I think following along is good, but we want not to lean on our own understanding and always ask the Holy Spirit to teach us as we read because that is one of the reasons He was sent. This is a positive thing and we need not be doubtful, just trust the Lord to help us to surrender to Him so we can learn at his feet. His grace will help us.
Acts shows us the amazing contrasts between believers with and without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1 shows Christians without the baptism of the Holy Spirit doing what they do best - tending toward self-effort and forgetting what the Lords says. Jesus said to stay in Jerusalem and “wait” (Acts 1:4-5). Later, the Lord began to talk about the power they would receive from the Holy Spirit to be his witnesses (Acts 1:7-8).
Peter, as we all know he was inclined to do, ran ahead. Peter hadn’t yet been baptized in the holy Spirit, so we see Peter still being more or less ruled by his own human understanding.
Nothing in scripture indicates this meeting and Peter’s efforts were initiated by the Lord but may have, and I think was, actually in contravention to the Lord’s words to “wait”. Peter wanted to draw straws. Where did Jesus tell him to do that? The results were basically zero. It is evident that Jesus himself picked Paul, the replacement apostle (Acts 9:15), as He, not man, picked the first twelve.
Contrast that with Peter after he was baptized in the Holy Spirit. He arose and spoke with boldness to the crowd and 3000 were saved. His life dramatically changed after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit - he was bold and effective and his life was characterized by being led by the Spirit. We too are effective to the degree we are filled, energized, and guided by the Holy Spirit.
**..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.