin dying. Stephen is stoned to death in Chapter 7. And then Saul persecutes the Church, sees Jesus, is converted, and changes his name to Paul. Peter sees a great vision that Gentiles need to hear the message of Christ. And Paul becomes a great leader and a missionary.

Yet there is no record of Paul becoming an apostle, set apart like Matthias. But he's performing miracles, persuading many, and making important decisions. In other words: acting like an apostle. But when was he ordained?

Suddenly Acts 14:14 says out of the blue:

Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul ... 

Yeah -- now there are not just one, but two new apostles. If there's some doubt, it seems to go away in Acts 15:22, when it talks about the apostles sending men of their own company, naming again Barnabas and Silas. So, now we're up to three new apostles after Matthias?

Plus, Paul refers to himself as an apostle in most of his letters.

In a way, this all makes sense. If Peter felt it was important to replace Judas Iscariot, he would very likely feel it was important to replace apostles who were dying during these times of persecution. I mean: why would he stop? The Church needed leaders, and it seemed important to have 12 apostles.

Oh, and what about Barsabas? He's the same as Barnabas, just now mentioned. So, though he was rejected at first, he later became an apostle. He's pictured above in a kind-of-silly picture. He's holding a book that couldn't possibly exist for at least another millennium. Perhaps one of his miracles as an apostle?

It then looks like Barnabas and Paul have a big fight and separate into different ministries. Oh well -- we're not all perfect.

So, one question some may ask is: where are the apostles today? The Catholic Church has a Pope, which is supposed to be like Peter, but where are the other twelve? Most Protestant churches may have a leader or president, but again ... no apostles. And I'm wondering: when did they become unimportant? 

We do know that after Acts, the persecution became so great that the apostles were basically wiped out -- faster than they could replace themselves. But why did more not get chosen as the Church continued to survive? Was it because of the lack of authority (apostasy)? Or was it because it was determined it was no longer necessary? When did the twelve become one?

Some of the newer Christian denominations also asked this question, and have chosen to institute twelve constant leaders as apostles. My church: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of them. You can see their pictures here.

What other denominations do this? After some quick research, it looks like we have: other branches of the Church of Jesus Christ, such as the Community of Christ. Hmmm ... I'm struggling to find other churches that do this.

The Catholics seem to have a different view on this subject -- an Apostle (big "A") is someone who was chosen by Jesus and sent to minister and witness. There are no more Apostles because there are no leaders later on who knew Jesus personally. Catholics seem to consider Matthias as the 12th Apostle to replace Judas. By tradition, he's even credited in the Apostles' Creed. Barnabas, Paul, and others are deemed to be apostles (little "a") -- important ministers and leaders, but not one of the Twelve.

However, unlike the other 11, Matthias was not hand-picked by Jesus -- so he can't really be "equal" to the 11 in that regard. And Paul (as Saul) saw Jesus himself and was called to his work (similar to how the original twelve were called). So, needless to say, I do not really agree with that logic of the classifications described in the last paragraph. I don't see Paul as a "lesser" leader. I don't see why Peter wouldn't have replaced Stephen and other martyrs. And I see the organization of the Twelve to be fundamental to Christ's Church.

Any thoughts?

"Crucify Him"

In our weekly readings, we have finally finished the four Gospels, and to wrap up, I wanted to share some new insights I've gained. In particular: the moment when the crowds yelled "Crucify Him!" This time around I learned something strange to me...

Consider this. The Holy Week begins with a large crowd event: the triumphant entrance of Jesus on Palm Sunday.

Many shouted "Hosanna!" and laid down palm leaves. So much praising and rejoicing! How much I wish I could have been there to participate!

And then less than a week later, a large crowd gathered while Jesus stood for trial. Pilate asked, "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" (Matthew 27:17)" And the people answered "Barabbas."

Pilate asked, "What will ye than that I shall do unto [Jesus]?" And the people yelled, "Crucify Him!" (Luke 15:12-13) 

Pilate asked, "What evil has he done?" And the people yelled even louder: "Crucify Him!" (Luke 15:14)

Who are the people in each of the big crowds mentioned above? If you were to ask me a couple of months ago, I would have answered: "Palm Sunday consisted of the many followers of Christ. And the later crowd consisted of the religious leaders and their friends bent on destroying Christ."

But -- and here is the new idea -- what if it turns out that many of the people in both crowds were the same? At first, I'm thinking, "Surely not." Try this ... do a Google search on "hosanna crucify him same crowd," and you'll see tons of articles debating whether or not the same people were in both crowds.

An argument supporting this idea: A lot of people attended both events. In particular, the event the morning of Good Friday would have been widely attended, as the custom was to release a prisoner during the Passover festival. And the sound of "Crucify Him!" greatly drowned out the the people who may have been saying "Let Him go!" So, if most people attended the Good Friday event, and most in attendance yelled, "Crucify Him," it appears logical that there were many who said both "Hosanna" and "Crucify Him."

But how could this be? How does one go from "Hosanna" to "Crucify Him" in just a few days? Perhaps many lost faith with how things played out? Perhaps some thought the cleaning of the temple was too radical and misguided (attacking their religious foundations instead of the Romans)? Perhaps some figured that the True Messiah would not have allowed Himself to be captured and killed? Perhaps some saw Him as a charlatan who promised many things but then delivered nothing? Yeah -- of course they lacked understanding, but I'm just trying to imagine how many could turn so fast.

And then I realized: wait! I've witnessed something similar in my own life. It happened during the recent pandemic. Early on, there was a lot of confusion, and I decided to share my own talents. I was fascinated by the math and science -- two areas in which I'm very strong. So, I started sharing my own analyses on social media. Many of my friends decided to share my analyses -- asking me to make the posts "global" so their friends could see them. And the preambles they provided were similar: "Listen to this guy we knew in high school. He's really smart and an expert in math and science."

So, I was all: "Cool! They're listening to me." I seized this positive opportunity to help explain what was going on, and to hopefully save lives. 

But then something strange happened. About 90% of my friends turned on me. They started attacking my math and logic with strange arguments that made no sense. A sizable chunk decided to drop me. Several decided to be combative -- a large number of whom were members of my own church exhibiting non-Christian behavior. A few even shared with the world what I had said so they could ridicule it.

It was indeed an interesting turn of events. I was amazed at how quickly these friends went from "look at our really smart friend" to "look at how dumb he is." How could this happen so quickly?

And recently I found the answer in our scripture reading -- something I had entirely missed who knows how many times I had read these accounts before.

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. (Matthew 27:20)

You see, the religious leaders had political motivations. Jesus Christ had appeared with the message: "You're doing things wrong." They saw Jesus as a threat to their position and power. It was a time when the religious leaders had become much more important than the Law itself. So much so that their interpretations of the Law had become a new corrupted Law. They didn't want Jesus to destroy what they had, so they chose to try and destroy Him. In other words: politics.

In order to achieve their goals, they used speech to deceive the multitudes. And the people happily believed what was said, and shouted, "Crucify Him!"

This is technically the same as what happened in my pandemic example. My friends knew beforehand how capable I was in math and science, and they even testified as much. But then political leaders saw an opportunity for political gain and made up very convincing lies. They were the ones who persuaded my friends to turn against me. And it all worked -- the lies helped many political leaders to maintain power.

I was amazed at how easily the lies worked in persuading people. I was even able to analyze how the lies were so successful. Did you know that some countries have made it a science to deceive and confuse, using artificial intelligence to come up with the best and most destructive lies?

And we all know this type of thing exists. It permeates our fiction and historical accounts.

Think of any depiction of a witch trial in any show. We see the protagonist on trial. We see the ones in charge saying the most ridiculous lies. And we also see their political aspirations -- killing "witches" is a way to show righteous indignation and maintain power among the masses. And we see practically everyone at the trial yelling "Burn her!" Sound familiar? It isn't very far removed from "Crucify Him!"

And think of the many shows where the bad guy deceives many to frame a good guy. The bad guy will say something in secret like, "The public is easily distracted," and then successfully convince everyone to hate the good guy, forcing him to run and try to redeem himself before being captured by the authorities. And sometimes like in the witch trials, these good guys perish.

As a show watcher, it's so easy to see the lies, and how they work. But when it happens in real life, why is it so much harder for us to recognize and resist the lies?

Seeing these connections, I begin to see how it was possible for so many to go from "Hosanna" to "Crucify Him." In fact, I can look back and see several instances where I, myself, have fallen victim to the lies of political leaders. In my pandemic example, I can see a few instances of where I had said something I later regretted.

And these examples make me wonder: if I had been in Jerusalem during that holy week, and after I had shouted "Hosanna," would I have had the strength to resist the political persuasions to yell "Crucify Him"? Perhaps I'll never know.

And now I'm understanding with much more clarity why my church is urgently asking us to be peacemakers these past few years. And yes -- it 100% comes down to politics and this same issue of political leaders using lies to persuade us to attack our opponents. So much so that we're literally yelling "Crucify Them!" 

In the case of Jesus, it was necessary to the Plan that the multitudes yell "Crucify Him." His ultimate sacrifice was key to our salvation. Though the multitude yelled, Jesus was well taken care of. His own salvation was set in stone.

But what of those of whom we yell "Crucify Them"? Are they similarly being taken care of? Do we unknowingly cause them to suffer unjustly from our own misguided judgement? We may never know if we would have joined the "Crucify Him" crowd, but we have plenty of opportunities to decide whether or not to join the "Crucify Them" crowds of today. And in a way, the latter may actually be the greater sin.

I believe due to my usual kind nature, I naturally avoid saying "Crucify Them," at least most of the time. I tend to keep friends among those who disagree with me. Because I realize that we're all in this together. Though -- I'm not perfect, and several times have allowed myself to get caught up in the hype.

I can see that this very issue weighs heavily on the minds of my church leaders. Over the past few years, they have increased the number of "peacemaker" talks in General Conferences. Our leaders see our division and hate, and are urging us more than usual to become one and unite, and to ... well ... stop saying "Crucify Them."

In our last General Conference, our prophet Russel M. Nelson, gave this highly recommended talk on being peacemakers that caught my attention. It echoes practically everything I've been saying. But get this. He said ...

At this point, you may be thinking that this message would really help someone you know. Perhaps you're hoping that it will help him or her to be nicer to you. I hope it will. But I also hope that you will look deeply into your heart to see if there are shards of pride or jealousy that prevent you from becoming a peacemaker.

In other words, President Nelson was saying to us: "You probably think I'm talking to your friend, but no -- I'm talking to you."

So, yeah -- when it comes down to it, only we, individually, can fix this. Only I can fix my own self and be more of a peacemaker. 

And again this comes back to today's political pressures. Our two major parties will continue to influence us. For example, both parties claim that they are the only way to survival. If you vote for the other party, it would be disastrous. Recently, I've even witnessed the rise of a new party: the Forward Party, which basically seeks to reconcile and to get everyone to work together: the only way to move "forward." And I would see them post on Twitter much of what I'm trying to say in this post: stop the hate, work together. And with practically every post, members of both major parties would respond with much viscera, reminding me why I can't align with any of those two parties ever again. They don't want success, but rather power and the political blood of their enemies, and we, the public, are their tools and means to get that power. And we are the losers. Our country is being torn apart. Whoever wins, we lose.

I was surprised to see the Church become much clearer in their push for unity. Every year, they publish a worldwide letter to be read in every church unit about political neutrality, and it's always interesting to note what gets inserted, and what gets taken away.

Here's the letter for 2023, signed by the First Presidency. The stuff in bold is new this year:

Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). Information on candidates is available through the internet, debates, and other sources.

So, wow -- straight party voting is not good. What a concept. One thing I've noticed: as I've become an independent, myself, it's become a lot easier for me to see the lies and methods each party uses to persuade and deceive the public.

I should point out that the Church isn't asking us NOT to belong to a party, but it's the attitude we take on. If we accept everything blindly, that is bad. If, instead, we do our own research by studying the sources the Church mentions, we can make better decisions.

So how can we tell if we're falling into the "Crucify Them" trap? I recommend a self-check. If you see any of the following, it may be well considering course corrections:

• Am I unable to be friends with those who disagree with me?
• Do I condemn certain groups of people because of who they are or what they believe?
• Do I hate any prominent public figures?
• Do I vote straight ticket because that other party is just so evil?
• Do I tell someone they're going to hell because of how they voted?
• Do I listen to and believe everything prominent leaders tell us without doing my own research or trying to understand the other side?
• Am I actively participating in the current pandemic of division in the name of being "correct"?

The solution: don't allow ourselves to be persuaded by these wolves in sheep clothing. Do not ever yell "Crucify Them" of anyone. Love everyone and work together. Work out our differences and practice understanding, integrity, compassion, service, and love. We have the power now to be much better than the crowd that once yelled "Crucify Him" and we can really help the world to be a better place.