There is an interesting example of random selection of leadership from the Bible when the apostles replaced Judas. The criteria were agreed upon and then lots drawn.
Acts 1:21-26 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Can you imagine this practice replacing the Papal conclave? Or, pastor selection at your favorite Protestant group?
Interesting point! One interpretation of this passage suggests Peter is actually rushing this appointment. In typical Peter fashion, he makes choices before fulling thinking them through (this seems to change post Pentecost). Matthias is never mentioned again in the Bible; we aren't sure what becomes of him. Canonically, he is the 12th but traditionally, it is Paul who is sometimes considered the true 12th disciple (you can find this depicted in EO iconography).
So, the random selection mentioned here may have actually been a fault of Peter's and not something the Bible is endorsing as a means to choose leadership; possibly quite the opposite in this case.
That's an interesting interpretation but a quick search didn't turn up the first version of that until 1861, so it seem rather late to have influenced EO iconography. Perhaps you are familiar with earlier examples of that interpretation?
Impetuous or not, Peter was likely influenced by the many decisions made by lots in the Hebrew Scriptures. e.g., picking a scapegoat (Leviticus 16:7-10), assigning priestly duties (1 Chronicles 24), dividing land (1 Chronicles 6:54), etc. Furthermore, Proverbs 16:33 & 18:18 indicates the outcome of lots is from God and reduces conflict.
Anyway, ascribing random processes to the divine for decision making, particularly political situations seems to have strong textual support within the Judeo-Christian tradition. I'm curious about parallels in Islam and other offshoots.
Honestly, going off of something I heard Fr. Stephen De Young mention in one of his podcasts. If I remember right, he says when you see the 12 in certain icons, Paul is often present instead of Matthias.
He did not speak of casting lots as being something never endorsed in the Bible, more just for this particular passage, it might not be the takeaway Luke is aiming for. Agree with all your points on 'chance' often being used in scripture.
Don’t forget the Roman soldiers at the crucifixion who cast lots to see who would get Jesus’s seamless robe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamless_robe_of_Jesus
seems quite meritocratic with a pinch of (Lord's) randomness. The merit is "been with [Jesus] since baptism to taken"
"Lottery, past a reasonable post," is highly underrated. The randomness is there to account for the uncertainty of the objective criteria chosen ("Is it the right criteria?" "Did we measure correctly?"). Work in an escape clause in case things go horribly wrong with the ultimate "choice".
I strongly believe that this is how you solve elections, admissions, and recruitment (or, at least, get closer to an ideal solution).
And also grant funding!
https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/originality-and-quality...
Which I absolutely love, having wasted months of my life applying for 'regularly' chosen grants and having quasi-random outcomes, without a lottery.
My partner, who was raised conservative Mennonite, tells me this is exactly how pastors are chosen today. About three men are nominated, then they draw lots.
See also the Selection of the Doge (of Venice):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_of_Venice#Selection_of_th...
> New regulations for the elections of the doge introduced in 1268 remained in force until the end of the republic in 1797. Their intention was to minimize the influence of individual great families, and this was effected by a complex electoral machinery. Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced by lot to nine; the nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve, who chose twenty-five. The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine, and the nine elected forty-five. These forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and the eleven finally chose the forty-one who elected the doge.
These families must have known how to game probabilities immensely for them to put in so many layers of chance.
Hobbes talks about this a little in Chapter 36 of Leviathan, mentioning not only Matthias, but a couple of Old Testament instances.