Matthias Madness (Acts 1)

As a pastor, I have found two points of Biblical interpretation that people will get quite worked up over. Now, there is nothing wrong with getting worked up over Biblical interpretation. If you are defending the divinity of Christ, or the reality of hell, or the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, go for it. But these two points of interpretation that I have seen people get so exercised over seem to have little true import. Point one: who is the Melchizedek in Genesis? Is it a real flesh and blood person or an appearance of the pre-Incarnate Christ. Give the wrong answer to that one and you will be branded a heretic. Point two: were the disciples right in appointing Matthias the twelfth apostle in Acts 1?

I am long familiar with the Melchizedek question. I grew up hearing all the arguments for that one. I am less familiar with the Matthias issue. Though, in the last 5 years, I have heard the question discussed so much that it makes up for the 35 years I didn't know it was an issue. Apparently, there are lot of people out there who think that the apostles made a big boo-boo in appointing Matthias. As I understand it, there are several reasons why those who take this stance feel the apostles were wrong:

1. 1:4 seems to suggest that Jesus wanted the Apostles to sit around and do nothing until they received the Holy Spirit.

2. The future appointment of Paul as an apostle seems to suggest that the church nominated the wrong guy. Paul was supposed to be 12 not Matthias.

3. Matthias might as well rhyme with anonymous. We hear nothing of Matthias after Acts 1. If Matthias was a good choice, why does he disappear?

There may be more reasons than that. I am not sure. I don't really understand the whole argument. I think that the choice of Matthias was a good one for the following reasons:

1. There is nothing in the text that suggests that this was a bad choice. I mean if it was a bad choice, why does Luke even mention it? He could have skipped the whole incident and nothing would have been lost.

2. The Apostles quote Scripture to defend their actions (1:20). I think that Luke (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is showing this is a Biblical thing to do.

3. The argument that Matthias is not mentioned again in Acts is irrelevant. Many of the disciples are not really mentioned by name in Acts. Was Jesus wrong in choosing them?

4. (The real clincher). God chose Matthias not the Apostles. The Apostles only made their selection after much prayer. And, they decided by casting lots. Proverbs 16:33 says: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." I think the text tells us that it was ultimately God who chose Matthias.

To me, the last part of Acts 1 is meant to emphasize the historic reality of the Gospel story. The Apostles were not making up tales. They selected a witness who could tell all that Jesus did. This wasn't a bad choice. It was a good one. The Apostles wanted to remind us that the story of Jesus is true and factual. It is too important to have the truth and details lost.