Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 1:21
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
21. As the new Apostle is to be, like the rest, an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, he must have been a disciple from the beginning of Christ’s ministry. Such a necessity would probably make the number from whom choice could be made a very small one. It seems hardly probable, if St Luke’s design had been (as is so often asserted) to represent St Paul as in every way like St Peter, that he would have dwelt so strongly on this personal knowledge of Jesus during his ministerial life, as a necessary qualification for the Apostolate.
the Lord Jesus went in and out ] This expression, though used in the O. T. to describe some position of leadership in war or otherwise (cp. Deu 31:2; 1Sa 18:13), yet is apparently used here only=led his life. So we have it again Act 9:28. Cp. also Joh 10:9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Wherefore of these men – Of those who had witnessed the life and works of Christ, and who were therefore qualified to discharge the duties of the office from which Judas fell. Probably Peter refers to the seventy disciples, Luk 10:1-2.
Went in and out – A phrase signifying that he was their constant companion. It expresses in general all the actions of the life, Psa 121:8; Deu 28:19; Deu 31:2.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 1:21-22
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.
The familiar side of Christs life
There are many ways of regarding the life of Christ: e.g., the philosophical or ideal, as in Johns Gospel; the historical, in its larger world relation, as in Luke and St. Pauls Epistles; or, as here, the familiar. A proverbial touch may be detected in the phraseology of the text recalling Psa 121:8. Such an expression indicates the daily round as distinguished from the special occasions of life. Note two or three reflections upon the great fact of the dwelling amongst us of Gods Son.
I. This contact must be a ground for the most complete sympathy between Him and us.
1. How thoroughly He shared the occupation, interest, and outlook of man. He entered into human thought, and looked upon the universe as it appears to the human eye and mind. Nothing human was indifferent to Him. All questions of labour, of the family, of social or political affairs, were and are of concern to Him. He is one with us.
2. He was a partaker in the suffering and shame of men. Pain, sorrow, disappointment, formed the alphabet of His experience as of ours. These were for Him a discipline as well as for us, and He regarded them and the problems they present as one of ourselves.
II. How independent christ was of external circumstances and associates. It has been said that no man is a hero to his valet. Familiarity breeds, if not contempt, at any rate, loss of reverence. Can we conceive of Jesus losing in moral dignity or the esteem of men by daily intercourse? Here He receives the title Lord, and His going in and put is over His people, i.e., authoritatively, as shepherd over his sheep. He chose a life least calculated to produce social or political effects, yet His influence was enhanced by that fact. His work so absolutely depended on Himself that political influence or high social position mould have injured it. But was He Himself affected by His station in life? Carlyles vices, we are told by Froude, were to be looked for, considering his nature and upbringing as a Scottish peasant, and even his virtues were those of people of humble circumstances. Were the virtues of the Peasant of Galilee subject to this drawback? Nay; for we see how He towers above His contemporaries and followers. To such an age He could owe nothing, and the best of all ages have done Him homage and tried to imitate Him.
III. It is just this daily round of life that needs saving. Five-sixths of life consists of routine, and what would be the use of a religion that could not affect this? There is a constant tendency to detach the common things of life from moral considerations. Christs parables discovered the mystery of the kingdom of heaven that was latent in mens daily lives. Who shall tell how much the childhood of Jesus has done to purify home life, or His work as a carpenter to ennoble labour? (A. F. Muir, M. A.)
The election of Saint Matthias considered and applied
On the day which is appointed to commemorate the Apostle Matthias, our Church has selected for the Epistle a portion of Scripture from the Acts of the Apostles, the only portion of Scripture in which his name is to be found. Whatever else is related of him in uninspired authors is attended with uncertainty, however worthy of remembrance. One circumstance is mentioned concerning him by two respectable writers among the early Christians, viz., that he was one of the seventy disciples whom the Lord Christ, during His earthly ministry, sent forth to work miracles and to preach in His name. This circumstance proves that he was known to Christ, and Christ to him; and that Christ had distinguished him among His followers.
I. The first piece of instruction which I think we may learn from this portion of Scripture history is that among the good and faithful servants of God bad and unfaithful men my be found. Judas Iscariot was a traitor among the twelve apostles. Satan, as we read in the Book of Job, was among the sons of God when they came to present themselves to Jehovah. Among the early converts to the faith of Christ, Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon Magus, were discovered to be insincere. Our Saviours parables of the wheat and tares growing in the same field, and of the good and bad fish caught in the same net, give us the like view of His Church here on earth. We know that His Church triumphant will be presented to Him a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but holy and without blemish. The ministers of Christs Church, though especially called to be examples to the people whom they are appointed to teach and lead, are certainly not exempt from this corrupting influence: neither is it to be expected that they should be. They are still but men, liable to temptation as the rest of mankind, and subject to the peculiar temptations of their calling.
II. But another piece of instruction which we may learn from this portion of Scripture history is that, though wickedness be foreknown, foretold, and predetermined by God, it is wickedness notwithstanding. To God, who knows all things, it was certainly known that Judas would act the part which history relates he did. Was Judas, then, innocent on this account? Mark the language of the historian in writing of it: This man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity. Take another instance of the like kind in our Lord Jesus Christ: Him, says St. Peter, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Let no Christian, therefore, set the foreknowledge and predestination of God against the willing agency and responsibility of man, as if they were inconsistent and at variance with each other, and could not both be true. And let those who would excuse their impieties, by pretending a fatal necessity, be told that, if their sins be decreed and inevitable, so also is their punishment; and if they cannot but choose the one, they must equally choose the other.
III. A third piece of instruction which we may learn from this portion of Scripture history is that when, by death or otherwise, a minister of Christs church is removed from his customary sphere of spiritual labour, it is the duty of the bishop, patron, and people, as far as lies in them, to appoint a good and well-qualified minister in his place. We may notice, however, in the election of Matthias what was thought particularly necessary for his office. Wherefore of 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 from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection. It was an accurate knowledge of Jesus, from the beginning of His public ministry, which was from the time of His being baptised by John to the day of His ascension into heaven. And this knowledge was to qualify the apostle to be a witness of the resurrection of Jesus. Next, therefore, to honesty of character and sincerity of affection to Jesus, this information was a needful quality in a preacher of the gospel. The same quality is still needed in preachers of the gospel, though not to, be obtained from visible intercourse with the holy Jesus. They ought to be well acquainted with the history of His life; with the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Him; with the manner of their fulfilment, as far as they have been fulfilled; and with all the evidences which clearly prove Him to be the Christ, the Saviour of the world. To state this knowledge properly and effectually, their hearts also ought to be warmed with love to Jesus, and to the sinners whom He came to seek and to save.
IV. A fourth piece of instruction which we may learn from this portion of Scripture history is the duty of prayer in the case of the ordination of ministers generally, and on the appointment of any individual minister to some particular field of labour in the church of God. This duty was carefully performed by the apostles and disciples of Christ in the instance before us. Let private prayer be added to that which is public, that the Holy Spirit may direct the minds and hearts of all parties concerned in the ordination of ministers. Having thus prayed in faith, they should receive the minister sent to them as Christs ambassador, to be reverenced for the sake of the King, his divine Master. But, more than this, their prayers should be seconded and followed up by active and cheerful efforts to help him in the great work to which he is called; to unite with him, in their several spheres and stations, in promoting and extending his labour of love, in teaching the young and ignorant, in strengthening the weak, in correcting those who fall into error; and, by their own bright and consistent example, glorifying God, and causing God to be glorified by others, through them. (W. D. Johnston, M. A.)
The reality and requirements of the Christian ministry
(Ordination Sermon):–
1. Here was one of the noblest ventures of faith ever made by man. Viewed from the worlds side, it was, as great faith always is, frivolous trifling or daring madness. A little company of ignorant men, in a small province of the Roman world, had for three years followed up and down their land a new teacher, who professed to come from God, but had been crucified and slain. They had been terrified and scattered, and now they gather together in an upper room, and talk of choosing one in the traitors stead to complete their broken number. They speak great words: they seem to look forth into the wide world around, as though it waited for them, as though they had a message for it, and power over it. Either their minds were full of the darkest delusions, or they were acting in the very might of God. And which was the truth the event may tell us. Prom that completed company a voice awoke to which the world did listen, and before which it fell. No visible strength dwelt in them as they went forth on their errand. They were scourged, imprisoned, slain. Their weapons were endurance, submission, love, faith, martyrdom–and with these they triumphed. They preached Jesus and the resurrection, and hard souls yielded and were gathered into the new company, and wore its cross and carried on its triumphs, until the world trembled at the change which was passing on itself. And so they have advanced with unfaltering step from that day to this, until all that is mightiest in power, and greatest in nobleness, and highest in intellect, has bowed down in adoration before that witness of the resurrection of Jesus.
2. The acts which we are here this day to do are but the carrying out of those which then were wrought, and we may see in the course of their work what should be the issue of ours. Here is–
I. The strength in which each one of those sent forth is to labour, and the spirit in which he is to be received. Here is his strength–he is called by God to this office (and woe be to him if he rush into it uncalled), and goes about Gods work: he may be, he ought to be, conscious of weakness, and therefore he may be strong; for conscious feebleness may drive him from himself to God in Christ. In spite of appearances, at all times in his ministry there is strength for him: I witness not of myself, but of the resurrection of my Lord; my words are not mine, but His; I witness not by strength, but by weakness, glorying in infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. And as having such an office they are to be received, not for their natural eloquence or power, not for their acquired skill or learning, but for the supernatural presence which will make their weakness strong.
II. The nature of their charge–they are sent to bear the witness of Christs resurrection. All is shut up in this. They come from God to the world with the message of reconciliation; and this message is the incarnation of the eternal Son, His death, His rising again, and from this the truth of the ever-blessed Trinity, and mans restored relation to his God. This is what mans heart longs for unconsciously, and what the asceticism of the natural man is so restlessly craving for where it can never find it.
III. How are we to discharge this great vocation?
1. We must be deep students of Gods Word. Where else are we to learn our witness of Christs resurrection? Here it is written clear and full–in the Old Testament in type, prophecy, and promise; in the New in fulfilment, act, history, and grace. In it, day by day, we must live with Him. Thus must our message sink into our own hearts. Even as they who companied with Him all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, learned unawares, day by day, the truth they needed, so must it be with us.
2. We must be men of prayer. The union of these two is the essence of the apostolical character. We will give ourselves continually to prayer, and the ministry of the Word; and without prayer we cannot bear this burden. How without it shall we have an insight into Scripture? how turn what we read to profit? how have power with God or with our brethren? In prayer, in real, hearty, earnest prayer, all things around us are set into their proper places. In prayer our minds are armed for the coming temptations of the day; they are cooled, refreshed, and calmed after its vexations, fatigues, and anxiety. On our knees, if anywhere, we learn to love the souls of our people; to hate our own sins; to trust in Him who shows us then His wounded side and pierced hands, and to love Him with our whole heart. Nothing will make up for the lack of prayer. The busiest ministry without it is sure to become shallow and bustling. To come forth from secret communing with Him, and bear our witness, and to retire again behind the veil to pour out our hearts before Him in unceasing intercessions and devout adorations, this is, indeed, the secret of a blessed, fruitful ministry. Nor let us suppose that at once, and by the force of a single resolution, we can become men of prayer. The spirit of devotion is the gift of God; thou must seek it long and earnestly; and His grace will work it in thy heart. Thou must practise it and labour for it. Thou must pray often if thou wouldest pray well.
3. We must be men of holiness.
(1) Because without this there cannot be reality in our witness. We cannot testify of the resurrection of Christ unless we ourselves have known its power. Even though our lives be correct, yet our lives must be unreal unless the truths we speak have thoroughly pervaded our own souls. If we have for ourselves no living faith in a risen Saviour, we cannot speak of Him with power to others. We must be great saints if we would have our people holy. The pastors character forms, to a great degree, the character of his flock. We must show them in our risen lives that Christ indeed is risen. This is a witness, from the force of which they cannot escape.
(2) Because we are in the kingdom of Gods grace, and to us is committed a dispensation of His grace. Every act of ours will be real and effectual only so far as Gods grace goes with it; and though He may be, and is, pleased to work by His grace even at the hands of the unholy, yet who can say how greatly such unfaithfulness does mar His work, how much is lost which might be gained? How can the other necessities of our character be supplied if we fail here? How can we be students of Gods Word without Gods grace? How can they pray for themselves or their people who have not the Spirit of grace and supplication? How can they draw down the blessed dew on others who even repel it from themselves? Who can have daily audience of our King but those who dwell within His courts? (Bp. S. Wilberforce.)
Witnesses of the resurrection
The fact of Christs resurrection was the staple of the first Christian sermon. The apostles did not deal so much in doctrine; but they proclaimed what they had seen. There are three main connections in which the fact is viewed in Scripture. It was–
1. A fact affecting Him, carrying with it necessarily some great truths with regard to His character, nature, and work. And it was in that aspect mainly that the earliest preachers dealt with it.
2. Then, as the Spirit led them to understand more and more of it, it came to be a pattern, pledge, and prophecy of their own.
3. And then it came to be a symbol of spiritual resurrection. The text branches out into three considerations.
I. The witnesses. Here we have the head of the Apostolic College, on whose supposed primacy–which is certainly not a rock–such tremendous claims have been built, laying down the qualifications and the functions of an apostle. How simply they present themselves to His mind. The qualifications are only personal knowledge of Jesus Christ in His earthly history, because the function is only to attest His resurrection. The same conception lies in Christs last designation, Ye shall be witnesses unto Me. It appears again and again in the earlier address reported in this book. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses, etc., etc. How striking the contrast this idea presents to the portentous theories of later times. The work of the apostles in Christs lifetime embraced three elements, none of which were peculiar to them–to be with Christ, to preach, and to work miracles; their characteristic work after His ascension was this of witness-bearing. The Church did not owe to them its extension, nor Christian doctrine its form, and whilst Peter and James and John appear in the history, and Matthew wrote a Gospel, and the other James and Jude are the authors of brief Epistles, the rest of the twelve never appear afterwards. This book is not the Acts of the Apostles. It tells the work of Peter alone among the twelve. The Hellenists Stephen and Philip, the Cypriote Barnabas–and the man of Tarsus, greater than they all–these spread the name of Christ beyond the limits of the Holy City and the chosen people. The solemn power of binding and loosing was not a prerogative of the twelve, for we read that Jesus came where the disciples were assembled, and He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted. Where in all this is a trace of the special apostolic powers which have been alleged to be transmitted from them? Nowhere. Who was it that came and said, Brother Saul, the Lord hath sent me that thou mightest be filled with the Holy Ghost? A simple layman. Who was it that stood by, a passive and astonished spectator of the communication of spiritual gifts to Gentile converts, and could only say, Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift, as He did unto us, what was I that I could withstand God? Peter, the leader of the twelve. Their task was apparently a humbler, really a far more important, one. They had to lay broad and deep the basis for all the growth and grace of the Church in the facts which they witnessed. To that work there can be no successors.
II. The sufficiency of the testimony. Peter regards (as does the whole New Testament) the witness which he and his fellows bore as enough to lay firm and deep the historical fact of the resurrection.
1. If we think of Christianity as being mainly a set of truths, then, of course, the way to prove Christianity is to show the consistency of its truths with one another and with other truths, their derivation from admitted principles, their reasonableness, their adaptation to mens nature, and the refining and elevating effects of their adoption, and so on. If we think of Christianity, on the other hand, as being first a set of historical facts which carry the doctrines, then the way to prove Christianity is not to show how reasonable it is, etc. These are legitimate ways of establishing principles; but the way to establish a fact is only one–that is, to find somebody that can say, I know it, for I saw it. And my belief is that the course of modern apologetics has departed from its real stronghold when it has consented to argue the question on these lower and less sufficing grounds. The gospel is first and foremost a history, and you cannot prove that a thing has happened by showing how very desirable it is that it should happen, etc.
all that is irrelevant. It is true because sufficient eye-witnesses assert it.
2. With regard to the sufficiency of the specific evidence–
(1) Suppose you yield up everything that modern scepticism can demand about the date and authorship of the New Testament, we have still left four letters of Pauls which nobody has ever denied, viz., the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, whose dates bring them within five-and-twenty years of the alleged date of Christs resurrection, Now we find in all of them the distinct allegation of this fact, and side by side with it the reference to his own vision of the risen Saviour, which carries us up within ten years of the alleged fact. It was not a handful of women who fancied they had seen Him once, very early in dim twilight of morning, but it was half a thousand of them that had beheld Him. He had been seen by them, not once, but often; not far off, but close at hand; not in one place, but in Galilee and Jerusalem; at all hours of the day, abroad and in the house, walking and sitting, speaking and eating, by them singly and in numbers. He had been seen too by incredulous eyes and surprised hearts, who doubted ere they worshipped; and the world may be thankful that they were slow of heart to believe.
(2) Would not this testimony be enough to guarantee any event but this? And if so, why is not it enough to guarantee this, too? If the resurrection be not a fact, then the belief in it was–
(a) A delusion. But it was not; for such an illusion is altogether unexampled. Nations have said, Our king is not dead–he is gone away and he will come back. Loving disciples have said, Our Teacher lives in solitude, and will return to us. But this is no parallel to these. This is not a fond imagination giving an apparent substance to its own creation, but sense recognising the fact. And to suppose that that should have been the rooted conviction of hundreds of men that were not idiots finds no parallel in the history and no analogy in legend.
(b) A myth; but a myth does not grow in ten years. And there was no motive to frame if Christ was dead and all was over.
(c) A deceit; but the character of the men, and the absence of self-interest, and the persecutions which they endured, made that inconceivable.
(3) And all this we are asked to put aside at the outrageous assertion which no man that believes in a God can logically maintain, viz., that–
(a) No testimony can reach to the miraculous. But cannot testimony reach to this: I know, because I saw, that a man was dead, and I saw him alive again? If testimony can do that, I think we may safely leave the verbal sophism that it cannot reach to the miraculous to take care of itself.
(b) Miracle is impossible. But that is an illogical begging of the whole question, and cannot avail to brush aside testimony. You cannot smother facts by theories in that fashion. One would like to know how it comes that our modern men of science who protest so much against science being corrupted by metaphysics should commit themselves to an assertion like that? Surely that is stark, staring metaphysics. Let them keep to their own line, and tell us all that crucibles and scalpels can reveal, and we will listen as becomes us. But when they contradict their own principles in order to deny the possibility of miracles, we need only give them back their own words, and ask that the investigation of facts shall not be hampered and clogged with metaphysical prejudices.
III. The importance of the fact which is thus borne witness to.
1. With the Resurrection stands or falls the Divinity of Christ. Christ said, The Son of man must suffer many things, and the third day He shall rise again. Now, if Death holds Him still, then what becomes of these words, and of our estimate of the Character of Him, the speaker? Let us hear no more about the pure morality of Jesus Christ. Take away the Resurrection and we have left beautiful precepts, and fair wisdom deformed with a monstrous self-assertion, and the constant reiteration of claims which the event proves to have been baseless. Either He has risen from the dead or His words were blasphemy. Declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, or that which our lips refuse to say even in a hypothesis!
2. With the Resurrection stands or falls Christs whole work for our redemption. If He died, like other men, we have no proof that the Cross was anything but a martyrs. His resurrection is the proof that His death was not the tribute which for Himself He had to pay, but the ransom for us. If He has not risen, He has not put away sin; and if He has not put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, none has, and it remains. We come back to the old dreary alternative: if Christ be not risen your faith is vain, and our preaching is vain, etc. And if He be not risen, there is no resurrection for us; and the world is desolate, and the heaven is empty, and the grave is dark, and sin abides, and death is eternal. Well, then, may we take up the ancient glad salutation, The Lord is risen; and turning from these thoughts of the disaster and despair that that awful supposition drags after it, fall back upon the sober certainty, and with the apostle break forth in triumph, Now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first-fruits of them that slept. (A. Maclaren, D. D)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 21. Which have companied with us] They judged it necessary to fill up this blank in the apostolate by a person who had been an eye witness of the acts of our Lord.
Went in and out] A phrase which includes all the actions of life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
There were to be twelve apostles in the Christian church, to answer unto the twelve patriarchs and twelve tribes in the Jewish church.
Companied with us, in ordinary conversation,
Went in and out among us; in discharge of his ministry, and gathering of disciples among us.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. all the time the Lord Jesus wentin and out among usin the close intimacies of a three years’public life.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us,…. Seeing there was such an imprecation, which carried in it the nature of a prophecy, that another should take the bishopric of Judas, or be made an apostle in his room, it was absolutely necessary that one should be immediately chosen to that office; and this is the force of the illative particle, wherefore; and it was highly proper that this choice should be of one among the men, and not the women; whom it did not become to bear any office, and exercise any authority in the church; hence it is said, “of these men”, to the exclusion of women: and it was exceeding right, and a very good notion, that the choice should be of one from among themselves, and who was known unto them; with whose abilities, integrity, wisdom, and holy conversation, they were acquainted: and therefore it is added, “which have companied with us”; one of our own company, and not a stranger; with whom we have familiarly conversed, and whose character is well known to us: a rule which ought to be attended to, in the choice of inferior officers, as pastors and deacons; who ought to be of the body and community, among whom they are chosen to an office; and their qualifications for it be well known, and that for some time past, as follows:
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us; that is, ever since Christ called them to be his disciples and followers; and conversed with them, and discharged his office among them, governed, directed, taught, and instructed them; for it was not proper that a novice, a new plant, or one that was lately become a disciple, should be put into such an office; and the same holds good in proportion in other offices; men called to office should be of some standing, as well as of superior gifts.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Must (). Present necessity corresponding to the old necessity () about Judas (verse 16). This sentence in verses Acts 1:21; Acts 1:22 begins with .
That (). Locative case of the relative attracted to the case of the antecedent.
Went in and went out ( ). Constative aorist active.
With us (‘ ).
Over us , the margin has it. But the full phrase would be ‘ ‘ . He came to us and went from us (Knowling).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Went in and went out. An expression for constant intercourse. Compare Deu 18:19; Psa 121:8; Joh 10:9; Act 9:28. Among us [ ] . The margin of Rev., over us, i e., as our head, is a sound rendering, and supported by Mt 25:21, 23; Luk 9:1. The rendering before, in the presence of, occurs Mt 10:18; Luk 21:12.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us,” (dei oun ton sunelthonton hemin andron) “it is therefore becoming that of the men (male persons) having continually come along in affinity of fellowship with us,” the “us” of the (120) early ministry Galilean brethren of maturity who had obeyed the Lord in tarrying in Jerusalem to await the coming of the Holy Spirit in His special dedicating empowerment of the church company.
2) “All the time that,” (en panti chrono o) “in or during all the chronological (running order) of time in which; This refers to our Lord’s conduct thru all His active ministry, following His baptism by John until His ascension, Mat 3:13-17; Act 1:10-11.
3) “The Lord went in and out among us,” (eiselthan kai ekselthen eph’ hemos ho kurios lesous) “The Lord Jesus came and went among us, of His own accord, while teaching and guiding them to do His church service and work after He was gone. Just as the one prophecy had been fulfilled regarding Judas Iscariot and his decease and vacancy of his bishoprick, even so Peter unhesitatingly expressed an accepted understanding of the company of church brethren that they should elect or choose an apostle to fill the vacated oversight bishoprick office of Judas, Joh 20:30-31; Joh 21:24-25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
21. We must therefore. This which he bringeth in might seem, at the first sight, to be far set [fetched.] For if so be it David did speak of transposing (66) Judas’s bishopric, it did not thereupon straightway follow that the disciples should choose another to be his successor; yet, because they knew that they had this charge given them to order the Church, so soon as Peter had told them that it did please the Lord that it should be so, he gathereth thereupon that they ought to do it. For whensoever God will use as means, (67) to maintain the government of his Church, so soon as we know what his will is, we must not linger, but stoutly perform whatsoever is required in our ministry (and function.) That was, without all controversy, what was the duty of the Church; like as, at this day, when we hear that those must be put from their office which behave themselves ungodly and wickedly, and that others must be chosen in their rooms, the Church must take this charge in hand. Wherefore, it was superfluous to move any question about a thing that was not to be doubted of. Therefore, let us always remember to consider what we have to do, that we may be ready to obey the Lord. Furthermore, when as he intreateth of the making of an apostle, he saith, He must be a witness of the resurrection; which signifieth that the apostleship is not without the preaching of the gospel. Whence it may appear how vain and frivolous the Popish bishops are, which having on only dumb visors, brag that they are the successors of the apostles; but wherein are they like unto them? I grant that Peter doth here require such a witness as saw the Lord after his resurrection, of which sort John professeth himself to be one, when he saith, “He which saw it beareth witness,” (Joh 19:35.) For this did serve for the confirmation of faith; yet, nevertheless, Peter maketh it a thing necessary in him and the rest of his fellows in office, that they should teach, whilst he maketh them and himself preachers or witnesses of the resurrection.
He nameth the resurrection, not because they must bear witness thereof alone; but because, first, under this is comprehended the preaching of the death of Christ; secondly, because we have the end of our redemption therein, and the accomplishment thereof, and also it bringeth with it the celestial government of Christ, and the power of the Spirit in defending his, in establishing justice and equity, in restoring order, in abolishing the tyranny of sin, and in putting to flight all the enemies of the Church. Let us know, therefore, that those things are not excluded by this word which are necessarily knit together. Nevertheless, let us note that the resurrection is here named before other things, as being the chief point of the gospel, as also Paul teacheth, (1Co 15:17.)
But were the apostles alone witnesses of the resurrection? Was not this also common to the rest of the disciples? For Peter seemeth to challenge this as proper only to the apostles. I answer, that this title is therefore attributed unto them, because they were chosen peculiarly unto that function, and because they had the chief room amongst those which did bring this embassage; therefore, though they were the chief of those which were assigned, yet were not they only appointed thereunto.
All that time. He beginneth at that time when Jesus began to show himself unto the world, which is diligently to be observed, as before I have said; for he lived privately until such time as he was almost thirty years of age. For he would not make himself known further than was needful for our salvation. Therefore, when the time was come wherein he must go about that business which his Father had appointed him, he came abroad like a new man, and one that was but lately born. Every man may easily perceive what great force this hath to bridle our curiosity. The whole life of Christ might have been a mirror most marvelous, (68) of more than absolute perfection; and yet, notwithstanding, that he might keep us occupied in the study and meditation of those things which were most needful to be known, he would lead the better part of his life obscurely and in secret. (69) Who dare now wander without Christ, seeing that he doth apply the knowledge of himself to the edifying of faith?
The Hebrews take this, to go in and out, for to be conversant and to lead the life among men. In which sense, citizens are said to go in and out by the gates of their city; so Joh 10:9,
“
If any man enter in by me, he shall go in and out, and shall find pasture.”
Although, in the Second Book of the Chronicles, the first chapter, and tenth verse, it seemeth to be a token of rule and government.
(66) “ Transferendo,” transferring.
(67) “ Quum opera nostra uti velit Deus,” since God is pleased to use our agency.
(68) “ Admirable speculum,” an admirable mirror.
(69) “ Quasi sepultam,” as it were buried.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us.From the retrospective glance at the guilt and punishment of the traitor, Peter passes, as with a practical sagacity, to the one thing that was now needful for the work of the infant Church. They, the Apostles, must present themselves to the people in their symbolic completeness, as sent to the twelve tribes of Israel, and the gap left by the traitor must be filled by one qualified, as they were, to bear witness of what had been said or done by their Lord during His ministry, and, above all, of His resurrection from the dead. That would seem, even in St. Pauls estimate, to have been a condition of apostleship (1Co. 9:1).
Went in and out . . .The phrase was a familiar Hebrew phrase for the whole of a mans life and conduct. (Comp. Act. 9:28.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Wherefore Since the place of the apostate must be filled.
Men with us The description implies that there were those besides the apostles, as, for instance, some of the seventy, who attended the ministry of Jesus closely enough to become apostles.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Of the men therefore who have kept company with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, to the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.’
The credentials for the replacement, for a member of ‘the twelve’, is made clear (which were in fact stricter than the ones Jesus had required for some of the original twelve). Such a one was to be someone who had been a disciple right from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry when John was baptising and had travelled with Him extensively, ‘going in and out’ among the disciples and being with them continually, and being a witness of the resurrection up to this very time of Jesus being received up. He was to have been an eyewitness and direct hearer of all that Jesus had done from the beginning, so that he could be a true witness.
‘Went in and went out among us.’ For the phrase compare Act 9:28; Deu 31:2 ; 2Sa 3:25; Psa 121:8. It involves regular companionship and association.
This requirement confirms that the twelve could not continually to be maintained. Once those who had been with Jesus from the time of His baptism had died out it would have been impossible anyway. And the later acceptance of Paul as an Apostle, on different grounds, stresses the uniqueness of Apostleship. But he too recognised the necessity that he had seen the risen Lord, as one ‘born out of due time’ (1Co 15:8). Being able to be a witness to the resurrection was thus seen as vitally essential.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The choosing of Matthias:
v. 21. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
v. 22. 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.
v. 23. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
v. 24. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two Thou hast chosen,
v. 25. that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
v. 26. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Having briefly referred to the regrettable vacancy in the number of the apostles, Peter now makes a proposal as to the selection of a man to succeed Judas in the high office which he had held. He stated that it was necessary for them to choose someone of the disciples that had associated with them and with Jesus from the very beginning, one that had been their companion during the whole time that Jesus went in and out before them, one that had, in other words, been a witness of the whole course of Christ’s life, beginning with His baptism by John and ending with the day of His ascension from their midst. Note that Peter speaks of the ascended Christ as a human being, as being still in the flesh, although he incidentally calls Him Lord, thus yielding to Him full divine honor and majesty. But the chief point to be taken into account was this, that the man to be chosen must be a thoroughly competent witness of the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ as St. Paul shows 1Co 15:1-58, is the seal of God upon the completed work of redemption of Jesus. Without its certainty established, Christianity becomes an illusion and a farce It is self-evident that the experience of matters of fact went hand in hand with the possession of a firm faith in the matters witnessed. The apostles were called to testify of that which they had seen and heard with their own eyes. The Church has received the Gospel of Christ out of the mouth of credible eye and ear-witnesses. Peter’s proposal having been accepted by the assembly, they put forward, or nominated, two men for the vacancy, one Joseph Barsabas, apparently one of the seventy disciples, whose surname Justus had been adopted after the custom of the time, and Matthias. These two men may have been the only two that possessed all the qualifications laid down by Peter. Concerning these two men, the candidates for the vacant position in the number of the apostles, the disciples assembled now made an earnest prayer. They addressed their prayer, literally, to the Heart-knower, to their risen Lord, Jesus Christ. See Jer 17:10. The thoughts and prayers of all true Christians are now ever directed to their exalted Lord and Savior. He knows all things; He guides all things in the interest of His believers and for their benefit. The Lord knows the hearts of men, Joh 2:25; He was able to judge exactly as to the qualifications of either candidate; His choosing would not have to be the result of long and deliberate weighing and reflecting. He should merely designate His choice of these two men, in order that the chosen man might take the place of the ministry and apostleship left vacant by Judas. Note once more the tactful reference to the traitor, as having gone “to his own place. ” As the words read, they may refer as well to the place of reward as to that of punishment. The disciples very properly leave the decision in this grave matter to the great Judge above, and do not themselves pronounce the condemnation, although it is included that Judas went to the place to which the hypocrites and apostates go after death. Mark also: The prayer of the disciples is a model of its kind. “The petitioners had a single object for which they bowed before the Lord, and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. They do not repeat a thought, nor do they elaborate one beyond the point of perspicuity…. So brief a prayer on so important an occasion would in this voluble age be scarcely regarded as a prayer at all. ” Having thus sanctified the occasion with the Word of God and with prayer, the disciples were ready to proceed to the selection of the twelfth apostle. To do this, they gave forth their lots. Just how this was done is not certain. But it is probable that the usage prevailing in the Old Testament was observed. “Tablets on which the names of Joseph and Matthias were written, were employed; these were shaken in the vase or other vessel in which they had been deposited, and the lot which first fell out furnished the decision. ” See 1Ch 24:5; 1Ch 25:8; Lev 16:8; Num 34:13. Matthias having been designated in this manner, he was now henceforth numbered with the eleven apostles, as the twelfth. The manner of selecting the man to fill the vacancy left by the defection of Judas was an unusual one, and undoubtedly resorted to in this case by a special command of God. The method, therefore, is not to be considered an example to be followed under similar circumstances. But the use of the Word of God and the earnest appeal to the Lord to direct the choice of officers of the Church according to His will and for the welfare of His kingdom, should never be lacking at any meeting for the purpose of electing officers in a Christian congregation.
Summary. The author gives a brief account of the last speeches of the Lord, of His ascension, of the meeting of the disciples, and of the election of Matthias.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Act 1:21-22 . ] In consequence of these two prophecies, according to which the office of Judas had to be vacated, and its transference to another is necessary.
] dependent on , Act 1:22 : one of the men who have gone along with us (Act 9:39 , Act 10:23 , al. ; Hom, Il. x. 224), who have taken part in our wanderings and journeys. Others: who have come together with us, assembled with us (Soph. O. R. 572; Polyb. i. 78. 4). So Vulgate, Beza, de Wette, but never so in the N. T. See on Mar 14:53 .
, ] all the time, when .
] a current, but not a Greek, designation of constant intercourse . Deu 28:19 ; Psa 121:8 ; 1Sa 29:6 ; 2Ch 1:10 . Comp. Joh 10:9 ; Act 9:28 .
a brief expression for . . . . See Valckenaer on the passage, and ad Eurip. Phoen. 536; Winer, p. 580 [E. T. 780]. Comp. also Joh 1:51 .
. is a parenthesis, and is to be attached to , as Luk 23:5 . See on Mat 20:8 .
. . . . .] is not put by attraction for , as the attraction of the dative, very rare even among the Greek writers (see Khner, ad Xen. Mem. II. 2. 4), is without example in the N. T., but is the genitive of the definition of time (Matthiae, 377. 2; Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 204]). So, too, in Lev 23:15 ; Bar 1:19 . Comp. Tob 10:1 ; Susann. 15; Hist. Bel and Drag. 3. Hence also the expression having the preposition involved, , Act 1:2 , comp. Act 24:11 .
. ] i.e. apostle , inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrection of Jesus (1Co 15 ), the historical foundation of the gospel, as eye-witnesses, i.e. as persons who had themselves seen and conversed with the risen Jesus (comp. Act 2:32 , and see on Act 1:8 ).
] is impressively removed to the end, pointing to those to be found among the persons present ( of those there ), and emphatically comprehending them (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225).
Thus Peter indicates, as a requisite of the new apostle, [107] that he must have associated with the apostles ( ) during the whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when John was still baptizing ( . .) until the ascension. That in this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel suppose, Peter had in view one of the Seventy disciples, is an arbitrary assumption. But it is evident that for the choice the apostles laid the entire stress on the capacity of historical testimony (comp. Act 10:41 ), and justly so, in conformity with the positive contents of the faith which was to be preached, and as the element of the new divine life was to be diffused. On the special subject-matter of the testimony ( . ) Bengel correctly remarks: “qui illud credidere, totam fidem suscepere.” How Peter himself testified, may be seen at 1Pe 1:3 . Comp. Act 2:32 ; Act 3:15 ; Act 4:33 ; Act 5:32 ; Act 10:40 .
[107] And Luke relates this as faithfully and dispassionately as he does what is contained in Act 10:41 . He would hardly have done so, if he had had the design imputed to him by Baur and his school, as such sayings of Peter did not at all suit the case of Paul.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Ver. 21. Wherefore of these ] To make up the breach again; like as the crowned saints fill up the room in heaven of the apostate angels.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
21. ] , since all this has happened to Judas, and since it is the divine will that another should take the charge which was his.
] This definition of the necessary qualification of an apostle exactly agrees with our Lord’s saying in Joh 15:27 ; , . See Prolegg. Vol. l. ch. i. iii. 5.
. . . ] An abridged construction for . . . .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 1:21 . , see Act 1:16 . As the one prophecy had thus already been fulfilled, so for the fulfilment of the other it was imperative upon the Church to elect a successor to Judas. : a Hebraistic formula expressing the whole course of a man’s daily life; Act 9:28 ; cf. LXX Deu 28:6 , 1Sa 29:6 , Psalm 120:8, and for other instances, Wetstein, in loco . There is no occasion to render , “over us,” R.V., margin, for in full the phrase would run: . The formula shows that St. Peter did not shrink from dwelling upon the perfect humanity of the Ascended Christ, whilst in the same sentence he speaks of Him as .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES
Act 1:21 – Act 1:22
The fact of Christ’s Resurrection was the staple of the first Christian sermon recorded in this Book of the Acts of the Apostles. They did not deal so much in doctrine; they did not dwell very distinctly upon what we call, and rightly call, the atoning death of Christ; out they proclaimed what they had seen with their eyes-that He died and rose again.
And not only was the main subject of their teaching the Resurrection, but it was the Resurrection in one of its aspects and for one specific purpose. There are, speaking roughly, three main connections in which the fact of Christ’s rising from the dead is viewed in Scripture, and these three successively emerge in the consciousness of the Early Church.
It was, first, a fact affecting Him, a testimony concerning Him, carrying with it necessarily some great truths with regard to Him, His character, His nature, and His work. And it was in that aspect mainly that the earliest preachers dealt with it. Then, as reflection and the guidance of God’s good Spirit led them to understand more and more of the treasure which lay in the fact, it came to be to them, next, a pattern, and a pledge, and a prophecy of their own resurrection. The doctrine of man’s immortality and the future life was evolved from it, and was felt to be implied in it. And then it came to be, thirdly and lastly, a symbol or figure of the spiritual resurrection and newness of life into which all they were born who participated in His death. They knew Him first by His Resurrection; they then knew ‘the power of His Resurrection’ as a pledge of their own; and lastly, they knew it as being the pattern to which they were to be conformed even whilst here on earth.
The words which I have read for my text are the Apostle Peter’s own description of what was the office of an Apostle-’to be a witness with us of Christ’s Resurrection.’ And the statement branches out, I think, into three considerations, to which I ask your attention now. First, we have here the witnesses; secondly, we have the sufficiency of their testimony; and thirdly, we have the importance of the fact to which they bear their witness. The Apostles are testimony-bearers. Their witness is enough to establish the fact. The fact to which they witness is all-important for the religion and the hopes of the world.
I. First, then, the Witnesses.
The same conception of an Apostle’s work lies in Christ’s last solemn designation of them for their office, where their whole commission is included in the simple words, ‘Ye shall be witnesses unto Me.’ It appears again and again in the earlier addresses reported in this book. ‘This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.’ ‘Whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.’ ‘With great power gave the Apostles witness of the Resurrection.’ ‘We are His witnesses of these things.’ To Cornelius, Peter speaks of the Apostles as ‘witnesses chosen before of God, who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead’-and whose charge, received from Christ, was ‘to testify that it is He which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.’ Paul at Antioch speaks of the Twelve, from whom he distinguishes himself, as being ‘Christ’s witnesses to the people’-and seems to regard them as specially commissioned to the Jewish nation, while he was sent to ‘declare unto you’-Gentiles-the same ‘glad tidings,’ in that ‘God had raised up Jesus again.’ So we might go on accumulating passages, but these will suffice.
I need not spend time in elaborating or emphasising the contrast which the idea of the Apostolic office contained in these simple words presents to the portentous theories of later times. I need only remind you that, according to the Gospels, the work of the Apostles in Christ’s lifetime embraced three elements, none of which were peculiar to them-to be with Christ, to preach, and to work miracles; that their characteristic work after His Ascension was this of witness-bearing; that the Church did not owe to them as a body its extension, nor Christian doctrine its form; that whilst Peter and James and John appear in the history, and Matthew perhaps wrote a Gospel, and the other James and Jude are probably the authors of the brief Epistles which bear their names-the rest of the Twelve never appear in the subsequent history. The Acts of the Apostles is a misnomer for Luke’s second ‘treatise.’ It tells the work of Peter alone among the Twelve. The Hellenists Stephen and Philip, the Cypriote Barnabas, and the man of Tarsus-greater than them all- these spread the name of Christ beyond the limits of the Holy City and the chosen people. The solemn power of ‘binding and loosing’ was not a prerogative of the Twelve, for we read that Jesus came where ‘the disciples were assembled,’ and that ‘the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord’; and ‘He breathed on them , and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted.”‘
Where in all this is there a trace of the special Apostolic powers which have been alleged to be transmitted from them? Nowhere. Who was it that came and said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord hath sent me that thou mightest be filled with the Holy Ghost’? A simple ‘layman’! Who was it that stood by, a passive and astonished spectator of the communication of spiritual gifts to Gentile converts, and could only say, ‘Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift, as He did unto us, what was I that I could withstand God?’ Peter, the leader of the Twelve!
Their task was apparently a humbler, really a far more important one. Their place was apparently a lowlier, really a loftier one. They had to lay broad and deep the basis for all the growth and grace of the Church, in the facts which they witnessed. Their work abides; and when the Celestial City is revealed to our longing hearts, in its foundations will be read ‘the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.’ Their office was testimony; and their testimony was to this effect-’Hearken, we eleven men knew this Jesus. Some of us knew Him when He was a boy, and lived beside that little village where He was brought up. We were with Him for three whole years in close contact day and night. We all of us, though we were cowards, stood afar off with a handful of women when He was crucified. We saw Him dead. We saw His grave. We saw Him living, and we touched Him, and handled Him, and He ate and drank with us; and we, sinners that we are that tell it you, we went out with Him to the top of Olivet, and we saw Him go up into the skies. Do you believe us or do you not? We do not come in the first place to preach doctrines. We are not thinkers or moralists. We are plain men, telling a plain story, to the truth of which we pledge our senses. We do not want compliments about our spiritual elevation, or our pure morality. We do not want reverence as possessors of mysterious and exclusive powers. We want you to believe us as honest men, relating what we have seen. There are eleven of us, and there are five hundred at our back, and we have all got the one simple story to tell. It is, indeed, a gospel, a philosophy, a theology, the reconciliation of earth and heaven, the revelation of God to man, and of man to himself, the unveiling of the future world, the basis of hope; but we bring it to you first as a thing that happened upon this earth of ours, which we saw with our eyes, and of which we are the witnesses.’
To that work there can be no successors. Some of the Apostles were inspired to be the writers of the authoritative fountains of religious truth; but that gift did not belong to them all, and was not the distinctive possession of the Twelve. The power of working miracles, and of communicating supernatural gifts, was not confined to them, but is found exercised by other believers, as well as by a whole ‘presbytery.’ And as for what was properly their task, and their qualifications, there can be no succession, for there is nothing to succeed to, but what cannot be transmitted-the sight of the risen Saviour, and the witness to His Resurrection as a fact certified by their senses.
II. The sufficiency of the testimony.
The first point that I would suggest here is this: if we think of Christianity as being mainly a set of truths-spiritual, moral, intellectual-then, of course, the way to prove Christianity is to show the consistency of that body of truths with one another, their consistency with other truths, their derivation from admitted principles, their reasonableness, their adaptation to men’s nature, the refining and elevating effects of their adoption, and so on. If we think of Christianity, on the other hand, as being first a set of historical facts which carry the doctrines, then the way to prove Christianity is not to show how reasonable it is, not to show how it has been anticipated and expected and desired, not to show how it corresponds with men’s needs and men’s longings, not to show what large and blessed results follow from its acceptance. All these are legitimate ways of establishing principles; but the way to establish a fact is only one-that is, to find somebody that can say, ‘I know it, for I saw it.’
And my belief is that the course of modern ‘apologetics,’ as they are called-methods of defending Christianity-has followed too slavishly the devious course of modern antagonism, and has departed from its real stronghold when it has consented to argue the question on these as I take them to be lower and less sufficing grounds. I am thankful to adopt all that wise Christian apologists may have said in regard to the reasonableness of Christianity; its correspondence with men’s wants, the blessings that follow from it, and so forth; but the Gospel is first and foremost a history, and you cannot prove that a thing has happened by showing how very desirable it is that it should happen, how reasonable it is to expect that it should happen, what good results would follow from believing that it has happened-all that is irrelevant. Think of it as first a history, and then you are shut up to the old-fashioned line of evidence, irrefragable as I take it to be, to which all these others may afterwards be appended as confirmatory. It is true, because sufficient eye-witnesses assert it. It did happen, because it is commended to us by the ordinary canons of evidence which we accept in regard to all other matters of fact.
With regard to the sufficiency of the specific evidence here, I wish to make only one or two observations.
Suppose you yield up everything that the most craving and unreasonable modern scepticism can demand as to the date and authorship of these tracts that make the New Testament, we have still left four letters of the Apostle Paul, which no one has ever denied, which the very extremest professors of the ‘higher criticism’ themselves accept. These four are the Epistles to the Romans, the first and second to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians. The dates which are assigned to these four letters by any one, believer or unbeliever, bring them within five-and-twenty years of the alleged date of Christ’s resurrection.
Then what do we find in these undeniably and admittedly genuine letters, written a quarter of a century after the supposed fact? We find in all of them reference to it-the distinct allegation of it. We find in one of them that the Apostle states it as being the substance of his preaching and of his brethren’s preaching, that ‘Christ died and rose again according to the Scriptures,’ and that He was seen by individuals, by multitudes, by a whole five hundred, the greater portion of whom were living and available as witnesses when he wrote.
And we find that side by side with this statement, there is the reference to his own vision of the risen Saviour, which carries us up within ten years of the alleged fact. So, then, by the evidence of admittedly genuine documents, which are dealing with a state of things ten years after the supposed resurrection, there was a unanimous concurrence of belief on the part of the whole primitive Church, so that even the heretics who said that there was no resurrection of the dead could be argued with on the ground of their belief in Christ’s Resurrection. The whole Church with one voice asserted it. And there were hundreds of living men ready to attest it. It was not a handful of women who fancied they had seen Him once, very early in the dim twilight of a spring morning-but it was half a thousand that had beheld Him. He had been seen by them not once, but often; not far off, but close at hand; not in one place, but in Galilee and Jerusalem; not under one set of circumstances, but at all hours of the day, abroad and in the house, walking and sitting, speaking and eating, by them singly and in numbers. He had not been seen only by excited expectants of His appearance, but by incredulous eyes and surprised hearts, who doubted ere they worshipped, and paused before they said, ‘My Lord and my God!’ They neither hoped that He would rise, nor believed that He had risen; and the world may be thankful that they were ‘slow of heart to believe.’
Would not the testimony which can be alleged for Christ’s Resurrection be enough to guarantee any event but this? And if so, why is it not enough to guarantee this too? If, as nobody denies, the Early Church, within ten years of Christ’s Resurrection, believed in His Resurrection, and were ready to go, and did, many of them, go to the death in assertion of their veracity in declaring it, then one of two things-Either they were right or they were wrong; and if the latter, one of two things-If the Resurrection be not a fact, then that belief was either a delusion or a deceit.
It was not a delusion, for such an illusion is altogether unexampled; and it is absurd to think of it as being shared by a multitude like the Early Church. Nations have said, ‘Our King is not dead-he is gone away and he will come back.’ Loving disciples have said, ‘Our Teacher lives in solitude and will return to us.’ But this is no parallel to these. This is not a fond imagination giving an apparent substance to its own creation, but sense recognising first the fact, ‘He is dead,’ and then, in opposition to expectation, and when hope had sickened to despair, recognising the astounding fact, ‘He liveth that was dead’; and to suppose that that should have been the rooted conviction of hundreds of men who were not idiots, finds no parallel in the history of human illusions, and no analogy in such legends as those to which I have referred.
It was not a myth, for a myth does not grow in ten years. And there was no motive to frame one, if Christ was dead and all was over. It was not a deceit, for the character of the men, and the character of the associated morality, and the obvious absence of all self-interest, and the persecutions and sorrows which they endured, make it inconceivable that the fairest building that ever hath been reared in the world, and which is cemented by men’s blood, should be built upon the mud and slime of a conscious deceit!
And all this we are asked to put aside at the bidding of a glaring begging of the whole question, and an outrageous assertion which no man that believes in a God at all can logically maintain, viz. that no testimony can reach to the miraculous, or that miracles are impossible.
No testimony reach to the miraculous! Well, put it into a concrete form. Can testimony not reach to this: ‘I know, because I saw, that a man was dead; I know, because I saw, a dead man live again’? If testimony can do that, I think we may safely leave the verbal sophism that it cannot reach to the miraculous to take care of itself.
And, then, with regard to the other assumption-miracle is impossible. That is an illogical begging of the whole question in dispute. It cannot avail to brush aside testimony. You cannot smother facts by theories in that fashion. Again, one would like to know how it comes that our modern men of science, who protest so much against science being corrupted by metaphysics, should commit themselves to an assertion like that? Surely that is stark, staring metaphysics. It seems as if they thought that the ‘metaphysics’ which said that there was anything behind the physical universe was unscientific; but that the metaphysics which said that there was nothing behind physics was quite legitimate, and ought to be allowed to pass muster. What have the votaries of pure physical science, who hold the barren word-contests of theology and the proud pretensions of philosophy in such contempt, to do out-Heroding Herod in that fashion, and venturing on metaphysical assertions of such a sort? Let them keep to their own line, and tell us all that crucibles and scalpels can reveal, and we will listen as becomes us. But when they contradict their own principles in order to deny the possibility of miracle, we need only give them back their own words, and ask that the investigation of facts shall not be hampered and clogged with metaphysical prejudices. No! no! Christ made no mistake when He built His Church upon that rock-the historical evidence of a resurrection from the dead, though all the wise men of Areopagus hill may make its cliffs ring with mocking laughter when we say, upon Easter morning, ‘The Lord is risen indeed!’
III. There is a final consideration connected with these words, which I must deal with very briefly-the importance of the fact which is thus borne witness to.
With the Resurrection of Jesus Christ stands or falls the Divinity of Christ. As Paul said, in that letter to which I have referred, ‘Declared to be the Son of God, with power by the resurrection from the dead.’ As Peter said in the sermon that follows this one of our text, ‘God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.’ As Paul said, on Mars Hill, ‘He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.’
The case is this. Jesus lived as we know, and in the course of that life claimed to be the Son of God. He made such broad and strange assertions as these-’I and My Father are One.’ ‘I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.’ ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life.’ ‘He that believeth on Me shall never die.’ ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things, and the third day He shall rise again.’ Thus speaking He dies, and rises again and passes into the heavens. That is the last mightiest utterance of the same testimony, which spake from heaven at His baptism, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!’ If He be risen from the dead, then His loftiest claims are confirmed from the throne, and we can see in Him, the Son of God. But if death holds Him still, and ‘the Syrian stars look down upon His grave,’ as a modern poet tells us in his dainty English that they do, then what becomes of these words of His, and of our estimate of the character of Him, the speaker? Let us hear no more about the pure morality of Jesus Christ, and the beauty of His calm and lofty teaching, and the rest of it. Take away His resurrection from the dead, and we have left beautiful precepts, and fair wisdom, deformed with a monstrous self-assertion and the constant reiteration of claims which the event proves to have been baseless. Either He has risen from the dead or His words were blasphemy. Men nowadays talk very lightly of throwing aside the supernatural portions of the Gospel history, and retaining reverence for the great Teacher, the pure moralist of Nazareth. The Pharisees put the issue more coarsely and truly when they said, ‘That deceiver said, while He was yet alive, after three days I will rise again.’ Yes! one or the other. ‘Declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead,’ or-that which our lips refuse to say even as a hypothesis!
Still further, with the Resurrection stands or falls Christ’s whole work for our redemption. If He died, like other men-if that awful bony hand has got its grip upon Him too, then we have no proof that the cross was anything but a martyr’s cross. His Resurrection is the proof of His completed work of redemption. It is the proof-followed as it is by His Ascension-that His death was not the tribute which for Himself He had to pay, but the ransom for us. His Resurrection is the condition of His present activity. If He has not risen, He has not put away sin; and if He has not put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, none has, and it remains. We come back to the old dreary alternative: ‘if Christ be not risen, your faith is vain, and our preaching is vain. Ye are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in Christ’ with unfulfilled hopes fixed upon a baseless vision-they of whom we hoped, through our tears, that they live with Him-they ‘are perished.’ For, if He be not risen, there is no resurrection; and, if He be not risen, there is no forgiveness; and, if He be not risen, there is no Son of God; and the world is desolate, and the heaven is empty, and the grave is dark, and sin abides, and death is eternal. If Christ be dead, then that awful vision is true, ‘As I looked up into the immeasurable heavens for the Divine Eye, it froze me with an empty, bottomless eye-socket.’
There is nothing between us and darkness, despair, death, but that ancient message, ‘I declare unto you the Gospel which I preach, by which ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was raised the third day according to the Scriptures.’
Well, then, may we take up the ancient glad salutation, ‘The Lord is risen!’ and, turning from these thoughts of the disaster and despair that that awful supposition drags after it, fall back upon sober certainty, and with the Apostle break forth in triumph, ‘Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept’!
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
all = in (Greek. en) all.
went in and out. A Hebraism for life in general. Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Species). App-6. Compare Act 9:28. Deu 28:6. Joh 10:9.
among = over. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
21.] , since all this has happened to Judas, and since it is the divine will that another should take the charge which was his.
] This definition of the necessary qualification of an apostle exactly agrees with our Lords saying in Joh 15:27; , . See Prolegg. Vol. l. ch. i. iii. 5.
. . . ] An abridged construction for . . . .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 1:21. , it is necessary, it behoves that) So in Act 1:16.-) The genitive depends on , and is resumed in , Act 1:22, the order of the fact and of the words being elegantly appropriate.-, went in) in private. Comp. Joh 10:9, note, By Me-he shall go in and out, and find pasture. [A Hebrew phrase denoting constant intercourse.]-, went out) in public.- , over[7] us) as a Master. The preposition accords not only with went in, but also with went out.
[7] Among, Engl. Vers. Bengel, super nos; which perhaps may mean, in relation to us.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
these: Luk 10:1, Luk 10:2, Joh 15:27
went: Num 27:17, Deu 31:2, 2Sa 5:2, 1Ki 3:7, Joh 10:1-9
Reciprocal: Deu 1:13 – Take Zec 11:11 – that waited Luk 1:2 – which Act 6:3 – look Act 9:28 – coming
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
One of the qualifications required in the man to be placed in office as an apostle, is that of constant association with the others and with the Lord Jesus. This idea of being “with him” is set forth in Mar 3:14.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 1:21-22. The necessary conditions of apostleship were the having been an eye and ear witness of all that had taken place from the day the baptism of John until the day of the ascension.
The office of an apostle is briefly summed up in he statement, He must be a witness of the resurrection. This one event in the history of the Lord on earth is chosen as the central point round which all teaching respecting the life and work of Christ must cluster.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Judas having in the forementioned manner made void his office, and being gone to his own place, St. Peter moves the company, that another person may be chosen to fill up the place.
Where note, 1. The electors or persons choosing; namely, the hundred and twenty; these were the eleven apostles, the seventy disciples, and about thirty-eight more, all of Christ’s own kindred, country, or converse; not that these were all the believers that were found in Jerusalem, for he appeared to five hundred brethren at once, but these followed him continually, were of his family and society and of his immediate train and retinue, and appointed by him for the ministry: These therefore make the choice; and of one among themselves is the choice made.
Note, 2. The qualification of the person which St. Peter directs the company to observe in the choice they make of this new apostle; One that had accompanied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them:
That is, one that had followed Christ from his baptism to his ascension, to the intent he might be an authentic witness, both of the doctrine and miracles, but particularly of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: For the article of the resurrection includes many other articles of faith in it: for if he arose from the grave, he was buried; if he was buried, he died; if he died, he was born. Therefore the person whom they choose, was to be one that had accompanied with them.
Note, 3. That the apostles did not presume to ordain an apostle by imposition of hands; but the other apostles being chosen of God immediately, it was necessary that he who was to act in the same office, should be chosen after the same manner. Accordingly they cast lots, and leave the determination to God, who devolving it upon Matthias, he was thereupon numbered with the eleven apostles. Lots were used among the Jews for dividing inheritances, for composing differences, for determining elections; and how casual soever it seemed, God was the undoubted determiner of it. Therefore, to cast lots upon trivial occasions, and solemnly to appeal to God’s determination in ludicrous matters, is profanely to take the name of God in vain.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Act 1:21-23. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us Who have associated and conversed intimately with us, and attended all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, &c. That is, exercised his ministry among us, and presided over us, and so can testify of all he did and said; beginning from the baptism of John When he first entered on his ministry; unto that same day that he was taken up Into heaven; must one be ordained to be a witness To make up the number twelve, the number first chosen by Christ, answering to the twelve tribes of Israel. They might reasonably suppose that that number of the apostles, appointed by Christ, should be kept up; to be a witness with us of his resurrection That great and fundamental fact upon which the proof of his being the Messiah evidently rests, and of the circumstances which preceded and followed it. And they appointed two It is impossible, as well as quite unnecessary, that we should, at this distance of time, be able to assign a reason why the two that are afterward mentioned, and no more, were proposed as candidates. Perhaps a longer and more intimate acquaintance with our Lord than the other disciples present had enjoyed, might entitle them to a preference on this occasion. Joseph called Barsabas Some manuscripts read, Barnabas, but Dr. Benson seems to have assigned solid reasons for concluding this was not Barnabas the Cyprian, (Act 4:36,) of whom we read so often in this history, whose name was also Joses, or Joseph, (which are both the same,) but rather the Joseph mentioned Mat 27:56; and Mar 6:3; the son of Cleophas, or Alpheus, and brother to, at least, two of the apostles, James the Less, and Jude.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21, 22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on which Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appointment of an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. The qualifications, therefore, are found necessary to an election, must always be possessed by one who proposes to be a successor to an apostle. He states these qualification in the next sentence: (21) “Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) beginning from the immersion of John till the day he was take up from us, must one be made a witness with us of his resurrection.” There being no other instance in the New Testament of the selection of a successor to an apostle, this is our only scriptural guide upon the subject, and therefore, it is unscriptural for any man to lay claim to the office who has not been a companion of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection. The reason for confining the selection to those who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning, is because such would be the most reliable witnesses to his identity after the resurrection. One less familiar with his person would, certis paribus, be less perfectly guarded against imposition. Peter here, like Paul in 1 Cor 15 , makes the whole value of apostolic testimony depend upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
1:21 {8} Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus {t} went in and out among us,
(8) The Apostles do not deliberate at all, but first they consult and take guidance from God’s word: and again they do nothing that concerns and is incumbent upon the whole body of the congregation, without making the congregation a part of the decision.
(t) This kind of speech signifies as much in the Hebrew language as the exercising of a public and difficult office, when they speak of such as are in any public office; De 31:2; 1Ch 27:1 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Why did Peter believe it was "necessary" to choose someone to take Judas’ place? Evidently he remembered Jesus’ promise that the 12 disciples would sit on 12 thrones in the messianic kingdom judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28; Luk 22:30; cf. Rev 21:14). To be as qualified for this ministry as the other 11 disciples the twelfth had to have met the conditions Peter specified.
"In Act 1:21 Peter speaks not of being with Jesus but of going with him on his journeys. . . . This emphasis on journeying with Jesus, particularly on his final journey to the cross, suggests that the apostolic witnesses are qualified not simply because they happened to be present when something happened and so could report it, like witnesses to an accident. Rather they have been taught and trained by Jesus for their work. They shared Jesus’ life and work during his mission. In the process they were tested and discovered their own defects. That discovery may also be part of their preparation. The witness of the Galileans does not arise from casual observation. They speak out of a life and mission shared with Jesus, after being taught and tested. From this group the replacement for Judas is chosen." [Note: Tannehill, 2:23.]
"The expression ’went in and out among us’ [NIV] is a Semitic idiom for familiar and unhindered association (cf. Deu 31:2; 2Sa 3:25; Psa 121:8; Act 9:28)." [Note: Longenecker, p. 265.]
Having been a witness to Jesus Christ’s resurrection was especially important. The apostles prepared so that if Jesus Christ returned very soon and set up His kingdom on the earth they would be ready. Often in biblical history God replaced someone who proved unworthy with a more faithful steward (e.g., Zadok for Ahithophel, Shebna for Eliakim, Samuel for Samson, David for Saul, et al.).
These two verses provide the basis for distinguishing a technical use of "apostle" from the general meaning of the word. By definition an apostle (from apo stello, to send away) is anyone sent out as a messenger. Translators have frequently rendered this word "messenger" in the English Bible. Barnabas, Paul’s fellow workers, James, and Epaphroditus were apostles in this sense (Act 14:4; Act 14:14; 2Co 8:23; Gal 1:19; Php 2:25). Every Christian should function as an apostle since Christ has given us the Great Commission. Nevertheless, the Twelve were apostles in a special sense. They not only went out with a message, but they went out having been personally discipled by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. They were the official apostles, the apostles who occupied the apostolic office (Act 1:20) that Jesus established when He first chose and sent out the Twelve (Luk 6:13). As we shall see, Paul was also an official apostle though he had not been personally discipled by Jesus as the Twelve had.
This address of Peter (Act 1:16-21) is the first of some 23 or 24 speeches that Luke reported in Acts. About one third of the content of Acts is speeches. [Note: See Appendix 2, "Sermons and Speeches in Acts," at the end of these notes for a chart of them. See Neil, pp. 38-45, for a helpful discussion of the speeches in Acts; and M. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns.] This one is an example of deliberative rhetoric, in which the speaker seeks to persuade his hearers to follow a certain course of action in the near future. [Note: George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, p. 116.] How accurate did Luke attempt to be when he recorded the speeches in Acts?
"To an extent, of course, all the speeches in Acts are necessarily paraphrastic, for certainly the original delivery contained more detail of argument and more illustrative material than Luke included-as poor Eutychus undoubtedly could testify (Act 20:7-12)! Stenographic reports they are not, and probably few ever so considered them. They have been reworked, as is required in any précis, and reworked, moreover, in accord with the style of the narrative. But recognition of the kind of writing that produces speeches compatible with the narrative in which they are found should not be interpreted as inaccurate reporting or a lack of traditional source material. After all, a single author is responsible for the literary form of the whole." [Note: Longenecker, p. 230. See Witherington’s excursus on the speeches in Acts, pp. 116-20.]