Luke emphasized the living Christ in Acts. He is the one who guided the growth of the church and directed the spread of the gospel across the Roman Empire.

The resurrection—based on Jesus’ own rising from the dead—was the hope of Israel, something that Peter and Paul stressed in their sermons to the Jews. (And, of course, it was the hope of the church.) For these reasons, the resurrection of Jesus, and his exaltation, take center stage in Acts.

As proof of his living state, said Luke, Jesus gave "many convincing proofs," which took the form of appearances to the disciples over a period of forty days (1:3). (The forty days occurred within the seven weeks between Passover, when Jesus was crucified, and Pentecost, when the Spirit came with power.)

The number "forty" recalls the forty days during which Moses received instruction on Mount Sinai. But here it is the living Jesus who gives the instruction, this time from the Mount of Olives (1:12).

Moses had been given the program for the first covenant for ancient Israel to have. Now, the apostles are given the program for the new Israel—to preach the gospel of salvation to the world and to disciple. Both aims are to be accomplished through the Holy Spirit.

During the forty days of appearances, the apostles saw a Jesus who was alive, but who had once been dead. The disciples were left with an unshakable faith in Jesus as one who could deliver the goods of salvation, so to speak. He was their Savior, and the Savior of the world. Of this they were fully and irrevocably convinced.

While not ignoring the meaning of Jesus’ atoning death, Luke does not stress it in the way Paul did in his letters. Luke was more interested in showing that the work of the church was empowered by the living Christ through the Holy Spirit. Its missionary work was not a human-directed movement. It was based on a divine commission, and divinely empowered.

During the forty days during which Jesus appeared to the disciples, he "spoke about the kingdom of God." We know from the Gospels that this was the substance of his message from the beginning of his ministry (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:43; John 3:5).

During his appearances to his disciples, he clarified the meaning of the kingdom in the light of his ministry of salvation. The kingdom message now had a different thrust, a different emphasis.

The witnesses preached Jesus as the resurrected and living Savior (2:24, 31-33). He was the representative of that kingdom already doing a certain "kingdom work" through his church.

The apostles and evangelists continued to preach the revitalized theme of the kingdom (see 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). It was a convenient way to summarize, particularly to Jews, that all the promises to the patriarchs had now been fulfilled.

The kingdom of God had now come with power in the person of the resurrected Son of God (Romans 1:1-4). It had come, not to save the Jews from the heel of the Roman Empire, but to save them to eternal life.

In Acts, Luke also stressed that Jesus’ rule (hence, his kingdom) was coming in the life of the church—and in the preaching of the gospel. When Jesus preached those messages described in the Gospel of Luke, he was proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God. The book of Acts was simply an extension of Jesus’ work. It detailed the spreading of the good news by the witnesses.

However, the first task of the disciples was to "wait for the gift my Father promised" (1:4). The apostles were not to leave Jerusalem. They were not to preach anything, nor undertake any missionary program for the moment.

They were to wait for the Holy Spirit to begin its work. This command in Acts is repeated by Luke from his Gospel (24:49). This underscores the importance of the Holy Spirit to the success of the New Testament gospel mission. Luke was telling us the Spirit is essential to the advance of the good news.

As we proceed through the book of Acts, we will notice that the Holy Spirit plays an important role in every advance of the gospel. Luke’s point is that the success of the Christian mission is not due to the efforts of charismatic men and women. The gospel will be proclaimed and the church will develop because God willed it, Jesus Christ directed it and the Holy Spirit carried it out.

Throughout Luke’s narrative, the Holy Spirit is the impelling force behind the mission program of the church. The entire agenda for disseminating the message of salvation—from Jerusalem to Rome—is orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. So telling is the importance of the Spirit in the life of the church, that Luke’s work has sometimes been called the "Acts of the Holy Spirit."

William Barclay wrote:

The Holy Spirit was the source of all guidance. The Spirit moves Philip to make contact with the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:29); prepares Peter for the coming of the emissaries of Cornelius (Acts 10:19); orders Peter to go without hesitation with these emissaries (Acts 11:12); orders the setting apart of Paul and Barnabas for the momentous step of taking the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 13:2,4); guides the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28); guides Paul past Asia, Mysia and Bithynia, down into Troas and thence to Europe (Acts 16:6); tells Paul what awaits him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:23). The Acts of the Apostles, revised edition, The Daily Study Bible Series, page 19.

The leaders of the church are said to be men of the Spirit (6:3; 7:55; 11:24). In one instance, Paul informs the Ephesian elders that they have been made overseers of the church through the Holy Spirit (20:28). But the Spirit helps and guides the entire church on a daily basis (1:8; 4:31; 13:9).

Five circumstances are described in Acts during which a dramatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit on believers occurs (2:1-4; 4:28-31; 8:15-17; 10:44; 19:6). In fact, the first 13 chapters of Acts contain more that 40 references to the Holy Spirit. In the entire book, the Holy Spirit is mentioned over 60 times.

Here in the first chapter, the Spirit is mentioned four times (verses 2, 5, 8, 16). The point is clear. The story Luke is about to tell regarding the church and its mission is under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. The message here is that the same Holy Spirit that came upon Jesus at his baptism is the power that has been given to the church so that it can continue his work on earth.

Yet, we should not lose sight of the fact that the book is really about the continuing work of Jesus Christ through his church. If Luke’s Gospel tells us about "all that Jesus began to do and teach"; this implies that Acts is about the continuing work of Jesus (1:1). After all, it is the risen Jesus who instructs the disciples to wait for the Spirit.

Jesus certainly does not disappear from the pages of Acts. One commentator counted 86 times in which the personal name of Jesus was used in Luke’s Gospel. Jesus’ name appears 68 times in Acts.

In large portions of Acts, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all, or only in passing. It is the Lord Jesus who stood near Paul to tell him he would testify in Rome, not the Holy Spirit (23:11). Jesus also appeared to Paul in Corinth, to assure him that he should not be afraid but keep on speaking (18:9). In fact, sometimes angels delivered messages to the missionaries (5:19; 8:26; 27:23) or instructions were mediated by prophets (11:28; 20:11).

In Luke’s theology God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are easily interchangeable. In one place, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus (16:7).

Apparently, the apostles still thought that Jesus was soon "going to restore the kingdom to Israel" (1:6). They seemed to be viewing the kingdom of God as a restored national Israel. This idea of a Israel’s peoplehood was deeply imbedded in Hebrew Scripture. They spoke, for example, of a people God had chosen "out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession" (Deuteronomy 7:6).

There was a Jewish expectation that when Israel was restored to national glory, the Holy Spirit would again become active (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19). After all, the prophets of old had promised that in the last days at the very time the fortunes of Israel would be restored, God would also pour out his Spirit on all people (Joel 2:28-3:1). In the next chapter we shall see that Peter quotes Joel’s prophecy as if it was being fulfilled at the time (2:1:17).

The disciples had originally thought Jesus would restore the glory of Israel. They "had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:21). The disciples had left everything to follow Jesus, thinking he would give them positions of great authority in that kingdom (Mark 10:35-37; Luke 22:24-30).

Naturally, they had been profoundly shocked and discouraged when Jesus was executed, but had then been energized by his resurrection. Now, in his post-resurrection appearances he was speaking of the disciples being baptized with the Holy Spirit of power (1:5, 8). Since this was a sign of the new age, it must have awakened in them the hope that the messianic age had come.

We can see something of the disciples’ sense of agitated excitement in the way they ask Jesus about the restoration of Israel. They don’t ask whether this restoration will occur. Rather, they wonder, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (1:6)

Jesus gave the disciples an indefinite answer to the question. He told them if wasn’t for them to know "the times or dates" of any restoration in a national or political sense (1:7).

That was his teaching earlier when the disciples asked about the sign of the end of the age (Matthew 24:3). He emphatically stated that no one could know when this would happen. In fact, not even the angels nor he, Jesus, knew the answer to the question! (verse 36, with Mark 13:32).

Interestingly, Luke did not include Jesus’ answer to the "when" question in his Gospel accounts (17:22-37 or 21:5-36). Rather, he held off describing what was apparently Jesus’ usual teaching until this place in Acts.

Jesus’ reply to his disciples’ "when" question underscores a great lesson for all Christians. We should not be concerned about when "the end" might come, for there is simply no way for us to know. We cannot search the Scriptures to find the answer because God is keeping that knowledge to himself.

On the other hand, Jesus was not denying that some day there would be a restoration of Israel. In fact, the entire world is to be renewed. But God’s purpose for Israel and the world in a political sense were not to be the concern of Christ’s witnesses. The apostles and evangelists were to simply proclaim the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Whether the news fell on hearing or scoffing ears was not their concern.

There is probably a reason why Luke discussed the question of the Messiah’s return in Acts. By the time he wrote Acts, it must have been clear that the Jewish people were not responding en masse to the gospel message. (Neither was the Gentile world to any spectacular degree.)

The Jews were the chief and continuing opponents of the Christians. The government of Rome had also become the enemy of the church. Terrible tragedies had struck the Jews, perhaps including the destruction of Jerusalem. But "the end" had not come. The church may have been wondering when it would occur. Was it upon the world now?

Luke was saying to the church: Don’t concern yourself with the "when" of it, but continue to live your Christian lives and do the work of God. The church was to forget apocalyptic speculation and to continue to witness to the kingdom as the power of the risen Christ to bring salvation to the world.

The disciples’ task was to witness to Jesus from Jerusalem "to the ends of the earth" (1:8). This mandate to witness is another theme of Acts (1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 7:58; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15, 22; 26:16). It becomes the programmatic statement for the book as a whole.

The concept of ‘witness’ is so prominent in Acts (the word in its various forms appears some thirty-nine times) that everything else in the book should probably be seen as subsumed under it. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, "Acts," page 256)

Luke announced this theme ("you will be my witnesses") at the beginning of Acts as a mandate of the risen Jesus. By so doing, he revealed this to be his main interest in writing the book.

Luke tied the programmatic prophecy of witnessing given by Jesus in Acts 1:8 to his statement in Luke 24:47-48: "You are witnesses of these things" to all nations. "These things" refers specifically to the preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus (verse 47).

The witness to the salvation offered through Christ to all people was to be declared first in Jerusalem. Then it would go to all of Judea and Samaria, a kind of "near-Jewish" state.

Finally, the witness would push out step-by-step throughout the pagan Roman world. The program described in verse 8 in a terse summary is fleshed out and recounted in the 28 chapters of Acts.

F.F. Bruce says,

The geographical terms of verse 8 provide a sort of ‘Index of Contents’ for Acts,....’in Jerusalem’ covers the first seven chapters, ‘in all Judaea and Samaria’ covers 8:1 to 11:18, and the remainder of the book traces the progress of the gospel outside the frontiers of the Holy Land until at last it reaches Rome. (The Book of Acts, revised edition, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, page 37)

The expression "to the ends of the earth" needs some clarification (1:8). First, when Jesus gave the apostles this mandate they probably took it to mean they should witness to the Jews of the Diaspora, scattered throughout the Roman Empire. It’s clear from Acts that preaching directly to Gentiles did not enter their minds. Not until later, and with some difficulty, did they understand the full extent of Jesus’ international program of salvation.

Second, there is no indication that the apostles preached the word in the vast Orient, or throughout Africa, or in the New World. Their work, so far as we know, seems to have been generally limited to the Roman Empire, and perhaps areas adjacent to it. Then, in what sense did they witness "to the ends of the earth"?

In this regard, it has been suggested that the phrase refers to Rome. That, of course, is where Luke ends his book, so there may be something to the idea.

In the Psalms of Solomon, a writing possibly composed by devout Jews in the first century B.C., the expression does clearly refer to Rome (8:15). The circumstance described in the writing was the Roman general Pompey attacking the disobedient people of Jerusalem "from the end of the earth," that is from Rome.

On the other hand, commentators point out that the expression "ends of the earth" can simply mean "everywhere." In a writing of Greek rhetorician Dio Chrysostom (c. A.D. 40-c.112) the philosopher is told by the oracle to preach "to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Oration 13:9). In context this refers to all places.

The exact phrase "the ends of the earth" occurs in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in Isaiah 49:6. Paul quoted this scripture to demonstrate that his mission was to carry the message of "salvation to the ends of the earth" (13:46-47).

In whatever way the term is defined, it’s clear that Jesus’ mandate had universal scope. The gospel was to be spread abroad —far and wide. This is something the band of missionaries learned about only in stages.

After giving his mandate to the apostles to be his witnesses, Jesus ascended from the earth and disappeared into a cloud. The sight of Jesus being enveloped in the cloud recalled the Shekinah of God. This was the symbol of the glorious divine presence among God’s people in the Old Testament, particularly in the tabernacle (Exodus 13:21; 16:10; 24:16; 25:8; 40:34-38).

Luke here gave the fullest New Testament account of Jesus’ ascension. It is mentioned briefly in only two other places (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51). (We should note that Mark 16:19 is suspected by most textual experts to be a later addition. It is not included in what are considered by most scholars to be the most reliable manuscripts.)

Of course, the fact of the ascension is implied throughout the New Testament where. For example, Christ is pictured in many places as being at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33; 3:21; John 6:62; Ephesians 4:8-10; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Peter 3:23; Hebrews 4:14; 9:24; Revelation 5:6).

The point is that the witnesses and the church knew that Jesus had been exalted as ruler over the affairs of humanity and as Savior of the church. He was also the guide of the apostle’s missionary program (Ephesians 1:19-22; Philippians 2:9-10).

Thus the activity of preaching Jesus, rested not on a dead man but on the living presence of an exalted Savior. In short, writes Richard Longenecker, "Luke insists that Christian mission must be based on the ascended and living Lord who directs his church from heaven and who will return to consummate what he has begun" (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, "Acts," page 258).

Of course, the fact of Jesus’ Ascension—his being "taken up" or "lifted up"—does not tell us he is in a literal place called "heaven." While Jesus was lifted up and the disciples saw this as a real fact, we must remember that God and Christ are not "up there" somewhere. In the best sense of our understanding, God is "everywhere."

The idea of heaven as the place of God’s abode "above" the earth was a convenient metaphor to describe his transcendent reality. Christ ascending in a cloud showed the disciples that he was being exalted to stand in the presence of God in glory.

The disciples gazed at the sight of Jesus’ rising in astonishment —"looking intently up into the sky" (1:10). Suddenly, two angelic figures appeared in human form. (See Luke 24:4 for a comparable appearance of angels.)

They chided the disciples for standing there, gaping at the sight of their rising Savior. They informed the disciples that Jesus would "come back in the same way" that they had seen him go up (1:10).

This is one of several scattered New Testament references to what is called the Parousia, after the Greek word that means the arrival or presence of someone. The word is used as a technical term for the coming of Christ in glory.

Most commonly, the Parousia is known as the Second Coming of Christ at the end of history. The circumstances of Jesus’ return are most completely described in Matthew’s Gospel (24:3-25:46). (See also Mark 13:3-37; Luke 21:7-36; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).

After this extraordinary experience of watching Jesus’ ascension, the apostolic band returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. Luke described the distance between the two places as a "Sabbath’s day walk from the city" (1:12).

This was the extent to which a pious Jew was allowed to travel on the Sabbath. The Mishnah, an early 3rd century compendium of rabbinic regulations, tells us that Sabbath travel was limited to two thousand cubits or "amahs" (Sotah 5:3). This is said to be a distance of about a kilometer, or two-thirds of a mile. There is some question on the exact measurement of the cubit referred to. As a result, varying distances from one half to three quarters of a mile are given for the length of the "Sabbath’s day walk."

Luke’s use of this strictly Jewish idiom shows his intimate knowledge of local customs. It indicates that Luke received his information about Jesus’ ascension from Jerusalem-area sources. His information could have come directly from one of the apostles, or from those who had written down what they had said about the ascension.

Upon returning to Jerusalem the disciples entered a house and "went upstairs to the room where they were staying" (1:13).

It has been suggested that this upper room may have been a well-known place to early Christians. Perhaps it was the place where Jesus and his disciples kept the Passover before his crucifixion (Mark 14:12-16). (We should note, however, that in Mark a different Greek word for "room" is used.)

Some commentators speculate this could also have been the same room where Jesus appeared to some of his disciples after his resurrection (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19, 26). Others infer that this room was located in the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark. A house church was later located in the home of Mark’s mother (12:12).

Of course, none of these assertions can be proven. However, it is interesting to note that this is one of several times in Acts that Luke mentions specific locations in which the social life of the church was centered. Not only is it interesting local color, it once again underscores the fact that Luke had done some solid research before writing Acts.

Luke next described precisely which people constituted the apostolic band meeting or staying in the upper room. For Luke’s purposes, this represented the primary nucleus of people who had been witnesses to Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Luke had already listed the names of the Twelve in his Gospel (6:14-16), whom he said Jesus designated as apostles (verse 13). He listed their names once again (1:13), but omitted Judas Iscariot, who was now dead. Luke placed John in second position in the list instead of fourth, as he did in his Gospel. Perhaps he did so because of the Twelve, only he and Peter are mentioned as having any active missionary role in Acts.

The Twelve were central witnesses to Jesus’ death and resurrection. In both his Gospel and Acts, Luke limited the title "apostle" to the Twelve. On only one occasion did he call anyone else an apostle (Barnabas and Paul), and this indirectly (see 14:4, 14).

Luke also mentioned the names of several others besides the eleven who were meeting together. The group included some women, one of whom was Mary the mother of Jesus.

"The women" (1:14) were those who followed Jesus through his ministry and death (Luke 8:2-3; 23:49; and 23:55-24:10). No doubt Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James were part of the female contingent, whom Luke mentioned in his Gospel (24:10). But this would be the last time that Luke would mention the women or the mother of Jesus, who presumably lived with the apostle John and his family (John 19:26-27).

As well, the brothers of Jesus were now part of the apostolic group. The reference to Jesus’ brothers is interesting because of their apparent abrupt change in attitude toward Jesus. During his ministry they thought he was crazy, or even demon possessed (Mark 3:21-35; John 7:2-10). What changed their minds? The answer may be found in Paul’s writings.

Paul recounted an appearance of the risen Christ to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) that Luke doesn’t mention. This would have happened soon after the resurrection, most probably during the forty days of Jesus’ appearances. Presumably, the other brothers, Joses (or Joseph), Judas (or Jude), and Simon (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3) came to believe in Jesus through similar circumstances.

James is important to Luke’s story, as this half-brother of Jesus would soon begin to occupy a position of leadership in the Jerusalem church (12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18). It appears that the other half brothers continued as a group to have influence in the apostolic church as well (1 Corinthians 9:5). The Jude who wrote the epistle identified himself as the brother of James. He is traditionally associated with the half-brother of Jesus called Judas, or Jude.

According to Luke, there were about 120 believers who met together in Jerusalem prior to the day of Pentecost (1:15). (His use of "about" here and elsewhere in Acts tells us he was dealing with real numbers, not symbolic numbers (2:41; 4:4; 5:7, 36; 10:3; 13:18, 20; 19:7, 34.)

Among the 120 must have been the disciple Cleopas and his companion to whom Christ appeared on the road to Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-35). Luke also mentioned two other disciples, Justus and Matthias (1:23). They must have been members of the group of 120 as well.

Commentators point out that Jewish law required 120 males to form a synagogue with its own council. Only then could a congregation elect members to its own ruling body. This may have been Luke’s implied claim that the Christian disciples formed a legitimate and legal community within Judaism. (Why this was important will become clear as we study Acts.)

There was an exception to the Jewish stipulation. In the church, women were counted as part of the legal community. In fact, Luke later drew attention to other women who also played key roles in the church (5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2; 12:12; 16:33; 17:4, 12; 22:4). At its very beginning, the community of believers was one that broke restrictive social barriers. It exemplified what Paul said. In Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28).

This group of 120 was only part of a still larger contingent of believers. Paul wrote that on one occasion after his resurrection, Jesus appeared to "more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time" (1 Corinthians 15:6). Most of them were still alive some two decades later.

This suggests a larger pre-Pentecost nucleus in the church than the 120 people meeting together in Jerusalem. Commentators speculate that most of these other believers were in Galilee, with the number "about a hundred and twenty" (1:15) referring only to those in the Jerusalem group.

Since Luke was not concerned with the church or gospel preaching in Galilee, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that there were also many disciples in that area. Luke did mention that there were churches in Galilee. But he did not give us any details, and he didn’t describe any missionary activity in the area (9:31).

The group of 120 in Galilee was said to be "joined together constantly in prayer" (1:14). Besides waiting for spiritual empowerment, the only other activity the witnesses undertook until Pentecost was to commune with God.

Luke often mentioned prayer in Acts. It was one of his sub-themes. His point was that the people of God do not rush out in frantic human activity. They look to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and they seek that leadership through prayer. Often, such prayer results in a powerful response from God (1:24-26; 4:31; 9:40; 10:19, 31; 12:5, 12; 22:10; 27:23-25). Thus, prayer is a key to the forward motion of God’s purpose.

Luke next recounted an example in which the disciples sought Christ’s leadership through prayer. It had to do with an important matter for the church and its gospel-preaching initiatives.

The situation which the disciples felt needed to be resolved was finding a replacement for Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Luke took considerable space to recount the story. It was also the only incident he described between Jesus’ ascension and the events of Pentecost day. Obviously, he thought the episode was important to his story.

Peter described Judas’ terrible betrayal of Christ and his gruesome death. Such details remind us that the human church is never a perfect instrument. From the beginning, there was a traitor in the ranks of the disciples. But even more ironic was that the leader of the church who rose to condemn Judas was himself tainted. William H. Willimon reminds us that the first speech given after Jesus’ resurrection

is made by the one who also fled in the darkness and loudly denied his Lord when confronted by the maid (Luke 22:56-62). Infidelity first occurs among those who presume to lead.... No scorn for later despisers of the gospel, no judgment upon later infidels, can match the sober, gruesomely detailed picture of the end of Judas or the irony that the one who speaks of Judas did himself deny and curse his own Master. The church meets no failure or deceit in the world that it has not first encountered in itself—even among those who founded and led the very first congregation. (Acts, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, page 25)

We should also understand that what Peter said here was only a summary, as are all the speeches in Acts. We are not reading word-for-word accounts of the speeches as they were spoken. They were not written out and preserved on paper, neither were they taken down in short-hand or taped for posterity. And at least some of the speeches were spoken in a different language than the one in which they are reported in Acts.

Luke wrote in Greek to a later community of believers outside of Palestine, and to people who probably did not know Aramaic, the common tongue of Palestine. In Acts 1, for example, Peter spoke as though he were quoting from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. He even translated the Aramaic "Akeldama" for his listeners, explaining it meant Field of Blood (1:19).

Presumably, the original disciples who heard Peter speaking in Aramaic were quite aware of the meaning of the word "Akeldama" and the circumstances surrounding the death of Judas. They needed no explanation or translation. Luke added these for the benefit of his Greek readers unaware of the original circumstances.

The point is we shouldn’t particularly concern ourselves with whether Peter, or the other speakers in Acts, spoke their lines in the exact words Luke put in their mouths. We can rest assured, however, that Luke correctly gave us the gist or main idea of each speech in a paraphrased form.

We should also explain that many unresolved questions of a historical and technical nature are found in Acts. There is, for example, the question of how Judas died. Did he hang himself as Matthew indicated (27:5)? Or did he die as Acts described it—because "he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out" (1:18)? This apparent discrepancy has exercised commentators for centuries. It is considered, as one commentary expresses it, to be "the most intractable contradiction in the New Testament" (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, "Acts," page 263).

The answer, of course, may be that both Matthew and Acts were correct. Judas may have tried to hang himself, but the rope may have broken, the knot slipped lose or the branch may have broken. He then could have fallen, perhaps onto jagged rocks below, which punctured his body. Or Judas died by hanging himself. But later his decomposing and swollen body fell (due to one of the factors mentioned above). The "bursting asunder" would have occurred when he hit the ground.

The differences in the accounts may be explained by each author’s intent. Matthew may have been content to simply report Judas’ death. Luke wanted to stress the gruesome and tragic end of someone who had sold out his Savior, and his own opportunity to be among the Twelve.

The point is that Luke’s account is terse at many points. We often simply do not have enough information to resolve what appear to be a number of difficulties. We should not assume, however, that Luke was wrong or that he had contradicted himself or others.

The disciples felt it was important that the number of apostles be restored to its original number of twelve. Thus, a replacement had to be found for Judas. This became the first official action of the embryonic Christian community.

Commentators point out that Peter’s speech is set off by two forms of the Greek word dei, which means "it is necessary" (1:16, 21). It was necessary for one like Judas to be a betrayer in order to fulfill prophecy (1:16) and it was necessary to choose a replacement for him (1:21). Thus, both acts—the defection as well as the replacement of Judas—were divine necessities. And, both were foretold in what Luke defined as Scripture.

In his speech, Peter cited two verses from the book of Psalms (69:25 and 109:8) to demonstrate this point (1:20). Peter referred to these verses as "the Scripture." He said they had their origin in "the Holy Spirit" as the Spirit "spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas" (1:16).

Thus, Peter drew attention to the divine authorship of Scripture. David was merely a mouthpiece for God. Luke showed that both Peter (3:18, 21; 4:25) and Paul believed that the Scriptures were God-breathed (28:25).

Luke also showed that while Scripture was divinely inspired, the apostles had the spiritual wisdom and authority to use it creatively. We can see this in Peter’s handling of the Old Testament.

Peter quoted Psalm 69:25 in the following way, saying it referred to Judas: "May his place be deserted..." (1:20). But the reading was an adapted form of the original, and came from the Septuagint Greek version, not the Hebrew. In the original Old Testament Hebrew version, David was referring to his enemies (plural), saying: "Let their habitation be made desolate..." Thus, "their" in the original became "his" in Acts. As well, "habitations" or "tents" became "place," in the sense of office or position.

What had occurred was the following. The disciples had concluded that a replacement for Judas had to be made to preserve the group of The Twelve. Having so understood, they then found a confirmation in two texts from the Psalms. But even here, they had to adapt the wording to fit the new circumstance. David J. Williams anticipates our surprised reaction by saying,

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. Acts, New International Biblical Commentary, page 32.

The apostles freely "proof-texted" Hebrew scriptural material because Jesus had explained that it pointed to him and his work. Luke made an issue of this in the final chapter of his Gospel (24:25-27, 44).

Jesus must have explained Psalm 69 as being a block of scripture that referred to his work. Parts of it were apparently regularly applied to Jesus by the New Testament church. We find Psalm 69 used in John’s (John 2:17; 15:25) and Paul’s writings (Romans 15:3; 11:9-10) to refer to Jesus.

We might, of course, wonder why the apostles were so sure that a replacement had to be made for Judas. This question arises since the risen Christ did not seem to give them explicit instructions on the matter.

Jesus had told the apostles that they would "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30. Since Judas had defected, it would have seemed necessary that a replacement was needed to bring up the number of apostles to the full complement of twelve.

This was important because the church saw itself as the new Israel. It had inherited the mission of ancient Israel to bring the knowledge of God to its own people, as well as the nations (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Thus, it needed twelve leaders to take the gospel message to the scattered Jews, constituted as the twelve tribes (Acts 26:7; James 1:1).

There was also a cultural reason for having twelve foundational leaders. It had to do with that fact that the church was born, operated and continued to live within the Jewish community for many decades.

The church, as we shall see, first presented itself to the Jewish nation as the culmination of Israel’s hope. It was the spiritual remnant of Judaism that had recognized and accepted Israel’s Messiah. For any such people there was an organizational and symbolic requirement surrounding the number twelve. Richard Longenecker explains it:

The "remnant theology" of Late Judaism made it mandatory that any group that presented itself as "the righteous remnant" of the nation, and had the responsibility of calling the nation to repentance and preparing it for God’s glory, must represent itself as the true Israel, not only in its proclamation, but also in its symbolism. ("Acts," page 264)

As an evident parallel to the twelve tribes of Israel, such a group would have to have twelve leaders guiding their community. That this was such a pervasive requirement is shown by the fact that the isolated Qumran disciples had such a quorum of twelve spiritual leaders.

To head the Jewish Christian community as an apostle, a leader had to have some specific qualifications. He had to have been in free association with the band of disciples from the time of John the Baptist’s preaching to Jesus’ ascension (1:22). This person must have known the details of Jesus’ gospel message because he had heard it personally from him.

Secondly, this person must have been a witness to Christ’s resurrection. He must have experienced the reality of the resurrection personally, so that he could guarantee that it did, indeed, happen.

"Apostle" was not an ecclesiastical title to be given freely to anyone who accepted the faith or even bore the message of the gospel. It was based on special qualifications necessary for a unique job—the original preaching of Jesus as resurrected Lord and Savior. In short, says William H. Willimon, "The apostolic circle is drawn only from eyewitnesses who can give a reliable account of the Jesus-event," Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, "Acts," page 24.

That is not to say others could not preach and teach the gospel message, because they did. But they were not of the special group of apostles, called the Twelve. From this, we see that there is no justification or necessity for an office of apostolic succession. The task of the Twelve was unique, as was their number.

The reason Judas had to be replaced was that he defected, not that he died. This is shown by the fact that when James the son of Zebedee was executed some two decades after Jesus resurrection, the church did not replace him with another person chosen as apostle.

Paul, the apostle, was a special case. He was not part of the group of disciples who were with Jesus throughout his ministry. Neither did he see the resurrected Christ immediately after his resurrection. However, Paul did list himself as one to whom Jesus appeared (1 Corinthians 15:8). Though he may have been "the least of the apostles," he was one of them (verse 9). Paul also frequently referred to his apostleship in his letters (Romans 11:13; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:9; Galatians 1:1).

But Paul came later to the faith and apostleship, as "one abnormally born" (1 Corinthians 15:9). He was an apostle, but not one of the Twelve. His insistence on equality with the Twelve came neither in opposition to them nor on any need to be included within their number.

In this connection, we should note that Paul was not the one who replaced Judas. Two other disciples who possessed the qualifications to be an apostle, Joseph Barsabbas (Justus) and Matthias, were proposed by the 120 for the vacated office.

Only one, of course, could be chosen. This means it was not enough simply to have the right qualifications. One had to be chosen by the Lord as well. After all, it had been Jesus who had appointed the remaining Eleven. Thus, the disciples now prayed, asking the Lord to make the selection (1:25). Then they "cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias" (1:26).

The practice of casting lots seems strange to us, more like playing dice or gambling. Nevertheless, surprising as it may seem, the practice of casting lots to determine God’s choice was traditional in Israel. Some examples where lots were used is found in: Leviticus 16:8; Numbers 26:55; 33:54; Joshua 14:2; 19:1-40; Judges 20:9; Proverbs 18:18; Isaiah 14:41; Micah 2:5; Jonah 1:7-8. The practice is illustrated by Proverbs 16:33: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."

It was a common practice in that culture to cast lots in order to determine a course of action (John 19:24). In fact, even the priestly duties in the temple were settled in this manner (Luke 1:9). Thus, Peter and the rest were acting like typical Jews of the time.

However, we should note that there is no further New Testament example of the use of lots to determine God’s will or direction. Thereafter, the Holy Spirit directly leads the church to the proper course of action.

Also, we should focus on who used lots in this case, and to determine what. First, it was not individual Christians but those who were apostles who cast the lots. As well, the lots were used to determine a course for the church. They did not determine what individual disciples were to do in their private lives. In short, Acts does not teach Christians to use lots to determine the decisions they need to take in their everyday lives.

The precise method by which lots were cast is unknown. Perhaps two stones with names (or designations of persons or courses of action) were shaken together in a container, until one dropped out. The one represented by the fallen stone would have been considered God’s choice.

Whatever the method, the disciples cast lots and it pointed to Matthias as the designated replacement for Judas (1:26). Having accomplished this objective of choosing a replacement for Judas, the church retired to wait for the day of Pentecost.

Paul Kroll, 2001

To commentary on chapter 2

Click here to tell a friend about this article

Unless noted otherwise, materials on this website are copyright © Grace Communion International (formerly known as Worldwide Church of God). All rights reserved.  You may download and print one copy for your own use. If you wish to print more, please contact us. If you would like to donate to help support this ministry, click here.

If you want to receive email notifications about new articles on this site, click here and we'll send a message once a week to let you know what has been added.  Alphabetical list of articles on this website