Did the Apostles screw up when they appointed Matthias?

A while ago we were studying Colossians in Bible study. In preparation for this I downloaded sermons and podcasts on this epistle of Paul to aid me in my study. One such MP3 I downloaded was a sermon series by a Protestant pastor in which he said something that rather shocked me.

During his presentation, he spoke for some time about the apostleship of St. Paul. He then spoke about the replacement of Judas following the Resurrection:

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet… In those days Peter stood up…and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled…concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry… So one of the men who have accompanied us…must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 

And they put forward two…and they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. – Acts 1:12-26

What shocked me was that, after recounting these events from the Acts of the Apostles, the pastor said that the Apostles made a mistake! He claimed that it was not Matthias who should have been selected, but they should have waited until the conversion of Paul! Wait…what?!

Problem #1: Textual Evidence

How should we respond to a claim like this? Well, as good Bible Christians (i.e. Catholics), whenever we hear anything strange, we should ask ask the question:

“Where’s that in the Bible?”

I’ve previously mentioned some problems with this question, but for an issue like this, it can be productive to enter into the non-Catholic worldview.

The point is that the Bible in no way, what…so….ever, indicates that the Apostles made a mistake. None. There’s not a single thing in the narration of events which even suggests that Peter and the others screwed up here.

Acts of the Apostles is traditionally ascribed to St. Luke, the companion of Paul. Given this, it could be argued that if anywhere in Scripture was going to indicate that Paul should have been chosen, it would be in Acts! However, you don’t see this in the text. Instead, throughout Acts you simply find concord between Paul and the Twelve.

Problem #2: Apostleship

The other serious problem with the pastor’s theory is that he’s assuming that there are only twelve “apostles” in Scripture. Although I’m not sure how he could have missed it, there are several other people in the New Testament referred to with the description of “apostle”:

1. Barnabas (Acts 14:14)
2. Silas (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
3. Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
4. Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25)
5. Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:9)

So did Peter and the others make a mistake? I don’t think so.