They replaced Judas with Matthias as an apostle (1:15–26)

4.    They replaced Judas with Matthias as an apostle (1:15–26)

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,
16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”
18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong [4] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’;

and

“‘Let another take his office.’

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Having recorded the Lord’s commission to witness, his ascension, [Acts, Page 55] and the disciples’ persevering prayers, Luke draws our attention to only one further action before Pentecost (in those days is vague enough to date it at any point between Ascension and Pentecost), namely the appointment of another apostle in place of Judas. We have to consider the need for such an appointment (the defection and death of Judas), the warrant for it (the fulfilment of Scripture) and the choice which was made (Matthias).

a.    The death of Judas (1:18–19)

18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong [4] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Verses 18 and 19 do not appear to be part of Peter’s speech, for they interrupt the sequence of his thought. Moreover, as an Aramaic speaker addressing Aramaic speakers, Peter would not have needed to translate the word Akeldama (19). But Luke, writing for Gentile readers, would need to explain its meaning. So these two verses are best understood as an editorial parenthesis, in which Luke acquaints his readers with the circumstances of Judas’ death. This is how RSV, NEB and NIV take it.
    Luke is outspoken in calling Judas’ betrayal of Jesus an act of wickedness (adikia, 18), ‘infamy’ (JBP) or ‘villainy’ (NEB), or a ‘crime’ (JB). Yet some people express their sympathy for him because his role was predicted and therefore (it is thought) foreordained. But this is not so. Calvin himself, for all his emphasis on the sovereignty of God, wrote: ‘Judas may not be excused on the ground that what befell him was prophesied, since he fell away not through the compulsion of the prophecy but through the wickedness of his own heart.’56
    In the Gospels only Matthew records what happened to Judas,57 and he and Luke appear to be drawing on independent traditions. But their accounts are not as divergent as some argue, and it is certainly not necessary to say with R. P. C. Hanson that ‘they cannot both be true’.58 Both say that Judas died a miserable death, that a field was bought with the money paid him (thirty silver coins), and that it was called ‘The Field of Blood’. The apparent discrepancies concern how he died, who bought the field and why it was called ‘Blood Field’.
    First, the manner of Judas’ death. Matthew writes that he committed suicide: ‘he went away and hanged himself.’59 Luke writes that he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out (18b). Attempts to harmonize these statements go back at least to Augustine. It is perfectly possible to suppose that after he had hanged himself, his dead body either fell headlong (the usual meaning of preœneœs), assuming that the rope or tree branch broke, or ‘swelled up’ (following a different derivation of preœneœs, which [Acts, Page 56] BAGD declares ‘linguistically possible’, cf. RSV margin, JBP), and in either case ruptured.
    Secondly, there is the question who bought the field. Matthew says that Judas, filled with remorse, tried to return the money to the priests and (when they refused to accept it) threw it into the temple and left. He adds that later the priests picked up the money and with it bought the potter’s field. Luke, on the other hand, says that with the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field (18a). So did the priests purchase the field, or did Judas? It is reasonable to answer that both did, the priests entering into the transaction, but with money which belonged to Judas. For, as Edersheim wrote, ‘by a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known “potter’s field” ’.60
    Thirdly, why did the field purchased come to be known as ‘The Field of Blood’? Matthew’s answer is that it had been bought with ‘blood money’;61 Luke gives no explicit reason, but implies that it was because Judas’ blood had been spilled there. Evidently different traditions developed (as so often happens) as to how the field got its name, so that different people called it ‘Blood Field’ for different reasons.
    It is fair to conclude that these independent accounts of Judas’ death are not incompatible, and to agree with J. A. Alexander: ‘there is scarcely an American or English jury that would scruple to receive these two accounts as perfectly consistent.’62

b.    The fulfilment of Scripture (1:15–17, 20)

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,
16 “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’;

and

“‘Let another take his office.’

The warrant for replacing Judas was Old Testament Scripture. This was Peter’s conviction, which he expressed to the believers: Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas (16). We need to recall that, according to Luke, the risen Lord had both opened the Scriptures to his disciples and opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.63 In consequence, since the resurrection they had begun to have a new grasp of how the Old Testament foretold the sufferings and glory, rejection and reign of the Messiah. And, stimulated by Jesus’ explanations, they will during the fifty days of waiting have searched the Scriptures for further light. We know that various lists of Old Testament ‘testimonies’ to the Messiah were later compiled and circulated. But the process will have begun immediately after the resurrection.
    Peter goes on to quote from two Psalms (Pss. 69 and 109), the [Acts, Page 57] first explaining what had happened (Judas’ defection and death) and the second what they should do about it (replace him). Psalm 69 is applied to Jesus five times in the New Testament. In it an innocent sufferer describes how his enemies hate and insult him without cause (Ps. 69:4), and how he is consumed with zeal for God’s house (Ps. 69:9). These verses are both quoted in John’s Gospel, verse 4 by Jesus himself64 and verse 9 by his disciples,65 while Paul twice refers this psalm to Jesus.66 Towards its end (Ps. 69:24) the psalmist utters a prayer that God’s judgment will fall on these wicked and impenitent people. Peter individualizes this text and applies it to Judas on whom indeed God’s judgment had fallen: May his place be deserted; let there be no-one to dwell in it (20a). Psalm 109 is similar. It concerns ‘wicked and deceitful men’ who without justification hate, slander and attack the writer. Then one particular person is singled out, perhaps the ringleader, and God’s judgment on him is requested (Ps. 109:8): May another take his place of leadership (20b). This verse too, on what Dr Longenecker calls ‘the commonly accepted exegetical principle of analogous subject’,67 Peter applies to Judas.
    These two scriptures seemed to Peter and the believers adequate general guidance on the need to replace Judas. Perhaps there was an additional factor, which Luke mentions in his Gospel,68 namely that Jesus drew a parallel between the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel. If the early church was to be accepted as enjoying direct continuity with, indeed as being the fulfilment of, Old Testament Israel, the number of its founders must not be depleted. A few years later it was not deemed necessary to replace James, for he had not defected, but had been faithful unto death (12:1–2).

c.    The choice of Matthias (1:21–26)

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Peter’s proposal that a twelfth apostle be chosen to replace Judas (21–22) throws light on his understanding of apostleship, to which reference was made in the previous chapter.
    First, the apostolic ministry (25, this apostolic ministry, as NIV renders diakonia and apostoleœ) was to be ‘a witness to his resurrection’ (22b, RSV). His resurrection was early recognized as the divine vindication of both his person and his work, and Luke describes how with great power ‘the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts 4:33; cf. 13:30–31).
    Secondly, the apostolic qualification was therefore to have been a witness of the resurrection to which they were called to bear [Acts, Page 58] witness (e.g. 2:32; 3:15; 10:40–42). It was indispensable to have seen the risen Lord, which is why Paul was later added to the apostolic band.69 But Judas’ replacement as a member of the foundation Twelve, whose responsibility was to safeguard the true tradition about Jesus, needed a fuller qualification than this. He must, Peter explained, have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us (21–22; cf. 10:39; 13:31). This is why I cannot agree with Campbell Morgan who (following others) wrote: ‘The election of Matthias was wrong.… He was a good man, but the wrong man for this position.… I am not prepared to omit Paul from the twelve, believing that he was God’s man for the filling of the gap.’70 But Luke gives no hint at all that a mistake was made, in spite of the fact that Paul was obviously his hero. Besides, Paul did not have the fuller qualification which Peter laid down.
    Thirdly, the apostolic appointment was by the Lord Jesus himself. It had been he who chose the original Twelve.71 So he must choose Judas’ replacement. True, the 120 believers were told to do the choosing (21). But what they did was to sift possible candidates and from them nominate two, namely Joseph (whose other name was Barsabbas in Hebrew and Justus in Latin) and Matthias, of neither of whom do we know anything, although Eusebius says that both were members of the Seventy. Then they prayed to Jesus as Lord, calling him (literally) everybody’s ‘heart-knower’, kardiagnoœsteœs, a word Luke later uses of God,72 and asked him to show them which of the two he had already chosen (24). Then they drew lots (26), a method of discerning God’s will which was sanctioned in the Old Testament,73 but which does not appear to have been used after the Spirit had come.74 Matthias was chosen; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
    It is instructive to note the cluster of factors which contributed to the discovery of God’s will in this matter. First came the general leading of Scripture that a replacement should be made (16–21). Next, they used their common sense that if Judas’ substitute was to have the same apostolic ministry he must also have the same qualifications, including an eyewitness experience of Jesus and a personal appointment by him. This sound deductive reasoning led to the nomination of Joseph and Matthias. Thirdly, they prayed. For though Jesus had gone, he was still accessible to them by prayer [Acts, Page 59] and was acknowledged as having a knowledge of hearts which they lacked. Finally, they drew lots, by which they trusted Jesus to make his choice known. Leaving aside this fourth factor, because the Spirit has now been given us, the remaining three (Scripture, common sense and prayer) constitute a wholesome combination through which God may be trusted to guide us today.
    The stage is now set for the Day of Pentecost. The apostles have received Christ’s commission and seen his ascension. The apostolic team is complete again, ready to be his chosen witnesses. Only one thing is missing: the Spirit has not yet come. Though the place left vacant by Judas has been filled by Matthias, the place left vacant by Jesus has not yet been filled by the Spirit. So we leave Luke’s first chapter of the Acts with the 120 waiting in Jerusalem, persevering in prayer with one heart and mind, poised ready to fulfil Christ’s command just as soon as he has fulfilled his promise.