Was Matthias the Twelfth Apostle?

Was Matthias, or Paul, the twelfth apostle?

The apostles cast lots in Acts 1:24-26 to know who should replace Judas. The lot fell to Matthias.

Was this sanctioned by the Lord? Does Proverbs 16:33 endorse it?

First, understand that it does not matter. It does not affect the gospel. It will not affect how we live. However, I’ll spell out my reasons for disagreement with those who say God chose Matthias because there might be something to learn hermeneutically.

1. Most of the proverbs are generalities, not universal promises. I won’t argue this point myself. Instead, I’ll direct you to any parent who reared their child in the love, nurture, and admonition of the Lord, yet that child went permanently astray. Citing Proverbs 16:33 is an extremely weak argument because the literary style of Proverbs prohibits turning 16:33 into a universal endorsement of casting lots. It is also weak because there's no evidence that the disciples should have been casting lots in the first place.
   
   
2. Description of an event does not imply endorsement or prescription. Many bad interpretations of the Bible come from taking the description of an event to indicate its endorsement. Atheists commonly take Old Testament descriptions of murders, rapes, and child sacrifices to mean that God endorses such abominations. But the Bible describes people honestly warts and all. Acts in no way endorses the selection of Matthias as an apostle; it merely documents it.
   
   
3. Jesus told the disciples to chill until the Holy Spirit came. During the time between Jesus ascension into heaven and Pentecost, the disciples should have been waiting, not taking action. Impetuous Peter impulsively perpetrated a violation of that command. God’s choice was Paul, and that choice came later, in God’s timing.
   
   For an Old Testament analogue, recall how Jesse presented all the sons he thought would be qualified to be anointed by the prophet (1 Samuel 16). The prophet had to urge Jesse to present the son he hadn’t thought of, and that son, David, turned out to be God’s choice. Likewise, the disciples set their own criteria for selection and then forced a choice from among their own personal favorites.
   
   
4. There’s no evidence that when they cast lots, they gave God the option of “None of the above.” They forced a selection of a replacement.
   
   
5. When Paul said in his church epistles that he was chosen by God, not by men, it was a dig at the false apostles who were misleading the churches. I would speculate that the net also caught the Eleven’s forcing a premature choice.
   
   
6. Matthias, once chosen, rarely, if ever, appears again in the New Testament. He is not know for any great accomplishment.

Arguments 5 and 6 are very weak arguments, but I think that the arguments, taken together, form a very strong case that the twelfth apostle was Paul, not Matthias. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. This is a significantly edited version of a comment first posted on Quora. Permission granted for non-profit use provided credit is given where credit is due.

Can you let go of bad evidence?

I often think of some verse to support a point I want to make, and when I look it up, think, "Oh, shrubbery! That wasn't what it was talking about!" And then I have to look further to see whether what I want to say is really supported. I sometimes have to abandon things I was going to say. 

Nobody expects an ironic exposition!  

In a Facebook discussion, a lady wanted to show an example of a Christian apologizing to others. She gave as an example, (2 Corinthians 12:13)

"For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!"

Nobody expects irony in the Bible. Read it again. During his mission at Corinth, supported himself, working (according to tradition) as a tent maker. In the context, Paul supports his apostolic authority and his sincerity by reminding the Corinthians that he worked with his own hands so he would not have to ask them to "send in your tithes and offerings." Paul was not apologizing. Rather, he was using irony -- more specifically, sarcasm, a form of irony. To support his sincerity (and to break the pride of his audience), he was using mild sarcasm. Yes, sarcasm has its place.
To further show the need for forgiveness, the lady also cited Matthew 6:14-15.

"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."

The Jews thought they could earn salvation through self-righteous works: the Ten Commandments, plus another 600-plus commandments in the Old Testament.

Jesus often used irony to bring religious Jews to repentance. 

• "Forgive, or you won't be forgiven;" but nobody is perfect in forgiveness. 
• "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect;" but nobody can be perfect. 
• "If your eye offends you (causes you to sin), pluck it out;" but is it really God's will that we should destroy every offending member of our bodies? 

Very quickly, we would run out of hands with which to cut off our other members.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...." But "we love God because He first loved us." We should forgive, but God first forgave us.

See the pattern?

The Law says forgive to be forgiven, but God's mercy says receive forgiveness and then forgive because you have been forgiven.

So the message here is, watch out for irony, especially in teachings that took place prior to the cross. You don't want valid points attacked just because you used the wrong verses to support them.