The selection of Matthias "A MISTAKE" (Bible Study Fellowship)

[JRRTFAN]

I happened to get a look at the hand out for the Fundamentalist Bible study “Bible Study Fellowship Interrnational” for this week (BSF is studying Acts this year).

What to my wondering eyes should appear but a statement that many consider the pre-Pentecostal choice of Matthias a mistake but there was no point in discussing it at this stage.

Now, obviously, BSFers do not believe in Apostolic succession and that’s where you have to start arguing against it.

Has anybody else ever heard the theory that when the apostles prayed, cast lots and the selection came to Matthias that there was a mistake made and that they should have just sat back until Paul came on the scene?

This seems truly bizarre, but then it’s all part of self interpretation. It does solidify my feeling that no Catholic should be anywhere near BSF it’s a theological train wreck.

 

[patrick457]

The first time I’ve heard of it. I’m guessing this interpretation sprouted up to explain why Paul was called an ‘apostle’ even though he was not chosen to be one of the Twelve.

 

[Zenas]

There is a school of thought that runs through most Fundamentalist and some Evangelical circles that the selection of Matthias was tainted. Two reasons are given most often.

First, this was said to be Peter’s idea and not the will of the Holy Spirit. Peter got up and suggested that another man be chosen to take the place of Judas before the Holy Spirit had come upon them at Pentecost (never mind that little meeting with Jesus in John 20:22). So the whole thing was Peter’s idea, not God’s idea.

Second, they made the selection of Matthias over Barsabbas by casting lots,* i.e*., through a game of chance–gambling. They used a worldly method to select someone who should have been selected by God. Never ming that they all prayed before casting lots.

As evidence of the Matthias mistake, they point to the fact that his name is never mentioned again in the Bible after his selection. Of course the same can be said about all the apostles except Peter, John and James.

 

[patrick457]

There is a school of thought that runs through most Fundamentalist and some Evangelical circles that the selection of Matthias was tainted. Two reasons are given most often.

First, this was said to be Peter’s idea and not the will of the Holy Spirit. Peter got up and suggested that another man be chosen to take the place of Judas before the Holy Spirit had come upon them at Pentecost (never mind that little meeting with Jesus in John 20:22). So the whole thing was Peter’s idea, not God’s idea.

Second, they made the selection of Matthias over Barsabbas by casting lots,* i.e*., through a game of chance–gambling. They used a worldly method to select someone who should have been selected by God. Never ming that they all prayed before casting lots.

As evidence of the Matthias mistake, they point to the fact that his name is never mentioned again in the Bible after his selection. Of course the same can be said about all the apostles except Peter, John and James.

Thanks for this.
About lot-casting: I wonder about the Urim and Thummim then (but then again we don’t even know what they exactly were).

 

[TimothyH]

This seems truly bizarre, but then it’s all part of self interpretation. It does solidify my feeling that no Catholic should be anywhere near BSF it’s a theological train wreck.

The first article in the BSFI statement of faith tells you all you need to know.

1.We believe that the sixty-six books of Holy Scripture as originally given are in their entirety the Word of God verbally inspired and wholly without error in all that they declare and, therefore, are the supreme and final authority of faith and life.

The proverbial ninety nine and a half foot pole comes to mind. But it is worth knowing about for when some kids at the public school try to get my daughters mixed up in this nonsense.

-Tim-

 

[Bran_Stark]

We were just talking about this passage the other day in a little Bible study at my college. It’s a very mysterious story to me, for while the Apostles at the time clearly felt a need to keep to a steady number of twelve, obviously this plan was soon abandoned and new apostles appeared, most notably Paul. I was musing that maybe Paul himself was intended by God to be the Twelfth Apostle but the Eleven were impatient and gave his seat to Mathias. But in the end I don’t think the number really matters - 12 people can’t run a Church of millions. Unless you’re a Mormon.

 

[JRRTFAN]

We were just talking about this passage the other day in a little Bible study at my college. It’s a very mysterious story to me, for while the Apostles at the time clearly felt a need to keep to a steady number of twelve, obviously this plan was soon abandoned and new apostles appeared, most notably Paul. I was musing that maybe Paul himself was intended by God to be the Twelfth Apostle but the Eleven were impatient and gave his seat to Mathias. But in the end I don’t think the number really matters - 12 people can’t run a Church of millions. Unless you’re a Mormon.

No but successors of the apostles, in whatever number necessary, can run the Church. The didn’t give his seat to Matthias, they gave his ministry to Matthias.

I never heard of this concept before but I can see how one would have to concoct it to dispell Apostolic succession.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It appears to me that they needed 12 Apostles to receive the Holy Spirit when the Church was founded at Pentecost. I think the Holy Spirit ratified their choice by descending on Matthias as well as the other 11 at Pentecost.

As for casting lots note that the Urim and the Thummim were borne by the High Priest as a critical part of his vesture.

30 And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the LORD; thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

Exodus 28:30
As I recall these were used to cast lots to determine the Lord’s will.

 

[Slowlearner]

As evidence of the Matthias mistake, they point to the fact that his name is never mentioned again in the Bible after his selection. Of course the same can be said about all the apostles except Peter, John and James.

Since it is his Feast Day, I gotta mention that you’re kinda giving short shrift to Matthew – who went on to write a gospel!

 

[Zenas]

Since it is his Feast Day, I gotta mention that you’re kinda giving short shrift to Matthew – who went on to write a gospel!

Yes, but he isn’t mentioned at any point in time after the 1st chapter of Acts. Matthew certainly wrote his gospel at a later time but he only covers from 1-33 A.D.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, but he isn’t mentioned at any point in time after the 1st chapter of Acts. Matthew certainly wrote his gospel at a later time but he only covers from 1-33 A.D.

Or to be more (less?) exact, somewhere between before 4 BC and after AD 30. But hey, ‘Matthew’ and ‘Matthias’ are actually the same name in Hebrew/Aramaic!

 

[Contarini]

I happened to get a look at the hand out for the Fundamentalist Bible study “Bible Study Fellowship Interrnational” for this week (BSF is studying Acts this year).

What to my wondering eyes should appear but a statement that many consider the pre-Pentecostal choice of Matthias a mistake but there was no point in discussing it at this stage.

Now, obviously, BSFers do not believe in Apostolic succession and that’s where you have to start arguing against it.

Has anybody else ever heard the theory that when the apostles prayed, cast lots and the selection came to Matthias that there was a mistake made and that they should have just sat back until Paul came on the scene?

This seems truly bizarre, but then it’s all part of self interpretation. It does solidify my feeling that no Catholic should be anywhere near BSF it’s a theological train wreck.

This is a fairly common view–I remember being taught this by my grandmother as at least a highly likely possibility.

The basic reason is the one suggested by “Bran Stark”–that God’s purpose was for Paul to be the twelfth Apostle, replacing Judas.

However, I can see how this could be an argument against apostolic succession. The main argument against AS, though, is simply the listing of Paul as an apostle in the first place. This doesn’t bother me any more, but back when I was really uncertain about AS this did seem to me to be a significant argument. In other words, I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that the BSF folks are desperately trying to come up with an argument against apostolic succession so much as that they are starting from the one thing in the NT that could legitimately be said to point against apostolic succession–the fact that the most important of all the “Apostles” doesn’t seem to have been chosen as an Apostle in any regular way, and goes out of his way in Galatians to claim that his apostleship came straight from God and not from any kind of human procedure such as that described in Acts 1.

edwin

 

[pablope]

This is a fairly common view–I remember being taught this by my grandmother as at least a highly likely possibility.

are desperately trying to come up with an argument against apostolic succession so much as that they are starting from the one thing in the NT that could legitimately be said to point against apostolic succession–the fact that the most important of all the “Apostles” doesn’t seem to have been chosen as an Apostle in any regular way

/QUOTE]

Hi, Edwin…as always, I like your insights…

Anyway…why do they think Paul is the most important Apostle?

, and goes out of his way in Galatians to claim that his apostleship came straight from God and not from any kind of human procedure such as that described in Acts 1.

edwin

But Paul gets baptized after his eyesight is restored…and in Acts 13, Paul does submit to authority by being ordained or laid hands on at Antioch before being sent on his first missionary journey.

Do they miss these accounts in Acts?

 

[CalCatholic]

We were just talking about this passage the other day in a little Bible study at my college. It’s a very mysterious story to me, for while the Apostles at the time clearly felt a need to keep to a steady number of twelve, obviously this plan was soon abandoned and new apostles appeared, most notably Paul. I was musing that maybe Paul himself was intended by God to be the Twelfth Apostle but the Eleven were impatient and gave his seat to Mathias. But in the end I don’t think the number really matters - 12 people can’t run a Church of millions. Unless you’re a Mormon.

Paul didn’t meet the requirements for the apostle that was to replace Judas;** “Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22, NAB)**

On top of this, Paul at this time was hunting the Church of Jesus Christ, which contributed to the death of Stephan (Acts 7:58). Not exactly what you want to have on your resume when applying for a new job as a Christian apostle.

 

[Contarini]

Anyway…why do they think Paul is the most important Apostle?

Paul wrote a significant portion of the New Testament (especially if you count all the books with his name on them and not just the ones generally acknowledged by scholars across the board to be authentic)–I don’t think many people would deny that he’s the “Apostle” who has contributed most directly and substantively to the formulation of the Christian faith.

But Paul gets baptized after his eyesight is restored…and in Acts 13, Paul does submit to authority by being ordained or laid hands on at Antioch before being sent on his first missionary journey.

Do they miss these accounts in Acts?

No, it’s not about “missing” certain things but about interpretation. Paul’s insistence that his apostleship doesn’t come from human beings is pretty strong (even shrill) in Galatians, so one can make a case for reading the Acts account in that light.

Many scholars question the accuracy of Acts and argue that it is trying to portray Paul as having less conflict with the Jerusalem Apostles than he really did. Obviously that’s not an approach favored by conservative evangelicals.

I would say that Acts and Galatians give two sides of the picture–Galatians obviously has priority insofar as it definitely comes from Paul himself, but at the same time Paul is trying to make a point and I wouldn’t use Galatians to invalidate the historical claims made in Acts.

Edwin

 

[Bran_Stark]

Paul didn’t meet the requirements for the apostle that was to replace Judas;** “Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22, NAB)**

On top of this, Paul at this time was hunting the Church of Jesus Christ, which contributed to the death of Stephan (Acts 7:58). Not exactly what you want to have on your resume when applying for a new job as a Christian apostle.

Haha that’s kind of circular reasoning. If the Apostles were wrong about choosing Mathias, then they were also wrong about what the requirements for an Apostle are.

 

[CalCatholic]

Haha that’s kind of circular reasoning. If the Apostles were wrong about choosing Mathias, then they were also wrong about what the requirements for an Apostle are.

Well, if they were wrong about all that, then what makes them right about their testimony of seeing the risen Jesus after his death? If we trust the Scriptures, and their testimony that the apostles chose the man who met the requirements of an apostle, with help of the Holy Spirit (by casting lots), then why would one be asking if a mistake was made .
I believe that the Scriptures are accurate, and they portray the apostles picking the right man to join them. To say they made some kind of mistake sounds unbiblical to me.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Well, if they were wrong about all that, then what makes them right about their testimony of seeing the risen Jesus after his death? If we trust the Scriptures, and their testimony that the apostles chose the man who met the requirements of an apostle, with help of the Holy Spirit (by casting lots), then why would one be asking if a mistake was made .
I believe that the Scriptures are accurate, and they portray the apostles picking the right man to join them. To say they made some kind of mistake sounds unbiblical to me.

The Scriptures say the Apostles chose a man whom they believed met the requirements of an Apostle. Maybe they were wrong, but the Book of Acts would still accurately record their wrong choice. If we start assuming that everything uttered by an Apostle in the context of a historical narrative is to be absolutely trusted, then we run into a few problems with Peter’s denial. Now I’m just arguing for fun here - I personally think the Apostles were right in ordaining Mathias. But even if they weren’t, there’s no need to say the Scriptures are inaccurate.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Paul didn’t meet the requirements for the apostle that was to replace Judas;** “Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22, NAB)**

On top of this, Paul at this time was hunting the Church of Jesus Christ, which contributed to the death of Stephan (Acts 7:58). Not exactly what you want to have on your resume when applying for a new job as a Christian apostle.

The problem with this view in relation to the concept that Matthias fill Judas office is that the proponent of the position would also reject the idea that the replacement had to have been a witness. If one is going to throw out the Matthias baby, one has to throw out the situational bath water as well.

You’re position vis Paul is perfectly correct but the interlocutor is a Fundamentalist Bible “study” and that makes its own rules.

 

[JRRTFAN]

The Scriptures say the Apostles chose a man whom they believed met the requirements of an Apostle. Maybe they were wrong, but the Book of Acts would still accurately record their wrong choice. If we start assuming that everything uttered by an Apostle in the context of a historical narrative is to be absolutely trusted, then we run into a few problems with Peter’s denial. Now I’m just arguing for fun here - I personally think the Apostles were right in ordaining Mathias. But even if they weren’t, there’s no need to say the Scriptures are inaccurate.

Given this position then would you postulate that entire books of the Bible could be wrong? Say, James, let’s say I think that is entirely wrong, Can I rip it out and declare it non-canonical? Why? Why not?

If it was a “wrong choice” Scripture would have recorded the negative result of the “wrong choice” as it does all over the Old and New Testaments. In fact this is a bizarre position.