MATTHIAS - MAN'S CHOICE TO REPLACE JUDAS? OR GOD'S?

 

St. Matthias, by Peter Paul Ruben

 

This Pentecost Sunday, I thought I'd look at one of the Apostles who took part of the first Pentecost. Or was he really an apostle and not counted among the Twelve solely due to the rashness of Peter, occupying a spot that God had designated for Paul?

Let's look at what Scripture says about the choice of Matthias and the circumstances. Namely, we need to turn to Acts 1. Here's a brief outline of that chapter:

1. Luke addresses this book to Theophilus. (1:1)
   
2. Jesus, after the resurrection, instructed His apostles, telling them to remain in Jerusalem until they receive the Spirit, and commissioning them as witnesses. (1:2-8)
3. Jesus ascended, and the angels tell the apostles He will return in the same manner (1:9-11)
4. They returned to Jerusalem, and were in prayer and supplication with the women, Mary, Jesus' brothers, and the rest of the disciples (total about 120). (1:12-16)
5. Peter addressed the need for someone to fill Judas Isacariot's place, gave qualifications, nominated Justus and Matthias, prayed, cast lots, and selected Matthias. (1:17-26)

When I read this, I just see a historical account. It tells what happened. There was no voice from heaven confirming they did the right thing, nor was there a rebuke either from God or in the writing of Luke.

Does that keep Christians from reading between the lines? I wish. I've heard several, including some of my favorite teachers, saying that the disciples should have held off and let Jesus/God clearly reveal His choice. These propose that Paul was God's choice to fill that role. Here are some of the reasons for that thought:

• Paul had a prominent place in Acts and in Church History. Matthias didn't.
• Eschatologically, there are two references to twelve followers: Jesus' promise to His followers to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28) and the names of the twelve apostles written on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14). Thus there should only be twelve apostles: Both Matthias and Paul could not be apostles, and others like Barnabas and James the Lord's brother could not either.
• Peter was the one introducing the concept - no record of that idea being mentioned earlier. And we know Peter could be rash and put his foot in his mouth. So who's to say Peter wasn't exercising authority that didn't belong to him?
• Finally, they cast lots to choose Matthias, or in modern terms, throwing dice. Is that how God speaks?
  

Are any of these points irrefutable? I don't think so. Allow me to share my thoughts on why we should just leave Scripture alone and allow Matthias his place among the twelve.

• Just because Matthias was not as prominent as Paul did not mean he wasn't God's choice. True, Matthias was only mentioned by name twice in Acts (both in Acts 1). But how does he compare? Not counting Paul and assuming the Phillip in Acts 8 and 21 isn't the Apostle Phillip, then Matthias would be tied for third place among the twelve for most mentions. Peter, of course, was first, and John was second (though he got those mentions by being with Peter at the time). Matthias was tied with James the son of Zebedee with two mentions, and the second mention of James was to inform us he was killed. The lack of prominence is not proof he didn't belong.
• There are two other references to "the twelve." One is in Acts 6:2. The other is Paul mentioning who the risen Jesus appeared to in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Was Paul among the twelve in either reference? Furthermore, was Matthias? Considering he was a disciple from Jesus' baptism to the resurrection, he could be.
• Yes, Peter opened his mouth a lot. Sometimes it was rash. Sometimes, it was in faith, like when Jesus walked on water. Peter was the one who said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). When Jesus asked the twelve if they were leaving Him as other disciples were, Peter was the one who said, "To who shall we go? You have the words of eternal life? Also we have come to believe that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter took the role of spokesperson, good as well as bad.
• We may joke about casting lots, but God used it four times. He Himself ordered lots to be used to identify Achan when he sinned (Joshua 7). He also told Samuel to use lots to determine the first king - Samuel knew who it was, but the people didn't (1 Samuel 10). The third and fourth times were more suspect (Saul calling for lots to reveal who violated his rash curse in 1 Samuel 14, and Jonah's boat buddies determining who was responsible for the storm in Jonah 1), but God showed the truth by the method regardless. 
• Back to Peter. It doesn't tell us where the idea came from. Was it his own? Did Jesus mention finding a replacement for Judas to Peter either individually or with the others? Or could it be mentioned among the group and Peter addressed it? We don't know.
• Related to the above: Remember Jesus sending the 12 out in pairs? Matthew and Luke, in listing the Apostles, it gave them in 6 groups of two. Four of the six pairs were identical in the two lists; the only question is which one was paired with James the son of Alpheus and which was with Judas Iscariot. Now, just prior to the ascension, Jesus told them they'd be witnesses. They may have assumed it was the same teams. Thus, Simon the Zealot or Thaddeus went to Peter, addressing he didn't have a teammate.
  
• The objectors ignored that Acts 1:15 stated that they were praying during that time. 
  
• Les Feldick stated that the ministry of the Twelve was as a witness primarily to Israel. Paul had a unique call, primarily to the Gentiles. There is no reference of Paul ever serving as part of the twelve. 
• Related to the above, J. Gary Millar in Calling on the Name of the Lord: A Biblical Theology of Prayer stated that the believers were the new Israel, and the twelve apostles mirrored the twelve sons of Jacob, so a twelfth apostle was needed prior to Pentecost. 

No, this is not a salvation issue. True Christians can disagree. Scripturally, as I mentioned, we just have a summary of what happened without telling all the whys and giving no positive or negative commentary either in Acts 1 or elsewhere in Scripture.

So with that, have a happy Pentecost!