words. There are people who apparently think they know better than these early disciples

who had the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and the understanding given them by the

Lord Jesus. They say "these made a big mistake, they should never have done this. If

only they had waited just a little longer, Paul would have been the choice to fill the place

of Judas". But Paul could not have been the choice, because he never saw Christ in the

flesh. He could not have been a witness `from the baptism of John until the time that He

was taken up'. Paul was a witness for the ascended Christ, a most wonderful witness, but

not of the earthly Christ, and His earthly ministry, for that is the point here. Let us see

what the Lord Himself says. Turn to John 15: 27; He is speaking to these same men,

"And ye also shall bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning". In

other words they had seen everything all the way through and were in a position to be

true witnesses. So was Peter right or wrong when he said "beginning at the baptism of

John until the time that He was taken up"? He was right and obviously along the lines of

the Lord's will. That rules out the Apostle Paul! So next time you hear anyone talking of

the mistakes of the early disciples, just remind them of that, will you? They had received

their instruction from the Lord; they had been given an `opened understanding' by Him;

they had the enduement of the Holy Spirit; and yet these critics of today, without such

and living Divine qualifications, nearly 2,000 years after these events, have the temerity

to say they were wrong!

Again, there are those who say that the disciples should not have used anything so

carnal as the `lot' to ascertain the will of the Lord. But we read in the Word that "the lot

is cast into the lap but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. 16: 33). That

was the way God made known His will in O.T. days, and these were people who had only

the O.T., mark you; the N.T. was not yet written. There was no indication that God had

changed His command in this respect, so there are no grounds for complaining in that

way. God made His will known by this method and the man He chose was Matthias.

But there is still another point while we are considering whether the eleven made

mistakes or not. "When the day of Pentecost was fully come" (2: 3), "there appeared

unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them and they were all

filled with the Holy Ghost", and Matthias was one of them! The cloven tongues sat upon

each of them; Matthias was not excepted. He was filled with the Holy Ghost equally

with the other apostles. Now did the Holy Spirit make a mistake? That is what the critic

should face up to. In making this charge against the eleven, these critics actually include

God Himself! There is surely no need to say any more. Where the error lies is obvious.

Now on this great day of Pentecost we find Peter stands up and speaks publicly. Not the

impetuous Peter now; not the one who was afraid of criticism and denied his Lord. Here

is the restored Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost. He could speak now with all the

authority of God behind him and he says in effect:  "Do not think these men are

undergoing this experience because they have been drinking too much wine--not so",

verse 16: "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" and he quotes the

second chapter of Joel. Now I wonder how many who seek to study Acts 2: and want to

know what its real teaching is, ever go back to the prophecy of Joel and consider the

passage that Peter quotes? Should we not honour the Word of God and do this? Let us

therefore turn back to Joel 2: and we shall find that its setting is very much like the Acts