Truth
On
Tough
Texts
PREMIERE ISSUE –
August/2005
Was Matthias
God’s Choice?
Acts
1:15-26
While I am more than aware that the
majority of commentators are satisfied that Matthias was
God’s choice to replace Judas in Acts 1:15-26, I must go
with the minority who have problems with this idea. In
this premiere
issue of Truth on Tough Texts, 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
kathizo. 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.”[i] 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.[ii]
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).”[iii]
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 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.[v] 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.[vi]
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.[vii]
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.[viii] 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.”[ix] 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.”[x]
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
wrongdoing 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
*
*
*
A Word to
Grow By
“New
Man”
kainos anthropos
In
keeping with the start of a new year, nothing could be
more appropriate than to consider what the Apostle Paul
calls the new man (Eph. 2:15; 4:24). The two
Greek words are kainos
anthropos, and they are truly
significant.
One word
translated new is neos, which “refers to
something new in time, something that recently
has come into existence.” The one here, however, is
kainos, which “refers to something new in
quality,” as it would be distinguished from
something that is old and worn out. This word is used,
for example, to refer to the “new tomb” in which Joseph
of Arimathea laid the body of Jesus (Matt. 27:60). It
was not a new tomb that had recently been hewn from the
rock (neos), rather one that
had never been used and was therefore new in the sense
of quality.
Man is not the
Greek aner (“a male person”), rather
anthropos,
the word that speaks of man as a “species,” man
as a race. It also refers not to a
mere “part” of a man, but the whole man, every aspect of
him.
Putting it
all together, the picture is graphic. The New Man is
something that has not existed before. He has been
inwardly transformed, which produces new character and
new habits.
Another key
verse is II Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore, if any man be
in Christ, he is a new [kainos] creature; old
things are passed away; behold all things are become new
[kainos].” The Christian is, therefore, a “new
creature,” not new in the sense of time—as in the
date he received Christ as Savior—rather new in
quality, a creature that has
never existed before, a creature with a new
character.
As you start
this New Year, fully realize that you are a new man
(or “woman”), a new creature in
Christ with a new character and a new way of
life.
Scriptures for
Study: Keeping
in mind the difference between kainos and neos, consider what is
new in the following verses: Matthew 26:28; John 13:34;
I Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8, 13, 15; II Peter
3:3.
An excerpt from Pastor Watson's book,
A Word for the Day (AMG
Publishers)
*
*
*
The
Holy Scriptures
The
Foundation of Christian Faith
Our Christian faith does
not hang upon air but is firmly grounded in divine
revelation. God reveals Himself in the universe which He
has created, in human history, especially the history of
the Christian Church, and in the preaching of the
Gospel. But above all God reveals Himself in the pages
of the Holy Scriptures. For without the Scriptures these
other modes of divine revelation would avail us little.
As John Calvin observed, the Scriptures are the
spiritual eyeglasses which enable our sin-blinded minds
to see aright the revelation which God makes of Himself
in nature. Also the Scriptures are the key which unlocks
the mysteries of history and reveals to us God’s plan.
And finally, the Scriptures are that pure well of divine
truth to which the preachers of the Gospel must
continually repair and fill their silver pitchers. The
Scriptures, therefore, are the foundation of faith. In
them, alone God’s revelation of Himself is found
unobscured by human error. They are the Word of God,
which liveth and abideth forever (I Peter
1:23).
Edward F. Hills,
Believing Bible Study, 2nd Edition,
pp. 3-4 (emphasis
Hills’)
[Calvin
reference: Institutes,
I.6.1].
*
*
*
It is all too
plainly apparent men are willing to forego the old for
the sake of the new. But commonly it is found in
theology that that which is true is not new, and that
which is new is not true.
Robert Shindler in
Charles Spurgeon’s The
Sword and the Trowel
(1887)
NOTES
[i]
Colin Brown, (General Editor). The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology, 3 Vol. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 3, p.
588.s
[ii] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), p.
739.
[iii] John Eadie, Commentary on the Epistle to the
Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprinted from
Eadie’s 1883 edition, p.
298.
[v] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
Christian Unity: An Exposition of
Ephesians4:1-16. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982, p. 186
(emphasis
added).
[vi] G. Campbell Morgan,
The Acts of the Apostles, p.
21.
[vii] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans Publishing,
Reprinted 1989), Vol. 1, p.
140-141.
[viii] Unger’s
Bible Dictionary and Smith’s Bible
Dictionary.
[ix] Hodge, Vol. 1, p.
141.
[x] J. Vernon McGee, Through the Bible,
Acts.
