Acts 1:12-1:26
I was born Jewish, and went through years of Hebrew school, culminating in a Bar Mitzvah when I was 13 years old. When I was about 9 or 10 years old, one day the Cantor (like a music director) at our synagogue told our Hebrew class that we were going to do a rendition of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and that I was to be Joseph! I was not actually asked if I wanted to do this. I was so much in shock that I didn't say anything. Over the next week, more detailed plans were put in place, and I grew more and more panicked. Finally, I told my parents that I absolutely did not want to do this. They talked to the Cantor and I got out of it.
I was born Jewish, and went through years of Hebrew school, culminating in a Bar Mitzvah when I was 13 years old. When I was about 9 or 10 years old, one day the Cantor (like a music director) at our synagogue told our Hebrew class that we were going to do a rendition of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and that I was to be Joseph! I was not actually asked if I wanted to do this. I was so much in shock that I didn't say anything. Over the next week, more detailed plans were put in place, and I grew more and more panicked. Finally, I told my parents that I absolutely did not want to do this. They talked to the Cantor and I got out of it.Whew!
When I think about Jesus' final instructions in the first part of the first chapter of Acts, I wonder if the apostles/disciples felt the same way. Here is what He told them:
"Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift My Father promised, which you have heard Me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." - Acts 1:4-5
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." – Acts 1:8
The first thing that grabs me is that they were instructed to stay in Jerusalem. I am not sure they wanted to stay in Jerusalem. These were men of Galilee. They had been mostly away from there for 3 years, traveling with Jesus, but now it was different. Jesus would not be with them, Jerusalem was not their home, and Jerusalem was not a friendly place. After all, this is where Jesus was crucified just a few days ago (about forty days). The priests and teachers of the law hadn’t liked Jesus at all, and they probably wouldn’t think much of their followers, either.
They also had to wait. Waiting implies doing nothing (unless, like one of my friends, you use waiting as an opportunity to knit). For us non-knitters, waiting is not fun. And we are not talking about waiting an hour or two. This will be waiting for some number of days (a few, whatever that means).
Then it says they would be Jesus’ witnesses in Jerusalem. It was bad enough contemplating sitting in Jerusalem waiting, but this was much worse. Being a witness means telling people about Jesus’ resurrection and what it achieved. Word would certainly get around to the priests and Pharisees. They wouldn’t like it.
Not only this, but Jesus told them they would be witnesses in Samaria. Who lived in Samaria? The Samaritans. They were also known in slang as “half breeds.” They followed a mixed-up form of Judaism that combined Jewish ideas with foreign superstitions and beliefs. They were considered to be uneducated bumpkins. The Samaritans viewed the Jews as stuck-up know-it-alls and thus didn’t think much of the Jews either. It doesn’t sound like a good place to go be a witness.
Then Jesus told them they would be witnesses to the ends of the earth. To them, this meant Europe, Africa, Asia – any place not part of the Middle East, specifically right around Israel. The people who lived in these places were not Jewish at all. Jews had an even lower opinion of these people than they did of the Samaritans. They were “chazerish,” “piggish.” Think about the implications of being piggish from a Jewish point of view. (They were “unclean” animals, not even to be touched.) And you can imagine that the foreigners who had heard of Jews didn't think much of them. How would you like someone who thinks of you like a pig?
This whole thing reminds me a bit of Jonah. He didn’t like his instructions at all, and fled the other way. The apostles/disciples didn't do this, praise God, but what I am suggesting is that they received Jesus' instructions perhaps with mixed emotions.
A more similar experience I can relate is that when I was a new believer, one believer wanted me go out with him to share the gospel on campus (the University of Illinois). I definitely didn't want to do this! I hardly understood what I believed at this point. The thought of doing this made me very uncomfortable.
I wonder too what they really thought of the "good" news. Yes, they would somehow be baptized with the Holy Spirit. But what in the world did this mean? What would it be like? And being told they would receive power when this happened does sound like a good thing, but it is all so vague. What kind of power? What would really happen?
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. – Acts 1:12-14
So now, here they are, together, in an upstairs room, doing what? They were doing almost nothing, just waiting (and praying). For how long? They didn’t know. All they knew is that they went through one day, and then another, and then another, etc.
How long did it turn out to be? Roughly a week to 10 days. Pentecost is 50 days after Passover, and Jesus spoke to them for 40. Pentecost is when the Holy Spirit came (Acts 2).
But what did Jesus say about the length? A “few” days. I guess it depends on your definition of “few.” This situation reminds me a bit of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. People thought they would be rescued that day. The next day, they thought, surely today. And so on.
How many people were there? The next verse says there were 120 of them. It was almost certainly pretty cramped. In reality, there was a lot more going on that just doing nothing, waiting, and praying. Providing food for 120 people is not easy!
The last few Thanksgivings, we have had my wife's parents, brother, sister-in-law, and her children all out at our house. Including us, this makes 13 people. Usually it is for about 4 days or so. Just dealing with providing food can be a challenge. And even though we get along quite well, when the weather is bad and we can't do much of anything outside, we all start to feel "confined" by the house pretty quickly. Sometimes we'll go outside and let the children play even though it is freezing.
But here we are not talking about 13 people. This is 120 for a week or more, day by day, not knowing when it will end.
All in all, it paints a pretty dark picture, right? I bet they were at each other's throats, right?
Wrong.
As we will see, we couldn't be more wrong.
The passage says they were “constantly in prayer.” There are multiple words for prayer. This is a more general word - it can include worship, praise, etc. (There is a more specific word for supplication, for example.) We don’t know what they prayed about, but perhaps it started with the Lord’s Prayer, since they had learned this from Jesus.
"This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' – Matthew 6:9-13
Much of this seems especially powerful considering their situation. “May Your kingdom come.” In a sense, this is what they are waiting for. “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” This too seems imminent. “Give us today our daily bread.” Let's deal with feeding 120 people. “Forgive us as we forgive each other.” Ouch. They need to forgive each other. “Lead us not into temptation.” They might have been tempted to doubt. They may have been tempted to ask, is this really oging to happen? It's been a few days already! They may have been tempted to grumble like the Israelites.
Part of the “prayer” time could have included reading the Scriptures together. For the first time, they might have seen how more and more Scriptures pointed to Jesus. For the first time, they might have "gotten" something that Jesus had told them earlier, things before the crucifixion and things after the resurrection. Note that Mary was there, and Jesus’ brothers were there. They might have discussed Jesus' early life, even His miraculous birth.
It says they "all joined in prayer together." The word for together is translated in a number of other translations as "in one accord." They were in unity. The Greek word here is homothumadon.
A Bible dictionary says “with one mind, with one accord, with one passion. The image is almost musical; a number of notes are sounded which, while different, harmonize in pitch and tone. As the instruments of a great concert under the direction of a concert master, so the Holy Spirit blends together the lives of members of Christ's church.” Isn't that a wonderful word picture?
Homothumadon only appears 12 times in the Bible, eleven of them here in Acts. It is a compound word. The two parts can mean “to rush along” and “in unison.” Another great word picture: rushing along in unison. The one use of homothumadon that is not in Acts is in Romans:
May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart (homothumadon) and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Romans 15:5-6
Read what Dave Wilkinson writes about this word:
"One of my favorite words in the New Testament is homothumadon. Some words should never be translated, and this is one of them. If you translate them, they fall flat. Homothumadon is one of those words.
"Homothumadon is usually translated 'with one accord' or 'of one mind.' In the book of Acts, after Jesus' return to heaven, we read that the followers of Jesus were gathered waiting for the promise of the Spirit, gathered 'in one mind' - homothumadon. At Pentecost, they were gathered in the upper room homothumadon - all of one accord. When the great Pentecost experience was just completed and the church was gathered and they were distributing food, praying daily, and breaking bread, they were again homothumadon. When Peter and John were in prison and delivered by a miracle, everyone gathered around them and prayed, homothumadon. It happened again at the Great Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The word is used in conspicuous places in the early church as they were responding or being present to what God was doing.
"'Of one mind' is too tame a translation for this word. The Greek prefix Homo means 'the same' and thumas is a strong emotion. Usually it is a violent anger, except it is not used in a negative way in the Book of Acts. What Luke is saying by his repetitive use of the word is that there was something wonderful burning within those early Christians, drawing them together of the same mind and spirit. It was something similar to the energy of anger, but not anger. Something different. This is why translation doesn't work on this word.
"Now usually when we talk about unanimity or being of one mind, it's something that a committee does late at night when you're tired and you get a unanimous vote, because everyone is nodding off and the nods get counted as 'yeses.' That's not homothumadon. Homothumadon has got fire in it. It's the passion of a consensual, unanimous response to something God does. You don't work it up. It is always dependent on something God has just done or is about to do or you are participating in. It is not something you get out of conflict resolution or arbitration. It's fire."
Isn't that awesome? They were on fire in total unity. The challenges inherent to their situation had no effect on them.
So the one big question I have from reading this passage is the following: Why were they homothumadon? Notice that this is before Pentecost! The Holy Spirit’s fire hasn’t shown up yet! Fascinating, isn’t it? I’ll come back to this.
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."- Acts 1:15-17
What an example of homothumadon! Here is Peter, leading the group without any argument from the others. Peter, who had been brash and bold, Peter who offended, Peter who overdid things, Peter who had denied the Lord, now fully accepted even as a leader! What an example for us! All was forgiven! All was restored! Recall how Jesus told Peter to tend his lambs. Now here he was, doing it.
Peter is saying two things about Judas: (1) David talks about him. (2) Judas was “one of us.” I'll come back to the first point in a bit, but the second point is clearly true. Judas was one of the twelve. He was there for years, through thick and thin, one of them. Not until the Last Supper did they have any idea that he would become traitor. This had to have been a shock. It was still fresh with them. (Remember, it's only been about 40 days.)
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) – Acts 1:18-19
Judas was famous now, but not in a good way. More like an OJ Simpson kind of famous. Actually, more like the opposite of this. He was famous for getting what he deserved.
I wonder what the average Jew in Jerusalem thought about this. At this point the resurrection was still fairly unknown. But Judas’ end was in the “National Enquirer” of that day.
After this explanation, Luke turns back to Peter:
"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' (Psalm 41:9) and, "'May another take his place of leadership.' (Psalm 109:8) Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who 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. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." - Acts 1:20-22
I like to imagine that as they were praying, they were reading Scripture together, including reading the Psalms. At two places, Peter had a “light bulb” moment – in Psalm 41, he thought, “Hey, this is talking about Judas!” And in Psalm 109, he thought, “Hey, this means we should replace him!” I won’t go into the context of these passages, but I encourage you to do it. They are interesting. The verses around Psalm 41:9 certainly do seem to describe Jesus. The verses around Psalm 109 are full of curses against an evil man. It’s actually quite harsh.
Commentaries about these verses go all over the map. Some believe that Peter was wrong to do this. Jesus said simply to wait. This is doing, not waiting. Some also argue that the choice of a replacement was premature. We never again hear from the one selected to replace Judas. And what about Paul? Wasn’t he an apostle? Was Peter being “Peterlike” again? Impetuous? Over-assuming?
I think you walk on shaky ground when you call something wrong in the Bible that the Bible doesn’t say is wrong. You run the risk of becoming like Job’s “friends.” The “argument of silence” is especially weak. You never hear about some of the other apostles either. And for me, the clincher is that Luke said they were homothumadon. Nobody was questioning Peter. They were in one accord, in one passion. This made perfect sense to them all.
Another problem with this argument is that it seems to confuse the original twelve apostles with the "office" of apostle that Paul talks about in his letters, which certainly went beyond the original twelve.
Yet another reason I think they were right to say that Judas needed to be replaced is based on Revelations 21, where we read the following about the New Jerusalem:
It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. – Rev. 21:12-14
I think it is safe to say that Judas is not on one of the 12 foundations of the New Jerusalem!
There is a lot we could say about the fact that Judas was "mentioned" even in the Old Testament. This means that Judas was not an accident. God always knew that Judas would betray Him. And He wrote about it through His servant David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, over a thousand years before it happened. What David wrote implies the confusing juxtaposition of foreknowledge and free will that makes philosophers squirm. Why? Because God says he deserved punishment and replacement - punishment implies willful disobedience. This means that God knew, but Judas chose.
Notice Peter’s requirements for the replacement: it had to be someone who had been with Jesus from the beginning. It had to be someone who had also seen Jesus after His resurrection. It had to be someone who was a witness to the whole ministry.
So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:23-26
Now, this passage bothers some people. They did what? They cast lots? That’s not right! Let's look at this in several ways.
First, let's look at this pragmatically. They had two guys, both of which seemed, apparently, equally good for the job. But I doubt they seemed equally good to each person. Through my job as a professor, I have sat on a lot of awards committees – awards for outstanding students, awards for outstanding faculty, awards for research grants. Never have I seen a situation where two people seem equally good to everyone on the committee. Sometimes, if you let each person say who their favorite is, you get a tie, but this is quite different. The latter situation can be quite contentious. This is especially true when it comes to research grants. People have differing criteria, sometimes widely differing criteria, and one person’s first choice can be someone else’s “not even close.” Now, in such a situation, if I were to propose casting lots, everyone would think I was crazy. But if the goal is to avoid contention and arguing, casting lots makes perfect sense.
Now, let's look at this spiritually. Each of the other eleven disciples had been chosen by Jesus Himself. They may well have felt that they were overstepping their authority if they chose the twelfth themselves. (I am sure I would have felt this!) I think there is no question their hearts were in the right place – they had prayed, and they wanted God to decide.
So – should we cast lots to make our decisions? What do you think? I think only in special situations, and never in place of prayer. The components here – a needed decision, equal options, desiring avoidance of partisanship, seem to all be needed.
There is so much more we could talk about with regards to casting lots! We could look at the various times it occurs in the Old Testament, for example. Then there is the question of the Urim and Thummim and what exactly this even was. Was it a form of casting lots? Or was there a miraculous component to it? Little is actually known. There was a breastplate with 12 stones representing the 12 tribes. Some think the Urim and Thumim referred to a stone "magically" lighting up when God answered a question. Others think it was more like flipping a coin, as it often was used for yes/no answers. I don't think the latter is right, because in the Old Testament after God tells Saul that he is no longer "His" man, Saul tries to use the Urim and Thumim and gets no answer. You can't get "no answer" if you flip a coin.
Incidently, Urim begins with Aleph (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and Thumim begins with Tav (the last letter). One theory is that all the letters were somehow represented, and an answer only occurred if one of the ends happened. This is kind of like rolling two dice, letting two ones be a "yes," two sixes be a "no," and everything else a "no answer." Something like this might have been true for the lots cast here in Acts 1: there may have been far more than two lots. Maybe there was one for each person. We just don't know.
By the way, the Aleph and Tav reminds me of the place were God says "I am the alpha (first letter of the Greek alphabet) and the omega (the last letter), the beginning and the end." It is true that there really is no such thing as "chance" with God.
Let me also mention there is a bit of play on words here as well. The word for lots also refers to the results of casting lots. In verse 25, this word is used for the phrase "to take over." More literally, this might be translated "to take part (or a lot) of" this ministry.
There is much speculation here. We just don’t know. But I do think it is dangerous presumption to say that it was wrong for Peter to lead, wrong for them to want to replace Judas, or wrong to cast lots.
Regarding this whole passage, I mentioned two applications. The first is the need for all of us to trust in God's timing and in God's plans. Recall that they all had to trust God’s timing while they waited (and waited and waited). Why did God make them wait? To help their trust to grow?
I have thought about the whole sequence of events from the point of view of Matthias. He was with Jesus from the beginning, but he was not selected to be an apostle. Why? We don’t know, and perhaps, neither did he. There may not have been a discernable reason. He may have always been twice as “good” as any of the other disciples – he may have had even greater faith, etc. We don’t know. But after he thought it was impossible to ever become an apostle, he still became one. I am sure he was quite surprised and full of praise to God.
I have also thought about the whole sequence of events from the point of view of Joseph called Barsabbas and called Justus. He too was with Jesus from the beginning and not selected to be an apostle. Why? Again, we don’t know, and again, perhaps, neither did he. He might have been twice as “good” as everyone, even Matthias. What happened with him? He too thought it was impossible to ever become an apostle, but then he had a chance. And then he was not selected again. Seems kind of hard to go through that, right? But if he really was a man with the right heart, it wouldn’t have bothered him. He will still go on praising God just the same.
(I like to boast that Stanford University has rejected me three times: to attend as an undergraduate student, to attend as a graduate student, and to be on faculty. I think this is quite an achievement! )
The second application relates to the whole idea of homothumadon. How did this happen? It is such a huge contrast from when Jesus was with them (before the crucifixion), remember? It seemed like they were often arguing over such silly things as who was the greatest among them. Ironic, that here, in a sense, they are determining who is “greatest” so as to be the twelfth apostle! But there is no arguing. There is homothumadon. They were with one mind, one purpose, one passion. They had the mind of Christ. They had the purpose of Christ. They had the passion of Christ.
American Christianity does one thing right in that it talks about having an individual on-fire walk with God. In my personal experiences I can point to a number of times I have felt just totally on fire for God, after answered prayer, or a new revelation or deeper understanding, or just a blowing-away sense of His presence. These are all good things, but they are not homothumadon. American Christianity seems to be fairly silent when it comes to the idea of a group collectively unified on fire together - homothumadon. My prayer for us is that we would experience homothumadon.
And Jesus’ prayer for us is the same:
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that you have sent Me. I have given them the glory that you gave Me, that they may be one as We are one: I in them and You in Me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that You sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me. – John 17:20-23
A key reason those Acts 1 guys were homothumadon is prayer. It was an answer of Jesus' prayer. It was an answer to their prayers. And we need to pray for homothumadon for us.
So the one big question I have from reading this passage is the following: Why were they homothumadon? Notice that this is before Pentecost! The Holy Spirit’s fire hasn’t shown up yet! Fascinating, isn’t it? I’ll come back to this.
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."- Acts 1:15-17
What an example of homothumadon! Here is Peter, leading the group without any argument from the others. Peter, who had been brash and bold, Peter who offended, Peter who overdid things, Peter who had denied the Lord, now fully accepted even as a leader! What an example for us! All was forgiven! All was restored! Recall how Jesus told Peter to tend his lambs. Now here he was, doing it.
Peter is saying two things about Judas: (1) David talks about him. (2) Judas was “one of us.” I'll come back to the first point in a bit, but the second point is clearly true. Judas was one of the twelve. He was there for years, through thick and thin, one of them. Not until the Last Supper did they have any idea that he would become traitor. This had to have been a shock. It was still fresh with them. (Remember, it's only been about 40 days.)
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) – Acts 1:18-19
Judas was famous now, but not in a good way. More like an OJ Simpson kind of famous. Actually, more like the opposite of this. He was famous for getting what he deserved.
I wonder what the average Jew in Jerusalem thought about this. At this point the resurrection was still fairly unknown. But Judas’ end was in the “National Enquirer” of that day.
After this explanation, Luke turns back to Peter:
"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' (Psalm 41:9) and, "'May another take his place of leadership.' (Psalm 109:8) Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who 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. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." - Acts 1:20-22
I like to imagine that as they were praying, they were reading Scripture together, including reading the Psalms. At two places, Peter had a “light bulb” moment – in Psalm 41, he thought, “Hey, this is talking about Judas!” And in Psalm 109, he thought, “Hey, this means we should replace him!” I won’t go into the context of these passages, but I encourage you to do it. They are interesting. The verses around Psalm 41:9 certainly do seem to describe Jesus. The verses around Psalm 109 are full of curses against an evil man. It’s actually quite harsh.
Commentaries about these verses go all over the map. Some believe that Peter was wrong to do this. Jesus said simply to wait. This is doing, not waiting. Some also argue that the choice of a replacement was premature. We never again hear from the one selected to replace Judas. And what about Paul? Wasn’t he an apostle? Was Peter being “Peterlike” again? Impetuous? Over-assuming?
I think you walk on shaky ground when you call something wrong in the Bible that the Bible doesn’t say is wrong. You run the risk of becoming like Job’s “friends.” The “argument of silence” is especially weak. You never hear about some of the other apostles either. And for me, the clincher is that Luke said they were homothumadon. Nobody was questioning Peter. They were in one accord, in one passion. This made perfect sense to them all.
Another problem with this argument is that it seems to confuse the original twelve apostles with the "office" of apostle that Paul talks about in his letters, which certainly went beyond the original twelve.
Yet another reason I think they were right to say that Judas needed to be replaced is based on Revelations 21, where we read the following about the New Jerusalem:
It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. – Rev. 21:12-14
I think it is safe to say that Judas is not on one of the 12 foundations of the New Jerusalem!
There is a lot we could say about the fact that Judas was "mentioned" even in the Old Testament. This means that Judas was not an accident. God always knew that Judas would betray Him. And He wrote about it through His servant David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, over a thousand years before it happened. What David wrote implies the confusing juxtaposition of foreknowledge and free will that makes philosophers squirm. Why? Because God says he deserved punishment and replacement - punishment implies willful disobedience. This means that God knew, but Judas chose.
Notice Peter’s requirements for the replacement: it had to be someone who had been with Jesus from the beginning. It had to be someone who had also seen Jesus after His resurrection. It had to be someone who was a witness to the whole ministry.
So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:23-26
Now, this passage bothers some people. They did what? They cast lots? That’s not right! Let's look at this in several ways.
First, let's look at this pragmatically. They had two guys, both of which seemed, apparently, equally good for the job. But I doubt they seemed equally good to each person. Through my job as a professor, I have sat on a lot of awards committees – awards for outstanding students, awards for outstanding faculty, awards for research grants. Never have I seen a situation where two people seem equally good to everyone on the committee. Sometimes, if you let each person say who their favorite is, you get a tie, but this is quite different. The latter situation can be quite contentious. This is especially true when it comes to research grants. People have differing criteria, sometimes widely differing criteria, and one person’s first choice can be someone else’s “not even close.” Now, in such a situation, if I were to propose casting lots, everyone would think I was crazy. But if the goal is to avoid contention and arguing, casting lots makes perfect sense.
Now, let's look at this spiritually. Each of the other eleven disciples had been chosen by Jesus Himself. They may well have felt that they were overstepping their authority if they chose the twelfth themselves. (I am sure I would have felt this!) I think there is no question their hearts were in the right place – they had prayed, and they wanted God to decide.
So – should we cast lots to make our decisions? What do you think? I think only in special situations, and never in place of prayer. The components here – a needed decision, equal options, desiring avoidance of partisanship, seem to all be needed.
There is so much more we could talk about with regards to casting lots! We could look at the various times it occurs in the Old Testament, for example. Then there is the question of the Urim and Thummim and what exactly this even was. Was it a form of casting lots? Or was there a miraculous component to it? Little is actually known. There was a breastplate with 12 stones representing the 12 tribes. Some think the Urim and Thumim referred to a stone "magically" lighting up when God answered a question. Others think it was more like flipping a coin, as it often was used for yes/no answers. I don't think the latter is right, because in the Old Testament after God tells Saul that he is no longer "His" man, Saul tries to use the Urim and Thumim and gets no answer. You can't get "no answer" if you flip a coin.
Incidently, Urim begins with Aleph (the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and Thumim begins with Tav (the last letter). One theory is that all the letters were somehow represented, and an answer only occurred if one of the ends happened. This is kind of like rolling two dice, letting two ones be a "yes," two sixes be a "no," and everything else a "no answer." Something like this might have been true for the lots cast here in Acts 1: there may have been far more than two lots. Maybe there was one for each person. We just don't know.
By the way, the Aleph and Tav reminds me of the place were God says "I am the alpha (first letter of the Greek alphabet) and the omega (the last letter), the beginning and the end." It is true that there really is no such thing as "chance" with God.
Let me also mention there is a bit of play on words here as well. The word for lots also refers to the results of casting lots. In verse 25, this word is used for the phrase "to take over." More literally, this might be translated "to take part (or a lot) of" this ministry.
There is much speculation here. We just don’t know. But I do think it is dangerous presumption to say that it was wrong for Peter to lead, wrong for them to want to replace Judas, or wrong to cast lots.
Regarding this whole passage, I mentioned two applications. The first is the need for all of us to trust in God's timing and in God's plans. Recall that they all had to trust God’s timing while they waited (and waited and waited). Why did God make them wait? To help their trust to grow?
I have thought about the whole sequence of events from the point of view of Matthias. He was with Jesus from the beginning, but he was not selected to be an apostle. Why? We don’t know, and perhaps, neither did he. There may not have been a discernable reason. He may have always been twice as “good” as any of the other disciples – he may have had even greater faith, etc. We don’t know. But after he thought it was impossible to ever become an apostle, he still became one. I am sure he was quite surprised and full of praise to God.
I have also thought about the whole sequence of events from the point of view of Joseph called Barsabbas and called Justus. He too was with Jesus from the beginning and not selected to be an apostle. Why? Again, we don’t know, and again, perhaps, neither did he. He might have been twice as “good” as everyone, even Matthias. What happened with him? He too thought it was impossible to ever become an apostle, but then he had a chance. And then he was not selected again. Seems kind of hard to go through that, right? But if he really was a man with the right heart, it wouldn’t have bothered him. He will still go on praising God just the same.
(I like to boast that Stanford University has rejected me three times: to attend as an undergraduate student, to attend as a graduate student, and to be on faculty. I think this is quite an achievement! )
The second application relates to the whole idea of homothumadon. How did this happen? It is such a huge contrast from when Jesus was with them (before the crucifixion), remember? It seemed like they were often arguing over such silly things as who was the greatest among them. Ironic, that here, in a sense, they are determining who is “greatest” so as to be the twelfth apostle! But there is no arguing. There is homothumadon. They were with one mind, one purpose, one passion. They had the mind of Christ. They had the purpose of Christ. They had the passion of Christ.
American Christianity does one thing right in that it talks about having an individual on-fire walk with God. In my personal experiences I can point to a number of times I have felt just totally on fire for God, after answered prayer, or a new revelation or deeper understanding, or just a blowing-away sense of His presence. These are all good things, but they are not homothumadon. American Christianity seems to be fairly silent when it comes to the idea of a group collectively unified on fire together - homothumadon. My prayer for us is that we would experience homothumadon.
And Jesus’ prayer for us is the same:
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that you have sent Me. I have given them the glory that you gave Me, that they may be one as We are one: I in them and You in Me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that You sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me. – John 17:20-23
A key reason those Acts 1 guys were homothumadon is prayer. It was an answer of Jesus' prayer. It was an answer to their prayers. And we need to pray for homothumadon for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment