Was
Matthias God’s Choice?
While I am
more than aware that the majority of commentators are satisfied that Matthias
was God’s choice in Acts 1:15-26 to replace Judas, I must go with the minority
who have problems with this idea. I would offer, therefore, seven points that
the choice of Matthias was premature and not God’s choice.
First, and foremost, the Lord Jesus told
His disciples to wait, nothing else, until the coming of the Holy
Spirit. This point is totally ignored by most commentators but seems to me to
be the key point of the whole issue. In Luke 24:49, our Lord commands, “And,
behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of
Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” The Greek for “tarry”
is kathizō. In Classical Greek, as one Greek
authority writes, “Sitting was often a mark of honor or authority: a king sat
to receive his subjects, a court to give judgment, and a teacher to teach. The
general practice at meals in the Graeco-Roman world was not to sit on chairs
but to recline on couches placed round three sides of the table.”[1] All these meanings are also found
in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. In light of how the disciples
sat, that is, reclined, with Jesus at the last supper (Jn. 13:23, 25;
21:20), it seems clear that what Jesus is saying is, “I want you to sit like
you normally would at supper and wait. I don’t want you to preach or anything
else. I just want you to sit down, pray together, and wait for Me to send the
Holy Spirit as I’ve promised.” This leads to a second point.
Second, our Lord did not tell His disciples to replace Judas. This, too, seems to be ignored by the majority. As one such commentator writes, “As the Holy Ghost, on the day of Pentecost, was to descend upon them and endue them with power from on high, it was necessary that the number twelve should be filled up previously, that the newly elected person might also be made partaker of the heavenly gift.” But we are forced to ask, WHY? If the twelfth Apostle was so necessary at that time, would not the Lord Himself appointed him or specifically instructed the others to do so? The fact is that our Lord already had the twelfth Apostle in mind.
Third, the disciples never chose other disciples
before this, so why would
they do so now? One writer simply shrugs this off by writing, “In the [NT] the
Apostles were originally chosen by Christ (Lk. 6:13; Acts 1:2), but then after
Christ’s ascension, the church needed to fill the place of Judas.” How can we
accept such an offhanded comment? While verses 16 and 20 speak of David’s
prophecies that there would be a betrayer and the necessity that he be replaced
(Ps. 69:25; 109:8), that doesn’t mean the task fell to the disciples. The Lord
Jesus, and He alone, chose His disciples (and then trained them we might add).
One writer makes this point strongly:
Some have supposed that the role of apostle in the early church can be parallel by an appeal to Jewish procedures. But it seems more likely that the special importance of the apostolic office was derived from the fact that Jesus himself appointed the twelve. It is curious in view of this that the replacement of Judas, selected by means of casting lots (Acts 1:26), was ranked on the same level as those personally appointed by Jesus.[2]
Some
respond by arguing, “Since they prayed and asked the Lord to choose the right
one, then Christ was there in essence.” But that was never the precedent.
Christ always chose His disciples in person. This is further confirmed when He
called Saul, whom He chose in person, thereby following the pattern He’d laid
down. In his commentary on the Greek text of Ephesians, John Eadie is at least doubtful:
“Matthias was appointed [Judas’] successor and substitute (if a human
appointment, and one prior to Pentecost, be valid).”[3]
Fourth, the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon them so Spirit control is not indicated. One commentator writes, “Peter acted by inspiration,” but we must ask, where does the text say that? This was still technically Old Testament times, and the usual indication of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old Testament were the words “the spirit came upon” (I Chron. 12:18; cf. Jud. 3:10; 6:34; 13:25; II Sam. 23:2). Still many insist that “Matthias was the Holy Spirit’s choice,” but again, the text doesn’t say that. Yes, it says he “was numbered with the eleven apostles,” but it any more than that is only an assumption. The beloved J. Vernon McGee writes:
I can’t see that this was the leading of the Holy Spirit, nor
that it was God's leading in the casting of lots. Is Matthias actually the one
who took the place of Judas? I don’t think so . . . I think the Holy Spirit
ignored Matthias.
We also
agree with Martyn
Lloyd-Jones who comments, “The apostles decided that they must appoint
a successor,” but it was Paul who was the Lord’s choice.[4] How many wrong actions have
been taken, how many unbiblical ministries have been founded simply because men
did things their way instead of allowing God to work His way?
Fifth, casting lots was of the Law and an immature practice in view of
the coming Holy Spirit. Yes, this practice was accepted in the Old Testament
for discovering God’s will (Lev. 16:8-10; Prov. 16:33). Either different
colored stones or stones with the candidates name on them were placed in an urn
and shook. The first stone that fell was God’s choice.
But it’s
truly puzzling why commentators go out of their way to defend this Old
Testament practice even though it’s used right on the threshold of a new era.
In response, that great preacher G. Campbell Morgan writes that here is “a
revelation of their inefficiency for organization.” Indeed, they had not yet
comprehended what God was about to do and the way He would then work, namely,
not by lots but by the Spirit. Again, this is why our Lord told
them to wait. Morgan continues:
These men were perfectly sincere, proceeding on the lines of revealed truth, but they were ignorant of God’s next method; unable to bear their witness; unable to organize themselves for the doing of the work; and consequently needing the coming of the Paraclete.[5]
Likewise, that
great theologian Charles Hodge adds:
It is very doubtful whether this appointment of Matthias had any
validity. What is here recorded (Acts, i. 15–26), took place before the
Apostles had been endued with power from on high (Acts i. 8), and, therefore,
before they had any authority to act in the premises.[6]
Sixth, we never again read of Matthias in the Scripture record. Most
interpreters are quick to say here, “But many of the other disciples never
appear again either.” While that is certainty true, one would think that an
Apostle chosen under such extraordinary circumstances would figure prominently in
the coming events in Acts. But such is not the case. There are even conflicting
reports of what became of Matthias. One tradition says that he was
stoned to death by the Jews in Judea for preaching the gospel, while others say
he was martyred by crucifixion in Ethiopia or Cappadocia.[7] This
seems odd for one chosen to be an Apostle under such extraordinary
circumstance.
Seventh, clearly, Paul was the twelfth Apostle. Why fill up what the Lord Himself left vacant? He would fill the vacancy in His own time with His own choice, the Apostle Paul. As Hodge writes, “Christ in his own time and way completed the number of his witnesses by calling Paul to be an Apostle.”[8] J. Vernon McGee concurs: “I believe that in His own time, the Lord Jesus Himself appointed one to take the place of Judas Iscariot. We don’t hear another word about Matthias—nothing is recorded of his ministry . . . It is my conviction that the man the Lord chose was Paul.”[9]
Many commentators insist that Paul always excludes himself from the original twelve. They argue, “In I Corinthians 12:5 and 8 Paul refers to the twelve and then to himself showing a separation of him from them.”
“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve . . . And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”
But the term “the twelve” is used as a “collective term;” that is, whether there were twelve or not, the disciples as a group were called “the twelve.” John 20:24, for example, declares that after the resurrection, “Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.” Even though there was actually only ten disciples at that time—since Thomas was not with them and Judas was dead—they were still “the twelve.” Further, I Corinthians 12:5 and 8 are clearly sequential; they simply deal with time and the sequence of events. He appeared first to the twelve (again, actually only eleven at that time), and then to Paul. This in no way implies that Paul was not Judas’ replacement.
It is further argued that Paul’s Apostleship was different, that is, the other Apostles were for the Jews and Paul was for the Gentiles. While we agree that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, we should be careful about pushing this too far. After all, those so-called “Jewish Apostles” entered the Church Age the next day, and Paul also preached to Jews. There is simply no justification whatsoever to say that Paul was so unique that he is to be considered separate from the other Apostles.
One other
question remains: Why did the Holy Spirit allow this situation to be recorded?
For the same reason any other wrong doing is recorded—for us to learn.
It teaches us to wait on the Lord’s time and not take matters into our own
hands. There are many today who say such things as, “I believe the Holy Spirit
is leading me to do this thing,” but what we must look to is what God’s Word
says (and what it doesn’t say), for it is there that we find the will of God.
Dr. J. D. Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible Church
Sola Scriptura Ministries