What is the basis for arguing that Paul should have been selected as the 12th apostle instead of Matthias? Commentators on the story of Acts 1:15–26, where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like:


  Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. (People's New Testament)


There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul was not considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like Acts 2:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:5–9.  But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been.

So, my question.  What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul?

Related: Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul? Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.
Two prominent advocates of this view are Rudolf Stier (1800–62) and Lloyd John Ogilvie (1930–).  They argue both that the apostles erred, and that ultimately the evidence points to Paul being the true 12th apostle.  They make several arguments:

The method of selection, particularly the casting of lots, was improper
The selection was unnecessarily hasty
The biblical record shows Paul as being &quot;chosen,&quot; and Matthias is never heard from again

Improper method of selection
Stier says that the apostles were &quot;justified generally&quot; for casting lots, considering biblical support for the practice (Proverbs 16:33), and the fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet indwelt them.  However, he considers it a &quot;deficiency&quot; that Peter did not mention the imminent coming of the Holy Spirit in his speech (v. 16–22), as promised by Jesus (v. 8).  Ogilvie calls the casting of lots &quot;crude&quot; and suggests that Luke is pointing out that casting lots &quot;was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.&quot;
Stier also questions the propriety of the qualification that Peter specifies in verses 21 and 22 (&quot;one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us&quot;), particularly in light of the apostleship of Paul despite him not meeting this qualification.
Hasty selection
Stier points to the context of the chapter, particularly verses 7 and 8, and argues that the apostles were instructed to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit.  Given this, he suggests that Peter's statement and the casting of lots was not &quot;consistent with the prescribed 'waiting.'&quot;  Furthermore, the passage Peter quoted, Psalm 109:8, does not prescribe any action, but merely says &quot;let another take his office.&quot;
Ogilvie suggests that Luke's motive in this passage is to cast doubt on the proceedings: he argues that Luke's &quot;extensive review of Peter's explanation&quot; suggests that,

perhaps Luke is pointing out that the apostles, prior to the gift of the Holy Spirit, were precipitous in replacing Judas when the Lord already was planning ahead for a Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus to fill that position.

Other biblical evidence
Stier finds Luke's language relating to the selection of Matthias to be significant.  He wonders why Luke in verse 26 merely states, &quot;the lot fell on Matthias,&quot; rather than, &quot;the Lord chose Matthias.&quot;  Similarly, he notes that the chapter ends with &quot;he was numbered with the eleven apostles,&quot; rather than explicitly calling Matthias the twelfth.  And why, he asks, does Luke not use the expression &quot;twelve apostles&quot; in the rest of his book?
Stier argues further that language referring to the apostleship of Paul throughout the New Testament is evidence that Paul should have been the twelfth.  For example, he quotes Acts 9:15, where Jesus is talking to Ananias about Paul:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. [ESV]

This and other passages, like Galatians 1:1, 1:15–17, 2:6–9; Acts 9:15, 13:31, and 26:16, Stier believes, should lead us to conclude that &quot;the Lord had decreed to do something special&quot; in the case of selecting Judas's replacement. To those who argue that Paul is an apostle in addition to the twelve (making for a total of thirteen), Stier cites Revelation 21:14:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [ESV]

In contrast to Paul's prestige as a &quot;chosen instrument&quot; and the author of numerous books of the New Testament, both Stier and Ogilvie point to the Bible's lack of reference to Matthias after his selection.  Ogilvie refers to this as &quot;strange,&quot; and while not suggestive of Matthias defecting, is still an indication that &quot;the position was filled by Paul.&quot;
Summary
Champions of Paul's place as the twelfth apostle, like Stier and Ogilvie, point to the biblical record in their attempt to demonstrate that the apostles improperly and hastily selected Matthias, and that Paul was the apostle selected by God to replace Judas.


Ogilvie, The Preacher's Commentary, v28 (Acts).
Stier, The Words of the Apostles, p12–14.