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.

As was brought up in another question; in so using Matthew 10:1-4, which lists the names of the 12. A response from a contributor stated the unavailability of proof in the Scripture to show that any or all(my own addition to shorten) were truely Jewish or Israelites. The belief I have found, which comes from Jesus's mouth in Matthew 28:19, "make disciples of all nations", leads me to my point. The missing facts that could tell us if the 12 disciples were Jews is irrelevant. It does not matter, that is why it is not found in the Scriptures. We do not need to know, and Jesus already said that He wanted disciples of all nations. Had the information been available stating all to be Jews, then we may find ourselves arguing, as I know I do about things anyway, except this time with Jesus's command, on whether or not a disciple should or should not be either Jewish or of Israelite lineage, or of all nations.

Matthew 27 NIV >**Judas Hangs Himself** >1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor. 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a] >**Jesus Before Pilate** > 11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” One is naturally inclined to believe that Judas killed himself just prior to the Lord's crucifixion, going by this text. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul states the following: >3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, **and then to the Twelve.** 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (Note: "the Twelve" is not capitalized in every translation) Thus, we see that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to the twelve after His resurrection. But that cannot be, as Matthew, as shown above, indicates or insinuates that Judas killed himself prior to the crucifixion; therefore, being a witness to the risen Christ would be an impossibility. So, was Judas still part of the group when Jesus began to appear publicly following His resurrection or not? Did he die before or after the crucifixion/death/resurrection or some other time?

I've been following some (often less than civil) conversations about the character of pastors lately in which how morally upstanding a church leader should be expected to be is questioned. At several points, the interpretation of various Biblical sources was called into question -- something to the effect of "_if this is to be interpreted literally it would disqualify lots of pastors. Obviously that wouldn't be God's intent, so we just re-examine our interpretation_." Right off the bat, the hermeneutical principles I bring to the table call that nonsense -- instead it is the Biblical text itself that informs us of what outcome God would or would not have wanted. This leads me to believe that, given the premise of that statement, indeed many church leaders should be disqualified. My question is what happens when we apply various standards to the first apostles? I know it is generally understood in most Christian circles that while 12 were originally called, it was understood that one was destined to play the traitor, leaving 11 apostles after Christ left. Among themselves they appointed a new 12th. We also know that at least some of them came from sketchy backgrounds where a few broken families and certainly some shady business practices are assumed. Tax collectors anybody? So what do we know about the moral character of the apostles after Christ's ascension? As they went out into ministry, did they evidence the kind of upstanding moral character we might expect? Does scripture or history record of lieing/cheating/stealing in their "born again" lives? How about divorce? Did any of them go on to marry and then be unfaithful? If the Scriptural record and history don't afford any concrete examples of unfaithfulness, what dirt did folks _try_ to throw on them?