Why didn't Matthias have the laying on of hands?

[ryple]

What is the significance of this? A long time Deacon and beloved friend brought this up at our bible study. I have been trying to read around about this, but all I can find is junk. (Non orthodox trying to justify ordination of women priests) I don’t think it’s a sign to the future church that apostolic succession by breathing on and laying on of hands by the bishop isn’t required for ordination. But, I do find it a curious omission.

 

[kristin2007]

This is a very interesting question. Thank you for bringing it up.

Matthias has always interested me because he was the first Apostle not chosen personally by Jesus.

I suppose one possibility is that the laying of the hands was taken for granted and thus it was not thought necessary to record it. But that’s a guess. I don’t know.

Like you I cannot find any answer from someone who has no axe to grind.

 

[ryple]

I have heard it said that the apostles were expecting the Holy Spirit to prevail in the casting of lots to choose Mattias. Or, rather, not that they were expecting, but rather that is was in fact the Holy Spirit that was at work when the lots were cast. (And therefore, Jesus, as a part of the Holy Trinity, did in fact, choose.)

I’m making no claim to this opinion, in fact, more to the contrary. Seems more like fate than free will.

If someone who isn’t trying to get away with anything un-Orthodox would like to answer this, it’d be swell!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

MarcoPolo;4176314:

What guanophore said, or because you see in this particular ceremony, they were still acting with Old Testament customs in effect, i.e. drawing lots (Acts 1:26, Prv 16:33) prior to the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Ordination imparts the Holy Spirit.

I’ll just add that Matthias was not the successor of an Apostles (as bishops are) but an Apostle himself, the reason for the qualifiations (Acts 1:21-2) which are not repeated for the qualifications for bishop in I Timothy and Titus.