**..so we see Peter still being more or less ruled by his own human understanding.**
It never ceases to amaze me, when I see people pointing out instances of Peter’s less then perfect behavior, how they are actually insulting the Lord’s choice to lead, AND the Lord’s ability to teach his choice to lead.
We remember Peter’s bold claim to never deny the Lord, and his subsequent failure (which fulfilled the prophecy of all the sheep being scattered), and judge him as mediocre in his role as a disciple, forgetting:
Who chose him,
Who taught him,
That other than the Christ, he’s the only person to have ever walked on water (I can imagine Paul treading water in the Mediterraean, wishing he could).
Although wrong in his carnal effort to defend the Lord, was the only one to draw his sword against a more heavily armed force.
So, in Acts 1:15-26, we find Peter referring to Psalms 41:9, 69:25, 109:8, and Zech. 11:12, to make the case for replacing Judas.
Peter was certainly well instructed. Remember how John said “that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (Jn 21:25), concerning all that the Lord did. We don’t know everything that the Lord instructed his disciples to do in detail. But, Peter points out these facts:
“..and his bishoprick let another take.” vrs 20,
“Wherefore OF THESE MEN which have accompanied 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”. vrss 21,22
While not of the original chosen twelve, it’s safe to say that Matthias was one of the 70 that were given power (temporarily, else they wouldn’t have failed to later cast out the unclean spirit in the one man’s son).
Apparently Matthias had stayed faithful through it all (not leaving when the Lord said that they must ‘eat his flesh, and drink his blood’, like so many that left then).
Is the opinion that Matthias has no epistles or words in the scriptures a reason to dismiss his position? Neither do several of the original twelve have words or epistles recorded.
Human failings are never an insult to the Lord’s choice of leaders. Quite the opposite.
“For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)
It is quite safe to say that in spite of all the time spent in company with this band of men, Matthias was specifically not chosen by the Master to be of the original twelve, either before or after Judas' betrayal. Same for Joseph Justus, son of Saba. Or any other of the remainder of the 70. Acts 1 demonstrates that beyond the shadow of a doubt. The other thing not in doubt is the plans that Jesus had for Paul, unbeknownst by and unannounced to the pre-Pentecostal company, but quite evident in the completion of several books in the New Testament on Christian doctrine.
Poor Matthias bore the burden of being the whipping boy at the center of Peter's effort to do what he had been planning and working for all along: to establish himself as The Christ's right-hand man and earthly vicar, and sole interpreter of Scripture, which religious power mongers have perpetuated ever since. IMHO.