Matthias - Acts 1:16-26

1:16-20 - Peter stands before the congregation of 120 disciples of Christ and explains why they are here. And like we noted yesterday, Peter is not there to inform them of the new Apostle, he’s there asking for their prayers and the input of the other ten Apostles. It unclear to me how Peter feels about Judas now that everything is done, but he does begin by reminding the people of the prophecy Judas fulfilled saying, “this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.” It almost seems like he’s saying “he was just fulfilling prophecy guys, he was taking one for the team.” The whole time that Peter is speaking about what happened with Judas, there is almost a detached tone, meaning that he’s not vengeful or angry, it’s just very matter of fact.

Verses 16 to 20 are Peter describing what happened but he only uses Judas’ name once and another time refers to him as “this man” and he references three prophecies that he fulfilled without ever conveying an attitude of negativity. One article that I read suggests that it is actually Luke who is giving this explanation only in his narrative as a way of familiarizing the reader with the situation because he says that no one in Jerusalem would have needed an explanation and also that the term “field of blood” wouldn’t have been a common saying in Jerusalem at that time. Those are good arguments to consider, but rereading these verses, it seems like it is Peter talking, but ultimately it doesn’t seem to matter too much about who exactly says these things.
If Luke were the writer, it would be interesting to consider that he doesn’t paint Judas in a negative light at all because all his information came second-hand. For Peter to know what Judas did and still feel favorably towards him would make sense because they spent at least three years together with the Savior and they probably knew each other very well. Peter probably would have considered Judas a close friend and been devastated by the events leading up to his suicide, especially considering his own recent betrayal of the Savior. But Luke being converted means he held Jesus in a special regard, and not personally knowing Judas or having that intimate connection with him, it would have been less likely that that Luke would have had a neutral opinion about Judas.
Anyway, like I said, it doesn’t really matter, but either way it is interesting that apparently Peter and/or Luke were able to come to the same conclusion about Judas that I have and not hold him in contempt. The prophecies that are mentioned in conjunction with Judas come from David in Psalm 41:9 which says, “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” The second prophecy mentioned was the field that was bought with the money that Judas returned to the chief priests which is mentioned in Matthew 27:9-10 which says, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.”
The third prophecy again comes from Psalms 69:25 and Psalm 109:8 which say, “Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents” and “let his days be few; and let another take his office.” This third prophecy seems to be instructions of what to do when a vacancy arises, and we also have the benefit of the Doctrine and Covenants 114:2 which instructs, “For verily thus saith the Lord, that inasmuch as there are those among you who deny my name, others shall be planted in their stead and receive their bishopric.” It’s really interesting because Acts 1:20 uses the same word, “bishoprick” which I haven’t really seen too much in the Bible.
Judas has fulfilled all these prophecies and yet there seems to be no negativity towards him from the speaker/writer, but they are quite graphic about his end. Interestingly, there is no terms of “betrayal” or anything like that, it’s just very matter of fact that Judas was numbered among them previously, but “now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Now I don’t know if that’s what really happened, because all we know is that Judas went out and hanged himself. Maybe they are describing what happened to Judas’ body after he died and remained hanging there, eventually his guts popped out, maybe it’s metaphorical and this is some type of ancient slang for suicide, but either way it is quite graphic.
1:21-26 - Simply going about replacing Judas is the matter at hand and it seems that there isn’t a lot of emotion going along with it, which is interesting, but also of note that Peter isn’t steamrolling this issue which to me indicates that he’s spent a lot of time in study and prayer to know what to do. He simply presents “these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”
I always imagined that it was just the 12 apostles that had stayed with Jesus during his ministry but apparently there were several who had been there for his baptism and all the way through until his resurrection. It makes me wonder just how many and who saw what exactly. The IM says, “When choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the remaining Apostles understood the importance of the man being a witness, with the others, of Jesus’ ministry, from His baptism through His Resurrection. The importance of this eyewitness testimony is a major theme in the early Church and the early chapters of Acts.” This is an interesting concept because Luke and many of the other prominent Apostles in the New Testament weren’t eyewitnesses to the Savior’s ministry. I wonder why it was so important. An eyewitness to Jesus isn’t big now because I would imagine that most of us haven’t had it.
Peter presents “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias” and as a group they prayed to know who the Lord would have be the new apostle. “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” When I read about the “lots” part, I thought, “why even pray to know who to choose if you were just going to flip a coin for it.” But the IM explains, “Anciently, casting lots was a means of making a decision. Among the Jews it was generally believed that the hand of God would direct the outcome. Though the exact method of casting lots in this instance is not known, one ancient method involved each voter writing a name on a broken piece of pottery and then putting it forth to be read or counted.”
This method definitely makes more sense, especially when we consider how the process is for the Church today. The IM quotes President Gordon B. Hinckley as explaining, “There is quiet and thoughtful deliberation. And there is much of prayer to receive the confirmation of the Holy Spirit that the choice is correct… In filling that vacancy, each member of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve was at liberty to make suggestions. I am confident that in every case, there was solemn and earnest prayer. A choice was then made by the First Presidency, again after solemn and serious prayer. This choice was sustained by the Council of the Twelve. Today, the membership of the Church in conference assembled has sustained that choice.”
This is very similar to the “casting of lots” or the voting concept that is suggested. I just think it’s interesting that no matter what the result was, this decision was made collectively. I have to ask myself why did this decision have to be made before the day of Pentecost? Obviously, there needed to be a full Quorum of Apostles in order to see the work through and begin baptizing, etc. But if I consider what the process might have looked like after the Holy Ghost was bestowed on the disciples, Peter might have just been inspired in what to do, “hey fill the vacancy by voting with the other Apostles.” Instead of having perhaps instant knowledge, Peter had to use his own faculties to assess the situation and then spend much time in study and prayer to learn the Lord’s will.
He could have steamrolled it, but he didn’t. He had to be the one to ask the Lord for help, there’s a humility there that might not have been developed if the Spirit had just given him the answer. Maybe it helped him see how lacking his personal skills were and helped him recognize that he needed God’s strength and help if he was going to be an instrument in his hands. Perhaps it was the process of recognition and then submission that enabled Peter to be ready to receive the Holy Ghost when it finally was poured out.