And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to take the place of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
- Acts 1:23-26
Given the role that casting lots play in the Bible, not only in here the New Testament but also in the Old Testament (1 Chron. 26:14–16), it would be interesting to discuss the inner logic of lots, the role it continues to play today, and whether we should more widely adopt the practice of casting lots.
I think however we need to first making clear the purpose of casting lots. Tentatively I would argue that casting lots is not divination or prophecy or oracle, it is not divination as a method of discovering a truth or fact, nor is it a method of trying to determine a course of action to achieve a predetermined objective or goal. Thus, you cannot cast lots to, say, pick the winning number in the lottery, or try to determine who is lying or any other predetermined outcome. In these instances, you already know what you want, there is already a predetermined fixed goal or outcome to achieve, e.g. to win money, to find out who's lying, and the lot is merely a means to an end of achieving that goal.
Although this needs to be qualified in that casting lots could be argued to be an indirect method of divination in the sense that lots can indicate or hint at the "best choice" in some very long term sense. The apostles did preface their prayer by saying that God knows the hearts of the two apostolic candidates, thus, in this very qualified and limited sense, God can search the depths of the hearts of the candidates to determine who's "best" for the apostolic office in the long term. However, it could also be that God choses a specific man for a slightly more delimited purpose because he knows that this man will do certain things that God wants in specific historical circumstances, not that he's necessarily "the best". For example, God chose Saul to be king, even though obviously God knew that Saul was very flawed to say the least, but Saul did suit God's purposes for a delimited time and in certain circumstances.
The long and short of it remains that lots is not a method of divination to determine very specific and targeted facts. Again, this isn't the same as say, casting lots to determine if Ananias and Sapphira were telling lies about the donation. For that you need greater more supernatural oracular powers and not just by lots which is generally indifferent at least to near term outcomes or specific facts.
It would also be useful to point out that this isn't also an excuse to use lots to determine truths which are already known and revealed. That would just be tempting God. Thus, we cannot cast lots to determine, say, whether the Bible condemns homosexuality. It is revealed and given already, it would be tempting and testing God to ask for additional revelation to re-confirm again the Word he has already given. If they will not hear Moses, they aren't going to hear the clattering of the dice.
Thus, with these negative examples out of the way, I would venture to argue that casting lots is for making a choice between indifferent options where there is no predetermined objectives or goals. Thus, the simplest case here is where you have candidates of, more or less, equal qualifications, outwardly at least, and you're indifferent as to who gets the job, and so you cast lots and you let God decide as it were according to His own sovereign purpose and plan.
While this seems like gross superstition, it has both early modern and even contemporary use. (I think there is still an Orthodox denomination which still choses its patriarch by lots.) I think that when we look at these example, the inner logic and purpose of casting lots would be a lot clearer.
In the Articles of Confederation there is no permanent standing "supreme court", instead whenever there is a controversy between the states:
[the contending parties] shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as congress shall direct, shall in the presence of congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination.
- Articles of Confederation: Article IX
Thus, Congress will choose 3 candidates from each state, and each party gets to strike out a certain number, and then finally the ad hoc court will be chosen by lot.
If you think about it, there's a certain sense to this procedure. Congress as the neutral arbitrator between the two states should not be acting in a partisan way between the two. If they chose the judicial commissioners then by its very choice and selection of the people they have already prejudged the outcome. There is a story by Jean-Paul Sartre about a man deciding whether to join a revolution and Sartre argues that he cannot "settle" the matter by simply appealing to an authority figure like a priest. Because this man must chose which priest to listen to, and there are priests who support the revolution and priests who reject the revolution, in making the choice of the authority figure he has already predetermined the outcome. As such, by analogy, if Congress were to select all the judicial commissioners, in its very choice of judicial commissioners they have already predetermined the outcome of the controversy.
Therefore, it makes eminent sense that Congress should maintain their impartiality between the contenting parties by literally, appealing to God to choose the judicial commissioners to oversee the matter, that is the ultimate way of not imposing their will on the contending parties and truly letting the Lord of Hosts decide.
As I've frequently quoted from Blackstone, on the international plane (and the Articles of Confederation was not a national constitution but an international treaty), between equal nations of which there is no superior, the final authority is the Lord of Hosts who alone can adjudicate disputes between the contending parties, the usual method being by war. However, instead of by war, it makes sense to settle such controversies in a neutral and impartial way by lot, especially if the entity or person administering it, e.g. a confederate body, is indifferent (in the older sense of impartial) to the outcome of the controversy, it takes away human partisan interest.
This is not merely an antiquated way of setting disputes, it is a method that is still used in many international forums. For example, in the CPTPP, the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership the UK just joined, uses random selection to determine who sits in a dispute settlement panel between disputing parties to the treaty. Thus, it makes sense that in a dispute between equals under a treaty, and where the organisation serves as an impartial arbitrator, it makes sense to use the most neutral method of all: drawing lots.
Again, I want to emphasise that the drawing of lots is not for epistemic purposes of divining the truth (at least not specific near term or determinate facts) or to accomplish a predetermined goal.
There is however another additional advantage to deciding personnel controversies by lots and that is that it is the ultimate check on ambition. For important and even sacred offices, the takes the politicking out of the equation and places an upper limit to human will, interest and ambition. Yes, to us men we have eyes, ears and reason, we can "filter out" the obviously bad and unqualified candidates. But when we have more or less candidates of equal standing and qualifications, it is good, I think, to put a limit to ambitious grasping of the top office by ultimately just letting God decide the matter.
As such, I think it is desirable, and very useful, encourage a much wider spread use of lots in political and ecclesiastical matters, not only as the ultimate impartial method of arbitration, but fundamentally as a pious limiting of human ambition and overconfidence in our ability to commandeer all affairs, to carve out a space in reverent acknowledgement for God to do His work in providential ruling of the polity.