July 9, 2004
Was Matthias Really An Apostle?
Allow me to begin by saying that this is an article I never dreamed I would ever have to be writing but considering the extensive controversy surrounding this matter, at least in the minds of some of our Protestant brothers and sisters, I felt it necessary to clarify the validity of St. Matthias' apostleship.
In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was alloted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.' So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:15-26Now the argument of some of our Protestant brothers and sisters goes like this: Peter and the other apostles thought that they were chosing who was to take Judas' place, but they chose incorrectly and this is proven by the fact that Jesus later chose Paul to be an apostle.
So let's look at this claim. Does the fact that Jesus chose Paul (Saul) to be a follower of His nullify the actions of the Apostles in seeking to fill Judas' office? The answer is most certainly not, the reasons are as follows:
(1) The Apostles didn't just pick a successor. They prayed and asked God to show which man God had chosen to take Judas' office (Acts 1:24-25) and then they cast lots (Acts 1:26). Is this significant, the casting of lots? Yes. In the Hebrew tradition casting lots was a method of determining an outcome that would reveal God's Will. This method is found repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. Lots were cast in the selection of King Saul (1 Sam 10:19-21). Lots were cast in determining what land each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel would receive in the Holy Land when they returned from Egypt (Joshua 18:10). Joshua did this in accordance with God's command in Num 26:55. Lots were used in selecting the service of the Levites and priests (Neh 10:34 and Luke 1:9). So this was most certainly a method utilized by the Jewish people, and more importantly, as ordered by God in determining who He desired to be chosen for a certain task or place.
(2) Matthias is present, as an apostle, throughout Acts. We know that Matthias was present at Pentecost for immediately following his selection we read:
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.
- Acts 2:1
But Peter, standing with the eleven... - Acts 2:14
Both verses testify to his presence among the apostles at Pentecost and the second verse to his being an apostle. We know that later he is referred to again as a member of the Twelve.
And the twelve summoned the body of disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables..." - Acts 6:2
All additional reference to the apostles throughout Acts are in reference to various members of the Twelve with the exception of one verse (see next point).
(3) The Apostleship of Paul is in addition to that of the Twelve. Now we need to consider whether or not St. Paul's apostleship was in replacement of that of Matthias or simply in addition to the Twelve. Acts 14:14 is the only place in the entire book of Acts where St. Paul is referred to as an apostle. Yet he is not alone in receiving this title:
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying, "Men, why are you doing this?"
- Acts 14:14
This clearly shows that the title of "apostle" was not exclusive only to the Twelve, for we know for certain that Barnabas was not considered one of the Twelve as he was an early follower and a Levite (Acts 4:36-37).
We also know that St. Paul, after his initial conversion came before the Apostles, in fact it was Barnabas who brought him. After being approved by the Apostles, St. Paul was then sent out (Acts 9:27-30). St. Paul himself would later go on to make a distinction between himself and the Twelve, calling them "superlative apostles," but going on to say that he is no less than them in that they are all sharers in the same wonders and mighty works (2 Cor 11:5; 2 Cor 12:11).
Matthias' apostleship was valid and divinely ordained. He was considered a member of the Twelve.
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Interesting article, one thing though, the "super" apostles that Paul is refering to in 2nd Corinthians are men who are leading the Corinthian church away from true Christianity. It is not a reference to the 12 in that section of scripture. Paul does refer to himself as the least of the apostles in 1st Cor 15:9 though and there he is refering to the 12.
MAK
Posted by: Mike Klein at July 14, 2004 9:40 AMI've only occasionally heard the Protestant view you're talking about, and I've run in a lot of fairly diverse Protestant circles. It sometimes crops up among dispensationalists. The standard view among Protestants is what you've expressed here as your own view. I just checked five Protestant commentaries (I. Howard Marshall, Richard Longenecker, F.F. Bruce, John Stott, and Ben Witherington), and not one of them takes the view you're criticizing. It's a point worth making due to those who do take the view you're criticizing, but I wouldn't see it as a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at July 14, 2004 5:31 PMJeremy,
I think this is becoming a more and more pervavsive view. I heard it for the first time from my brother (a Calvary Chapel preacher) when I challenged him that Acts chapter 1 clearly shows apostolic succession. I was blown away by the audaciously un-Scriptural character of the claim, but there it was! Since then I have run into many people of the same view. Just more ignorance fed by fundamentalist prejudices to destroy anything in Christianity resembling Catholicism.
In Christ,
Dave
I have a more basic question. A few years ago I had a debate with a Presbyterian minister. She insisted that casting lots meant taking a vote. I thought it was more like choosing the short straw or some other type of chance game. Do you know? Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Ell at July 16, 2004 7:50 PMCasting lots is as you stated, a game of chance. This is most easily proven by reference to the scene at the foot of the Cross where Christ's seemless garment was given to only one of the soldiers--they cast lots for it. Here is an interesting explanation I found:
"Casting lots is an ancient way of making certain kinds of decisions. The 'lot' involved can be the flip of a coin, a set of specially-marked stones (from which came dice), sticks wrapped with written words on them, or (in a modern version) slips of paper mixed up in a hat. The ancient stones or sticks would be thrown on the ground and then someone would figure out what it means based on rules agreed to beforehand or set by tradition. The ancients are said to have believed in the power of the throwing of lots, so much so that some (like the Mesopotamians) believed that even the gods were bound by them. (Actually, many of them were practical people with practical reasons to randomize many of their decisions. But we'll let the religious studies folk overblow the ancients' superstitiousness, and stick to the point.) There was a real belief that the gods (or just God) revealed themselves through random things, because ultimately nothing is random and all things are dictated by the gods (or God) or fate."
Hope this helps.
In Christ,
Dave
but if "casting of lots" were of the law, or done in ancients times by pagan worshippers. Why would God support Matthias as a legitimate choice? It was the time of Grace not the law and God doesn;t condone pagan practices.
secondly God said to the disciples wait until the Holy Ghost has come, not choose an apostle.
Posted by: tracey thompson at September 28, 2004 4:52 PM
but if "casting of lots" were of the law, or done in ancients times by pagan worshippers. Why would God support Matthias as a legitimate choice? It was the time of Grace not the law and God doesn;t condone pagan practices.
secondly God said to the disciples wait until the Holy Ghost has come, not choose an apostle.
Posted by: tracey thompson at September 28, 2004 4:52 PM
but if "casting of lots" were of the law, or done in ancients times by pagan worshippers. Why would God support Matthias as a legitimate choice? It was the time of Grace not the law and God doesn;t condone pagan practices.
secondly God said to the disciples wait until the Holy Ghost has come, not choose an apostle.
Posted by: tracey thompson at September 28, 2004 4:52 PM
but if "casting of lots" were of the law, or done in ancients times by pagan worshippers. Why would God support Matthias as a legitimate choice? It was the time of Grace not the law and God doesn;t condone pagan practices.
secondly God said to the disciples wait until the Holy Ghost has come, not choose an apostle.
Posted by: tracey thompson at September 28, 2004 4:52 PM
but if "casting of lots" were of the law, or done in ancients times by pagan worshippers. Why would God support Matthias as a legitimate choice? It was the time of Grace not the law and God doesn;t condone pagan practices.
secondly God said to the disciples wait until the Holy Ghost has come, not choose an apostle.
Posted by: tracey thompson at September 28, 2004 4:52 PM
Tracey,
Actually God clearly agreed with their decision when He also descended as the Holy Spirit on Matthias along with the twelve. In casting lots they are essentially putting their faith in God to make sure the correct person is chosen.
By the way, God has always taken pagan practices and made them His. Think of circumcision and baptism, for example, which were both pagan beforehand. God essentially makes them holy when He brings them into His plan for our salvation.
God bless,
Jay
PS - the apostles were also fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy by choosing another apostle, which is another indication they were doing God's will.
Posted by: Jay at September 28, 2004 5:13 PMI find it interesting that Paul, who wrote most of the new testament history, and his comrad Luke,the physician who went along with him and wrote the book of acts are the only two that testified to him being an apostle. None of the other apostles referred to him as an apostle.
What else is interesting is how people refer to Jesus handpicked disciples( the ones he chose when he was alive) as the ones who were leading people away from christianity.
Jesus himself and his handpicked disciples testified that the laws of Moses were good and should be followed.
I believe that Paul did have a vision ... just as king Saul was one day annointed as king, and was a good king, but grace(faith) without works lead to losing your annointing.
My friends, Love God and produce good fruits, stay close to the torah and observe it as Jesus did the same. read Matthew 13:36-43
Lucy,
Your comment is a bit confusing...Your reference about "staying close to the torah and observing it as Jesus did" leads me to believe that you are a "Jew for Jesus." Is this so? (On a side note, I would be very interested in learning more about this group if you are a member.)
The point of the above article is that the Word of God says it, regardless of whether it was "just" St. Paul and St. Luke who refers Matthias or not. Maybe the reason for this would be the fact that only St. Luke was attempting to write a historical narrative of what happened in the early Church after Jesus' Ascension into heaven. What would have been the point of St. John, St. Peter, St. James or any others writing about him?
In reference to St. Paul, are you implying that St. Paul like King Saul fell from grace? I don't understand the context of this comment.
I do agree that we are to love God and, in that love, produce good fruits, but I would take your comment a step further by saying that this is best fulfilled by seeking to live our lives in accordance with God's will as manifested through His Church, i.e. through a sacramental life.
In Christ,
Joe
You are correct in that their are several occurances to "casting lots" in the OT and a few references in the NT but only one occurance. The selecting of the replacement for Judas, as you noted, this was prior to Pentecost and the permenant indwelling of the Spirit. You must look at when did casting lots become ok in the OT and when in the NT did it stop. The act of casting lots was to receive the direction of God, after the garden the spirit was removed from individuals (even though God choose to supply it to some, and take it from others) thus leaving mankind without direct input from God. Christ had gone, the 11 were left without direct Godly leadreship, they turned to the only lawful means they had. Prayer and casting of lots. After Pentecost the casting of lots was no longer necessary.
Posted by: Rev. David Smith MTh. at November 26, 2007 2:02 PMGood day, after some study i wrote a paper and found that I cleared this portion up before I went on to the other without noticing. The casting of Lots is somewhat ordained by the law to be a legitamate manner of selecting "the sacrifice and the scapegoat" one was to be set free and the other was to be slain. King saul which was mentioned in the writing above, forced the casting of lots between his son and himself when he did not recieve a directive from god, due to what was considered disobedience by johnathon. the Urimm and the Thurimm are both on the breastplate of aaron and these are OT lots for selecting the sacrifices. This is not to say that GOD operates in chance, because winning the lottery has nothing to do with salvation. while selecting the scapegoat and the sacrifice does.
The only reason the casting of lots is not required is not because pentecost had come, but in all honsety, when Jesus was selected to be slain by the crowd and barabbus was selected to be free, the final lot was cast as it pertains to the salvation of man. All other lots cast after that is due to mans indecision on the matters at hand, including the selection of matthias. For jesus directly selected paul to be unto the gentiles, not even peter was given this directive, even though we was shown that the gentiles had a part to play.
