Acts 1:12-26
The Mystery of Matthias
Perhaps one of the greatest mysteries confronting us in regards to the work of the early church regards the selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ. Was this an appropriate action on the part of the early church or some sort of terrible error?
In defense of the action I have to say we must use an important element of Biblical interpretation called context. Normally, in Scripture, when we see God's people choose a direction that is out of God's will then we see a negative response from the Lord. That response can be a direct rebuke from the Lord or a rebuke issued through the prophet. That response can be judgment from God. That negative response can also be the natural consequences of that action.
God directly rebuked Adam and Eve in the garden. There was no question that their act was sin. God rebuked Cain for murdering his brother. God confronted Elijah for running away into the wilderness. God is capable of confronting us with our sin. No such confrontation occurs here.
God uses his prophets to confront us with our sin. The prophet Nathan approached and rebuked David for his sin with Bathsheba. Another prophet rebuked Jehosophat for his alliance with Ahab, the evil king of Israel. When Simon (formerly known as the Sorceror) sought the “power” to bring the Holy Spirit upon people, the apostles rebuked him.
God uses judgment to let us know we are in sin. Jonah suffered through a severe storm and three days in a whale's belly because he ran away from doing the will of God. Plagues came upon the children of Israel for their sins in the wilderness. The exile of the nation of Israel and Judah both came about because of sin. The Ishmaelite problem that Israel faces even today are demonstrative of Abraham's sin in entering into a sexual relationship with his wife's handmaiden, even if it was culturally acceptable, it was not God's will.
In defense of the selection of Matthias we must note that Dr. Luke records no negative response in regard of the selection of Matthias as an apostle. He records no message from the Holy Spirit offering rebuke. He records no judgment that falls upon the church because of this action. He records nothing further about Matthias. Therefore, with the exception of the selection of the Paul as an apostle by Jesus Christ Himself, we are provided with no apparent indication that the church made an error.
However, let us look at some other evidence that may demonstrate that their action was in error. First, Jesus' command was very clear. It was not to hold elections. It was to go and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't seem too odd to me that Simon Peter is the instigator of this “election.” Peter wasn't too keen on waiting. Do you remember that it was Simon Peter who told his brethren “I go fishing?” Why? He was uncertain of the direction that God was leading him into. So he lapsed back into a life he knew well. This time, Peter isn't lapsing back into an old life, but appears to be chomping at the bit in his desire to be about the Lord's work. So, he proposes that the church take action and select an Apostle.
Second, we must note Peter's words. He declares that the believers must find a way to fulfill prophecy. Now, here, if I was driving a car you would feel me slam on the brakes and hear the tires squeal. Whose responsibility is it to fulfill prophecy? If it is truly God's prophetic Word then it is God's job to fulfill it! When we as believers attempt to fulfill prophecy we do stupid things. Abraham and Sarah sought to fulfill prophecy and attempted to do so through the use of Hagar. However, Ishmael clearly was not the child of promise that God had spoken to Abraham about. I hold the strong opinion that Peter's effort to fulfill prophecy was misguided, at best. It is God's job to fulfill prophecy and demonstrate His power.
Third, we look at God's method of calling Apostles. To be an Apostle, one needed to be called by Christ, not by other disciples. Christ Himself was responsible for the calling of the Apostle Paul. Even the other disciples, as they became acquainted with Paul and saw evidence of his conversion agreed that he was an apostle. Paul called himself an Apostle “born out of due season.”
Finally, we look at the method used to choose. They narrowed their choice down to two men and then cast lots to decide which it should be. Can you imagine doing this in a church today to select a deacon, a Sunday School teacher, or to fill another position. Shouldn't we rely on the Holy Spirit?
I heard a minister on the radio speaking yesterday about Joseph and his dreams. He shared how Joseph's dreams were likely meant for Joseph personally and that Joseph shared them with his brothers in a possible effort to manipulate them. Then he spoke of his own personal experience as he met with the Pastor search committee in regards to the prospective pastoral call. One of the members asked him if he had a “Word from God” regarding the position. His response was “the question is not whether I have a word from God, but whether or not you have Word from God.” After he was called by the church and took the job, he shared how he had once been felt as if he had received a Word from God regarding pastoring that same church about fifteen years prior to being called. One of the members of the committee said, “It sure would have been easier on us if you had shared that with us at the time.” To which the pastor replied, “Then I would have been manipulating you into doing what I saw as the will of God rather than allowing God to lead you. Whether or not God had actually called me here would always be in question. Now, we can all see that it was God's calling and fulfillment of his promise to me.” Today, we rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us in making these decisions.
Was calling Matthias an error? I think so. However, I think it is one of those errors that is so minor and had such a small impact on the early church that it is a case of “no harm—no foul.” Peter was trying to do God's will and trying to assume the place of leadership in the early church that he knew Christ had called him to. If it had been a serious error or a breach of spiritual ethics, I believe God would have inspired Luke to say so. Instead, we simply have the stories of the church selecting Matthias to take Judas' place and the calling of Paul as an Apostle by Christ himself. If Luke had written that Matthias was not supposed to be an apostle, he might've hurt Matthias and those who loved him. Matthias, after all, was a good man, who had been faithfully involved in the ministry of Christ from the beginning. There was no reason to confuse matters by doing more than simply contrasting his call with the call of Paul. To me, it is obvious that Paul was genuinely called by Christ and Matthias, as good and faithful as he was, was not called to that level of responsibility.
