Apostles....or gamblers with Apostleship?

[Larry 2]

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles

Hopefully, the folks here will recognize the context behind this verse.

The Apostles prayed after picking two men and then cast lots on the matter, expecting God to answer in the lots that were cast.

I want us to remember, that lots were mentioned 70 or so times in the OT. Anyone wishing to take the tack that they were justified in their actions, can find it there I suppose.

However, Christ had told them.....

Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Many, as I do, feel this promise of the Father was none other than the Holy Ghost himself.

Yet instead of waiting, it seems to me, they moved of their own volition to cast lots, between two men for Judas' place.

My question to you is....

Was God in this decision or was it man alone?

These are some that practiced casting lots so it was not an uncommon thing to do when choosing someone for service.

Aaron, Joshua, Nehemiah, Saul, David cast lots to assign service.

Matthias was one of the twelve because it is in the word of God that he was chosen, and he will sit on one of the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat, I think there is a certain amount of confusion in your speculation for it is clear that the disciples were waiting for the promise of the Holy Ghost, as instructed by the risen L-rd, but it was not a 'passive' waiting, and they devoted themselves to prayer, during which time Peter arose and presumably was guided by G-d to recommend selecting a replacement for Judas Iscariot, and ultimately they did so through the traditional method of casting lots believing the 'hand of G-d' was in the final verdict. There is no way they did this out of their own presumption.

Further more it was necesssary to choose a replacement, as it was the Jewish 'Minyan' or 'Quorum' of twelve, that the L-rd Himself had chosen to work with,(nowadays a minyan consists of at least 10) and that in some way was representative of the twelve tribes of Israel. We are not told of Jesus discussing this with the disciples after His ressurection, but it is eminently possible.

Matt. 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel.

Hey Botz,

I am glad you brought up the passage from Matthew. It would seem that there must be twelve, if for no other reason than to have governorship over Israel. Luke mentions these 12, by name, in Chapter 6.

Luk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

Luk 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

Luk 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,

Luk 6:16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

I think you are correct that there was a motivation to fill this role of Judas if for no other purpose than to remove the traitor from governorship and replace him with a better candidate.

And your speculation, that Christ could have possibly mentioned choosing another Apostle, however the Scripture is silent on the matter. Based on what we do know, I still see no reason to say that this decision to replace the void left by Judas was directed by God.

These are some that practiced casting lots so it was not an uncommon thing to do when choosing someone for service.

Aaron, Joshua, Nehemiah, Saul, David cast lots to assign service.

Matthias was one of the twelve because it is in the word of God that he was chosen, and he will sit on one of the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Hey Larry2,

Hope you don't me saying that because something is in the Bible, doesn't necessarily mean it was motivated by God.

edit add- you are correct in how lots were used in the OT. They were used to divide tasks, etc... among an existing group. I would say the use of lots to determine admission into a group, is unprecedented in the OT.

This does makes the singular instance in Acts vary from the previous usages of lots.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Mudcat

[traveller]

It wasn't a form of gambling.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD.

The casting of lots was to make a choice, all things being equal, or impartial. In the early days, it was the Urim and Thummin that the priests used to reach decisions.

[Mudcat]

Didnt He chose Paul?

Excellent point and a thought worth exploring.

My thought on that is this:

Acts 12

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Acts 13

1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

The commission of Barnabas and Saul came after the death of James. So, if Saul (Paul) was to "replace" anyone, it would have been James.

But then who did Barnabas "replace"? (For Barnabas was an apostle, too . . . Acts 14:4 - But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul....)

Hey Nebula,

I noticed you put replace in " ", I too am a little hesitant to use the word.

However, it seems implicit that we recognize Paul as an Apostle... if for no other reason than he wrote most of the NT.

I can't speak for Barnabas, but as a for Paul he certainly did not meet the criteria set forth by the Apostles in Acts 1. In fact if we were to hold to their definition.....Paul would not be an apostle, as he was not a disciple of Christ in his mortal ministry, as was Matthias.

I am also hesitant to use the word "replace" because it sets a precedent, in and of itself. If there were a need to replace Apostles, it would stand to reason there would still be 12 Apostles today. As far as I know, the LDS are the only ones who feel this way, and I have no compunction to agree with them on the matter.

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

It wasn't a form of gambling.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD.

The casting of lots was to make a choice, all things being equal, or impartial. In the early days, it was the Urim and Thummin that the priests used to reach decisions.

Granted, I don't think gambling was there intent. It was choosing an Apostle. I just used "gamblers" in the OP to add a little shock factor.

However, the NT does mention another incident that some might consider gambling.

Joh 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Joh 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

[Botz]

It wasn't a form of gambling.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD.

The casting of lots was to make a choice, all things being equal, or impartial. In the early days, it was the Urim and Thummin that the priests used to reach decisions.

Nowadays they use committees!

[nebula]

BTW, as far as Saul/Paul becoming an apostle -

Has anyone ever calculated out how many years it was from the Ascension of Christ until Saul was actually commissioned as an apostle?

[Mudcat]

It wasn't a form of gambling.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD.

The casting of lots was to make a choice, all things being equal, or impartial. In the early days, it was the Urim and Thummin that the priests used to reach decisions.

Nowadays they use committees!

[EricH]

The scriptures don't tell us one way or another in this case. So anything we say would be speculation

[Mudcat]

They prayed. They cast lots. God honored that. They had their answer.

God works and deals with people in the place and time where they are at. he works in history; not apart from in when it comes to His dealings with mankind. What today is considered "Gambling" and is frowned upon if not actually called sinful may have been a perfectly acceptable way to allow God's providence to move in the times of the apostles. God meets us where we are at, culture and all.

I think this is making an assumption, emphasis mine.

Maybe we should all just start praying God will give us answers to prayers based on the toss of a coin.

Jesus said they should wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father, then he was taken up.

The went to Jerusalem and decided they should pick a new Apostle.

I wonder if even one of them said... "Hey Jesus said wait, maybe that is what we should do."