Acts 1: In Defense of Matthias: Luke’s Perspective

Mistake? No. An immediate replacement for Judas Iscariot, after his suicide, was necessary and timely for three reasons: (i) to fulfill Scripture, as Peter noted, (ii) but there is another reason related to Judas himself and (iii) still another related to how to make decisions in a local body. We will treat these reasons in another post. In this blog post, we will examine how Luke deals with the issue.

Let’s first examine Luke’s narrative of the replacement of Judas with Matthias. The believers prayed, and were praying, and were waiting as the Lord had instructed them. Peter stood up and addressed the issue of Judas Iscariot and his apostleship. His place at the table, so to speak, was empty.

Peter used two Scriptures, one from Psalm 69 and another from Psalm 109 to explain Judas Iscariot’s departure from them and betrayal of Jesus, and the corresponding void that needed to be filled.

Peter presented a set of criteria that the replacement would have to meet in order to fill Judas’s place among the Twelve: “one of the men who have been with the disciples the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among them, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from them. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Two men satisfied this criteria, Barsabbas (aka Justus) and Matthias, and must have also satisfied the 120 who were gathered in the upper room and challenged with putting someone forward.

They prayed for the Lord to choose between the two men, and they had the two draw lots; and the lot fell to Matthias. Lots? Where did that come from? Here: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Proverbs 16:33.

Okay. So that’s the narrative. How does Luke treat the appointment of Matthias? He doesn’t. After the lot fell to Matthias, Luke moves on.

In Acts, Luke is always willing to address error and conflict (Ananias/Sapphira, Simon the Magician, John Mark) usually because he finds those errors instructive or illustrative of a point he wants to make. But in Acts 1, Luke does not draw our attention to any misstep.

Rather than pointing to the consequences of an error, Luke is silent about any implications, much less any negative ones, of Matthias’ appointment, except in 2:43 and 5:12 and 5:18 where Luke presents the apostles unceremoniously and collectively as “apostles” without any further differentiation between eleven apostles who were authentic and one who newly held that title in error. He never does that. Luke offers us instead a connection between the then-present vacancy among the Twelve and specific Old Testament scriptural references through Peter’s statements.

In Acts 1, Peter is taking the present dilemma (Judas’ deposition) and “lacing it into” (as a friend of mine would say) the Old Testament. In fact, this is the first of many lacing-into’s that Luke records. If this first attempt to interpret present circumstances with Scripture is in error, all subsequent, interpretive connections between the then-present acts in Acts and the Old Testament would be called into question as additional missteps—primarily because Luke doesn’t help us with this first one.

Because Luke doesn’t treat Matthias as error, we would have to first presuppose Matthias’ appointment was error, and then be left to speculate what went wrong, and how it went wrong, so that we could be instructed in how to avoid the same error in our generation.

But the suggestion that Peter’s use of two discrete verses from Psalms 69 and 109 to interpret and apply them to Judas Iscariot’s renunciation and a necessary replacement only reiterates Peter’s earlier, characteristic impetuousness is a asking a bit much.

Peter never showed any inherent ability, pre-Resurrection or pre-Ascension, to rightly divide the Old Testament. He never hinted at any knowledge of Scripture. Neither did he demonstrate any scriptural insight of any kind except by way of revelation (see Matt 16:17). He was not learned in a way the was readily apparent; and, he had no natural affinity for Scripture either, as far as any of the Gospel writers were concerned. Peter’s handling of Scripture here for the first time in Acts 1 seems more an impressive, first testimony to the profound change in Peter after he witnessed and spent time with the Risen Lord than Peter’s speaking completely out of turn.

None of Peter’s earlier remarks in the Gospels draw upon Scripture; but in the upper room, Peter demonstrates a new relationship to Scripture as (i) relevant to the present, (ii) predictive, and (iii) best seen and understood through the lens of Jesus Christ (and His calling 12). Peter’s particular references to Scripture as an initial, post-Ascension step to interpret life through Scripture is a theme that Luke carries through the entirety of Acts; it is a theme I believe Luke commences in Luke 24:27.

Rather than calling out Peter and the 120 for a blunder, Luke adds Matthias as one of the Eleven standing with Peter in Acts 2:14. Luke makes no fuss about Matthias’ inclusion and he offers no comment other than his specific categorization of the Twelve in the next chapter as Peter plus the Eleven. And Luke continues to make no distinction among the apostles as he follows through the remainder of his narrative. Matthias is included with the other apostles with no suggestion Matthias does not belong.

Let’s also take a look at Acts 2:43 (“Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles”) and 5:12 (“The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people”). Luke, known for his precision and detail, avoids being precise enough to exclude Matthias from these two descriptions of apostolic authenticity? See 2 Cor. 12:12 (“The things that distinguish a true apostle were performed among you with great perseverance—supernatural signs, startling wonders, and awesome miracles.”).

I don’t believe Luke is careless like that. The only inference to be drawn from Acts 2:43 and 5:12 is that signs and wonders and miracles were being effected through all, not some of what was then twelve apostles, and that must, as Luke has written it, include Matthias.

If the criteria for a true apostle is what Paul says it is in 2 Cor. 12:12, then Luke satisfies that Pauline criteria by including Matthias by aggregation in Acts 2:14 and 43 and 5:12 and 18.

Acts is anything but Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Thus we see Luke generalize what 2:43 and 5:12 actually looked like; Luke doesn’t tell us who among the Twelve did what miracles. He simply presents them as a group working in unity. It is therefore it is difficult to make much of Luke’s silence about Matthias anymore than one could make much of his silence concerning Simon the Zealot or Andrew or James son of Alphaeus, for example.

We will look at the reasons for Judas' Iscariot’s replacement in another post.