Judas Iscariat's replacement / Casting lots?

Act 1:17-26 For he was numbered with us and had obtained part of this ministry. (18) Indeed, then, this one purchased a field with the reward of unrighteousness. And falling headlong, he burst apart in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. (19) And it was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem, so much so that that field is called in their own dialect, Akeldama, that is to say, Field of Blood. (20) For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "Let his estate become forsaken, and he not be living in it." And, "Let another take his overseership." (21) Therefore, it is right that one of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, (22) beginning from the baptism of John to that same day that He was taken up from us, to become a witness with us of His resurrection. (23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (24) And they prayed and said, You, Lord, knower of all hearts, show which one You chose from these two, (25) to take the share of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell, to go to his own place. (26) And they gave forth their lots. And the lot fell upon Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


This tells us what happened but no were do I see that it was God doing this, it says that Peter said and did this, could you please point it out to me were the Lord did this other than they prayed and cast there lot. What I see is that they chose two men and cast lots and one of them got the lot however was there any way that none of them could get the lot cast on them. Ill stick to the scripture that says that Paul was CALLED by Jesus to be an Apostle over some folks shooting dice and one or the other had to win. Also this is the only place in scripture that we hear anything about Matthias, thats strange to me and yet the Apostle Paul wrote a good portion of the New Testament. Im just not getting this the way you guys see it.

 

Morgan, I agree with you that there is nothing about Matthias other than he was chosen by casting lots and Paul was chosen by God, but I had forgotten about this passage:

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


This says that the one chosen must have been present among the disciples when Jesus was with them, beginning at the baptism of John up until Jesus ascended. It seems that would leave Paul out. Not out of being an apostle, but out of being one of the 12.

What do you think?

 

I think that makes perfect sense, I wish someone would have laid it out like that before, thank you. I certainly had not looked at it like that. I always say when someone shows me I will say that I was mistaken and I was mistaken. We learn every day something new and thats why I come into this board for good Christian discussion and to learn and to also teach. I thank you very much. I do however still think it weird to cast lots to choose the apostle but what other way did they have I guess.

 

We do learn everyday. I have sure made my share of mistakes. Just ask anybody on this board! :laugh:

My desire though, is to stay teachable and that means sometimes I have to admit I'm wrong.

I have learned so much from good Christian discussion on this board. It's made me have to dig deep in scripture to figure things out and I see that as a blessing.

I agree with you about casting lots. I don't understand that one either. That's what they knew as Jews I suppose. But I really can't say for sure.

 

There is an undercurrent of belief that the apostleship of Matthias was tainted through his selection via a gambling device. I have heard it all my life and we see it on this thread. We must remember, however, that Matthias was selected only after passing muster as one who had been with our Lord from the beginning, and after the other 11 sought God's will in prayer.

It has been said that Matthias was chosen as the successor to Judas and was never heard from again. True enough, but after this event we never hear of most of the other apostles either. Peter is mentioned a lot; John a fair amount; James, only that he was martyred; and Matthew only because we believe he wrote the first gospel. The others are never mentioned by name, although we know through tradition they all did great works and all but John died as martyrs. Tradition has it that Matthias did most of his work in Ethiopia.

Now having said all that, I wonder why Peter found it necessary to appoint a successor to Judas Iscariot?

 

Actually, I do think that Matthias is precisely the "replacement apostle," as you put it, for Judas, for I see nothing in Scripture to suggest this was done in any manner that was inappropriate. Only when one approaches the subject, in advance, with the two presuppositions that Paul was any "replacement apostle" and that there were 'really only twelve 'true' apostles can one find any reason for this conclusion, IMO. Is there a single verse of Scripture anywhere to suggest Paul as the "replacement" that I may have missed? Honestly, I haven't seen any verses offered, in all these years, by the advocates of that position, and I've also run across them (including a couple of former pastors of mine) several times.

Likewise, I seldom get any comment on these individuals (and the verses that I have given, above, each of which expressly declare the individual mentioned to be an apostle, as I read it, at least.

BTW, I am not aware that the Bible specifically names exactly who are these Apostles in Rev. 21:14, just that there are twelve apostles of the Lamb. Since Jesus himself, is the Lamb, I would assume He is not one of these twelve, but I still consider him to be pretty important as an Apostle, anyway. Could Paul be one of these twelve?? I'd certainly say so, just as I also believe the possibility that James, the Just and Epaphroditus, to cite two others, could be in there, as well. Or these could be twelve individuals that none of us have ever heard of, even, IMO. I don't see anything in the Bible to preclude this. The Bible does mention apostle as being among the spiritual gifts, and I don't see any number limitations in the passages which speak of this spiritual gift. (I Cor. 12:28, 29: Eph. 4:11-16 which is one sentence, BTW) Again, is there any Scripture that says differently, that once again I have missed?? I'm fully aware that I have annoyed some by saying this, or mentioning such as Jesus, Barnabas or James, for three examples, simply because I am challenging some presupposition some hold, in this. I just figure if those individuals are "good enough" for the Bible to call Apostles, then I can do the same, as well.

The point is that had been two "vacancies," not merely one, in the 'original twelve' (Judas Iscariot and James, the brother of John) by the time "the Holy Spirit said “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”" and these two "being sent out by the Holy Spirit..." in Acts 13. As to whether this will "prove anything" just that Scripture sets the time line here, in what I had stated, not me. Beyond that? I was just asking the question, and challenging the presumption that I see as lying behind your statement. I'm sorry if that seems to offend you, for this is certainly not my intention.

I'm certainly sorry in that you surely took this in a different way, than I intended. Under absolutely no circumstances do I think you are any follower of Mormonism. I have read far too many of your posts to make that ridiculous "contusion," I assure you. Nor am I calling you (or any other individual) any Mormon, despite the fact that MorganT apparently seems to think so.

What I was referring to, is the Mormon idea of "apostolic succession", which is a double-cousin of the Roman Catholic and Coptic ideas of that same concept, namely "apostolic succession" and/or "apostolic replacement," as Pilgrimer has mentioned. Even today, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints" have a "Council of Twelve Apostles" where after the death of one individual, another is chosen to take his place. (Other 'splinter groups' of Mormonism, including "The Community of Christ" and "The Church of Jesus Christ" each have their own "Quorum of Twelve Apostles" as well, in similar fashion.) As Baptists, we don't follow such teaching and/or practice anywhere that I am aware of, which is in essence, adding to the Scriptures, which is practiced by the Mormons, IMO, with the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, JST, etc..

No, the "dangerous ground" is (a.) the idea of reading something into Scripture that is simply not there, or (b.) "adding to the Scripture, as do both the Mormon theology and Roman Catholic theology, for two examples. [FTR, I have never questioned the salvation of anyone on the Baptist Board, nor have I ever accused anyone on the BB of any "heretical teaching" in 8K posts. Nor do I ever recall so much as suggesting or implying that any on this board are "in rebellion against God or out to destroy the church" in any post. And I have often said that an opinion, is still an opinion, as well. (You might wish to check out a couple of posts I have made over the years, where I have said that, qualitatively, one's opinion is no different from another's.) I do attempt to give Scripture (or historical fact, if that is appropriate) that backs anything I may say.

I do wonder why you did not offer any comment on the rest of my sentence there, however which states: (remember, I am speaking about the idea of some perpetual "apostolic succession" in the sense of Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, etc..):

Have I misused any Scripture that you are aware of. I have cited over a dozen verses to support what I am proclaiming, here.

I have no problem with disagreement, BTW, from anyone. One final thing about the gift of apostle. I am willing to consider that that gift is with us, even today.

[Response shortened to print.]

FTR, I also believe Silas and Timothy are identified as apostles in Scripture, and I would suggest BB Members C4K and John of Japan, to name only two, may well be apostles, in the Biblical meaning of the word "apostolos" - one sent forth with a commission.

Again, please think about all this I have offered, simply from the Scriptures involved. And once again, I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have unwittingly caused. "Personal attacks" are never my style, by any stretch. That line is simply already too long, for me to get in. :tear:

Ed

 

Thank you Ed. I know I sort of blasted you, but I just took your post as offensive toward me. Forgive me.

As you may have noticed, I changed my mind on this after some scripture was offered that made me have to rethink my position. I can't argue with scripture. :laugh:

 

Yep

Joh 19:23-24 Then when they had crucified Jesus, the soldiers took His garments and made four parts, one part to each soldier; and also His tunic. And the tunic was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (24) Therefore they said among themselves, Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to find whose it shall be (that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says, "They parted my garments among them, and for my garment they cast lots"). Therefore the soldiers did these things.

 

Its probably no different than one of us saying pick a number between one and ten and the closest one gets it. I know its not but its along the same premise.

 

Because you have to understand 'why' it was used and not 'that' it was used.
The casting of lots were used differently in different cultures (they they almost always had a religious aspect that connected with it - ie god ordained they win) and we must understand this when looking at what transpired with the Roman soldiers, as well what transpired with determining who would be the replacement apostle to Judas.

The casting of lots was the way God prescribed the Israelite in the OT as one of the ways to know His will. This however was prior to the giving of the Holy Spirit who would lead them in all truth.

However, the casting of lots by the Romans is seen in aspect of gambling as we understand it but for them, though it was gambling it was ordained by the gods (specifically Hermes) who should win. So we see a perversion of what God gave the Israelites to know His will used now to determine who profits for their own greed via the Roman display.

 

I think there is an important lesson here that is missing in this thread. Jesus’ last words to his disciples in Acts 1 was to go back to Jerusalem and wait. They were to wait for the Holy Spirit and then they would be witnesses.

Now the disciples get back to Jerusalem and the first thing Peter wants to do is figure out Judas’ successor.

Now this entire thread has been very interesting and I have no idea if Matthias or Paul or anyone else became “one of the 12.” I don’t know how we can have 12 disciples in Revelation without a replacement because I don’t think Judas will be there. Of course another entire discussion can be made on the question of could Judas have repented and been saved and perhaps will be there. (I don’t believe that, but I know some have suggested it)

But the lesson I see is this: Jesus said WAIT. And the disciples did not wait, they went ahead and tried to do things on their own. Without the Holy Spirit to guide them they had to resort to casting lots. Because Matthias is never mentioned in scripture again it appears to me that their efforts were wasted.

The twofold lesson that I think is important here is 1. that without the Holy Spirit all our efforts are wasted and 2. when God says wait then we need to wait.

 

I hear you NCT, but I have to interject this. Jesus didn't say do nothing when you wait, the waiting was for something and as you already indicated it was the Holy Spirit. However the reason they were to wait was regarding the Great Commission whereby they would receive power to be His witnesses. If they were to wait and do nothing till the Spirit came that would remove prayer as well . What were they all praying for and about if they new Holy Spirit was indeed coming soon?

The fact that they were not rebuked for 'adding' nor was any word given to them by the Holy Spirit that what they did was incorrect gives a great amount of wieght to the fact what they did was in accordance with what God desired and the person who was chosen to complete the 12 was indeed ordained by God.

So in short I agree that we should not run off and just get to work and it is great spiritual advise, but neither did they just run off and pick someone willy-nilly either. We don't know specifically what their prayers concerned nor what transpired during their prayers to do or not do something. What we do know is that they were 'all' in one accord and of one mind, so whatever they did here it was apparently done with much prayer and unity and that was not just the 11 but the 120.

 

Is there any possibility that "gave forth their lot" refers to the act of voting for the one they felt God wanted?

 

While I fully do believe I understand "where you are coming from" in today's vernacular, I believe you may be misreading a part of this passage (or attempting to read into it more than is actually there) in this passage you are referring to, and overlooking a couple of factors, as well. Yes, they were told to wait for the promise of the Father concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as this is specifically identified in Ac. 1:5. However, concerning the context, Jesus had also said other things, including they would be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (v.8), while also commanding they not depart from Jerusalem (v.4). This is obviously not an absolute command, as to departing from Jerusalem, else they would not have been able to witness in these other places. Scripture likewise later included Peter among those who would 'go to the circumcised' while Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles' (Gal. 2:9), yet merely two verses later, we find Peter among the Gentiles at Antioch, just as Paul and Barnabas. (Gal. 2:11)

A contradiction? I don't think so, just merely reading this with the normal meaning, and not attempting to overread into one word or phrase, hence proof-texting something.

You are, of course correct, in that Matthias is not specifically mentioned by name again in Scripture, as one of the apostles.

However, this fails, as a good friend of mine puts it, the "So what?" test, and I believe that it is a smack with a 'red herring' , or

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US228&q=red+herring+photo&btnG=Search,

at best.

Neither can one find Andrew, Matthew, Thomas, Bartholomew, Simon, the Zealot, James, the 'Less', Thaddaeus, or Philip (Philip, the Evangelist, is not the same individual as Philip the Apostle) specifically mentioned by any of their names again in Scripture [That's 8 of 11, well over 2/3 of them, and almost 73% of "the eleven" Apostles (apart from Judas), for all the 'math whizzes' on the BB.] :laugh: ; nor Mary, Jesus' mother, nor two of Jesus' own brothers, Joses and Simon. James, the Just, is mentioned several times, by contrast, and Jude is found one time, and that only because he wrote an epistle, and not because he is named in any narrative), nor are any of "the women" named again, all of which are collectively found in Ac. 1:13-14, where they all are said to have continued "with one accord in prayer, and supplication" prior to, as I believe you put it, "the first thing Peter wants to do is figure out Judas' successor" where I believe you have made an unintended misrepresentation, of the actual Scriptural facts. (Peter is the one speaking, as the effective leader of the Apostles, as of that time, however, in the same manner as James, the Just, later rose to equal prominence with Peter and John, if not actually surpassed them, in this role.) (Ac. 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9,12)

You might note that they prayed some more, regarding the 'selection' in Ac. 1:24. There is no hint, in the actual words of Scripture that they here did anything amiss, that I have seen.

As to Matthias, as I have previously mentioned, not only is he said to be numbered with the eleven apostles, (Ac. 1:26), prior to his selection (and after the fall and death of Judas), they are collectively referred to as "the eleven" (Mt. 28:16; Mk. 16:14; LK. 24:9, 33), and following this selection of Matthias, Peter is said to be standing up "with the eleven" (Ac. 2:14) and later, they are referred to as "the twelve" (Ac. 6:2) I believe the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write both "the eleven" and "the twelve" in the different places; also to note that the Holy Spirit is specifically said to have been the one who 'prophesied' the fall regarding Judas. (Ac. 1:16-20)

As I have said before, if the Holy Spirit can inspire Luke to speak of "the twelve" (obviously that meaning "the twelve" Apostles) with Matthias a part of that group, and that is exactly what is done in Ac. 6:2, then that's good enough for me. :thumbsup:

BTW, as I recently mentioned on another thread, Judas did, in fact, repent (Mt. 27:3), while not being saved, as I believe this passage and Jn. 17:12 show.

Ed

 

You probably said this much better than I did. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

That's the idea, although I think there is a bit more to this, than merely 'voting.' (Ac. 1:24-26)

Ed

 

The reason I asked is that if I were reading this without any commentary or influence of what I have been taught, I would read it as a vote. But I have always been taught that it was similar to "roll of the dice". This discussion has brought up a couple of other description of "casting lots" that I have not heard before.

However, the method isn't that important I guess. I do think the bible clearly teaches that Mathias was one of the twelve. I really don't see a valid argument otherwise.