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 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]

[4]

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.[5] 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.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8] 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.”[9] 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.”[10]

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 Text Box: 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) 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

Text Box: In The Next Issue: “How Often Should the Lord’s Supper Be Observed” (I Cor. 11:26). 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 anēr (“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.

Promptings for Prayer: Thank God for the new life He has given you in Christ. & Praise Him that this life is one of quality. & Ask Him to help you live the new character He has given you.

Back to TOTT Back to Home Page