The period between the ascension and Pentecost was one of waiting, but not of inactivity. Chiefly, for the disciples, it was a time of prayer, but it also saw them finding a replacement for Judas. In this connection, we have the first speech in Acts. Like most of the speeches in this book, it is probably only a summary of what Peter said. Nevertheless, behind Luke’s report we can still catch the original tones of the apostle.
1:12–14 As instructed, the apostles retraced their steps from the Mount of Olives to the city, there to await the Father’s gift (cf. vv. 4, 5). They were quartered in an upper room. This would have given them a degree of privacy that suited their purpose well, for much of their time was spent in prayer (cf. Dan. 6:10). The notice of verse 14 may include their regular attendance at the temple (cf. Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1), for in this regard there was no sense of distinction between them and their fellow Jews. The believers saw themselves simply as fulfilled Judaism, the beginning of eschatological Israel. Their practice continued to be that of Jews. But in view of the fact that men and women are said to have prayed together, the reference here will be chiefly to their private meetings. This being the case, the Greek throws an interesting light on their practice, for it speaks of them as meeting for “the prayers,” as though a specific form of prayer was meant, though perhaps it means only a particular time of prayer (see disc. on 2:42).
It is characteristic of Luke that he should mention their meeting for prayer. Prayer was clearly something that he saw as most important. There are three things that we should notice in this connection: First, it was the practice of the early Christians to pray. As prayer had characterized the life of Jesus, so, too, it did the lives of his followers (cf. 2:42; 3:1; 4:24ff.; 6:4ff.; see further the disc. on 9:11). Luke is sure, moreover, that prayer always meets with a response (cf. vv. 24–26; 4:31; 9:40; 10:19f., 31; 12:5, 12; 22:10; 27:23–25; see further the disc. on 9:12). It therefore plays an integral, if undefined, part in the setting forward of God’s purpose. Nowhere is this more evident than in the distinctly implied connection between the disciples’ prayer before Pentecost and the pouring out of God’s Spirit on that day. Second, in developing that point, Luke emphasized the disciples’ persistence in prayer. They prayed constantly (v. 14), this word expressing the Greek imperfect, which points to repeated or habitual action. Third, their praying together was an expression of the unity that was a feature of the early church—they all joined together (v. 14). Their praying was probably also a factor in maintaining that unity (cf. 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; Rom. 15:6; Eph. 4:3).
It is also typical of Luke that he should draw attention to the part played by women in the church (cf. 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2; 12:12; 16:13; 17:4, 12; 22:4). Here he mentions their presence at these gatherings for prayer. The Greek is indefinite; it simply has “women,” as though introducing them for the first time. However, they may have included the women already mentioned in the Gospel as Jesus’ followers (Luke 8:2f.; 23:49, 55; 24:10). Others may have been the wives of the men. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is singled out as of special interest. This is the last mention of Mary in the New Testament, and significantly, our last glimpse of her is, as it were, on her knees. From the outset, women seem to have played a far greater part in the church than they ever did in the synagogue. But, for all that, they were not yet (if they have ever been) treated as equals (cf. Gal. 3:28), since they were evidently excluded from the meeting beginning at verse 15, which Peter addressed, “men, brothers” (so the Greek).
The reference to Mary leads to a mention also of Jesus’ brothers. Earlier they had been skeptical of his claims (John 7:5; cf. Mark 6:4), but they are now included among the disciples. How this came about we are not told, but in the case of James (assuming he is the James of 1 Cor. 15:7), as with Paul, it may have been through an encounter with the risen Jesus (see disc. on 12:17 and notes). He may have influenced his brothers.
1:15 One other matter claimed the disciples’ attention, namely, finding a replacement for Judas. A meeting was held at which Peter presided (cf. Luke 22:32), and about one hundred and twenty “brothers” were present. The number is apparently a real one, so that no particular significance attaches to it (had that precise number been important Luke would not have said about). It is interesting, however, that in Jewish polity, one hundred twenty men was the minimum number required to constitute a proper community entitled to appoint a full panel of twenty-three judges to its local court. A community of less than that number could appoint only three. Peter’s assumption of leadership is as we would expect from the Gospels, where he is clearly the dominant figure among the Twelve. The term “brothers” (NIV believers), used here for the first time in Acts, may have been the earliest Christian designation for church members.
1:16–17 Peter’s speech falls into two parts (vv. 16–20, 21–22), each introduced in the Greek by the same word (dei)—one that expresses a need, often a need that arises out of the will of God. The first necessity was that the Scripture had to be fulfilled (v. 16). The reference here is to Judas. He had been a member of the group, chosen to have a part in the work, and yet he had betrayed the Master (cf. John 13:18; 17:12). Peter’s description of Judas as the guide for those who arrested Jesus (v. 16) vividly recalls the scene in the garden, which must have been imprinted on his mind forever (cf. Matt. 26:47ff.). And yet the facts concerning Judas are stated with great reserve. Perhaps Peter was only too conscious of his own shameful conduct that night. Perhaps, too, he now understood that, in a sense, we are all implicated in Jesus’ death, so that no one person or group of persons was entirely to blame. The fact was that “Christ [had] died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Peter draws attention to the divine authorship of Scripture in his reference to the “Holy Spirit speaking through David” (v. 16; cf. 2:16; 3:18, 21, 25; 4:25; 15:7; 28:25).
1:18–19 As verse 19 shows with its reference, in the third person, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their language, these verses are parenthetical, inserted by Luke to provide his readers with some background information. They give an account of Judas’ death that, on the face of it, is quite different from Matthew’s story. Matthew has it that Judas, overcome by remorse, threw down in the temple the money he had received for his act of betrayal and went out and hanged himself. The priests, unwilling to put “blood money” into the treasury, bought a potter’s field with it—a worked-out clay pit—for use “as a cemetery for foreigners.” This place came to be known as the “Field of Blood” (Matt. 27:3–9; cf. Zech. 11:12f.). Luke, on the other hand, asserts that Judas purchased the field himself, where he fell headlong (v. 18), literally, “became prone,” bursting open and his insides spilling out (cf. 2 Sam. 17:23; 2 Macc. 9:7–18). The two accounts are difficult to reconcile. As long ago as Augustine it was suggested that, if Judas hanged himself in the field and the rope gave way, perhaps some time after his death, when his body was decomposing, Luke’s account might be supplementary to Matthew’s. But this explanation seems somewhat forced and we may simply have to accept that there were varying accounts of how Judas met his end. However, that Luke’s account in Acts does go back to Peter may find some support in the fact that the expression, the reward he got for his wickedness, in almost identical form in the Greek, is found again in 2 Peter 2:13, 15 (cf. v. 24 and notes on v. 17). Two things at least are clear: Judas died a violent death, and in some way connected with him a plot of ground was bought that was called the Field of Blood. Tradition has located this field at the confluence of the Kidron, Tyropoean, and Hinnom valleys.
1:20 In referring to the Scripture, Peter had in mind two verses in particular from the Psalms. The first, Psalm 69:25, is given here in a form adapted from the LXX to suit its present application. “Their” in the original has become his and “their tents,” his place (that is, office or position). Such adaptation, whether it be Peter’s or Luke’s, may strike us as taking undue liberties with the text. But it was believed that all Scripture pointed to Christ or to the events attending his coming and that it was legitimate, therefore, to draw out the meaning in this way. Thus the psalmist’s imprecation against his enemies became a prophecy of Judas’ desertion. The second verse, in which the psalmist again utters an imprecation against his foes, became the warrant to appoint another in Judas’ place. It is quoted almost verbatim from LXX Psalm 109:8 (108:8). The idea that they should make such an appointment was not suggested by the Scripture, but having formed the idea, they found confirmation in these verses for what they wanted to do.
1:21–22 Therefore, said Peter, it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us (v. 21). This was the second “necessity” of Peter’s speech (see disc. on v. 16). When Jesus had chosen the Twelve, it was obviously with the twelve tribes of Israel in mind. The apostles were to be a living parable of the new eschatological Israel that he was establishing. His intention must have been clear to his followers, and for the present, they saw it as important to maintain the number as a witness to the Jews. But once the church was firmly established and itself an effective witness, they seem no longer to have felt that need, and we hear of no further attempts to perpetuate the Twelve (cf. 12:2). Even now it may have been more the manner of Judas’ loss than the loss itself that prompted them to seek a replacement.
But, having decided on this action, it was necessary now to state the qualifications that they would look for in his successor. Any candidate for the office would have to have been a close associate of the original Twelve from “the baptism of John” to the day when Jesus was taken up (v. 22). This requirement bears out the Johannine tradition that the first disciples had been drawn from among the followers of John the Baptist (cf. John 1:35, 43). In particular, the candidate would have to have been a witness … of (Jesus’) resurrection (v. 21f., cf. 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:15f.) Obviously this last point was of critical importance since the resurrection would be the linchpin of their proclamation of Jesus as “Lord and Messiah” (2:36). But it is equally clear from these requirements that the apostolic testimony was not to be confined to the final events of Jesus’ life, but would include the whole of his ministry and, not least, his teaching (see disc. on 2:42; cf. Matt. 28:20). As for the candidate’s personal qualities, he had to be a man of faith. Hence their prayer for guidance to him who knows “everyone’s heart” (v. 24). The disciples themselves could tell whether he qualified in terms of verses 21 and 22, but they looked to God to judge his heart. For the candidate’s witness would be both to the historical facts of Jesus’ life and to the transforming effect of his grace in life of the believer. (For the title the Lord Jesus see notes on 11:20.)
1:23 There were probably many who could have filled the vacancy on these terms, bearing in mind that the Twelve had been chosen from a much wider group, which itself, hardly less than the Twelve, had remained close to Jesus (cf. Mark 3:13f.; Luke 10:1; 1 Cor. 15:6). But most of them may have been in Galilee (see disc. on 9:31). This may be why only two names were considered: Joseph called Barsabbas, meaning either “son of the Sabbath” (he may have been born on that day) or “son of Sabba.” Like many Jews, he also had a “secular” (in this case, Roman) name, Justus (see notes on 12:12). He should not be identified with Judas Barsabbas of 15:22, though they may have been related. The other nominee was Matthias.
1:24–25 With the two candidates before them, the disciples joined in prayer that the Lord, who knew everyone’s heart (v. 24), would show them which of the two should be taken. It is not clear to which person of the Godhead this prayer was addressed, but since the same verb “to choose” is used here as was used in verse 2 of Jesus’ choice of the apostles (also Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19) and since Peter had just called Jesus “Lord” (v. 21), it is likely that the prayer was addressed to Jesus. But the same title and the same description—he knows the thoughts of the heart—is used elsewhere of the Father. This ambiguity, where “Lord” can mean Father or Son, speaks volumes for the estimate they had of Jesus. It is worth noticing also that as far as Acts is concerned this concept of divine percipience only comes to expression in Peter’s words (cf. 15:17f.; see also 1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 17:10; John 2:25; 21:17). It is possible, then, that this is a genuine recollection of the apostle’s own distinctive turn of phrase. The office about which they were praying is described as a “service” (Gk. diakonia), as all Christian ministry is intended to be (cf. Mark 10:43ff.). The terrible indictment of Judas was that he had left this service to go where he belongs (v. 25)—a common euphemism for one’s final destruction. The apostle had become an apostate and a warning to us all.
1:26 They then set about discovering the Lord’s answer to their prayer by the time-honored means of “the lot” (cf. 1 Sam. 14:41). We should be clear that they did not conduct an election. It was not a case of each disciple casting his vote, but of the choice (humanly speaking) being made at random. The precise method used is not known for certain, but it seems to have been the shaking of two stones together in a container, on each of which was written one name (cf. Lev. 16:8), until one stone tumbled out. The name on that stone was taken to be the Lord’s choice. Luke’s expression is literally “the lot fell.” Thus Matthias was chosen and without further formality was numbered among the apostles. Much is made of the fact that neither he nor the method by which he was chosen is heard of again, as though the whole thing was later seen as a mistake. But neither is anything heard of most of the Twelve once their names had been listed in verse 13, and so the silence of Acts is hardly grounds to condemn the man. As for the method, the coming of the Spirit soon gave the church a more certain guide to God’s will, though at the time their use of the lot was quite legitimate. Their desire was to discover the man of God’s choice.
Additional Notes
1:12 The Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city, mg.: “That is, about ¾ mile (about 1,100 meters)”: This was the extent to which a pious Jew was allowed to travel on the Sabbath, two thousand cubits, ingeniously reckoned by interpreting Exod. 16:29 in the light of Num. 35:5. Luke’s intention was simply to show that the ascension took place near Jerusalem. But his use of this particular term “presupposes an amazingly intimate knowledge—for a Greek—of Jewish customs” (Hengel, Jesus, p. 107). Some difficulty may be felt with the reference of Luke 24:50 to Bethany, which is more than double a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem, but if the words of the Gospel mean simply “toward Bethany” (Gk. pros Bethanian), that difficulty is overcome. In any case, it is hardly likely that Jesus would lead them into the village for the ascension.
1:13 Upstairs to the room where they were staying: The definite article (in the Greek) suggests that this was a place that should have been known to Luke’s readers. The reference may be, then, to the first book, Luke 22:11f., to the room of the Last Supper, though a different word is used in that passage. Traditionally this room has also been identified with that in which the church later met in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, though this identification is not without problems (see disc. on 12:12). It may also have been their place of meeting in 2:1 and the place where they met for prayer in 4:23–31.
Peter, John … and Judas son of James: The names of the apostles are repeated, though they had already been given in the first volume (Luke 6:14ff.). This may have been to show that, though all of them, at the time of his arrest, had deserted the Master, only Judas had done so through deliberate defection. At heart, the rest had remained loyal. It may also have been to show that, though the separate works of each would not be chronicled in this book, they nevertheless all took their part in the work to which Jesus had called them. The two Lucan lists agree, except for the omission here of Judas Iscariot, and differ only from those of Matt. 10:2ff. and Mark 3:16ff. in having Judas son of James where they have Thaddaeus (or Lebbaeus in some texts of Matthew). These may be the same person and may be identified further with the “Judas” (not Judas Iscariot) of John 14:22.
Simon the Zealot (“the Canaanean,” [which is Aramaic for “zealous”] RSV Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18), so-called either because of his zealous temperament or because of some association with the party of the Zealots. NIV appears to have adopted the latter interpretation (cf. GNB), but we should note that precisely the same word is used by Paul of himself in 22:3 (cf. Gal. 1:14) and by James of members of the church in Jerusalem in 21:20. In neither of these cases can it be supposed that “Zealot” in the narrower sense of the party is implied.
1:14 His brothers: Four men are described in the Gospels as the brothers of Jesus, namely, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). Various views have been held as to the nature of their relationship with Jesus, but the most natural reading of the New Testament is that apart from the unique circumstances of Jesus’ conception, they were his brothers in the usual sense of the word, i.e., the younger children of Joseph and Mary. This view is supported by the prima facie meaning of “firstborn” in Luke 2:7 and by the natural inference of Matt. 1:25 that after the birth of Jesus normal marital relations between Joseph and Mary ensued.
1:15 A group numbering about a hundred and twenty: lit., “a crowd of names, about a hundred and twenty,” where “names” may signify “persons” without distinction of sex (see H. Bietenhard, “onoma,” TDNT, vol. 5, p. 270), though some argue on the basis of the Syriac and Arabic versions that it means men as distinct from women. Peter’s address implies that only men were present.
1:16 Brothers: lit., “men, brothers,” a rather formal mode of address indicating a sense both of the occasion and of the respect due to those present. Because this form of address recurs frequently throughout Acts (2:29, 37; 7:2; 13:15, 26, 38; 15:7, 13; 22:1; 23:1, 6; 28:17; cf. “men, Galileans,” 1:11; “men, Judeans,” 2:14; “men, Israelites,” 2:22; 3:12; 5:35; 13:16; “men, Athenians” 17:22; “men, Ephesians,” 19:35), it has been thought to reveal the hand of Luke. Even if this were so, it would be no objection to the essential historicity of any of the speeches in which it occurs.
1:17 Shared in this ministry, lit., “received the portion of this ministry,” or, perhaps, since the definite article is used, “his portion of this ministry.” The word “portion” (Gk. klēros) means literally that which is obtained by lot. Here it is used figuratively, though it is interesting that Judas’ successor was actually appointed by this means (cf. v. 26). It is also interesting that the same word is used in 1 Pet. 5:3, and in the same way, concerning an area of ministerial responsibility. Its use here, therefore, may be another echo of Peter’s actual words (see disc. on v. 24).
1:22 Beginning from John’s baptism: This can be understood in a general sense (cf. GNB), and on this view, the candidate would have to have been a witness of John’s ministry as well as of the ministry of Jesus. Such a requirement is consistent with the scope of the Christian message, which generally included the work of John the Baptist (cf., e.g., 10:37; 13:24f.). But some take the phrase as a reference only to John’s baptism of Jesus, thus limiting the apostolic witness to the ministry of Jesus alone, which effectively began with that event. This is the less likely of the two possibilities. See disc. on 10:37.
1:26 He was added to the eleven apostles to restore the number to twelve: Several writers have discussed the possibility of Essene influence in the role of the Twelve. They have been compared with 1QS 8.1: “In the council [?] of the community [where they are? or there shall be?] twelve men and three priests, perfect in all that is revealed in the Law.” It has been suggested that the mention of “twelve men” is “an analogue to the college of the twelve apostles of Jesus” (B. Reicke, “The Constitution of the Church,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl, p. 151). But rather than a direct influence of Qumran on Jesus, the number in each case is better explained as derived independently from the number of Israel’s tribes. See further J. A. Fitzmyer, Studies, p. 247, and Ehrhardt, pp. 13f., for the eschatological association of this number in both Christian and Essene circles.
At first, the term “apostle” appears to have been restricted to the Twelve (1:6, 12; 2:43; 4:35, 37; 5:2, 12, 18; 8:1), but soon it came to be applied to a wider group, of which Paul and Barnabas were the most notable members. Paul frequently refers to his apostleship in his letters (e.g., Rom. 11:13; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:1), and 1 Cor. 9:1f. and 2 Cor. 12:12 should be noted especially for what they add to our understanding of the office. The primary qualifications of an apostle were that he had been an eyewitness of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus (Acts 1:21; 1 Cor. 9:1) and had received a distinct call and commission from the risen Lord. The primary function of an apostle was to be a delegate of the risen Lord, going as his representative and in his authority. The idea of an authoritative representative may derive from the Jewish institution of the šelûḥîm, the authorized messengers representing a person or group of persons (see K. H Rengstorf, “apostolos,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 414ff.). So the apostles were the personal representatives of Christ, appointed and sent by him to preach the gospel and to found churches (Rom. 1:1; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). The new element here is the eschatological motive for the sending.
The authority of the apostles was confirmed by their “signs” (2 Cor. 12:12), but it was not something arbitrary or automatic that made them infallible. Paul was conscious of a distinction between his own opinion and the authoritative word of the Lord. The conflict between Peter and Paul (Gal. 2:11ff.) shows that even an apostle could act contrary to his convictions (Gal. 2:7–9; Acts 15:7ff.). The authority embodied in the apostles was one to which the apostles themselves were subject. Their authority was that of God (1 Thess. 2:13), and they themselves were subject to God (1 Cor. 4:1). It could be said that the authority of the apostles reposed in the gospel, so that even they could not with impunity preach another gospel (Gal. 1:16). In a sense, therefore, they were subject to the church, servants of Christ, administrators only of God’s gifts to his people (1 Cor. 4:1; 7:23; 2 Cor. 4:5). But their role was a key one, and therefore, they are named first in the lists of ministries in 1 Cor. 12:28f. and Eph. 4:11. On the fluidity of ministries in the early church, see notes on 13:1.
