Before Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 1:12-26, the 11 apostles cast lot between 2 men > ... who have been with [them] the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among [them] beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22) and Matthias was chosen. One interpretation for Rev 4:4 about the identity of the 24 elders is that twelve will be the 12 OT patriarchs while the other twelve will be the 12 apostles. Will Matthias be the 12th one in either of the 2 scenes in Revelation (Rev 4:4 and Rev 21:14), or will Paul be the 12th one since Jesus *himself* (rather than humans by lots, despite that they are acting as apostles) seems to commission him as "apostle" (Acts 9:15)? Or was Paul's "title" only an "instrument" (*skeuos*), despite that Paul called himself "apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" (1 Cor 1:1, *apostolos*)? It seems the interpretation is [a matter of opinion](https://www.gotquestions.org/Matthias-Judas-Paul.html) , and a [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7507/who-was-the-12th-apostle-matthias-or-paul) was closed for that reason. So instead, I'm asking this historical question: **were there a major church father or a reformer who *explicitly named Paul* as one of the 24 elders in Rev 4:4 and/or one of the 12 apostles of the Lamb in Rev 21:14?** This also requires the 24 / the 12 to be interpreted literally rather than symbolically. Please provide a quote.

When reading the appointment of Matthias, you come across very specific actions and precise language. Consider, of course: **Acts 1:21-26** ESV > 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And **they cast lots** for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Here we see the apostles themselves (namely Peter) create a criteria for the position of apostle, narrow down candidates, then cast lots in order to decide upon the right suitor. Now let us consider a succession of texts from Paul, who uses his own peculiarly specific word choice: **Romans 1** ESV > 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, **called to be an apostle**, set apart > for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his > prophets in the holy Scriptures, Nothing too extraordinary there other than Paul saying he was *called* to be an apostle. Called by whom? It isn't quite clear here yet, but let's read on, shall we? **1 Corinthians 1** ESV > 1 Paul, **called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ > Jesus**, and our brother Sosthenes, Here, I think, we can begin to see Paul making a statement about his election / calling to be an apostle, by God Himself, rather than by men as Matthias was chosen. **2 Corinthians 1** ESV > 1 Paul, **an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God**, and Timothy our > brother, Once again, Paul makes mention of "the will of God." **Galatians 1** ESV > 1 Paul, **an apostle—*not from men nor through man*, but through Jesus > Christ and God the Father**, who raised him from the dead— 2and all > the brothers who are with me, This is where I see Paul drawing the biggest distinction in the appointments of Matthias and of himself. He outright states, "no man chose me, I was chosen by God Himself." So my question simply follows on the natural reading of the texts: Did the early church fathers see the appointment of Matthias, perhaps, to be hasty and contrary to God's will, especially when considered in the light of Saul's election, conversion, and choice of words? Do we have any thoughts from the fathers regarding the election of these two apostles? Of course, as an aside, we also have the Lord's words recorded in **Acts 9:15** > 15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! **This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument** > to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people > of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

If Jesus is **not** the son of Joseph, but the Son of God, why is it said that Joseph is a descendent of David? If Jesus is the Son of God and the son of Mary, then the man who took care of Mary and her baby could be any man (a descendant of David or not). Hypothetically, if Mary would have been engaged with another man than Joseph, that wouldn't change Jesus, so why does it matter that the "adoptive father" (Joseph) was a descendant of David? In Matthew 1, it says that Jesus is the son of David, because Joseph is the son of David, not because Mary was a daughter of David, as it is stated clearly.

In [Acts 1:20–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A20-26&version=NLT) , the Apostles are choosing the 12th Apostle who will replace Judas: > 20 Peter continued, “This was written in the book of Psalms, where it says, ‘Let his home become desolate, with no one living in it.’ It also says, ‘Let someone else take his position.’ > 21 “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.” > 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen 25 as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven. [NLT] Does bible say anything about the choice of the new Apostle? What did Matthias have that Judas did not? Does the Bible explain this?

Commentators on the story of [Acts 1:15–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=ESV) , where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like: > Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. ([*People's New Testament*](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0501.html)) There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul *was not* considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like [Acts 2:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A14&version=ESV) and [1 Corinthians 15:5–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A5-9&version=ESV) . But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been. So, my question. What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul? Related: [Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7507/21576) Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.