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.