Is the casting of lots lawful today?

[Deleted member 13126]

In my morning devotion this morning I am beginning in the Book of Acts and was drawn to review Matthew Henry’s unabridged commentary on the whole Bible. Regarding Acts 1:26, Mr. Henry has this to say:

The doubt was determined by lot (v. 26), which is an appeal to God, and lawful to be used for determining matters not otherwise determinable, provided it be done in a solemn religious manner, and with prayer, the prayer of faith; for the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposal thereof is of the Lord, Prov. 16:33.

Admittedly, I have heard this reading before and been persuaded of its truthfulness. However, this time I wanted to ask for the opinion of other learned men. Is there a consistent Reformed position on the lawfulness of cleromancy? What would lot casting look like today, given that we weren’t quite sure how it was done? Would the process have been repeated multiple times to confirm the answer, as with Gideon, or once only?

P.S. As a hedge against incoming strawmen, I am not inquiring if it is lawful for such a thing to be done flippantly, frequently or irreverently, but, on the contrary, just as Mr. Henry states, and only in the most extenuating of circumstances or in the most major decisions of life where after much study and prayer there appears to be no clear answer or guidance.

 

[jubalsqaud]

I don't think gamboling is illegal

 

[Polanus1561]

1. Is Henry referring to personal decisions here or ecclesiastical?

2. Throwing out a guess. A Spirit filled congregation should be able to have the wisdom to decide issues. Acts 1 was of course pre Pentecost.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

1. Is Henry referring to personal decisions here or ecclesiastical?

2. Throwing out a guess. A Spirit filled congregation should be able to have the wisdom to decide issues. Acts 1 was of course pre Pentecost.

Here's the full quote from Matthew Henry on this particular section, in case it is helpful.

III. The nomination of the person that was to succeed Judas in his office as an apostle.
1. Two, who were known to have been Christ’s constant attendants, and men of great integrity, were set up as candidates for the place (v. 23): They appointed two; not the eleven, they did not take upon them to determine who should be put up, but the hundred and twenty, for to them Peter spoke, and not to the eleven. The two they nominated were Joseph and Matthias, of neither of whom do we read elsewhere, except this Joseph be the same with that Jesus who is called Justus, of whom Paul speaks (Col. 4:11), and who is said to be of the circumcision, a native Jew, as this was, and who was a fellow-worker with Paul in the kingdom of God and a comfort to him; and then it is observable that, though he came short of being an apostle, he did not therefore quit the ministry, but was very useful in a lower station; for, Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Some think this Joseph is he that is called Joses (Mk. 6:3), the brother of James the less (Mk. 15:40), and was called Joses the just, as he was called James the just. Some confound this with that Joses mentioned Acts 4:36. But that was of Cyprus, this of Galilee; and, it should seem, to distinguish them, that was called Barnabas—a son of consolation; this Barsabas—a son of the oath. These two were both of them such worthy men, and so well qualified for the office, that they could not tell which of them was the fitter, but all agreed it must be one of these two. They did not propose themselves nor strive for the place, but humbly sat still, and were appointed to it.
2. They applied to God by prayer for direction, not which of the seventy, for none of the rest could stand in competition with these in the opinion of all present, but which of these two? v. 24, 25. (1.) They appeal to God as the searcher of hearts: “Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, which we do not, and better than they know their own.” Observe, When an apostle was to be chosen, he must be chosen by his heart, and the temper and disposition of that. Yet Jesus, who knew all men’s hearts, for wise and holy ends chose Judas to be one of the twelve. It is comfortable to us, in our prayers for the welfare of the church and its ministers, that the God to whom we pray knows the hearts of all men, and has them not only under his eye, but in his hand, and turns them which way soever he will, can make them fit for his purpose, if he do not find them so, by giving them another spirit. (2.) They desire to know which of these God had chosen: Lord, show us this, and we are satisfied. It is fit that God should choose his own servants; and so far as he in any way by the disposals of his providence or the gifts of his Spirit, shows whom he hath chosen, or what he hath chosen, for us, we ought to comply with him. (3.) They are ready to receive him as a brother whom God hath chosen; for they are not contriving to have so much the more dignity themselves, by keeping out another, but desire to have one to take part of this ministry and apostleship, to join with them in the work and share with them in the honour, from which Judas by transgression fell, threw himself, by deserting and betraying his Master, from the place of an apostle, of which he was unworthy, that he might go to his own place, the place of a traitor, the fittest place for him, not only to the gibbet, but to hell—this was his own place. Note, Those that betray Christ, as they fall from the dignity of relation to him, so they fall into all misery. It is said of Balaam (Num. 24:25) that he went to his own place, that is, says one of the rabbin, he went to hell. Dr. Whitby quotes Ignatius saying, There is appointed to every man idios topos—a proper place, which imports the same with that of God’s rendering to every man according to his works. And our Saviour had said that Judas’s own place should be such that it had been better for him that he had never been born (Mt. 26:24)—his misery such as to be worse than not being. Judas had been a hypocrite, and hell is the proper place of such; other sinners, as inmates, have their portion with them, Mt. 24:51. (4.) The doubt was determined by lot (v. 26), which is an appeal to God, and lawful to be used for determining matters not otherwise determinable, provided it be done in a solemn religious manner, and with prayer, the prayer of faith; for the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposal thereof is of the Lord, Prov. 16:33. Matthias was not ordained by the imposition of hands, as presbyters were, for he was chosen by lot, which was the act of God; and therefore, as he must be baptized, so he must be ordained, by the Holy Ghost, as they all were not many days after. Thus the number of the apostles was made up, as afterwards, when James, another of the twelve, was martyred, Paul was made an apostle.


Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (pp. 2065–2066). Hendrickson.

To your first point, the decision in view here appears to be ecclesiastical in its immediate context, yet the quoted portion above does not seem to limit itself to ecclesiastical decisions only. I also recognize that Pre-Pentecost distinction as being important, to your second point.

 

[Joshua]

The use of lots may lawfully be taken up, but is not something with which to be trifled, nor a first & second resort, etc.: https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=110211530554093

 

[Ben Zartman]

I believe that drawing straws is a legitimate and fair way to determine who in the lifeboat gets eaten first.

Drawing a tile from the Scrabble bag to see who gets first turn is a legitimate lot-cast, and I believe God disposes the tiles drawn according to His will.

If you are casting lots, it must be agreed among all the the outcome is to be accepted. Casting multiple lots is like tempting God: you are trusting Him to dispose the straws/tiles/whatever according to His will: why ask again, and possibly be chastened by a poorer outcome?

Gideon wasn't casting lots--he was seeking specific signs, which God allowed him because He is kind.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The use of lots may lawfully be taken up, but is not something with which to be trifled, nor a first & second resort, etc.: https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=110211530554093

I so appreciate Rev. Ruddell’s takes and sermons on topics like this. Will look forward to hearing it.

 

[Jack K]

Matthias was taking a position as one of the Twelve. Those apostles clearly were chosen directly by Christ. They were not a selection mediated through the wisdom of men, however godly those men might be. That makes this situation special, and not necessarily normative for the selection of other church officers.

In other consequential decisions of life, people who use lots most often have superstitious reasons. Or if they do it as an appeal to God, they tend to do it out of a superficial piety that has failed to spend serious time in prayer, searching the Scriptures, seeking godly counsel, etc. I suppose the use of lots could be done in a godly, faith-filled manner, but we should be wary of it.

Casually playing Scrabble or Parcheesi is fine.

 

[Joshua]

In other consequential decisions of life, people who use lots most often have superstitious reasons. Or if they do it as an appeal to God, they tend to do it out of a superficial piety that has failed to spend serious time in prayer, searching the Scriptures, seeking godly counsel, etc. I suppose the use of lots could be done in a godly, faith-filled manner, but we should be wary of it.

Precisely!

 

[Polanus1561]

Another thought to provoke discussion... would we feel the same responsibility for our decisions vs, if we had made them without casting lots?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I've often wondered: was the casting of lots in Acts 1 actually unlawful, not because the casting of lots is unlawful, but because the Apostles had just been "given orders" [ἐντειλάμενος] by Christ (v.2) and one of the things they were "commanded" [παρήγγειλεν] by Him was to "not depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father" (v.4), which He goes on to reveal was their being "baptized with the holy Ghost within these few days" (v.5). Their casting lots has always struck me as sounding like they became impatient and took action - similar to Saul's actions in 1 Samuel 13 when he grew tired of waiting for Samuel at Gilgal and offered a burnt offering on his own. Just as Samuel showed up just after Saul's actions ("... as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came" I Samuel 13.10), the Holy Ghost "showed up" right after Matthias was chosen.

I would go so far as to say that Matthias was never really an Apostle if the definition of an Apostle is that they had to be chosen by Christ. Considering Paul was personally called by Christ later in Acts, I would suggest that the Eleven in Acts 1 were correct in v.20 when they said, "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be void, and let no man dwell therein: also, Let another take his charge," but were wrong to choose Matthias (through lots or any other method) instead of waiting. We never really hear anything else about Matthias - the traditions dealing with him are all over the place, from being martyred in Jerusalem to preaching to cannibal tribes in Africa, and the so-called "Gospel of Matthias" was labeled as a heretical by the Early Church Fathers (not that anyone believed he had written it). Meanwhile, just about every epistle of Paul begins with him identifying as "Paul an Apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ...)" (Galatians 1.1).

It is always difficult to judge narrative passages, and dangerous, I believe, to base doctrine solely on them. Saul's situation in I Samuel 13 is clear because we have the immediate judgment/teaching of Samuel. Much of Acts is less clear as much of it is narrative without comment, and I would be wary of basing the use of lots on a narrative that might contain a record of disobedience, not wise, patient obedience. As Paul makes clear in Galatians 2 with regard to Peter, the actions of the Apostles were not infallible.

For what it's worth, some sects like the Amish still cast lots to choose a new overseer/"bishop" on the basis of Acts 1. The Amish I grew up around would vote for candidates, and the top vote-getters would each choose a hymnal from a group laid out on a table. One of the hymnals would have a slip of paper with a verse on it. Whoever got that hymnal was the new bishop. They considered that to be a divine appointment. I'm not saying that is wrong - I just question whether it was right for the Apostles who been commanded to wait for the Holy Ghost to take such an important action like filling Judas' position, especially when it seems Paul was the intended replacement.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I've often wondered: was the casting of lots in Acts 1 actually unlawful, not because the casting of lots is unlawful, but because the Apostles had just been "given orders" [ἐντειλάμενος] by Christ (v.2) and one of the things they were "commanded" [παρήγγειλεν] by Him was to "not depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father" (v.4), which He goes on to reveal was their being "baptized with the holy Ghost within these few days" (v.5). Their casting lots has always struck me as sounding like they became impatient and took action - similar to Saul's actions in 1 Samuel 13 when he grew tired of waiting for Samuel at Gilgal and offered a burnt offering on his own. Just as Samuel showed up just after Saul's actions ("... as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came" I Samuel 13.10), the Holy Ghost "showed up" right after Matthias was chosen.

I would go so far as to say that Matthias was never really an Apostle if the definition of an Apostle is that they had to be chosen by Christ. Considering Paul was personally called by Christ later in Acts, I would suggest that the Eleven in Acts 1 were correct in v.20 when they said, "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be void, and let no man dwell therein: also, Let another take his charge," but were wrong to choose Matthias (through lots or any other method) instead of waiting. We never really hear anything else about Matthias - the traditions dealing with him are all over the place, from being martyred in Jerusalem to preaching to cannibal tribes in Africa, and the so-called "Gospel of Matthias" was labeled as a heretical by the Early Church Fathers (not that anyone believed he had written it). Meanwhile, just about every epistle of Paul begins with him identifying as "Paul an Apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ...)" (Galatians 1.1).

It is always difficult to judge narrative passages, and dangerous, I believe, to base doctrine solely on them. Saul's situation in I Samuel 13 is clear because we have the immediate judgment/teaching of Samuel. Much of Acts is less clear as much of it is narrative without comment, and I would be wary of basing the use of lots on a narrative that might contain a record of disobedience, not wise, patient obedience. As Paul makes clear in Galatians 2 with regard to Peter, the actions of the Apostles were not infallible.

For what it's worth, some sects like the Amish still cast lots to choose a new overseer/"bishop" on the basis of Acts 1. The Amish I grew up around would vote for candidates, and the top vote-getters would each choose a hymnal from a group laid out on a table. One of the hymnals would have a slip of paper with a verse on it. Whoever got that hymnal was the new bishop. They considered that to be a divine appointment. I'm not saying that is wrong - I just question whether it was right for the Apostles who been commanded to wait for the Holy Ghost to take such an important action like filling Judas' position, especially when it seems Paul was the intended replacement.

Much of this is addressed by the sermon linked to above by jw in #5.

In short, Peter was seeking to fulfill a prophetic Psalm of David referred to in Psalm 109:8b (ref. Acts 1:20), with the requirements being in Acts 1:21-22. I believe he did this due to a sense of urgency eluded to in Acts 1:16 where Peter says 'this scripture must needs have been fulfilled'. Perhaps it is fitting that Paul should be the 13th Apostle (recall the two half tribes), although in another sense he could be considered the 12th, having been made an Apostle after the death of James.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Much of this is addressed by the sermon linked to above by jw in #5.

In short, Peter was seeking to fulfill a prophetic Psalm of David referred to in Psalm 109:8b (ref. Acts 1:20), with the requirements being in Acts 1:21-22. I believe he did this due to a sense of urgency eluded to in Acts 1:16 where Peter says 'this scripture must needs have been fulfilled'. Perhaps it is fitting that Paul should be the 13th Apostle (recall the two half tribes), although in another sense he could be considered the 12th, having been made an Apostle after the death of James.

I have not had time to listen to the sermon yet. Does it address these questions: Where does the sense of urgency = immediacy come from? If there was something in need of urgent attention, why were the Apostles told to wait for the Holy Ghost? What is the definition of an Apostle?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I have not had time to listen to the sermon yet. Does it address these questions: Where does the sense of urgency = immediacy come from? If there was something in need of urgent attention, why were the Apostles told to wait for the Holy Ghost? What is the definition of an Apostle?

I believe the sermon does address some of these topics somewhat, although whether or not you will find their address satisfactory I can’t say. I will say that I don’t believe that “do nothing” is meant by “wait.”

I can also say that in Beeke’s RHB KJV Study Bible, it likens the waiting of the apostles with the waiting of Christ’s church. Just as you and I are to worship the Lord, give ourselves to prayer and the study of the Word while we wait for His return, so too with the 120 of Acts 1.

I was just going through and studying this for myself. Here is the quote below from iPhone’s image to text camera feature, very lightly edited for typos and the like:

Thoughts for Personal/Family Worship: Chapter 1

1. Luke refers to his Gospel as what Jesus "began both to do and teach" (w. 1). The implication is that Christ is continuing to act and teach, now as the Lord enthroned in heaven (v. 9) who works through His Spirit (v. 8). How does the knowledge that Jesus continues to act and teach in the world strengthen the faith of believers?
2. The disciples did not wait passively for the coming of the Spirit, doing nothing, but they devoted themselves to prayer meetings (V. 14). They loved the Scriptures as the infallible voice of God's Spirit (v. 16) and applied the Word to order the church according to God's will (V. 20). Thus they provide an example of how believers should wait for the coming of Christ: by devoting themselves to prayer, the Word, and the church, as ordered by Scripture.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I will say that I don’t believe that “do nothing” is meant by “wait.”

I agree. Waiting on the Lord is an active pursuit (similar, I think, to actively resting of the Sabbath). I believe they should have maintained what they were doing in v.14: "continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women." My point above is that the Apostles weren't just told to wait - they were told exactly what to wait for: "the promise of the Father" which was being "baptized with the holy Ghost within these few days." Taking major action - such as choosing a replacement for Judas to "be made a witness with us of his resurrection" (v.22) - does not seem to be following that command. Note that they were waiting to "receive power of the holy Ghost" so that "when he shall come on you... ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (v.8) I think this can be applied today and to your OP - since we have the Spirit in an abundantly greater measure than had been given in the previous dispensation of grace, as well as the fulness of Scripture, should we ever need to use the drawing of lots in this present age? Would the 11 Apostles have needed lots in order to fulfil what "the holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before of Judas" (v.16) had they waited to "receive power of the holy Ghost"? What made Peter stand up one day (v.15) and declare that it was time to replace Judas? There is no mention of the Spirit moving him to do so, and Peter is not generally regarded as a model of acting upon thoughtful consideration of circumstances (see Matthew 17.4 or John 18:10, for example). Respectfully (for I appreciate your studying the Word with an eye personal and family worship), to say that "They loved the Scriptures as the infallible voice of God's Spirit (v. 16) and applied the Word to order the church according to God's will (V. 20)" seems to go beyond the narrative of the text. I recognize that the crux of our differing views hinges on what Christ meant by "wait," but there seems to be too much in the text for me that hints at a contrast (bold above) between what Christ commanded and what the Apostles did.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I was brushing my teeth and randomly thought of casting lots. The idea is nice, but it doesn't work in reality. Try to receive an answer by flipping a coin. Then flip the coin a few more times just to be sure. What happened? Did God change His mind?

Or flip a coin asking God if it's okay to lie and covet and steal, heads being yes. Eventually no matter what sin you ask about, you will get a yes. Did God just condone sin?

Such a method can't be trusted that God will supernaturally be working through it. But one may say it can only be done once, and must not be done with matters of God's revealed will. At this point it's becoming so vague to where anything testable is stripped away, and no proof apart from superstition is obtainable.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I was brushing my teeth and randomly thought of casting lots. The idea is nice, but it doesn't work in reality. Try to receive an answer by flipping a coin. Then flip the coin a few more times just to be sure. What happened? Did God change His mind?

Or flip a coin asking God if it's okay to lie and covet and steal, heads being yes. Eventually no matter what sin you ask about, you will get a yes. Did God just condone sin?

Such a method can't be trusted that God will supernaturally be working through it. But one may say it can only be done once, and must not be done with matters of God's revealed will. At this point it's becoming so vague to where anything testable is stripped away, and no proof apart from superstition is obtainable.

It was good enough for the Apostles. But the intent must not be to test God. The user JW further up on the topic of casting lots which I found to be very helpful:

So Be Ye Holy in All Manner of Conversation (12)

Rev. Todd Ruddell | Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess the question for me is not whether the casting of lots is bad in itself but whether or not it is the Godly choice in certain circumstances.

In Acts 15 the Apostles did not decide between the parties by casting lots but deliberated based on their knowledge of Scripture and wisdom from the Holy Spirit on how to address the Judaizing heresy.

Paul doesn't command us to cast lots to determine who is fit for the offices of elder or deacon but provides for the criteria by which the congregation will choose. Even the "choosing" by the congregation is a vote and not the casting of a lot.

I'm finding it hard to conceive of a circumstance in the life of a Church where the Presbytery or Session would say: "well, we can't settle it, so let's flip a coin."

I hold that it is theoretically possible that a preference for one decision over another may be settled by the flipping of a coin, but most bodies don't act that way to decide any divisive issue by a coin flip. Maybe if the Church or Presbytery must send one person over another and everyone is agreed that either would be great to send them then the casting of lots makes sense.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I guess the question for me is not whether the casting of lots is bad in itself but whether or not it is the Godly choice in certain circumstances.

In Acts 15 the Apostles did not decide between the parties by casting lots but deliberated based on their knowledge of Scripture and wisdom from the Holy Spirit on how to address the Judaizing heresy.

Paul doesn't command us to cast lots to determine who is fit for the offices of elder or deacon but provides for the criteria by which the congregation will choose. Even the "choosing" by the congregation is a vote and not the casting of a lot.

I'm finding it hard to conceive of a circumstance in the life of a Church where the Presbytery or Session would say: "well, we can't settle it, so let's flip a coin."

I hold that it is theoretically possible that a preference for one decision over another may be settled by the flipping of a coin, but most bodies don't act that way to decide any divisive issue by a coin flip. Maybe if the Church or Presbytery must send one person over another and everyone is agreed that either would be great to send them then the casting of lots makes sense.

That's essentially what happened in Acts 15. They didn't cast lots for everyone among the 120. They were led by the Spirit in the selection of two men. Neither men recused himself, which would've providentially settled it as well. Pastor Ruddell (can't fully get behind the Reverend thing, in part due to Psalm 111:9) says as much in that sermon. I would commend it to you!

 

[Northern Crofter]

They were led by the Spirit in the selection of two men.

Where is the evidence in the text for this assertion? They did not seemingly have the fulness of the Spirit until after the casting of lots, when they received the promised "power of the holy Ghost" (1.4-8) on the day of Pentecost (2.1-4).

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Where is the evidence in the text for this assertion? They did not seemingly have the fulness of the Spirit until after the casting of lots, when they received the promised "power of the holy Ghost" (1.4-8) on the day of Pentecost (2.1-4).

I don’t see the word Spirit in the text. I guess you’re right. I suppose I assumed that believers were led by the Spirit prior to Pentecost. Maybe they picked them at random.

My point was really more that they didn’t cast lots for the 120. They did the best they could and got the number down to two.

 

[Eyedoc84]

What would lot casting look like today, given that we weren’t quite sure how it was done?

I think this is an important point. Are we even sure what exactly was done by the Apostles here? God doesn’t seem to comment on it one way or another, and we certainly don’t see a pattern established for us to follow, and are never commanded to cast lots now that that fullness of revelation has come in His Son.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I think this is an important point. Are we even sure what exactly was done by the Apostles here? God doesn’t seem to comment on it one way or another, and we certainly don’t see a pattern established for us to follow, and are never commanded to cast lots now that that fullness of revelation has come in His Son.

I don’t know that we were ever commanded to cast lots, to be fair. I think in some exceptional circumstances it may have been condoned.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I don’t know that we were ever commanded to cast lots, to be fair. I think in some exceptional circumstances it may have been condoned.

When they cast lots to see who's fault the tempest was, God caused Jonah to be discovered by that means.
Presumably Achan was taken by cast lots (we're not really told, but I can't imagine another means).
If one perversely flips a coin multiple times to achieve a different outcome, we can be assured that God knew beforehand how many times the coin would be cast, and disposed the result according to His will. We can also be assured that tempting God that way will probably have consequences, as when God told Balaam "You shall not go with them, you shall not curse them, for they are blessed" and Balaam presumed to ask again, and God told him in essence: "go on, then, and see how it works out for you."
It is not superstition, as has been suggested, to believe that the cast lot is in God's hands to dispose, and while the proverb isn't telling us to go casting lots for everything, it is saying that what looks like chance from our perspective is still governed by God. Statistics, averages, odds--God owns them, and uses them as He will.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

When they cast lots to see who's fault the tempest was, God caused Jonah to be discovered by that means.
Presumably Achan was taken by cast lots (we're not really told, but I can't imagine another means).
If one perversely flips a coin multiple times to achieve a different outcome, we can be assured that God knew beforehand how many times the coin would be cast, and disposed the result according to His will. We can also be assured that tempting God that way will probably have consequences, as when God told Balaam "You shall not go with them, you shall not curse them, for they are blessed" and Balaam presumed to ask again, and God told him in essence: "go on, then, and see how it works out for you."
It is not superstition, as has been suggested, to believe that the cast lot is in God's hands to dispose, and while the proverb isn't telling us to go casting lots for everything, it is saying that what looks like chance from our perspective is still governed by God. Statistics, averages, odds--God owns them, and uses them as He will.

That's good stuff to think about, brother. Thanks for sharing. Some things in my life would be easier to cast a lot; I just would need to have faith that God would use it. Maybe I think too scientifically.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Calvin presents a fine case for Matthias being properly elected to take the place of Judas, both for the putting forward of two names and for the casting of lots (apt in that special circumstance). After showing that the disciples, following Peter's lead, were most assuredly aware of Scripture and their propriety in doing their part to fulfill it, he writes on v23:

23. They were to choose one only into the room of Judas; they present two. Here may a question be asked, Why they were not contented with one only? Was it because they were so like, that they could not discern whether was more fit? This truly had been no sufficient reason why they should suffer it to be decided by lots. And also it seemeth that Joseph was of greater estimation otherwise; or was it because they were diversely affectioned? But this seemeth scarce probable, neither is this to be admitted as true, because of that most excellent testimony which Luke did give a little before of their unity and agreement. Lastly, It had been very absurd for them to have polluted the election of the apostle with such strife and contention. But for this cause did they use the casting of lots, that it might be known that Matthias was not only chosen by the voices of men, but also that he was made by the determination and judgment of God.

For there was this difference between the apostles and the pastors, that the pastors were chosen simply by the Church, the apostles were called of God. In which respect Paul, in the preface of his Epistle to the Galatians, (Galatians 1:2,) doth profess himself to be an apostle, "neither of men, neither made by man." Therefore, like as the dignity of this function was excellent, so was it meet that in the choosing of Matthias, the chief judgment should be left unto God, howsoever men did their duty. Christ by his own mouth did appoint the rest; therefore, if Matthias had been chosen only by man to be one of them, he should have had less authority than they. This was very orderly done, that the disciples should present unto God those whom they thought to be the best; and he should choose to himself whom he knew to be most fit, so that God, by the fall of the lot, doth pronounce that he did allow of the apostleship of Matthias. But the apostles might seem to have dealt very rashly and disorderly, which laid so great and weighty a matter upon a lot; for what certainty could they gather thereby? I answer, that they did it only as they were moved thereunto by the Holy Spirit; for although Luke doth not express this, yet, because he will not accuse the disciples of rashness, but rather doth show that this election was lawful and approved of God; I say, therefore, that they went this way to work, being moved by the Spirit, like as they were directed in all the action by the same Spirit. But why do they not pray that God would choose whom he would out of the whole multitude? Why do they restrain his judgment unto two? Is not this to rob God of his liberty, when as they tie him, and, as it were, make him subject unto their voices and consents? But whosoever shall quietly ponder the matter shall plainly perceive, by the drift of Luke, that the disciples durst do nothing but that which they knew was their duty to do, and was commanded them by the Lord. As for the contentious, let them go shake their ears.

 

[Northern Crofter]

for although Luke doth not express this

I maintain it is dangerous to extract from narrative passages in Scripture for the purpose of guiding our current practices. I have great respect for Calvin (my son is named after him) but I think he overstates the case that they were acting according to the Spirit. Does it not seem odd that the Holy Ghost is mentioned so prominently in the text immediately before as well as after this incident, but there is no mention of the Spirit anywhere in the narrative recording the choosing of Matthias?

I still have difficulty getting around Christ's command to "wait for the promise of the Father... [to] be baptized [f]with the holy Ghost within these few days" (Acts 1.4-5). It is worth noting that Calvin, commenting on 1.4, says "Christ commandeth them as yet to abstain from their office... he suffered them to rest a while, that he might the better set forth the greatness of that business which he was about to commit unto them. And thereby is the truth of the gospel confirmed, because the Apostles were forbidden to address themselves to preach the same, until they should
be well prepared in succession of time."

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I maintain it is dangerous to extract from narrative passages in Scripture for the purpose of guiding our current practices.

This is an interesting view to take. Personally, it conflicts with how 2 Tim. 3:16 reads to me. Even as a Calvinist, I think “all” means all here.

 

[iainduguid]

This is an interesting view to take. Personally, it conflicts with how 2 Tim. 3:16 reads to me. Even as a Calvinist, I think “all” means all here.

I think perhaps Andrew overstated a bit. It might be better to replace "dangerous" with "not always easy". So, for example, most of us would be comfortable seeing Acts 4:16 as a model for us of how to respond to people who tell us not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, but would not see the fate of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 as providing precedent to expect deaths among people who short-change their giving to God today. It is easier to work from didactic passages, and these always need to be kept in mind when reading narratives. We also need to take into account the flow of redemptive history as well, as may be seen by a number of people taking into account the fact that these events took place prior to Pentecost. All Scripture is profitable but not all Scripture is equally easy to interpret well.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I maintain it is dangerous to extract from narrative passages in Scripture for the purpose of guiding our current practices.

I don't think Calvin would recommend casual imitative appropriation. The issue is not what WE should do, as if because the apostle's did any such-and-such therefore we should attempt a similar exercise. Calvin challenges those who doubt that the APOSTLES were acting as THEY should have in raising Matthias to Judas Iscariot's room, and questioning whether they were guided by the Spirit in what they did. It is precisely because the whole context, before and after, is suffused with the Spirit's activity and the disciples acting in concert with him and one another, that we should not hesitate to recognize his superintendence of this moment, even if Luke does not add an explicit comment that the Spirit caused the lot to fall to Matthias, or suchlike.

Add to that the purposeful act of the apostles to unite Holy Scripture and its obedience to their purpose--yet, we seem more ready to call our fathers into question at this point and judge them, instead of recognizing their subservience to the word along with the Spirit. This is the very first chapter of Acts, and as soon as the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the Lord's ascension the church is looking to the word of God for guidance. Rather than assuming (as the Pentecostals are wont to do) that the fine textual details of miracles or prophetic fulfillment are norms for every generation of the church to enact for themselves, our generation of the church receives the apostle's miracles and fulfillments as if we are one congregation with the original disciples, while conforming to their principle of obedience to the word and Spirit.

Calvin's point throughout is that the disciples were marked in those days by a fullness of devotion and obedience to Christ. It is contrary to the tenor of the larger narrative for there to be an interjection here of a note of discord, a precipitous act that defies their Lord's command or is out of step with the Spirit. There is nothing in the record of the incident to cast it in a negative light; all such judgments of it are based on factors brought to bear from far afield. There were twelve sons of Israel, and thirteen names of individual tribes. In Rev.7:5-8, when twelve tribes are named and numbered, where is Dan? We err by presuming to count the apostles for ourselves, or decide that Paul should have been recognized as Judas' "replacement," when we are not competent judges of such matters.