Acts 1:23-26 23So they put forward two, Joseph, the one called Barsabbas who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24And praying, they said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show who of these two you have chosen 25to take the place of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
The group found two possible replacements for Judas. The early church found itself in a position that has been repeated countless times over the centuries when determining new leaders. There are often more than one qualified candidate for many positions in the church. This includes pastors of local churches, all the way to leaders of entire denominations or global groups. How should such a person be chosen? First, the gathered group determined the “human” qualifications given in verses 21-22. In this case, both Joseph, also named Barsabbas, and Matthias fit these qualifications. In many cases, such as this one, many people can serve in the office of leadership. How does a group then make a decision?
One option is when there is a champion for one of the candidates who campaigns for the new leader. There is a “favorite” person who has more supporters. The problem with this method is that it is still humanistic. The new person is chosen by politics and popularity. This approach may work some of the time, especially since the person has the qualifications. God can work with and through such human thinking and methods.
However, that is not what the early church did. Verse 24 begins with the group praying for God’s direction. The prayer was simple and to the point. The prayer contains several insights about what the group was thinking. First, they noted that the major qualification they were looking for was someone with the right heart. The assumption is that this person was not selfish but a humble, sincere, and fully committed follower of Jesus. That does not necessarily mean the one chosen did not have the right heart. God prepares leaders for new positions through their previous experiences and inner transformation. Second, the group was seeking God’s will in the matter, evident with the phrase you have chosen. This was to be God’s choice, not the group’s. The group was following Jesus’ example of praying before choosing who would be the special twelve apostles (Luke 6:12).
The method the group chose to determine which of the two was to replace Judas was to cast lots. Casting lots was a practice that went back to Old Testament times (1 Chronicles 26:12-13). Modern people might think of this as a form of the luck of the draw, but the gathered group was drawing upon the ancient belief that God was sovereign and determined which lot would be drawn. God was totally in control of the situation. There was no luck involved. The early church was still stuck in the ancient ways of thinking and not seeking the Spirit’s leading like they did after Pentecost.
Many questions have been raised about not only their method but also their motive in this passage. Were they pre-empting God’s will by trying to fix a problem that God would later fix by calling Saul as the twelfth apostle? We can be optimistic that they seeking God’s plan in these verses. Interestingly, Matthias is never mentioned again by name in the New Testament, so it is difficult to know how their plan actually worked out in the mission and ministry of the early church. Although this and other questions cannot be answered with certainty, at least the gathered group offers a good example of seeking God’s will and trusting his leading in finding new leaders for ministry positions. We see two essential steps: 1) make sure the person meets all the spiritual and experience qualifications, and 2) spend time in prayer seeking God’s clear direction. A third option might be considered. Instead of casting lots, many groups today will take a vote. Such a vote should in the same category as the ancients believed about a lot: it is directed by God, who is sovereign and in control of the situation. It is not simply a matter of democracy or politics but done in reflection of God’s purpose.
For older posts, click here.
