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.