Matthias Apostle of God or Usurper of Paul's Position ?

Guest Author: Kevin.  Some believe that the apostle Matthias was appointed in error to the position of twelfth apostle, replacing Judas. They further contend that the apostle Peter, and the remaining ten apostles working with him, acted prematurely in appointing Matthias to the office and should have waited for the appointment of Paul to fill the opening. Although I shall endeavor to explain their reasoning for this position, more importantly, we will discover together that Mathias was duly appointed, properly selected and approved. In so doing, we must then explore the role of the apostle Paul in this matter. We will discover that although Paul was truly an apostle called by God, he was selected for a special-purpose apart from the twelve.

Beginning with the surrounding circumstances that created the vacancy amongst the apostles, I will explore the key players in the decision process and those others who could be considered as a proper replacement for Judas. I will look at the selection and approval processes and the post appointment evidence that might confirm the appointment as proper or improper. It is best then, to start at the beginning.

It was no secret that Judas was dead, neither was it a secret as to how he died. Matthew Henry points out how public the spectacle was, "The public notice that was taken of this: It was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem. It was, as it were, put into the newspapers and was all the talk of the town, as a remarkable judgment of God upon him that betrayed his Master" (Acts Chapter 2, Section III, Paragraph 2). Though Peter did not need to announce the death of Judas, He did feel the need to announce the necessity of replacing him and the need to quote Psalms 108, citing the prophecy that was to be fulfilled. "For it is written in the Book of Psalms…'Let another take his office.'" (NKJV Acts 1:20). Peter was well aware of the need to fill the position and perhaps interpreted the prophecy in Psalms as a mandate to do so.

Why was it necessary to have 12 apostles? Why not continue on with the 11 that remained? Jesus had told His apostles "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28). It is likely that Peter had this statement of Christ in mind when speaking to the disciples about choosing a replacement.

Peter also probably felt the urgency to fill the post due to the pending day of Pentecost. Though the disciples most likely did not fully comprehend what was going to take place, they were aware that the Holy Spirit was coming and that they would receive power when He did. Jesus had told them to wait for the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5)."

With Judas' recent death and the prophecy of his replacement, Peter, as the leader of the apostles, moved to replace Judas with a proper candidate. I believe that in light of the coming day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was also at work in prompting Peter to make this move quickly and fill the empty seat left by Judas, returning the college of apostles to the significant fullness of 12 members. Seeing the need for a replacement and choosing the correct person are two very different things. Was Matthias the right person ?"

So little is known about Matthias that the lack of information is sometimes seen as evidence that he was the wrong man for the position of apostle. C. Bernard Ruffin makes this very point. "Mathias figured so little in the writings of the church fathers that some modern writers have questioned whether Peter did not ask somewhat hastily in choosing immediately a successor to Judas by lots." (170).

There are, however, some things that we do know about Matthias. He met the requirements laid out by Peter in Acts 1:21-22. Matthias was with the apostles from the baptism of Christ by John up to and including the ascension of Christ. We also know that, his peers, those others who also were with Jesus throughout His ministry, nominated him. Luke also tells us that, by prayer, they sought the Lord's decision on the matter. "'And they prayed and said,' You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have Chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias." (Acts 1:24-26). The practice of casting lots to discover God's will is documented several times throughout the Old Testament, and was a historically accepted practice.

Having been appointed, do we see any evidence of the power of the Holy Spirit in what we do know about the life of Matthias after his appointment? Hieromonk Moriak speaks to this very question.

One of the towns that Matthias preached in was called the "city of the man eater's." This was a town where cannibalism was practiced. It is recorded in the anti-Nicene fathers that these man-eaters captured Matthias. One Mathias entered this town, the men of that city took hold of him and thrust out his eyes and made him drink poison and sent him to the prison where he sat for 30 days waiting to be eaten and die. The Lord appeared to Mathias and said, "be of good courage, our Matthias, and be not dismayed; for I shall not by any means forsake you." The Lord gave Mathias back his eyesight, as well as the other prisoners with him who had suffered the same fate, and promised that he would send the apostle Andrew to release him and the others. (Moriak 3)

Fully meeting the criteria laid out by Peter, chosen from among the 70, and by the same, we may then have great confidence in his qualification and character. With the additional confirmation by the Holy Spirit through the casting of lots and his works in the ministry, he proved fully suitable for the position. Nonetheless, could someone else have been the intended appointee ?

Although Paul has his detractors, we are hard pressed to find those within mainstream Christendom who would deny his apostleship. After all, as previously pointed out, Paul frequently claimed apostolic authority in his own writings. We do not have to look hard to find those who claim that Paul was the true 12th apostle and that Matthias was a mistake. Herbert Lockyer holds such an opinion. "… the Lord quietly ignored the action of the apostles and fill the vacant place in the apostolate Himself in His own wise way, without human aid, by calling Saul of Tarsus whom the Church has recognized as the divine choice" (203).

Lockyer makes an excellent point. Paul himself is clear in saying, "Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)" (Galatians 1:1). Do we doubt Paul was chosen by God, of course not. Being chosen by God and being chosen as the replacement of Judas are not necessarily the same thing.

We do read in the account of Paul's conversion that He saw the risen Lord and we further know through scriptures and Paul's own testimony that he worked harder than all of the other apostles (1Cor. 15:10). There seems to be a great deal of evidence that Paul would have been a perfect choice for number 12. Why not Paul ?

Let us recount the requirements for the position laid out by Peter. The one chosen must have been with the apostles from the baptism of Jesus to His resurrection. Paul was not counted among the believers at any time during Christ's ministry on earth. He simply did not qualify.

We must address the idea posed by Lockyer that the Lord basically ignored the mistake made by Peter. Is it reasonable to believe it was a mistake ? Peter, most probably directed by the Holy Spirit, leads the believers in choosing a replacement and then all of the believers pray, asking God to make the final selection. It seems that it is asking quite a lot to have us believe it was all in error. These are Christ's chosen apostles taking this action while consulting God through prayer. Would Christ, the very one who sent them out to witness to the world on His behalf, have ignored their request? Do we see evidence of His ignoring the prayers of the apostles throughout scripture, certainly not. The premise is absurd.

If Paul was not to be one of the 12, but was selected by Christ, what was he selected for? Christ, in His conversation with Ananias, tells us Himself. "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear my name before Gentiles, Kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15).

With his miraculous conversion, his incredible personal experience with the risen Christ, and his exceptional work in ministry throughout his life, Paul certainly seems like the perfect choice to fill the open seat left by the death of Judas. However, with the college of the apostles already being completed, Jesus has selected Paul for a specific and significant purpose in leading the Gentiles to salvation. Although Paul frequently insists upon his apostolic authority throughout his epistles, he never claimed to be the 12th apostle or claimed that Matthias was not. More than this, we have additional information to be considered from one of Paul's most devote followers. What did Luke have to say on the matter ?

F. F. Bruce enlightens us to Luke's view of Paul. "Paul no doubt is Luke's hero" (15). Luke thought very highly of Paul. He was likely one of Paul's converts. Luke's work of the Acts of the Apostles is the key support for the apostleship of Paul. This being the case it is interesting that Bruce feels that validating Paul's apostleship "was not Luke's primary purpose in writing" (14).

If Luke had such a positive predisposition towards Paul, and he clearly agrees with the apostolic authority claimed by Paul, why did Luke not claim the 12th seat on Paul's behalf ? Furthermore, why does he not record Paul as claiming it for himself ? It had been several years since Matthias was appointed and He has not been mentioned in scripture since. Luke is the only one to do so. If Paul is the true 12th apostle, then why does Luke even record the appointment of Matthias ? This appears to be more than just a tacit approval of Matthias' position. This seems to put the whole matter to rest, does it not ? It is obvious that Neither Luke or Paul believed that Matthias was improperly appointed and this is why the process of his selection is so carefully reported and why no claim to the position is ever made by Paul or Luke.

Selected and approved by his peers including Peter and the other 10 apostles, confirmed through prayer and the casting of lots, it seems far-fetched to assume that Matthias was chosen or appointed in error. Paul, the only other person considered as a viable candidate to the position, choose not to challenge the appointment of Matthias. Luke chooses not to challenge the appointment but instead to accurately report it. We can come to only one reasonable and sound conclusion. Matthias was the true and correct choice as the 12th apostle.

Work Sited:

Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1988. Print.

Lockyer, Herbert. All the Apostles of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972. Print.

Matthias, Hieromonk. "The Overlooked Holy Apostle, Matthias." American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the USA. American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the USA, 22 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2013.

Plevnik, Joseph. "The Eleven and Those with Them According to Luke." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40.2 (1978): 205-11. Print.

Radmacher, Earl D., Ronald Barclay. Allen, and H. Wayne. House. Nelson's NKJV Study Bible: NKJV, New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Nelson Bibles, 1997. Print.

Ruffin, Bernard. The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles after Calvary. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997. Print.