|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The luck of the draw: casting lots and guidance
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In the OT, casting lots to determine God's will is seen as acceptable practice, sometimes even described as being ordered by God (for instance, the division of the land in Joshua's day; Psalm 16 also springs to mind).
It spills over into the NT with the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas - but I think that's the last time we hear of it.
I have heard it argued that post-Pentecost, the guidance of the Spirit supersedes simply casting lots. Indeed some people think that Paul, who became an apostle in rather more supernatural circumstances, was actually God's preferred candidate to replace Judas.
What are your thoughts? Under the new covenant, are christians to look down on casting lots for decision-making as obsolete (Wesley certainly didn't)? Do you see the Spirit's leading as superseding the casting of lots, or is it something rather more exceptional? Was Paul God's 'spiritual' candidate in place of the Eleven's 'non-spiritual' designation of Matthias, or were they both legitimate in their own way?
Or might the recourse to the casting of lots in the Bible be an indication that a lot of stuff in life is, from our perspective at least, simply random?
[ 04. May 2012, 05:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
To be honest I find it odd even in the OT. It seems rather like divination or inspecting entrails. Why are the lots allowed/commanded at all?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
How could the disciples have elected Paul instead of Matthias? The disciples didn't know him, and if they did, they would have to regard him as an enemy at the time. Or should they have have been insightful enough to do nothing, realizing that God wanted the twelfth place to remain vacant for awhile?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
As far as I know, drawing of lots is still used for appointment to office in the CofE. I was certainly elected to a PCC by lot after a tied vote.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How could the disciples have elected Paul instead of Matthias? The disciples didn't know him, and if they did, they would have to regard him as an enemy at the time. Or should they have have been insightful enough to do nothing, realizing that God wanted the twelfth place to remain vacant for awhile?
And that's the problem with casting lots. If you REALLY know all the options, and if it doesn't really matter who gets which chunk of land, then maybe God can use it or maybe it's fair even if God stays uninvolved. Like, if you have three equivalent piles of similar but not exactly the same candies, and three children, one way to quickly and peacefully decide which child gets which pile of candy is if all agree it's fair to draw straws or throw dice.
In the NT example the 11 made very limiting assumptions about who God might think eligible, as well as when and by whom (and how) selection of a replacement should be made. That's not at all like dividing up equivalent piles of candy (or land) among all eligible claimants. Imagine the squabbles if the tribes had been told to search out the entire land and stake claims! Lots was a way of quickly appointing everyone a fair share so they could all get on with the work of farming the land.
If my question to God is "do you want me to marry Jim or Kyle?" "do you want me to stay home or go to church today?" the possibilities are far more than the ones I see. Maybe God wants me to do neither, but go to the hospital to help a friend, and there meet Sam who will eventually become my husband. Even if God chooses to control lots, they don't allow God an option of "none of the above."
I think in NT the 11 mis-applied the use of lots. But there's nothing unusual in people who have spent a lot of time with God getting stuff wrong.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm not so bothered by the use of lots in Acts 1 as by the fact that the disciples had been told to wait for the coming of the Spirit, and nevertheless decided to make a major decision beforehand. I mean, guys, it's ten days. Surely you can sit on your hands a bit longer?
Which makes me wonder if the Matthias thing wasn't a mistake. Luke (and the Spirit speaking through him) is remarkably non-partisan on the issue. He reports it, but I get no sense of whether he thought it was a Good Thing or just Peter being impetuous as usual. I suspect the fuzziness is intentional.
If it WAS a mistake (from God's perspective), then it's interesting to note that the official history of the Church begins with an administrative goof-up. Which is rather encouraging, to me anyway. The whole mess sank with hardly a ripple and the Spirit came anyway, right on time.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Well, maybe. But did the disciples know at the time that they would need to wait only ten days?
Meanwhile, we have the fact that Matthias is a saint with a red-letter day on the calendar. Apparently he did good. To withdraw that honor from him with no evidence to the contrary is an unjust insult.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
we have the fact that Matthias is a saint with a red-letter day on the calendar. Apparently he did good. To withdraw that honor from him with no evidence to the contrary is an unjust insult.
I doubt the folks no longer with us care about whether we honor them. They want us honoring God.
Chances are our understanding is sufficiently poor that we probably honor some of the wrong people, and some of the right people for the wrong reasons. Last I heard the thing we are supposed to value most is being written in the Lamb's book of life, NOT whether demons obey us or titles are applied to us.
I doubt there is any greater honor in being God-appointed an Apostle than God-appointed to be a teacher or evangelist or helper or voice in the choir or sweeper of church floors, the question is did you pursue your God-appointed calling well (whether or not it's what human's insisted was your calling).
Do we know Matthias did good? Do we know anything about him? Wikipedia reports four very different "historical" theories about how he died. Sounds like he's little more than a myth -- a named human being but that's all we know. Back in the day the church put all sorts of people on the calendar of saints, including if I recall correctly a few who are now believed to be pure myth. Matthias at least was a living human being. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Interesting question - if God were to choose 366 (or whatever number) of people for us to honor, out of all who have lived, who would they be?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
This is all possible, of course, but the fact that Matthias is officially recognized as an apostle is inconsistent with a teaching (as opposed to a personal speculation at odds with teaching) that his appointment was a mistake.
That said, I'll admit that to equate the luck of the draw as the will of God strikes me as rather superstitious. But does any alternative decision-making process justify any more confidence on that score?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As far as Matthias goes, he's not the only one of the Eleven we never hear about by name again, so arguing on that basis is rather a moot point. What is perhaps more telling is that we don't hear of the practice of drawing lots used again.
How the deacons in Acts 6 were chosen does not seem to be explicit, although some commentators think the word used means 'chosen by vote'.
Belle Ringer raises the useful point that it depends what the purpose is. Drawing lots as a quick way of making a fair division of land and thus dispensing with intractable and potentially acrimonious disputes makes sense.
That said, I'm not sure that it's any less bad a way of deciding between two options when all the pros and cons seem to be equally balanced. My son reports that when faced with the prospect of two tasks, both of which must be done and neither of which is obviously more urgent, he often settles the issue by tossing a coin (and apparently 'obeys' the result). Here, the lot-drawing functions as a spur to take action as much as a means of choosing a course of action. Is it time to bring back the Urim and Thummim?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The book 'The Dice Man' by Luke Rinehart shows how throwing a dice can lead to absurdities - 1 = go to work, 2 = phone in sick.... 10 = murder someone.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The book 'The Dice Man' by Luke Rinehart shows how throwing a dice can lead to absurdities - 1 = go to work, 2 = phone in sick.... 10 = murder someone.
The absurdity lies not in the dice-throwing but in the choice of options. If several courses of action seem equally appropriate, dice-throwing seems harmless.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If several courses of action seem equally appropriate, dice-throwing seems harmless.
Yes - but pretty pointless too.
Dice throwing for decision making points to superstitious beliefs - we all have 'em, including OT and NT folks.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If several courses of action seem equally appropriate, dice-throwing seems harmless.
Yes - but pretty pointless too.
Dice throwing for decision making points to superstitious beliefs - we all have 'em, including OT and NT folks.
If a decision is required and there is no basis for choosing one course of action over another, flipping a coin is not superstitious. It settles the matter, and you can go on to something else.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually flipping a coin can be a useful form divination in circumstances where each option seems equally good but divination of your own will.
There are three outcomes possible. It comes down in accordance with what you want, in which case you feel relief; if comes down not in accordance with your will, in which case you should feel disappointment and the feeling of such should be a hint of you to change things; finally you really do have no preference in which case you may as well go with what the coin says.
It only becomes superstition if you believe you must act on it.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Dice throwing for decision making points to superstitious beliefs - we all have 'em, including OT and NT folks.
I'd hardly call a belief in the sovereignty of God "superstition". And yes, of course it should only be used to distinguish between morally equivalent choices (hence the shortlisting in Acts 1). But sometimes it can be a great way to resolve otherwise intractable arguments.
And I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the selection procedure for the Archbishop of Alexandria yet. IIRC, all eligible candidates are listed, then lots are drawn.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
With regards to picking bishops, casting lots would work as well as any other method being used.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
How do you see these forms of appointment co-existing?
Is drawing lots (Matthias) as 'good' as supernatural designation (Paul)?
Similarly, back in Joshua, I'm also intrigued by the contrast between the division of the land by casting lots and the gung-ho claim of Caleb, much beloved of many fierier preachers, to "give me this mountain". Are both means of decision-making equally valid, or is one somehow better than the other?
[ 05. May 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Casting lots is far more practical than waiting for a divine appointment of the Damascus road variety. All the would be appointee needs to do is convince one Ananias to support his or her claim of divine appointment. What of competing claims to divine appointment? Assuring the integrity of appointment by lot casting requires only the services of a competent pit boss.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In which case, how come we hear no more of it in Scripture after Matthias?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
We don't know how bishops/presbyters were selected in the NT church. For all we know, casting lots was part of the process of selecting bishops/presbyters in the NT church. Why assume because casting lots is never mentioned again that it was never used? Why not assume that the method of selecting Judas replacement was passed down as the way to select bishops/presbyters?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In the NT that appears to be an argument from silence. Paul's recommendations to Timothy and Titus about the appointment of elders suggest something less random. I'm not erudite enough to be sure what the Church Fathers record except to note that the briefest of web searches suggests they were agin it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Dice throwing for decision making points to superstitious beliefs - we all have 'em, including OT and NT folks.
I'd hardly call a belief in the sovereignty of God "superstition".
You reckon God is going to shift a coin to land 'heads' or 'tails'?
I can't see it myself. If God wanted to tell them what to do she'd use less obscure methods. But I don't believe God does this anyway.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Is it relevant that the selection of Matthias by lot took place in the relatively brief interval between the Ascension and Pentecost?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Is it relevant that the selection of Matthias by lot took place in the relatively brief interval between the Ascension and Pentecost?
No. How could it be? God is eternal, and God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are as involved in human affairs at one time as another.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the NT that appears to be an argument from silence. Paul's recommendations to Timothy and Titus about the appointment of elders suggest something less random. I'm not erudite enough to be sure what the Church Fathers record except to note that the briefest of web searches suggests they were agin it.
Saying casting lots wasn't used is also an argument from silence. Perhaps, what Paul recommends seems less random to you but that doesn't mean casting lots wasn't part of the process. Paul gives us the qualifications for a bishop/presbyter. Are we too assume only one person in each local church met those requirements? If not, then some way of choosing between the qualified candidates was needed. Casting lots leaves it in the hands of the Holy Spirit than some hierarchical appointments or voting. What that process was I don't know.
I'm certain it wasn't the one currently used by the Church of England. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pulsator Organorum Ineptus
Shipmate
# 2515
|
Posted
The way to tell whether casting lots is a way of allowing God take the decision is to put up a considerable number of wholly unsuitable candidates as well as a few suitable ones.
Posts: 695 | From: Bronteland | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
In my opinion throwing the dice, and/or casting lots is pretty much the same as throwing a fleece before the Lord as they did in OT times.
Either way the decision is made by people, not God. They are the ones who decide on how to interpret the outcome.
It might be a way of resolving an intractable problem. But leave God out of it altogether.
[ 05. May 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
But in the OT casting lots is sometimes portrayed as a way in which God will reveal something not otherwise knowable. For example, there is a passage (1 Samuel 14) in which Saul discovers that Jonathan has disobeyed him and eaten some honey. By the casting of lots this is discovered. Although, the way it is set up, there is a 1 in 4 probability of this happening by chance.
Are we meant to assume here that Saul is just being an idiot? Or are we meant to believe that the lots really "worked" for discovering Jonathan's disobedience?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The book 'The Dice Man' by Luke Rinehart shows how throwing a dice can lead to absurdities - 1 = go to work, 2 = phone in sick.... 10 = murder someone.
The absurdity lies not in the dice-throwing but in the choice of options. If several courses of action seem equally appropriate, dice-throwing seems harmless.
Moo
Trouble is, our options, as fallenn human beings, are often absurd.
Prayerful discernment, quaker silence-wise, is a better way to make a decision.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually flipping a coin can be a useful form divination in circumstances where each option seems equally good but divination of your own will.
There are three outcomes possible. It comes down in accordance with what you want, in which case you feel relief; if comes down not in accordance with your will, in which case you should feel disappointment and the feeling of such should be a hint of you to change things; finally you really do have no preference in which case you may as well go with what the coin says.
It only becomes superstition if you believe you must act on it.
Jengie
This is precisely what I do when I can't make my mind up what I really want myself. I flip a coin and then check my feelings to see if I'm disappointed. I'm glad I'm not the only one who "hath but slenderly known" myself.
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Similarly, back in Joshua, I'm also intrigued by the contrast between the division of the land by casting lots and the gung-ho claim of Caleb, much beloved of many fierier preachers, to "give me this mountain". Are both means of decision-making equally valid, or is one somehow better than the other?
I wonder if they have ever checked what Caleb actually gets?
[Hint: It is not quite what it first looks like]
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
What's the problem? The Anakim? He knew they were there before he started out. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Nope. The pastuers get given to the Levites and then the city is declared a city of refuge.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You appear to be right that Caleb did not end up with the city of Hebron; how interesting! Joshua 21:11 does say Caleb was left the "fields of the city" and the surrounding villages, though.
Meanwhile back on the "drawing lots" track, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between drawing lots with a divinatory angle (such as the lot designating Jonah (although this was of course drawn by pagans), plus possibly the designation of Achan and the use of the Urim and Thummim) and lots that are simply a quick way of sharing something out.
It's hard not to see the appointment of Matthias as a sort of extension of the Urim and Thummim with the sense that the lot has indicated God's appointee, albeit from a shortlist, rather than a random selection.
Is such a decision-making process an abdication of human responsibility or a way of allowing God a say?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trickydicky
Shipmate
# 16550
|
Posted
Re casting lots and deciding on Matthias.
Lamb Chopped says "I'm not so bothered by the use of lots in Acts 1 as by the fact that the disciples had been told to wait for the coming of the Spirit, and nevertheless decided to make a major decision beforehand. I mean, guys, it's ten days. Surely you can sit on your hands a bit longer?"
But that's only true in Luke's scheme of things. In John, the disciples receive the spirit on the night of the resurrection, when Jesus breathed onto them and said 'receive the Holy Spirit'. And it seems to be linked in with discernment as Jesus than says 'If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ So no need for lots.
--------------------
If something's worth doing, its worth doing badly. (G K Chesterton)
Posts: 57 | From: Greater Manchester | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Is it relevant that the selection of Matthias by lot took place in the relatively brief interval between the Ascension and Pentecost?
No. How could it be? God is eternal, and God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are as involved in human affairs at one time as another.
I see. So the various events in the Christian story - Creation, Fall, Annunciation, Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Pentecost - are not to be regarded as a sequence even by people living in time.
Oh well, I learn more and understand less. Best I ask no more questions.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Nope. The pastuers get given to the Levites and then the city is declared a city of refuge.
Its very interesting to read through Judges, Samuel, and Kings (and don't be misled by what it says in Chronicles) and see where the Israelites are actually living. Quite different from the division of the land proposed in Joshua and the begining of Judges!
Also to see who counts as Israelites - quite a few of them, including Caleb, seem to have joined in the wilderness. (Caleb is probably originally from one of my favourite tribes, the Kenites.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
