MATTHIAS - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 4 OF 6)

St. Mathias by Peter Paul Rubens from his Twelve Apostles series at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, c. 1611

Sometimes, a person gets criticized because of someone else's actions. Matthias is in this point. The sole criticism of Matthias was not anything he did or said, but just that he wasn't God's choice as Judas' replacement. Nor was the other man on the ballot. Obviously, Paul was God's choice. At least, that's what they say, criticizing Peter for rushing ahead before the Holy Spirit came down.

Sigh. What is the real root of that theory? Simple. Paul is a prominent figure in Acts and the New Testament, and Matthias isn't. They add that there are references to the twelve apostles like "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28) and "Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14). So doesn't mean there are only twelve apostles?

Let me deal with these issues.

• Matthias is not an apostle because he's not mentioned as much as Paul? Let's see - give me all the references in Acts to Thomas and Andrew and Simon the Zealot. Matthias fits in the mix with them. Never mind that the view that prominence shows God's blessing is of the flesh; God saves by few as by many.
• What is the significance of twelve? Well, duh, it relates to the 12 Tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 talks about the Apostles judging the 12 tribes. Revelation 21:14 follows 21:12, which talks about the 12 tribes. Could the 12 Apostles be a signal of a rebirth of Israel, starting the day of Pentecost? Then why wasn't Paul there?
• Let's look at instances when Post-Judas the disciples are referred to as "The Twelve." First, Luke mentions them in Acts 6:2. Second, there is the reference of Jesus appearing to the twelve after the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:5. We know who 11 of the 12 are, and we know Judas wasn't there. Who was the 12th in both cases? Paul? No, not converted yet. Could the 12th be Matthias? Of course, it could. By the way, Paul considered Matthias to be one of the twelve; he did not consider himself one of the twelve.
• Again, the ministry of the 12 was to the 12 tribes. Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. There is no indication that he ever was a part of the 11 in his ministry. 
• Of course, we're not saying that Paul's not an apostle. But is it possible that the references of the 12 apostles were connected to Israel, meaning apostles to the Gentiles could be apostles but not of the 12, like Paul?
• Also, who said Peter was jumping the gun? Jesus spent 40 days with the Apostles. There was no record that He spoke about replacing Judas... and no record that He didn't. He told them to wait in Jerusalem, but He didn't tell them what to do or not to do while in Jerusalem waiting. One friend made fun of casting lots - hey, God commanded lots be used in calling out Achan's sin and His choice of King Saul, as well as using that means in other instances. The qualifications? For a person to be a witness of Christ's life and resurrection? Not commanded. Not. Condemned.

Yes, this is an issue for me. After all, the text nowhere suggests Peter was jumping the gun or that they were to wait for Paul to be saved. Again, it's looking down on Matthias because of a lack of prominence. But all the references that say he wasn't God's choice are located either preceding Genesis or following Revelation.

 

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!