Acts 1:26

Gave forth their lots. Literally, “gave lots for [or, “unto”] them.” This can mean either, (1) the company drew lots on behalf of the two men, or, (2) the candidates themselves drew lots. Whichever method was used, it resulted in the election of Matthias. Jews were well acquainted with the lot as a standard OT method of decision: (1) in choosing the goats in the highly significant ceremonies of the Hebrew Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:5-10); (2) in allotting land in Canaan to the tribes (Num. 26:55; Joshua 18:10), and upon the return from exile (Neh. 10:34; 11:1); (3) in settling criminal cases where there was uncertainty (Joshua 7:14, 18; 1 Sam. 14:41, 42); (4) in choosing forces for battle (Judges 20:8-10); (5) in appointing to high office (1 Sam. 10:19-21); and (6) in allotting the cities of the priests and Levites (1 Chron. 6:54-65). The method is seen in operation in 1 Chron. 24 to 26. The Lord was understood to have the final dispensing of lots (Prov. 16:33). Soldiers cast lots on Calvary for the Lord’s seamless garment (Matt. 27:35; see on John 19:23, 24). But the choice of Matthias by lot is the only recorded instance among Christians in the NT. For caution against relying on such methods today see on Joshua 7:14; Prov. 16:33.

As far as the record shows, Peter’s proposal to use the lot was accepted without challenge or discussion. It appears that after Pentecost the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit made the casting of lots superfluous (Acts 5:3; 11:15-18; 13:2; 16:6—9). An instance of the lot in the postapostolic church is the provision for its use in the selection of a bishop in the third canon of the Council of Barcelona in Spain, in the year A.D. 599.

He was numbered. Gr. sugkatapsephizomai, from sun, “with,” kata, “down,” and psephos, “a pebble,” referring to the ancient method of electing a person by casting a pebble into an urn. The word may be translated as “voted” or “enrolled.”

With the eleven. In the eyes of the world, Matthias had succeeded to a very humble position, that of a leader in an insignificant group of humble people who were soon to be persecuted. But to the believers, the position to which Matthias was commissioned held immeasurable possibilities for the future. There is no reason to deny Matthias his dignity as a replacement in the apostolic body. If it be argued that nothing is said in Scripture concerning Matthias’ later work, let it be remembered that nothing is said there of the later work of Andrew, Philip (the Philip of ch. 8 was the deacon), Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Less, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Lebbaeus Thaddeus.

There is no record that the disciples laid their hands upon Matthias (cf. chs. 6:6; 13:3). Evidently the church believed the Holy Spirit had shown His approval in the election by lot. In this choice of Matthias we have early and significant evidences of church organization: (1) an official meeting of believers, (2) the discussion of an important item of church business, (3) the decision and its execution. The church was organized and now awaited divine power.

Some would make Paul the twelfth apostle. But though Paul called himself an apostle again and again (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1, and in other epistles), he never claimed to be one of the Twelve, nor is he ever so designated. In fact, he knew and emphasized a distinction on the point (1 Cor. 15:5, 8). He made it plain that he did not receive his knowledge of the gospel from the Twelve (Gal. 1:11, 12, 15-19). He followed a program separate from theirs (Rom. 15:20, 21). In EW 199 and AA 102 it is stated that Paul took the place of Stephen.