APOSTLE

It is clear that the appointment of Matthias is most intimately related to the making up of `the twelve'.

While we may give assent to the evidence of our eyes and agree that there is a verbal connection between the

passages, it may not be very evident wherein the deeper connection thus indicated consists. Let us therefore look

further. It is very evident that the apostle Peter and those who gathered with him realized that the gap in the number

of the apostles occasioned by the fall of Judas was a matter for immediate concern. Of all things that it might have

been expected would claim consideration and prayer consequent upon the Ascension of the Lord, the last to enter

our unassisted minds would have been the matter of Judas and his successor. Not so the apostles. They were to

tarry at Jerusalem and once more preach the kingdom. Should Israel repent and the kingdom be set up, the Lord

would fulfil His promise that the twelve apostles should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

While, however, the number of the apostles was incomplete it could not be said, `all things are ready' (Matt. 22:4),

therefore we can appreciate the fact that the apostles were rightly concerned about this matter.

The Jews gathered at Jerusalem to keep the feast were not, so far as is revealed, representative of the complete

twelve tribes: all that is said is that they were gathered from the surrounding nations, and an examination reveals that

the number of the nations was twelve. That is sufficient for the purpose: the link between Acts 1 and 2 is made

evident, and the theme of this section, the restoration of Israel, is advanced. Whether Israel would repent and the

kingdom be set up at that time, none of the apostles knew. It was not for them to know times and seasons. They

were witnesses, and fully equipped for their work.

But in spite of the evident fitness of these two sections, there are those who maintain that Matthias was not

appointed by God but by man, and that Peter and the rest were prompted by a zeal that was not according to

knowledge. The matter is of great importance and must therefore be considered. Let us give heed to the word as we

examine the matter. First of all, can we be certain that Peter was right when he said that the Psalms he quoted

referred to Judas? We believe we can. But a few days before the Lord Himself had said:

`I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread

with me, hath lifted up his heel against Me. Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass, ye may

believe that I am He' (John 13:18,19).

Here the Lord not only quoted the Psalm as of Judas, but emphasized the point that He was informing them

before it came to pass in order that their faith might be strengthened at the accomplishment of the event. Now it had

come to pass, and they believed.

In addition to this we have recorded in Luke 24:44-48 the fact that the Lord not only passed in review the Old

Testament Scriptures, including the Psalms, and dealt with those passages that spoke of Himself, but that He also

`opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures'. When therefore Peter said, `This Scripture

must needs have been fulfilled', he was but repeating the lesson of Luke 24:26 and 46, for the self-same words there,

`ought' and `behoved,' are translated `must needs be' in Acts 1:16.

Even though it may be agreed that Peter's quotation of the Psalm was appropriate, it is possible that some may

entertain the suspicion that in selecting but two men the apostles were limiting the Lord. We shall, however, find,

upon examination, that there was an important reason for this limitation. Referring once more to our Lord's own

instructions, we read:

`But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father ... He shall testify of Me: and ye

also shall bear witness, because YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING' (John 15:26,27).

The apostles were evidently acting with this qualification in mind, for Acts 1:21,22 reads:

`Wherefore of these men which have companied with us ALL THE TIME that the Lord Jesus went in and out

among us, BEGINNING FROM THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one

be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection'.

It was therefore not a matter of piety, learning, or fitness of character; what was essential was capacity to bear

personal testimony.