Matthias and Barnabas

[aball1035]

In Acts, when the apostles were choosing a 12th man again, why did they draw lots and not choose him themselves? In addition, why didn’t they make both men priests?

 

[kristanl]

Well Peter did chose him. He looked at scripture, and said from the book of Psalms it says who office is emptied let another replace (sorry if this isnt it word for word). So PEter went back in the OT to find an answer to the solution.
But its just like now a days, there is usually a vote for someone as well.

 

[chaunceygardner]

In Acts, when the apostles were choosing a 12th man again, why did they draw lots and not choose him themselves? In addition, why didn’t they make both men priests?

Matthias was chosen by the Holy Spirit. Here is what Acts says:

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

The significance of the 12 was because of the 12 tribes of Israel, and they needed to “replace” Judas in the group to bring the total back up to that number.

Neither was made a priest, as none of the 12 apostles were priests. They held no authority in the temple; they were disciples of Jesus.

 

[aball1035]

So the whole thing with “casting lots” meant voting? I thought it was random

 

[patrick457]

So the whole thing with “casting lots” meant voting? I thought it was random

Actually, ‘casting lots’ would have been more like a form of sortition, an equal-chance method of selection by using lots (straws, sticks, pebbles, etc.) that are thrown or drawn.

The Hebrew word for lot used in the OT, goral, perhaps meant small stones used in connection with lot-casting. I’d like to note that was not really that unusual a custom: people in those days often cast lots when they wanted to make an impartial decision due to its advantages (it was easy to do, does not discriminate, and is relatively secure against manipulation). Other methods of decision like playing Ghost Leg (aka Amidakuji) or rock-paper-scissors are still used in everyday life today here in Japan.

The apostles hardly chose Matthias ‘at random’ over Joseph Justus Barsabbas (not Joseph Barnabas, mind you). You should note that they prayed to God before they went on, so one can say that the decision was actually divinely-guided!

 

[NHInsider]

Actually, ‘casting lots’ would have been more like a form of sortition, an equal-chance method of selection by using lots (straws, sticks, pebbles, etc.) that are thrown or drawn.

-snip-

The apostles hardly chose Matthias ‘at random’ over Joseph Justus Barsabbas (not Joseph Barnabas, mind you). You should note that they prayed to God before they went on, so one can say that the decision was actually divinely-guided!

The Israelites had a long history of the use of lots to determine the will of God. They believed that God would control the outcome of the casting and so reveal His will. The Apostles were simply following in this tradition.

Neither was made a priest, as none of the 12 apostles were priests. They held no authority in the temple; they were disciples of Jesus.

They were not priests of the Old Covenant, they were priests of the New Covenant. Whether or not you believe in the sacrament of orders doesn’t change the historical facts.

 

[rocketrob]

The Haydock Commentary states the following:

And he gave them lots, which they might lawfully do, when they knew that both of them were fit, and every way qualified for the office. Wi. — Lots. This method of deciding the election of ministers by lots, is one of those extraordinary methods which was inspired by God; but can seldom or ever be imitated. Where both candidates appeared equally worthy, as in the present case, and human judgment cannot determine which is to be preferred, it cannot be said that it was wrong to decide it by lots. Thus were avoided any of the evil consequences which might have happened by one party being preferred before the other. S. Augustin observes, that in a doubtful case, where neither part is bad, to decide by lots is not in itself wrong. Sors enim non aliquid mali est, sed res est in dubitatione humana divinam indicans voluntatem. In Psalm xxx. A.

Although not discussed in this quote, I have heard another explanation that has made sense to me. Like mentioned in an earlier post, the casting of lots, done after prayer, etc, was historically a manner used to determine the will of God. This particular selection of a replacement for Judas occurred before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which occurred at Pentecost in the next chapter of Acts. After the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I think it became more common to use personal prayer and action to decipher God’s will.

Ironically, or not, it seems that Jesus chose His own replacement Apostle later in the person of Paul. However, this idea may not be totally correct as Paul was indeed the Apostle to the Gentiles rather than to the tribes of Israel.

rocketrob

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, ‘casting lots’ would have been more like a form of sortition, an equal-chance method of selection by using lots (straws, sticks, pebbles, etc.) that are thrown or drawn.

The Hebrew word for lot used in the OT, goral, perhaps meant small stones used in connection with lot-casting. I’d like to note that was not really that unusual a custom: people in those days often cast lots when they wanted to make an impartial decision due to its advantages (it was easy to do, does not discriminate, and is relatively secure against manipulation). Other methods of decision like playing Ghost Leg (aka Amidakuji) or rock-paper-scissors are still used in everyday life today here in Japan.

The apostles hardly chose Matthias ‘at random’ over Joseph Justus Barsabbas (not Joseph Barnabas, mind you). You should note that they prayed to God before they went on, so one can say that the decision was actually divinely-guided!

There is a technical term for this in ancient Israel. It was called the Urim and the Thumimm. Although I don’t think scholars are fully aware of the means of casting lots, they do know that it was a random action (i.e. dice, straws, etc.) and, as Patrick has shown, it was placing their trust in God.

We see an example of this in Numbers 27:19 - ***21 *** He shall present himself to the priest Eleazar, to have him seek out for him the decisions of the Urim in the LORD’S presence; and as he directs, Joshua, all the Israelites with him, and the community as a whole shall perform all their actions."

We see that the high priest wore these on his chest - Exodus 28 tells us:
29 ****** "Whenever Aaron enters the sanctuary, he will thus bear the names of the sons of Israel on the breastpiece of decision over his heart as a constant reminder before the LORD.*** 30 *** In this breastpiece of decision you shall put the Urim and Thummim, that they may be over Aaron’s heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus he shall always bear the decisions for the Israelites over his heart in the LORD’S presence.

Notice that it is the High Priest who had the Urim and the Thumimm. I wonder what that implies about Peter!

 

[NotWorthy]

Ironically, or not, it seems that Jesus chose His own replacement Apostle later in the person of Paul. However, this idea may not be totally correct as Paul was indeed the Apostle to the Gentiles rather than to the tribes of Israel.

rocketrob

I’ve heard this doubt about the validity of Peter’s selection by more than one Protestant, so your old roots may be showing, my brother!

There’s two things that make me think this is a false assumption.
A) Paul calls the Apostles in Jerusalem “The Twelve”. Luke, who was a traveling companion of Paul (and I would assume shared the same thoughts on the Apostles) called the Apostles “The Eleven” prior to the selection of Matthias and then “The Twelve” after that.
B) Secondly, the Spirit descends upon the twelve IMMEDIATELY after the selection of Matthias. It seems the Holy Spirit confirmed the selection and then ushered in the new age!

 

[aball1035]

what about when they made more priests later? Im just confuzed why they didn’t make them both if there was need for them

 

[rocketrob]

I’ve heard this doubt about the validity of Peter’s selection by more than one Protestant, so your old roots may be showing, my brother!

Now that you mention it, this idea did come from a close protestant friend of mine years ago…before I became Catholic. I never perceived this as a challenge to Peter’s authority and that was not a point that I was trying to make. In the verses immediately preceding the casting of lots, Peter is said to ‘rise’ or ‘stand up’ among the brethren, so that argument wouldn’t make much since anyway.

In actuality, the trouble that I used to have with this passage was that the selection process seemed kind of superstitious to me. But that was before I knew about the Old Testament precedent(s), as well as a lack of attention on my part to the prayer that accompanied the choice.

So, my apologies!

rocketrob

 

[Mea_Culpa]

what about when they made more priests later? Im just confuzed why they didn’t make them both if there was need for them

The idea is that Judas’ office was vacant, and needed to be filled. This shows it is not the specific person that is important, but the office - and that after an original Apostles falls asleep (dies) - their office should be filled with a successor - which is where we get Apostolic Succession. The successors to the Apostles were the bishops - and as the Church grew (and was opened to the gentiles) there was need of more than 12 bishops, which is why there are more than 12 bishops today.

 

[NotWorthy]

Now that you mention it, this idea did come from a close protestant friend of mine years ago…before I became Catholic. I never perceived this as a challenge to Peter’s authority and that was not a point that I was trying to make. In the verses immediately preceding the casting of lots, Peter is said to ‘rise’ or ‘stand up’ among the brethren, so that argument wouldn’t make much since anyway.

In actuality, the trouble that I used to have with this passage was that the selection process seemed kind of superstitious to me. But that was before I knew about the Old Testament precedent(s), as well as a lack of attention on my part to the prayer that accompanied the choice.

So, my apologies!

rocketrob

Your apology is not accepted, simply because its not necessary!

I, too, thought that the casting of lots seemed superstitious. But in my opinion, it seems that Peter was simply continuing Jesus’ efforts to “restore Israel”.

 

[patrick457]

There is a technical term for this in ancient Israel. It was called the Urim and the Thumimm. Although I don’t think scholars are fully aware of the means of casting lots, they do know that it was a random action (i.e. dice, straws, etc.) and, as Patrick has shown, it was placing their trust in God.

Well, you know what Proverbs 16:33 says, “Into the lap is the lot (goral) cast, but from YHWH is all its decision.” The throwing of the lots is a human action, but the result is a direct divine message.

Lot-casting is known and practiced as a form of divination in other cultures (as cleromancy) but interestingly there is no prohibition for it in Deuteronomy 18:9-14, where other major forms of divination and superstition common in other peoples are banned. On the contrary, as you have mentioned, the Israelite priests had a sacred form of lot-casting under the form of the Urim and Thummim. Before Christ became incarnate, this is one of the few legitimate means of divine revelation (the others are dreams and communication with God, either directly or through a prophet).

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, you know what Proverbs 16:33 says, “Into the lap is the lot (goral) cast, but from YHWH is all its decision.” The throwing of the lots is a human action, but the result is a direct divine message.

Lot-casting is known and practiced as a form of divination in other cultures (as cleromancy) but interestingly there is no prohibition for it in Deuteronomy 18:9-14, where other major forms of divination and superstition common in other peoples are banned. On the contrary, as you have mentioned, the Israelite priests had a sacred form of lot-casting under the form of the Urim and Thummim. Before Christ became incarnate, this is one of the few legitimate means of divine revelation (the others are dreams and communication with God, either directly or through a prophet).

That’s why I think it is significant for Peter to do this before the Pentecost. He was furthering Jesus’ mission of restoring Israel. Just as there were 12 judges to rule over the Old Israel, there were 12 judges for the New Israel.

And the Holy Spirit “sealed the deal” (pardon the pun) when He descended on the Twelve at Pentecost!

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is what I have in the catena I am working on catenas.wetpaint.com/page/Acts+Chapter+1

CHRYS For they did not yet consider themselves to be worthy to be informed by some sign. And besides, if in a case where neither prayer was made, nor men of worth were the agents, the casting of lots so much availed, because it was done of a right intention, I mean in the case of Jonah Jonah 1:7; much more did it here. BEDE But if anyone, compelled by necessity, thinks that he ought, after the apostles’ example, to consult God by casting lots, let him take note that the apostles themselves did not do so, except after calling together the assembly of the brethren and pouring forth prayer to God.

 

[abucs]

This is a good question aball.

I guess it supports the apostles seeing themselves as having a defined stucture and a mission after the ressurrection of Jesus.

12 was obviously for a reason and with the probable upcoming deaths of apostles as they travelled over the Empire you would think they would have made an agreement to carry on the structure - although as you said, it grew to more than 12 as Christianity spread.

Luke including this information in Acts probably suggests that this structure was still in place at the time of his writing (that is apostolic succession - be that 12 or greater than 12).

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve heard this doubt about the validity of Peter’s selection by more than one Protestant, so your old roots may be showing, my brother!

There’s two things that make me think this is a false assumption.
A) Paul calls the Apostles in Jerusalem “The Twelve”. Luke, who was a traveling companion of Paul (and I would assume shared the same thoughts on the Apostles) called the Apostles “The Eleven” prior to the selection of Matthias and then “The Twelve” after that.
B) Secondly, the Spirit descends upon the twelve IMMEDIATELY after the selection of Matthias. It seems the Holy Spirit confirmed the selection and then ushered in the new age!

I disagree. First of all while both Paul and Luke use the term “the twelve” they do not say “the twelve Apostles” Let us not forget that the Apostles were also bishops. In addition there is also Re 21:14 to add to the equation. Re 21:14 speaks of the New Jerusalem and says:

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” [Re 21:14]

So we can’t have more than 12 Apostles. Here is my thoughts. Matthias is not an Apostle he is a bishop. Paul is an Apostle. The word Apostle apostolos means one who is sent forth with orders. This occurred at the so called Great Commission immediately before Jesus’ Ascension. Judas is already dead and only eleven Apostles are present. Only the eleven are therefore sent forth by Jesus. Now the eleven Apostles go back and decide they need to replace Judas and they do so by electing Matthias. But since Judas was not sent forth Matthias cannot replace him in that capacity. Instead Matthias is elected to the office held by Judas and all the Apostles that being the office of bishop. This is stated in the words of Peter in the KJV very explicitly:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.” [Acts 1:20]

Notice also that verse 26 in Acts 1 states:

“26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26]

Odd that he was only numbered with the eleven Apostles. If he was an Apostle shouldn’t he be the twelfth Apostle and the verse say he was numbered with the twelve Apostles?

The case for Paul’s Apostleship is much clearer. In Acts 9:15 we see the Lord’s intent to send Paul forth to the Gentiles:

“But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:” [Acts 9:15

Then in Romans 1:1 Paul calls himself an Apostle:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,” [Romans 1:1]

In Romans 11:13 Paul calls himself the Apostle to the Gentiles.

“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:” [Romans 11:13]

There are other citations where scripture calls Paul and Apostle.

 

[NotWorthy]

I disagree. First of all while both Paul and Luke use the term “the twelve” they do not say “the twelve Apostles” Let us not forget that the Apostles were also bishops. In addition there is also Re 21:14 to add to the equation. Re 21:14 speaks of the New Jerusalem and says:

… and I disagree with your disagreement. Luke uses the term “The Eleven” after Judas’ death and prior to Matthias’ initiation. Then Luke uses the term “The Twelve” after Pentecost.

 

[inkaneer]

… and I disagree with your disagreement. Luke uses the term “The Eleven” after Judas’ death and prior to Matthias’ initiation. Then Luke uses the term “The Twelve” after Pentecost.

But in both cases he does not call them Apostles. Plus you have Peter’s words saying thy must have asomeone take over Judas’ bishoprick. They are eleven bishops before Matthias election and twelve bishops after Matthias election. In addition if you have Matthias as an Apostle then Paul becomes the thirteenth Apostle and according to Revelation 21:14 that is one too many. There is just no way to ‘shoehorn’ in your interpretation of Luke words to mean Matthias was an Apostle.