Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession.
### Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession. ###
Yes. My take is that in the period between the time Peter was converted (Jn 21 probably) I believe that he did obey the risen Christ and was engaged in strengthening the brethren (Lk 22:31-32) under the direction of the risen Christ (the Holy Ghost had not yet come). But in the 9 to 10 days between the Ascension and the Pentecost, neither Peter nor the other 10 disciples and core believers were under the direct personal control of The Christ or The Holy Ghost. So, without that restraint and guidance, Peter became restive, and under humanistic reasoning invented a misuse of the Scriptures to assert his sense of establishing himself as a(the?) dominant leader and influence-peddler through the gambit of forcing the fellow disciples to choose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.
Apparently he was able to obtain a consensus of agreement. Then taking the matter in hand, and without any authority to do so, they devised a method whereby a replacement would be selected by them from two of the camp-follower men. One supposes that the lottery method was one which they thought was suggested by Scripture (Lev 16:8, Prov 16:33, Jonah 1:7 for example). Hence they gave themselves the excuse that the choice was of the Lord by the time-honored of casting the lot. So they, instigated by Peter, all conspired against the Lord to execute their will and not His.
Matthias was chosen as the replacement, but was never again mentioned in the New Testament. They had no idea that one of their desperate enemies was to be chosen by God to supply the office of the twelfth and last Apostle, in His own time.
So we see the kind of evil that well-intentioned men can do without waiting on God and without walking in The Spirit. As a consequence Peter, though a great preacher, evangelist, pastor, and discipler, never again achieved the role of executive leadership in his own local church. Moreover, though he claimed the ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7) that ministry to the uncircumcision was committed to Paul by God and the brethren; and Peter was charged with the ministry to the circumcision (mostly the diaspora?).
It would be well to note that Mary, the mother of Jesus, apparently had no authoritative voice in these deliberations, even in the 10 days before Pentecost when any Spirit-led person ought to have spoken up against the anthropocentric machinations of Peter and his cohorts. But the Holy Spirit had as yet had fallen on none. Though converted, there were none regenerated — none had the indwelling Holy Ghost, and none were speaking by inspiration.
Also note that later on her son James (Jacob) became the pastor of the First local church — that of Jerusalem. Another of her sons, Jude, wrote the definitive tract on apostasy. But she was not mentioned again after the commencement of the Church Age on Pentecost.