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!

ROMANS 14: THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT - A STUDY ON ROMANS 14 PART 3 OF 11

 

Observation tower stairs, Edgar Evins State Park, Tennessee

For those unfamiliar with the program "Through the Bible with Les Feldick," Les taped four 1/2 hour programs each month. He spent 71 programs on Romans. The final four covered Chapters 12-16. Similarly, I heard that at my Bible College, the professor ran out of semester as he got to Chapter 12. 

In the previous installment, I gave a quick overview of the book of Romans, and dealt with four major points of the first eleven chapters. For review, they are:

1. No one is righteous (Rom. 1:18-3:18).
2. Christ paid the penalty of our sins so we can be justified by Him through faith (Rom. 3:19-5:21).
3. As Christ died for our sins and was raised, we should die to our past sinful life and live life in the Spirit (Rom. 6-8).
4. God has cast off Israel due to their unbelief and grafted the church in through faith, but if and when they turn from their unbelief, they will be restored according to the Sovereignty of God (Rom. 9-11).

 Paul starts with practical application at this point in this letter (remember, he didn't divide his letters into chapters and verses any more than we do) with three concepts: 

1. We should present ourselves as a living sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1).
2. We should not be conformed to the world but renew our minds and think soberly (Rom. 12:2-3).
3. We are one body in Christ, functioning as members through spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:4-8).
   

 You may notice common ground between the two lists I just gave you, but there's a difference: The list of four doctrines are what we believe, and the next three is how we think and act based on that belief. Those three points deal with the following: 

• A checklist of behaviors consistent with the above foundations (Rom. 12:9-21).
• How we are to live as citizens (Rom. 13:1-7).
• Love being seen as how we are to live (Rom. 13:8-10).
• The call to live and walk as being in the light of the Lord, not the darkness of the world (Rom. 13:11-14).

And finally:

• How to watch out for each other and live out our differences (Rom. 14:1-15:7).

This brings us to where I'm going to focus for the next week. Y'all ready?

ROMANS 14: THE GREATER CONTEXT - A STUDY ON ROMANS 14 PART 2 OF 11

 

Cool Creek Park, Westfield, Indiana

One bit of Bible study advice I've known since I started attending Bible College: "A text without a context is a pretext." So I will spend the next two sessions developing the context of Romans 14.

First, we need to look at where Romans fits into Scripture. Christians believe that there is a two part division of Scripture: The Old Covenant (or Old Testament) and the New Covenant (New Testament). The former focuses on Israel with a look at the coming Messiah and His Kingdom. The latter focuses on Jesus as the prophesied Messiah (Greek word for Messiah is Christ) and His present tense Kingdom in the Church (as well as looking for the future Kingdom when He returns). Romans - or more completely, the Letter of Paul to the Romans - is a New Testament book.

Allow me to take a step back here and point out that not all editions of Scripture, while having the same books, do not have them in the same order. The Jews have a different order of the books (and some of the books were combined - "The Book of the Twelve" is the same as the twelve Minor Prophets). Likewise, some of the New Testament texts would have a differing order of the four Gospels or may have the General Epistles preceding Paul's, but it is just a rearrangement of the same contents.

One interesting phenomenon is that Paul's letters are immune from this variation. Every edition starts with the letters to Churches, starting with Romans to the Thessalonian letters, and followed with the letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Les Feldick indicates that the fact it always has been in this order is God's design. On the other hand, Frank Viola proposes that the order is based on book length, starting with the longest (Romans).

Paul didn't plant the church in Rome, though some believe he did indirectly, being started by those discipled by Paul. In reading this letter, it is evident that his audience was mixed between Jews and Gentiles. Most believe Paul wrote this letter in Cornith, at the end of his third missionary journey on his way to Jerusalem, where he was arrested and eventually sent to Rome.

A common trait in Paul's letters was to start with doctrine and then move to practical application, and Romans is no exception. The first eleven chapters are doctrinal, and the remaining five are practical. (Keep in mind that the Biblical authors did not divide their writings into chapters and verses; these were done later for reference.)

Allow me to give a list of doctrinal foundations given that chapters 12-16 (including our focal point on chapter 14) are built on.

1. No one is righteous (Rom. 1:18-3:18).
2. Christ paid the penalty of our sins so we can be justified by Him through faith (Rom. 3:19-5:21).
3. As Christ died for our sins and was raised, we should die to our past sinful life and live life in the Spirit (Rom. 6-8).
4. God has cast off Israel due to their unbelief and grafted the church in through faith, but if and when they turn from their unbelief, they will be restored according to the Sovereignty of God. (Rom. 9-11).
   

 Are you all ready for a break after this? I am! So I'll be looking more at the context for the 14th chapter of Romans in my next installment.

But for those brave enough to answer a question I post in my blog (I haven't had many takers thus far), here's a question for you: With the four points I listed above, how would you say we should live? What does that look like?