Did the Disciples Get It Wrong With Matthias?

by Dennis Gladden, By Green Pastures, ©2024

(May 8, 2024) — Q: I heard a pastor say the disciples got it wrong when they replaced Judas with Matthias. He said Paul was Judas’ real replacement and the disciples rushed to fill the vacancy. He called this an example of a church organization gone awry. Did the disciples make a mistake?

A: I have heard this, too, and disagree for two reasons.

First, the disciples were in one accord about this action (Acts 1:14). Given the divisiveness later in Acts and in Paul’s letters, this unity is a miracle in itself.

Peter brought the vacancy to the attention of the other disciples and set both its cause and the need to replace Judas in their biblical context.

“Scripture had to be fulfilled,” he said, quoting Psalm 109:8. The passage foretold Judas’ fate and also directed, “Let another take his office” (Acts 1:16-20).

The disciples set two qualifications for Judas’ successor:

• He must be a current disciple, one who was “among these men who have accompanied us” (1:21).
• He must not be a recent follower. Like The Eleven, he must have journeyed with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry to His ascension at its end.

From the followers who qualified, the disciples selected two: Justus and Matthias. Both had seen Jesus when He returned from His baptism and temptation in the wilderness. They were in the crowd from which Jesus selected twelve to be with Him. When many disciples walked away from Jesus, Matthias and Justus remained.

The disciples made their choice and sought God for His. “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen” (1:24).

We do not hear of Matthias again (a reason some believe he was the wrong choice) but he was a loyal and faithful eyewitness, worthy of the office the betrayer vacated. Like the Messiah he followed, Matthias was a man approved by God (2:22).

The second reason why I disagree is the significance of Paul’s conversion to all of us who are not eyewitnesses and yet believe. Paul is “our” apostle, so to speak.

I have heard, and have even thought so myself: “Believing would have been so much easier when you could hear Jesus teach and see His miracles.”

The disciples had that advantage, but we don’t, which makes God’s calling of Paul later important to us. If he could be an apostle without being an eyewitness, neither are we excluded from believing because we are not eyewitnesses.

Paul had the same disadvantage as us.

He called attention to this in a letter to his young pastor, Timothy. “I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life” (1 Timothy 1:16 emphasis mine).

Paul was continually defending his apostleship for this very reason: he was not like The Twelve—someone who participated in Jesus’ earthly ministry. He conceded to the Corinthians, “Last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time,” (1 Corinthians 15:8).

We are mistaken to think eyewitnesses had an advantage. Many heard and saw Jesus but did not believe, and Peter called them out on The Day of Pentecost, reminding them how Jesus was “a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you…. God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:22, 36, emphasis mine).

His words convicted many. “What shall we do?” they asked, and 3,000 responded—a marvelous fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer, “I do not pray for these alone [The Twelve], but also for those who will believe in Me through their word,” (John 17:20).

To summarize, Matthias and Paul are both important, each in his proper order. The selection of Matthias fulfilled the Biblical injunction in Psalms to replace Judas with a qualified believer. The calling of Paul later suits our needs, proving that all whom Jesus calls are witnesses—eyewitnesses or not.