And when they were come into [the city], they went up to the upper chamber, where were staying both Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James [son] of Alphaeus, and Simon the zealot, and Jude [the brother] of James.
The eleven walk back from the mount of Olives into the city and go up to the room where they are staying. Then every man in that room is named. This short verse holds the last roll-call of the apostles in the Bible. It raises two questions: why this room, and why these names?
The group in that room was small, and the work ahead of them was huge. One writer sees their sense of weakness as the very thing that made them strong.
They return from the mount of Olives to Jerusalem. Olivet is the source of their power; Jerusalem is the place of their work... They are a small company for such a great work, and they know their weakness. They gather in the upper room where the eleven are staying, and they keep praying together with one mind, waiting for the promise to be fulfilled. Knowing their weakness is a main part of their strength. The work is so far beyond them that they are freed from having to count up their own resources. Nothing blocks their view of God, who is their only argument and all the resource they need.
Some have said this upper room was a chamber inside the temple. One writer rejects that idea, then refuses to guess where Scripture is silent.
The idea that the upper room was in the temple is Dr. Hammond's dream... The temple is the last place where the disciples could have had such a room. It was surely in a private house where they were staying at the time. Was it that large furnished upper room where the Lord sat down to eat the last Passover? We do not know. It does not matter for God's purpose either; if it did, we would have been told.
The verse says they were staying there. That was their home for the time, and it tells us something about the room's size.
Returning to Jerusalem, they gather in a room upstairs. It was clearly a large room, since 120 people could be there at once, and eleven could live there during their stay in Jerusalem.
One writer asks how these men were feeling, now that they were back in that room.
Were they discouraged? There is no trace of it, though by now they must have realised their orphan state (John 14:18); for the Lord had gone, and the Holy Spirit had not yet come.
One writer notes two things here. The order differs from the lists in the Gospels, and this is the last time Scripture names the apostles one by one.
Here the apostles are listed one by one for the last time, though in an order that differs from the lists in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (Matt. 10; Mark 3; Luke 4). Only one Judas now counted in the apostolic company. Matthew and Mark call him Thaddeus... but Luke, both in his Gospel and here in Acts, calls him Judas of James.
Is this Judas the son of James or his brother? The Greek can be read either way, and commentators differ. The same writer weighs it up, then points to why the whole list is here.
Some say the word brother should be supplied, as the King James Version does; others say son should be understood, as the Revised Version does. Neither reading goes against the way the language works. We do know of Jude, who calls himself the brother of James and wrote the letter that carries his name. If this Judas is the son of some James, it is a James completely unknown to us, and we would expect something to identify him. Since we have nothing, brother seems more likely than son... We would just add that the list of the Eleven given here has a point. It shows the fulfilment of the Lord's words, "Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one" (John 18:9).
Two men in the list are called Simon. The second carries a label taken from the politics of the day.
Simon. Matthew and Mark mark him off from Simon Peter by calling him the Cananean, and Luke calls him the Zealot. The first name is the Hebrew one (it does not mean a man from Canaan). The second is the Greek name for a Jewish party that held violent religious and political views and was hostile to the Romans. Nothing else is recorded about this apostle in particular.
Earlier these same men had argued over who was greatest. One writer sees that argument gone by the time we reach this room.
It is beautiful to see that from the resurrection of the Lord Jesus onward, the struggle over who was greatest among the disciples was gone. After the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus in Acts 1, we find the apostles together.
- Kept — the roll-call of eleven names shows the Lord kept His word: of those given Him, He lost not one.
- Small — eleven men faced a task far beyond them. Knowing their weakness left them nothing to count on but God, and that was their strength.
- Hidden — they met in a private upstairs room, not in the temple. It was large enough for 120, yet it was only a house.
- United — the old fight over who was greatest was gone. What is left is togetherness.
- Last — this is the final list of the apostles in Scripture. The order has changed, and only one Judas is left to name.
These gave themselves all with one accord to continual prayer, with [several] women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
After the ascension, a small group went back to Jerusalem and stayed together in an upper room to wait for what Jesus had promised. What they did while they waited, and who was in the room, is the weight of this verse.
These disciples kept praying day after day. One writer sets out what they had already seen, and what they were still waiting for.
So these saints spent their time in continual dependence on God. They had been the chosen witnesses of the Word of life, as He had shown Himself here below. In Himself the Son had shown them the Father. And now they were waiting for that divine person, who was to be in them as well as with them. The Lord had prepared them for it: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper." So now they all give themselves up with one mind to persevering prayer.
Seen from the outside, their cause looked hopeless. One writer puts the questions they faced.
Robbed of the Master's company, what could they do? Was the movement begun during His life now going to collapse?… Could they, a little band and feeble in themselves, hold their ground against the ruling authorities and hostile crowds?… To the natural man their cause was not a promising one. But they had a hope the Jews knew nothing of. They were sure that the God of their fathers had not abandoned them. So they kept praying while they waited for their hope to come true. They knew work lay ahead of them, when the time came to begin it.
They already had the Lord's word that the Spirit would come. That certainty is exactly why they prayed.
They were waiting, according to our Lord's instructions, for the promise of the Father — the gift of the Holy Spirit. They had the sure word of promise. The Helper would certainly come. That promise did not make prayer unnecessary. It was the very ground on which they prayed, and prayed with blessing. They prayed; they prayed in one place; they prayed with one accord. They were completely agreed. They all, without exception, had one definite object before their hearts.
That agreement is held up as a measure for prayer meetings ever since.
Why are our meetings for prayer often so poor, cold, dead, and powerless? Is it not often because believers fail to come together with one accord and with definite agreement in prayer for certain things?
The chapter closes on a company that understood much but could not yet act in power.
The disciples return to Jerusalem, and live there together in an upper room… But the effect of the promise of the Father is only found in chapter 2… They did not have the power of the Spirit, but they had understanding of the word. Their standing was in relation to Christ raised from the dead, so the divine light given to them after His resurrection had enlightened them.
Women were part of this praying group. One writer sets their place here against the place given them elsewhere.
Believing women were with them. How different their place is from the place Jews, or later Muslims, gave them! It is just as different from the flattery or superstition of the Middle Ages, even when nominal Christianity spread across the West… And one of them is named here: the very one to whom sinful folly would later bow down in worship — worship claimed to be lower than that given to the Son or the Father, yet in practice more absorbing than either.
Scripture speaks of Mary here for the last time. It puts her among the others, not above them.
Only one history of what followed our Lord's departure to heaven is sure and God-inspired. This is its first mention of Mary. She had been highly favoured, blessed among women, and all generations from then on call her blessed. Yet she was there in all lowliness of mind with the other women, as the apostles were with them all, waiting on God for the gift of the Holy Spirit… And it is the last mention of Mary.
The Lord's brothers were praying in that room too. One writer names them and marks the change in them.
James and Jude were two of the Lord's brothers. Simon and Joses were two others… They were unconverted the whole time the Lord was on earth. But it is clear they were converted after the Lord died and rose. So there they were with Mary their mother, and the eleven, all living together, given up to prayer, and waiting for the promise of the Father… And it is very beautiful to see that God broke them down by the very thing that might have stumbled them for ever. The crucifying of the Lord might have stopped them altogether. Instead God used it, and the Lord's resurrection, to wake their souls and bring them in.
- Waiting — They obeyed the Lord's instructions and waited, filling the days with prayer. The work would come when the power came.
- Certainty — A guaranteed promise did not remove prayer; it gave prayer its object.
- Agreement — One accord meant one definite object, held by every person in the room, without exception.
- Company — Apostles, women, Mary and the Lord's brothers pray side by side. Mary appears here for the last time, among the rest, not above them.
- Change — The cross and resurrection broke down brothers who had not believed. Now they wait for the same gift as the apostles.
And in those days Peter, standing up in the midst of the brethren, said, (the crowd of names [who were] together [was] about a hundred and twenty,)
The Spirit has not yet come, and ten days of waiting must pass first. In that gap Peter stands up to speak, and Luke stops to count the room: about 120 people. Who were they, and what were they waiting for?
The verse opens with "in those days." What did the disciples do with them?
Ten days had to pass before the Spirit came, and the rest of the chapter tells us how the disciples spent that time of waiting. About one hundred and twenty in Jerusalem openly followed the Lord, and prayer and pleading with God filled their time. They could bear no witness until God gave the Spirit, but they could take the safe place of complete dependence on God, and stay there.
Peter is the one who stands up. About six weeks earlier he had failed his Lord badly.
It is striking that Peter was the one to take the lead here, when he himself had sinned so badly only about six weeks before. Still, it shows that the Lord had fully restored him.
Peter speaks with confidence about Scripture, though the Spirit had not yet come on him. That order is worth noticing.
Peter speaks to them with decision, but in the light and authority of Scripture. Power from on high had not yet come on him, but he clearly had an understanding he never had before the Lord died and rose. The two may go together now; or spiritual understanding may be present where special power is not given.
Peter stands "among the brothers" — older versions read "disciples." Does that mean the eleven apostles only?
Someone may ask: could the word "disciples" mean only the eleven? No, it could not. Look at Luke's account of the same event. "And they rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together" (Luke 24:33)… So it is a serious mistake to limit this to the apostles. It was the whole gathered body of disciples, men and women: about one hundred and twenty, brought together by the news that the Lord had risen.
The same plain words run through the rest of the book. They also say something about rank among Christians.
There are no "favoured ones" in Christianity… The Christianity of the Bible allows for spiritual gifts and for office, but it knows nothing of such ranks. The early Christians were all of them believers, saints, disciples (see Acts 1:15; 6:1; 9:38; 19:9; 20:7). Even the greatest of the apostles was simply a believer, a saint, a disciple along with the rest — though God had gifted him from heaven and given him an authority no one could question.
The ESV reads "the company of persons"; older versions render it "the number of the names." One writer keeps to that older sense.
The first instance is Acts 1:15, where the words in brackets tell us there was a crowd of names "together," about a hundred and twenty. Nothing here stops us from supposing that the 120 were gathered into the same room… But the true meaning of the words is a count of names "together," not their being "gathered," as some translations put it.
The hundred and twenty are often called the first church. But how many believers were there in all, and were these 120 already the church?
We know that, before they entered the church in this way, there were at least a hundred and twenty names listed in Acts 1… And I have no doubt that many more were really believers. In 1 Corinthians 15:6 we hear of "more than five hundred brothers" who saw the Lord after His resurrection… The "hundred and twenty" were the ones who lived in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion or after it. But whatever the number… there was no such thing as "the church," the assembly of God, until God sent down the Holy Spirit to give them unity.
- Waiting. They spent the ten days before Pentecost in prayer. They could bear no witness until the Spirit came, so they took the safe place of dependence on God.
- Restored. The man who takes the lead had sinned badly six weeks before. His standing up shows the Lord had fully restored him.
- Light. Peter understood Scripture as never before, though power from on high had not yet come. The two are distinct.
- All of them. The hundred and twenty were disciples, men and women, not the apostles alone. The early Christians had no favoured class.
- Not yet the church. The number counts believers in Jerusalem, not all the faithful; over five hundred had seen the risen Lord. None of them formed the assembly until the Spirit came down.
Brethren, it was necessary that the scripture should have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before, by the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who became guide to those who took Jesus;
Peter's first recorded words after the Lord's ascension are not a plan of his own but an appeal to a text written centuries earlier. He tells the group that Scripture had already spoken of Judas, which raises two questions: who spoke in the Psalms, and how a betrayal God saw coming can still be a real crime.
The ESV opens with "Brothers." Older translations read "Men and brethren," which sounds like two groups. In fact it is one.
In "men [and] brethren," Acts 1:16; Acts 2:29, etc., there are not two classes referred to, but "men who are brethren," or, in our idiom, simply "brethren."
Peter's "had to be" is not his invention. He handles the Old Testament the way his Master did. The result is a settled confidence that God still ruled in the worst events.
Scripture that "cannot be broken" had for Him all the authority of unchangeable truth... Twice He speaks of the course and end of Judas as needed "that Scripture might be fulfilled." So Peter is only following his Lord. He stands up among the believers and declares that "the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas." How good it is to see the control of the Word of God in the darkest events... How dark they would be, if we did not have this assurance of His perfect oversight of every circumstance!
Peter names a human speaker and a divine one in the same breath. The prediction was on record centuries before Judas was born.
David was the instrument, but it was the Holy Spirit who spoke. With divine precision He saw ahead the treachery of a man whose heart stayed unmoved by his closeness to our Lord. He had it written down long in advance, so that all could see this was no accident. It was a sin God knew all about and allowed.
The timing matters. The disciples were still waiting for the Spirit, and Peter names that same Spirit as the One who had already spoken in the Psalms.
Acts 1:16 shows us who spoke in the Psalms. The very same Holy Spirit for whom the disciples were waiting, and who came at Pentecost, spoke there by the mouth of David. Let us avoid thinking of the Old Testament as a mere collection of Hebrew religious books.
A prophecy written in advance did not make Judas innocent. His share in Christ's ministry gave him no cover.
A man's unbelief may ruin him, but it cannot cancel the written word. The share Judas was given in the ministry of Christ did not excuse him from his terrible sin and punishment... Psalm 69:25 pronounced his curse, Psalm 109:8 called for a successor to his vacated office.
For the eleven remaining apostles, the betrayal had come out of nowhere. Peter's quotation met them at their lowest point with the news that God had not been taken by surprise.
Was his fall unforeseen? It was unexpected by the Eleven, we know. But Scripture had foreshadowed it, and predicted too the substitution of another in his place. To this Peter calls attention at the time of their greatest weakness... What comfort they must have found when they learned, and saw it clearly set out, that God had known all along about the heartless and selfish conduct of Judas!
The Spirit had not yet been given, so Peter acted on the Old Testament as he understood it.
It appears that Peter was not directly led by the Holy Spirit. Even so, the Spirit put His seal on what was done, because it agreed with the word in the Old Testament as the apostle understood it... They now act, not having received the Holy Spirit, according to a Jewish principle. They present the lot to the Lord, so that He may decide.
Commentators differ on whether the whole step was right. One writer sees the Spirit's seal on it; another says to leave the question open:
Some have objected that God did not guide Peter and the apostles in this matter. But Scripture makes no comment either way. It is wiser for us to leave the matter where Scripture leaves it.
- Spirit spoke. David held the pen; the Holy Spirit was the speaker — and He is the same Spirit the disciples were waiting for.
- Word stands. Peter treats the Psalms as unbreakable, just as his Master did. God's word rules even the darkest events.
- Betrayal foreseen. Scripture recorded the treachery centuries ahead of time, so it was no accident and no surprise to God.
- Guilt remains. Prophecy did not excuse Judas; his share in Christ's ministry gave him no shelter.
- Word guides. Pentecost had not yet come, yet the Scriptures Peter understood were enough to guide the group's next step.
for he was numbered amongst us, and had received a part in this service.
Peter has to explain something painful about Judas, the man who guided those who arrested Jesus. He once held a real place among the twelve apostles — so what does it mean to share in the Lord's work and still be lost?
One writer traces the Greek word behind "his share in this ministry":
The word clergy comes from the Greek cleeros, and its primary meaning is "lot." Scripture uses it that way when the soldiers who crucified Him divided our Lord's clothing (Matt. 27:35). We find the same use in the appointment of Matthias (Acts 1:26). But that same passage also shows the use which has probably given us the word as we know it: "For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part (Greek, lot) of this ministry." This use of the word comes close to the derived meaning of "inheritance" or "portion." We find that meaning applied to the portion of all the people of God (Acts 26:18; Col. 1:12).
Judas did not seize his position; it came to him as a portion. The older wording there, "obtained part," is what the ESV calls "his share."
Scripture itself names what that portion was:
In Acts 1:17 the apostleship is called "this ministry." Verse 25 speaks the same way of "this ministry and apostleship."
Why did the Lord choose Judas at all? One writer answers that Judas had already taken the place of a disciple, and that the place of an apostle was fitted to feed faith:
Judas himself had taken the place of a disciple. So the Lord was simply choosing one who had already taken this place. He was not imposing on him a profession he had not taken up for himself. More than that, the position of apostle was fitted to feed the disciple's faith, if he had any faith at all. The twelve were in a place of special privilege, close to the Lord. They were always under His influence, with His example before them.
Judas preached and healed like the rest. When his true character came out, did that cancel everything he had done?
Doubtless Judas had worked miracles, had brought about cures like the rest, and had preached the gospel of the kingdom too. So in the past he had appeared as a worker — an authorised worker, really commissioned by Christ. Should people discredit everything he had done as an apostle once his real character came out? Here the Lord states an important principle for his case: "The one who receives whomever I send receives me, and the one who receives me receives him who sent me" (John 13:20). This is a principle for Christians to remember. When a worker breaks down in his testimony, how quick men are to discredit all that he has done! Let us look beyond the worker to the One who sent him.
Peter answers from Scripture. The written word stands, whatever men do with it:
Peter applies Scripture clearly. It shone in the light of the Lord's death and resurrection. It had to be fulfilled... Judas became the guide of those who arrested Jesus. The unbelief of man may ruin him, but it cannot make the written word of no effect. The lot Judas received in the ministry of Christ did not exempt him from his awful sin and punishment either.
A place among the twelve settled nothing about the state of his soul:
No gift of power is a sign of eternal life, not even the edifying gift of prophesying. A man might be an apostle of Christ and yet not a child of God. "You must be born again," begotten by the word of truth — which Judas never was. Outwardly near, he was really far off, not only a stranger in heart but an enemy.
Some have taken his remorse as proof that he repented. One writer answers that plainly:
Some have wrongly argued that his confession under remorse showed true repentance, and that there is hope of his salvation. It is not so: he fell, that he might go "to his own place." Judas is a solemn instance of how far a person may be under the influence and power of Christianity, and yet become an apostate.
- Numbered — Judas held a real, counted place among the twelve; the closeness was genuine, not staged.
- Allotted — his "share" was a lot, a portion he received; the same word family covers the inheritance of all God's people.
- Serving — that portion was work, not status; Scripture calls apostleship "this ministry," and true service rests on the One who sent the worker.
- Unshielded — his lot in the ministry of Christ never saved him from his sin or its punishment.
- Unsaved — a man may be an apostle of Christ and still not be a child of God; nearness outwardly, distance inwardly.
(This [man] then indeed got a field with [the] reward of iniquity, and, having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
The story of Judas cuts into Peter's speech with details found nowhere else — a field, a fall, and a body burst open. Two questions follow: how does this fit Matthew's account of the priests buying a field, and why record such a grim scene at all?
Peter is speaking when the chapter opens. Yet commentators read this verse and the next as a note from Luke, not as part of the speech.
Verses 18 and 19 are clearly not the words of Peter. They are a parenthesis in which Luke gives us further details of the terrible end of Judas.
Matthew says the chief priests bought the field with the returned silver. Here the buying is credited to Judas, and much depends on how strong the word for "acquired" really is.
People have discussed these passages a lot. People saw the field as Judas' field, because his money bought it. Some even say he bargained for it, and the priests then completed the deal and set the ground apart for this purpose. He got a field as the reward of his iniquity, since his money paid for it… It is very possible that "purchased" is too definite; he got a field.
Another writer answers from the side of ownership. The coins were Judas' money, whoever handled the deal.
The two statements about the buying of the field do not truly conflict. The chief priests carried out the transaction, as Matthew declares. Even so, that piece of ground, bought with the money, could be described in Peter's words: "This man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness." The money that bought it truly belonged to Judas. No doubt, if we had full details, we would see that the account of both apostles is correct in every part.
The phrase describing the money is not neutral. It places Judas alongside another man in Scripture who knew God's name and still sold his services.
In Balaam we see the character of what corrupts. He had a knowledge of God — he even says "the LORD my God." (Num. 22:18.) He called Israel's God his God. But his heart was trained in greed; he "loved gain from wrongdoing." Peter gives Judas this same character. (Acts 1:18.) Thirty pieces of silver were "the reward of his wickedness" given to the man who said to Jesus, "Greetings, Rabbi!" Both these men show a mark of religious falling away, which in the end perishes in its own corruption.
Judas held a real place among Jesus' twelve apostles and a share in their ministry. That standing changed nothing about what followed.
Man's unbelief may ruin him, but it cannot cancel the written word. Nor did the share Judas received in the ministry of Christ spare him from his awful sin and punishment. And the field he got from the wages of iniquity bore witness in letters of blood, after Judas left the place of service and apostleship he had forfeited, and went to his own place of torment.
Matthew reports a hanging; this verse reports a headlong fall and a body torn open. A common explanation joins them.
Matthew tells us he hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). It appears the rope broke, so that he fell headlong and all his bowels gushed out. Jerusalem knew this so well that people called the field bought with the betrayal money "the field of blood."
Luke records this not as a curiosity but as a caution to anyone who holds a religious position while the heart is somewhere else.
Here was an apostle — a preacher of the gospel, a man with a loud profession of faith. Yet under that cover lay "a heart trained in greed" — a heart which had a wide place for "thirty pieces of silver," but not a corner for Jesus. What a case! What a picture! What a warning!… He preached the gospel, but he never knew it, never believed it, never felt it. He had painted sunbeams on canvas, but he never felt their influence. He had plenty of heart for money, but no heart for Christ.
- Wages. Judas' pay was the reward of his wickedness — the same love of money that marks Balaam, a man who could say "the LORD my God" and still sell himself.
- Field. Those wages bought ground. Commentators differ on how far Judas himself closed the deal, but they agree the money was his, so the verse credits the buying to him.
- Fall. That field became his grave — a hanging, then a headlong fall. The end was so public that all Jerusalem named the place after it.
- Forfeit. He had a real place among the twelve apostles. The position never cancelled the sin, and he left it to go to his own place.
- Warning. The whole account is a note added for us. A man may preach a gospel he never believed, with a wide place in his heart for silver and no corner for Christ.
And it was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own dialect Aceldama; that is, field of blood.)
Peter's speech pauses over something the whole city already knew. The ground bought with the betrayal money had picked up a nickname: Akeldama, Field of Blood. The verse also raises a question commentators have long weighed. Who bought that field? Matthew says the chief priests did.
The word Luke keeps is not Greek. It is the everyday Aramaic of Jerusalem's streets, written out in Greek letters.
The word Akeldama, "field of blood," is Aramaic written in Greek letters. Different manuscripts spell it differently. The field was bought with the money paid to Judas for betraying his Lord, but in his despair he could not keep it. In that sense he bought the field, Acts 1:18-19; though the chief priests were the ones who actually bought it, Matt. 27:6-8.
Commentators have handled the apparent clash with Matthew's account in more than one way. One line treats verses 18 and 19 as Luke's own aside. It also finds the word "purchased" too strong for what happened: Judas got a field.
As regards Acts 1:18-19, and Matthew 27:3 etc., I take Acts 1:18-19 as a parenthesis of Luke's. The passages have been much discussed. People looked at the field as Judas' field, since his money bought it... he got a field as the reward of his iniquity, his money being used for this. We have not details enough to connect the two accounts of his death... It is very possible that "purchased" is too definite; he got a field.
Another writer reaches the same place by another road. The money belonged to Judas, so the deal the priests made with it still counted as his own act.
There is nothing inconsistent in the two statements about the buying of the field. The chief priests handled the deal, as Matthew tells us. Yet Peter could still say of that piece of ground that this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness. The money that paid for it really belonged to Judas... Peter spoke of it a few weeks after the event. Matthew may have written his Gospel only a few years after the death of Judas, when no one could have forgotten what happened.
Commentators differ on the details, because the accounts do not give us enough of them. But they agree that the two records tell one event from two sides.
Peter is not passing on a rumour. He points to a field anyone in Jerusalem could go and see, and to a written word Judas could not escape.
Man's unbelief may ruin him, but it cannot cancel the written word. Judas had been given a share in the ministry of Christ, and that did not spare him from his terrible sin and punishment. And the field bought with the wages of iniquity stood as a witness written in blood, after Judas left the place of service and apostleship he had forfeited and went to his own place of torment.
The leaders were careful not to stain the temple treasury with blood money. They bought a burial plot for foreigners instead, and that plot became evidence against them.
The priests had no scruples about buying His blood from Judas. Yet they shrink from putting the money into the temple treasury, because it was the price of blood... After talking it over, they buy a burial ground for foreigners... And by doing so they set up a lasting memorial of their own sin, and of the blood that was shed. Akeldama is all that remains in this world from the circumstances of this great sacrifice. The world is a field of blood, but that blood speaks better things than Abel's blood did.
Judas did not act alone. Peter has just called him the guide of those who arrested Jesus, and that link ties the field's name to the nation.
That field was bought with the price of the Lord's blood, and it was made the place to bury strangers in. And this had a meaning for Israel... Judas's act was Israel's act. He was guide to those who took Jesus. Acts 1:16. They were the ones who crucified and killed Him by wicked hands, as the apostle tells them, and their land is "Akeldama" to this day.
- Blood named. Akeldama is Aramaic for "field of blood." It was Jerusalem's own nickname for ground bought with betrayal money.
- Blood paid. The silver was Judas's, so the field counted as his even though the priests handled the sale. Commentators find no error in the two accounts, only two sides of one event.
- Blood published. Peter appeals to a fact every resident of the city knew. The field was a witness written in blood to the traitor's end.
- Blood remembered. The priests kept the treasury clean and set up a lasting memorial of their own sin instead. The world itself is a field of blood, yet that blood speaks better things than Abel's.
- Blood shared. Judas was guide to those who took Jesus, so his act was the nation's act, and the name attached to the land, not only to one man.
For it is written in [the] book of Psalms, Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it; and, Let another take his overseership.
Judas is dead, and the disciples are one man short. Peter stands up and reaches for two lines from the Psalms. They explain the empty place, and they say what must be done about it.
Judas' betrayal did not catch God off guard. Peter joins two psalms, and each does a different job.
What comfort they must have found, as they learned and saw it plainly set out, that God had foreknown the heartless and selfish conduct of Judas! His act of treachery fulfilled the prophetic word. The Holy Spirit had predicted it. David was the writer who wrote it down... Peter refers to Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. The first speaks of what the persecutor would receive. The second speaks of succession in his office. In Judas, by his death, the first quotation had a fulfilment. His dwelling was desolate. He had died by his own hand (Matt. 27:5). The second prediction was also to be fulfilled.
The second half of the quotation is not about Judas' past. It tells the disciples what to do next.
Judas has shamed the office and thrown it away. But it must not be left empty, standing as a witness to the enemy's victory. God has provided for everything. His wisdom sees ahead and had set it all out beforehand. That wisdom cannot be caught by surprise, and Satan's cunning and strength cannot overpower it.
What is the "office" that had to be filled?
The word is 'office' in Ps. 109:8. The New Testament quotes that passage, and there the office is 'apostleship.' One man was chosen for it, to take the place of Judas Iscariot. Acts 1:20.
That charge carried a fixed number with it, tied to Israel's twelve tribes.
It was written in the Book of Psalms, and his "office let another take." That was both reason and authority for choosing another. He has another to witness of His resurrection, because the Psalms said it was to be done. The number "twelve" is the perfection of human things in government. The foundations of the city, the new Jerusalem, are twelve. So there are twelve apostles of the Lord. "You will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There must be twelve.
The psalm does not stop at Judas. It speaks of many enemies, and it looks beyond that day.
Judas was a special instance of the hatred that took advantage of Christ's humility. That hatred persecuted the poor and needy man, and killed the broken-hearted. So the Spirit of God has applied words from these verses to Judas... Verse 20 of the psalm, however, shows that more than one outstandingly wicked man is in view. It takes in all the "adversaries" of the Lord who have spoken evil against His soul. No doubt these verses have in view Judas and the guilty nation in the day of Christ's humiliation. But they also look on to the Antichrist and the mass of Jews who abandon God under his leadership, in a day still to come.
The Spirit had not yet come. So they used an older way of finding God's mind.
The lot was a Jewish way of seeking God's direction, and it will be so again in the last days. So it fitted the choice of the twelfth apostle here (Matt. 19:28). They did not yet have the Spirit's presence, the new power in which Jews and Gentiles are alike unknown. So they looked to the Lord in this way. But no one cast lots after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost.
Some argue that the disciples acted too soon, and that Paul was meant to be the twelfth. Commentators differ on how firmly to answer this.
Scripture gives no reason to think that Peter and the others acted too quickly or made a mistake. In this very book the Spirit of God approves the choice they made that day, and never points to Paul as the necessary twelfth apostle.
Another writer points to the test the man had to pass, and leaves the wider question open:
They were careful about who they appointed. The man had to be one who had been with them through the whole time of the Lord's ministry on earth, up to His ascension. He had to be a competent witness to the resurrection of Christ... Some have objected that God did not guide Peter and the apostles in this matter. But Scripture makes no comment either way, and it is wiser to leave the matter where Scripture leaves it.
- Written. Peter treats two lines from the Psalms as the Holy Spirit's own words about Judas, written long before by David.
- Fulfilled. The first line was already fulfilled. Judas died by his own hand, and his dwelling was desolate.
- Vacant. The second line is not a description but a duty. The shamed office must not stay empty, as a trophy of the enemy's victory.
- Filled. The Spirit had not yet come, so they sought God's mind by lot. No one cast lots again after Pentecost.
- Witness. The twelve were restored for the sake of testimony: another man who had been with the Lord from the start, able to witness that He is risen.
It is necessary therefore, that of the men who have assembled with us all [the] time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Peter stands up and sets out who may fill the place Judas left empty. The man must have walked with the eleven through the whole of the Lord's public life. Two questions follow: why the requirement is so narrow, and why it can never be met again.
Peter speaks before the Spirit came, yet he knows exactly what to do. One writer separates two things here: understanding and power.
Peter speaks to them with decision, but in the light and authority of Scripture. Power from on high had not yet come on him, but there was clearly an understanding he had never known before the Lord died and rose. These two things may exist side by side now. Or a person may have spiritual understanding where no special power is given, though the Holy Spirit is present, and He remains forever.
The requirement is not general godliness. It is firsthand knowledge of the Lord's whole ministry.
A personal acquaintance with the whole course of the Lord's ministry was the original and a necessary qualification of an apostle. Peter said this before the choosing of a successor to the traitor Judas... This close contact with the Lord made them especially suited to be the witnesses of His earthly path. He describes them Himself as "those who have stayed with me in my trials" (Luke 22:28).
Peter's picture of the Lord going in and out among them does more than mark time.
He must be chosen from the ranks "of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." How lovely that is! Look at the beautiful closeness of Jesus with His own. The expression "went in and out among us" says volumes to the affectionate heart.
Why must the man have been there all along? The task itself explains it.
They were to testify of Christ's resurrection and to lay the foundation of the Church. So it seems that seeing Jesus after He rose from the dead was an essential qualification... Peter told Cornelius that God made the risen Jesus appear "not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead" (Acts 10:40-41). The only people who ate and drank with Jesus after His resurrection were the apostles.
Some ask whether the eleven ran ahead of God by casting lots before the Spirit came. One writer answers that they had clear ground for what they did.
Scripture had settled for them what His mind was about filling the place. To decide which man, there was the lot, used so often in Israel for a matter like this. They even had Scripture for this: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Prov. 16:33)... They acted in obedience, not in self-confidence; we never find their act disputed afterwards, and we surely have no right to dispute it now. It would be a totally different thing to imitate their conduct, now that the Spirit of God has come.
Some think Matthias was a stopgap and Paul the real twelfth apostle. Peter's requirement rules that out.
From then on there were twelve (Acts 1:26; 2:14; 6:2), all of whom had known the Lord before His death and could witness of His resurrection. It is clear that Paul, called later to the apostleship, could never have answered to what Peter declared was required on this occasion. He was not the twelfth apostle; nor was Barnabas either. Neither of them could have been that.
Only those who had seen the Lord could qualify, so no one could pass the office on.
There were no successors to the apostles: to be apostles they must have "seen the Lord." Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor. 9:1; Rev. 2:2. The foundation of the church was laid. The apostolic work was complete, and the apostles passed away. In His goodness God still gives the gifts that are needed, "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Eph. 4:12-13.
- Scripture first. Peter fills the empty place on the authority of the written Word. Understanding came before power.
- Witness needs eyes. The man must have walked the whole road with the Lord. Testimony rests on what a person has seen.
- Witness means closeness. "Went in and out among us" is not just a way of marking time. It pictures the warm, daily closeness of Jesus with His own.
- Witness has one theme. The whole point of the appointment was witness to the resurrection.
- Witness cannot be inherited. Only eyewitnesses of the risen Lord could qualify, so the twelve had no successors. The foundation was laid once, and other gifts remain.
beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up from us, one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Peter sets the standard for the man who will replace Judas. He must have walked with the Lord from John the Baptist's day to the ascension, and be able to testify that Jesus rose.
Older translations have Peter say that someone must be "ordained to be" a witness. Those added words are not in the original.
In Acts 1:22 the phrase is simply something the translators put in. Look at the original, where it only says, "one of them must be a witness of the resurrection."
So the verse hands no one an office. It says a man must become a witness.
The standard is not a job description. It is a shared history, and the phrase Peter uses for it is worth a second look.
He must be chosen from "the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." How lovely that is! Look at the beautiful closeness of Jesus with His own. The words "went in and out among us" say volumes to a loving heart.
Their years with Him did more than warm their hearts.
They would testify in the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Their own evidence as eyewitnesses would also confirm everything they told about their Master's life and death, His resurrection and ascension.
Everything narrows to one subject: the resurrection. It runs through the whole book that follows.
Here again we see how great a place the resurrection was to hold in the testimony of Christ and the gospel. It is woven right through this book of Acts. Preaching and teaching cannot be strong or clear without it. Before it, proud man comes to nothing. By it Christ is vindicated, God is glorified, and the believer is justified.
Some say the eleven acted too soon, and that Paul was meant to be the twelfth. One writer answers both claims.
The action of Peter in proposing to place another in Judas' place was not a mistake as some claim. Peter acted upon the Scriptures and was guided by the Lord. Some hold that Paul was meant to be the twelfth apostle. This is incorrect. Paul's apostleship was of an entirely different nature than that of the twelve... Furthermore, twelve apostles were needed as a body of witnesses to the entire nation. How strange it would have been at Pentecost if Peter and the ten had stood up to witness to Christ before the assembled crowd. That would be eleven men in all, instead of twelve.
Paul did see the risen Lord. But he did not see Him in the way this verse describes.
An essential feature of apostleship was firsthand knowledge of the risen Saviour. The apostle had to be able to testify that he had personally seen Him risen... Paul saw Him, not during the forty days after He rose, but later in the full blaze of His glory.
No human vote settles who becomes an apostle. The method they used belonged to a moment before the Spirit came.
Man never chooses an apostle; apostles did not, could not, elect an apostle: the Lord alone chose. So they cast lots in the Jewish way. The twelve apostles clearly answered, as I see it, to the twelve tribes of Israel... No doubt, once the church of God existed, the lot disappears; but the church of God was not yet formed.
The same writer points to what they did not yet have:
They fell back on the Old Testament practice of casting lots. Guidance like that in Acts 13:2 could not be known until the Holy Spirit had been given.
- Companied — A witness is made by time spent. The man had to walk with the Lord from John's baptism to the ascension.
- Witness — That closeness had one aim: firsthand testimony that Jesus rose. It is the theme of the whole book of Acts.
- Not ordained — Translators added the words "ordained to be." The text only says a man must become a witness, so this verse hands out no church office.
- Twelve — The body of witnesses had to be complete to face the whole nation at Pentecost. Paul was not the twelfth; his call was of another kind.
- Chosen — The Lord alone picks His witness. The lot suited a moment before the Spirit came, and it never appears again.
And they appointed two, Joseph, who was called Barsabas, who had been surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, knower of the hearts of all, shew which one of these two thou hast chosen,
The eleven need to fill a gap in their number. Two men both look qualified. Before casting lots, they stop and pray. The prayer is short and pointed: they do not tell the Lord whom to pick. They ask Him to show a choice He has already made.
The group faced a decision with obvious options open to them.
There appear to have been two immediate candidates, Joseph Barsabas Justus and Matthias (1:23). What should they do? How should they go about choosing? Should they vote? Should they hold a debate? The answer is simple and yet refreshing: "And they prayed" (v. 24). ... They realised the Lord had chosen already; they just needed Him to show them the outcome.
Most New Testament prayer goes to the Father. Here the disciples turn to the Lord, because the work in question is His.
Two men were then put forward: Joseph Barsabbas Justus and Matthias. As far as anyone could see, they were equally qualified. So they appealed to the Lord in prayer. It was His work that was in question and it is His to choose the workman. So, in Matt. 9:38, He told His disciples to ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into His harvest... In other matters that concern the assembly of God, it is most fitting to turn to His God and Father. But in what concerns His service, and the workers He may choose for it, we turn to the Lord.
The same writer uses this prayer to defend praying to the Lord Jesus Himself.
Origen, like others in error after him, twisted the passage to deny that it is right to pray to our Lord. That contradicts the early disciples (Acts 1:24), Stephen (Acts 7:59), and the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:8). In matters that concern His service and His Church, Scripture shows it is even more fitting to pray to Him than to the Father. We naturally turn to the Father for all that concerns the family of God in general.
The title they give Him matches the problem they cannot solve. On paper the two candidates looked the same.
On the outside those two men were just the same. They had been with the Lord. They knew all that He did, from the baptism of John right up to the time He ascended to glory... God knows our motives, our desires, and everything about us. He can look right into our hearts. He judges exactly why we say or do things, and why we pray about things. He weighs our actions.
People quote this passage to defend congregations choosing their own leaders. The wording says the opposite.
Even the eleven apostles could not elect a brother apostle, but had to commit it to higher authority. Their words are — "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen." This is very plain. They did not try to choose. God knew the heart. He had formed the vessel. He had put the treasure in it, and He alone could appoint it to its proper place.
Another writer answers those who call the scene an election.
You say, "The apostles made use of the form of election, they chose Matthias." Is this a proof that we can choose apostles? If this example were worth anything, it would authorise you to choose apostles; but that is not what happened. They did not dare to choose between the two, and they drew lots.
The Lord answered the prayer through a lot. That method fits where the disciples stood: after the resurrection, before the Spirit came.
The lot was a Jewish way of seeking divine direction, and it will be used that way again in the latter day... They did not yet enjoy the Spirit's presence, the new power in which Jews and Gentiles are alike unknown. So they looked to the Lord in this way. But no one cast lots after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost.
Some have disputed what the disciples did here. One writer answers that Scripture itself had given them the method.
They had even the Scripture for this, that if "the lot is cast into the lap, its every decision is from the LORD" (Prov. 16:33)... They acted in obedience, not in self-confidence. We never find their act disputed afterwards, and we have no right to dispute it now. It would be quite a different thing to copy what they did, now that the Spirit of God has come.
- The gap — one place to fill, two men who looked equally qualified. No one in the room could see the difference.
- The confession — they call Him the One who knows the hearts of all. That admits they lack the one thing only He has.
- The refusal — they did not vote, debate, or decide. Even the eleven would not choose an apostle. They handed it to higher authority.
- The request — they asked Him to show a choice already made, not to approve one they had made themselves.
- The method — the lot suited the days before the Spirit came. No one used it again after Pentecost. The prayer carries over, not the procedure.
to receive the lot of this service and apostleship, from which Judas transgressing fell to go to his own place.
Peter is praying about the place Judas left empty. His words raise two questions. What did that "ministry and apostleship" include? And what does it mean that Judas went "to his own place"?
The verse does not describe a narrow office. One writer keeps the two words apart:
Peter does not mean apostolic ministry in Acts 1:25. He means service in general, and apostleship in particular. That is why he calls himself an "elder" as well as an "apostle."
Another writer dwells on how close that service was:
How lovely that is! Look at the beautiful closeness of Jesus with His own people. The words "went in and out among us" say a great deal to a loving heart.
Judas's collapse shocked the eleven, but it did not surprise God. One writer notes what that fact did for a shaken group of disciples. (Older translations read "by transgression fell" where the ESV has "turned aside.")
Was his fall unforeseen? The Eleven did not expect it, we know. But Scripture had pictured it in advance. Scripture also foretold that another man would take his place. Peter points this out at the time of their greatest weakness... What comfort they must have found, as they learnt and saw it clearly stated, that the heartless and selfish conduct of Judas was known to God beforehand!
Some have taken Judas's remorse as a sign that he might yet be saved. One writer answers them from this verse:
In modern times men have wrongly argued that his confession under remorse showed true repentance, and that there is hope of his salvation! But it is not so: he fell "to go to his own place." His case was a test of man in new conditions. He was a "close friend" (Ps. 41:9) of the Lord Jesus. He heard His gracious words and saw His miracles. He was probably even allowed to work miracles himself in His name. Yet, as in every other test of man, he fell.
That makes the verse a mirror for anyone whose religion is only a role:
Here was an apostle — a preacher of the gospel, a man who made a loud profession of faith. Yet under that cover lay "a heart trained in greed" — a heart with plenty of room for "thirty pieces of silver," but not a corner for Jesus... He preached the gospel, but he never knew it, never believed it, never felt it.
The phrase is not only about Judas. It states a rule that reaches every person:
Everyone must spend his eternity in the place for which he is fitted. He could not be in any other place, for God must have order in His own creation... In the end everyone will find his own proper place. Each will know that it is the only place where he could rightly be, because it is the only place he morally fits. Not only Judas (Acts 1:25) but every other must go to his own place.
One writer sets Judas beside the thief who repented:
Judas went to his own place. The Lord was in Paradise, and the penitent thief with Him. Separation for ever took place between the Lord and Judas. Fellowship with the Lord for ever was to be the portion of that thief.
Some have said the eleven acted too soon and picked the wrong man. William Kelly answers that charge:
The rest could not decide between the two men, so they laid the matter before the Lord, who must choose His own apostle... Scripture gives no reason to believe that Peter and the others acted in haste, or were mistaken. In this very book the Spirit of God approves the choice they made that day, and never speaks of Paul as the twelfth apostle who was needed... Paul was not one of the twelve. It matters greatly that the man with a special work should keep a special place.
- Place given. Judas held a real share in service and apostleship, in the daily company of Jesus.
- Place forfeited. He turned aside from it. The eleven never expected that fall, but Scripture had already foretold it and provided for it.
- Place unprotected. Remorse is not repentance. Hearing Christ, and even working in His name, saved no one whose heart had room for silver but not for Jesus.
- Place deserved. "His own place" is the place each person morally fits. Judas went to his; the repentant thief went with the Lord to Paradise.
- Place filled. Men named two candidates. The Lord chose the apostle, and Scripture stands by that choice — leaving Paul his own distinct calling and work.
And they gave lots on them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Two men were ready to take the place Judas left, and the disciples would not choose between them. They cast lots instead. That looks strange today, so two questions come up: was this God's choice or a guess, and does it show how leaders should be picked now?
Casting lots was not gambling. In Israel it was an accepted way of handing a decision back to God.
The lot was the familiar appeal of the people to God, settling all controversy. "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Prov. 16:33) The last mention of the lot in Scripture is in connection with the appointment of Matthias to fill Judas' place in the apostolic band (Acts 1:26). The Scriptures are now complete, and the Holy Spirit lives personally in the Church on earth. So the lot no longer has any place in the ways of God.
The word translated "numbered" does not turn this into a vote by the crowd.
The last word here, translated 'numbered' (v. 26), does not support the idea of popular election either. Scripture never uses that principle for choosing servants in the word. The lot was, as it will be in the latter day, a distinctly Jewish way of seeking divine direction, and so, in the choice of the twelfth apostle (Matt. 19:28), it was fittingly used here. They did not yet have the Spirit's presence — the new power, in which Jew and Gentile are alike unknown. So they looked to the Lord in this way. But no one cast lots after the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost.
Human judgment could go no further. Both men matched the requirements, so the disciples handed the choice to the One whose work it was.
They then put forward two men, Joseph Barsabbas Justus and Matthias, who, as far as man could see, had equal qualifications. So they appealed to the Lord in prayer. It was His work that was in question, and it is His to choose the workman.
Some argue the eleven acted too soon, and that Paul was really meant to be the twelfth apostle. One writer answers this directly.
The action of Peter in proposing to place another in Judas' place was not a mistake, as some claim. Peter acted upon the Scriptures and was guided by the Lord. Some hold that Paul was meant to be the twelfth apostle. This is incorrect. Paul's apostleship was of an entirely different nature than that of the twelve... There is positive proof that the Holy Spirit sanctioned this action of the disciples. See 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Furthermore, twelve apostles were needed as a body of witnesses to the entire nation. Think how strange it would have been if Peter and the ten had stood up on the day of Pentecost to witness to Christ before the crowd — eleven men in all, instead of twelve.
Another writer adds that God confirmed the outcome by treating Matthias exactly like the rest.
The Lord seems at once to undertake what His servants commit to Him, for He honours the lot (the Jewish form of discovering the divine will in such matters, Joshua 19:10; 1 Chron. 24:5; Num. 26:55), and Matthias is numbered with the eleven apostles; and the Holy Spirit in the next chapter seems to adopt Matthias in his new office, by falling upon him equally with the rest without any rebuke.
The number was not random, and the choice was never the disciples' to make.
Man never chooses an apostle; apostles did not, could not, elect an apostle: the Lord alone chose. And so they gave forth their lots after a Jewish fashion. As I see it, the twelve apostles clearly answer to the twelve tribes of Israel... God sanctioned this in the Old Testament, when Israel stood before Him. He will sanction it again when Israel returns on the scene in the latter day. No doubt, once the assembly of God was in being, the lot disappears; but the assembly of God was not yet formed... A little later, before Paul appears, we find that "the twelve" are recognised. So says the Spirit of God.
Many read this event as a precedent for congregations electing their preachers. One writer answers that the timing rules this out.
Perhaps no act has been so seriously misunderstood as this... People overlook the fact that this happened before Christianity started at all. Christianity dates not from the birth of Christ, but from the coming of the Holy Spirit... When the distribution of money was in question, the whole body of believers had the right to choose the men who handed out the money (Acts 6:3; 2 Cor. 8:19); when the ministry of the Word was in view, they had no voice whatever. Why this difference? Because the money was their gift, while the ministry of the Word of God is the gift of the Lord alone.
- Scripture first. Peter did not improvise. He acted on the Scriptures, and the Lord guided him.
- Prayer next. Human judgment narrowed the field to two equals, then stopped. The work was the Lord's, so the choice was His.
- The lot last. It was Israel's way of handing a decision to God. The disciples used it here because the Spirit had not yet come, and never again after Pentecost.
- God owned it. The Holy Spirit sanctioned what the disciples did, and the record afterwards still speaks of "the twelve."
- Not a template. The Spirit has come, so believers no longer cast lots. The ministry of the Word stays the Lord's gift to give, not the congregation's to elect.