Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 1:26

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 1:26” utilice nuestra app.

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

26. And they gave forth their lots ] Better, And they gave lots for them, in accordance with MSS. The process probably was that each member of the company wrote on a tablet or ticket the name of one of the chosen two; the whole were then placed in some vessel and shaken together, and that tablet which was first drawn out decided the election. The casting of lots, though not now permitted to the Jews (see Shulkhan Aruch Joreh Deah par. 179. 1), was used by a provision of the Mosaic Law (Lev 16:8) for the selection of one out of the two goats for the Lord. “The goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell” was offered for a sin offering. The Apostles had not yet received the Spirit which was to “guide them into all truth.” When the Holy Ghost had been given, they, as St Chrysostom notices ( In Act. Ap. Hom. III.), used no more casting of lots.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And they gave forth their lots – Some have supposed that this means they voted. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections:

The word lots, klerous, is not used to express votes, or suffrage.
The expression the lot fell upon is not consistent with the notion of voting. It is commonly expressive of casting lots.
Casting lots was common among the Jews on important and difficult occasions, and it was natural that the apostles should resort to it in this.

Thus, David divided the priests by lot, 1Ch 24:5. The land of Canaan was divided by lot, Num 26:55; Jos. 15; Jos 16:1-10; Jos. 17; etc. Jonathan, son of Saul, was detected as having violated his fathers command. and as bringing calamity on the Israelites by lot, 1Sa 14:41-42. Achan was detected by lot, Jos 7:16-18. In these instances the use of the lot was regarded as a solemn appeal to God for his direct interference in cases which they could not themselves decide. Pro 16:33, the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. The choice of an apostle was an event of the same kind, and was regarded as a solemn appeal to God for his direction and guidance in a case which the apostles could not determine. The manner in which this was done is not certainly known. The common mode of casting lots was to write the names of the persons on pieces of stone, wood, etc., and put them in one urn, and the name of the office, portion, etc., on others.

These were then placed in an urn with other pieces of stone, etc., which were blank. The names were then drawn at random, and also the other pieces, and this settled the case. The casting of a lot is determined by laws of nature as regularly as anything else. There is properly no chance in it. We do not know how a die may turn up; but this does not imply that it will turn up without any regard to rule, or at haphazard. We cannot trace the influences which may determine either this or that side to come up; but it is done by regular and proper laws, and according to the circumstances of position, force, etc., in which it is cast. Still, although it does not imply any special or miraculous interposition of Providence; though it may not be absolutely wrong, in cases which cannot otherwise be determined, to use the lot, yet it does not follow that it is proper often to make this appeal.

Almost all cases of doubt can be determined more satisfactorily in some other way than by the lot. The habit of appealing to it engenders the love of hazards and of games; leads to heart-burnings, to jealousies, to envy, to strife, and to dishonesty. Still less does the example of the apostles authorize games of hazard, or lotteries, which are positively evil, and attended with ruinous consequences, apart from any inquiry about the lawfulness of the lot. They either originate in, or promote covetousness, neglect of regular industry, envy, jealousy, disappointment, dissipation, bankruptcy, falsehood, and despair. What is gained by one is lost by another, and both the gain and the loss promote some of the worst passions of man boasting, triumph, self-confidence, indolence, dissipation, on the one hand; and envy, disappointment, sullenness, desire of revenge, remorse, and ruin on the other. God intended that man should live by sober toil. All departures from this great law of our social existence lead to ruin.

Their lots – The lots which were to decide their case. They are called theirs, because they were to determine which of them should be called to the apostolic office.

The lot fell – This is an expression applicable to casting lots, not to voting.

He was numbered – By the casting of the lot, sugkatepsephisthe. This word is from psephos – a calculus, or pebble, by which votes were given or lots were cast. It means, that by the result of the lot he was reckoned as an apostle. Nothing further is related of Matthias in the New Testament. Where he labored, and when and where he died, is unknown; nor is there any tradition on which reliance is to be placed. The election of Matthias, however, throws some light on the organization of the church.

1. He was chosen to fill the place vacated by Judas, and for a specific purpose, to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ. There is no mention of any other design. It was not to ordain men exclusively, or to rule over the churches, but to be a witness to an important fact.

2. There is no intimation that it was designed that there should be successors to the apostles in the special duties of the apostolic office. The election was for a definite object, and was therefore temporary. It was to fill up the number originally appointed by Christ. When the purpose for which he was appointed was accomplished, the special part of the apostolic work ceased of course.

3. There could be no succession in future ages to the special apostolic office. They were to be witnesses of the work of Christ, and when the desired effect resulting from such a witnessing was accomplished, the office itself would cease. Hence, there is no record that after this the church even pretended to appoint successors to the apostles, and hence, no ministers of the gospel can now pretend to be their successors in the unique and original design of the appointment of the apostles.

4. The only other apostle mentioned in the New Testament is the apostle Paul, not appointed as the successor of the others, not with any special design except to be an apostle to the Gentiles, as the others were to the Jews, and appointed for the same end, to testify that Jesus Christ was alive, and that he had seen him after he rose, 1Co 15:8; 1Co 9:1, 1Co 9:15; Act 22:8-9, Act 22:14-15; Act 26:17-18. The ministers of religion, therefore, are successors of the apostles, not in their special office as witnesses, but as preachers of the Word, and as appointed to establish, to organize, to edify, and to rule the churches. The unique work of the apostleship ceased with their death. The ordinary work of the ministry, which they held in common with all others who preach the gospel, will continue to the end of time.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 26. They gave forth their lots] In what manner this or any other question was decided by lot, we cannot precisely say. The most simple form was to put two stones, pieces of board, metal, or slips of parchment, with the names of the persons inscribed on them, into an urn; and after prayer, sacrifice, c., to put in the hand and draw out one of the lots, and then the case was decided. I have considered this subject at large on Le 16:8, Le 16:9; and Jos 14:2.

He was numbered with the eleven apostles.] The word , comes from , together with, , according to, and , a pebble or small stone, used for lots, and as a means of enumeration among the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians; hence the words calculate, calculation, c., from calculus, a small stone or pebble. From this use of the word, though it signifies in general to sum up, associate, c., we may conjecture that the calculus or pebble was used on this occasion. The brethren agreed that the matter should be determined by lot the lots were cast into the urn God was entreated to direct the choice; one drew out a lot; the person whose name was inscribed on it was thereby declared to be the object of God’s choice, and accordingly associated with the disciples. But it is possible that the whole was decided by what we commonly call ballot, God inclining the hearts of the majority to ballot for Matthias. Nothing certain can, however, be stated on this head. Thus the number twelve was made up, that these might be the fountains under God of the whole Christian Church, as the twelve sons of Jacob had been of the Jewish Church. For it has already been remarked that our Lord formed his Church on the model of the Jewish. See Clarke on Joh 17:1, c. As the Holy Ghost, on the day of pentecost, was to descend upon them and endue them with power from on high, it was necessary that the number twelve should be filled up previously, that the newly elected person might also be made partaker of the heavenly gift. How long it was found necessary to keep up the number twelve, we are not informed: the original number was soon broken by persecution and death.

ON the death of Judas there is a great diversity of opinion among learned men and divines.

1. It is supposed, following the bare letter of the text, that Judas hanged himself, and that, the rope breaking, he fell down, was burst with the fall, and thus his bowels gushed out.

2. That, having hanged himself, he was thrown on the dunghill, and, the carcass becoming putrid, the abdomen, which soonest yields to putrefaction burst, and the bowels were thus shed from the body, and possibly torn out by dogs.

3. That, being filled with horror and despair, he went to the top of the house, or to some eminences and threw himself down and thus, failing headlong, his body was broken by the fall, and his bowels gushed out.

4. That Satan, having entered into him, caught him up in the air, and thence precipitated him to the earth; and thus, his body being broken to pieces, his bowels gushed out. This is Dr. Lightfoot’s opinion, and has been noticed on Mt 27:5.

5. Others think that he died or was suffocated through excessive grief; and that thus the terms in the text, and in Mt 27:5, are to be understood. The late Mr. Wakefield defends this meaning with great learning and ingenuity.

6. Others suppose the expressions to be figurative: Judas having been highly exalted, in being an apostle, and even the purse-bearer to his Lord and brother disciples, by his treason forfeited this honour, and is represented as falling from a state of the highest dignity into the lowest infamy, and then dying through excessive grief. The Rev. John Jones, in his Illustrations of the four Gospels, sums up this opinion thus: “So sensible became the traitor of the distinguished rank which he forfeited, and of the deep disgrace into which he precipitated himself, by betraying his Master, that he was seized with such violent grief as occasioned the rupture of his bowels, and ended in suffocation and death.” P. 571.

After the most mature consideration of this subject, on which I hesitated to form an opinion in the note, See Clarke on Mt 27:5, I think the following observations may lead to a proper knowledge of the most probable state of the case. 1. Judas, like many others, thought that the kingdom of the Messiah would be a secular kingdom; and that his own secular interests must be promoted by his attachment to Christ. Of this mind all the disciples seem to have been, previously to the resurrection of Christ. 2. From long observation of his Master’s conduct, he was now convinced that he intended to erect no such kingdom; and that consequently the expectations which he had built on the contrary supposition must be ultimately disappointed. 3. Being poor and covetous, and finding there was no likelihood of his profiting by being a disciple of Christ, he formed the resolution (probably at the instigation of the chief priests) of betraying him for a sum of money sufficient to purchase a small inheritance, on which he had already cast his eye. 4. Well knowing the uncontrollable power of his Master, he might take it for granted that, though betrayed, he would extricate himself from their hands; and that they would not be capable of putting him either to pain or death. 5. That having betrayed him, and finding that he did not exert his power to deliver himself out of the hands of the Jews, and seeing, from their implacable malice, that the murder of his most innocent Master was likely to be the consequence, he was struck with deep compunction at his own conduct, went to the chief priests, confessed his own profligacy, proclaimed the innocence of his Master, and returned the money for which he had betrayed him; probably hoping that they might be thus influenced to proceed no farther in this unprincipled business, and immediately dismiss Christ. 8. Finding that this made no impression upon them, from their own words, What is that to us? See thou to that, and that they were determined to put Jesus to death, seized with horror at his crime and its consequences, the remorse and agitation of his mind produced a violent dysentery, attended with powerful inflammation; (which, in a great variety of cases, has been brought on by strong mental agitation;) and while the distressful irritation of his bowels obliged him to withdraw for relief, he was overwhelmed with grief and affliction, and, having fallen from the seat, his bowels were found to have gushed out, through the strong spasmodic affections with which the disease was accompanied. I have known cases of this kind, where the bowels appeared to come literally away by piece meal.

Now; when we consider that the word , Mt 27:5, which we translate hanged himself, is by the very best critics thus rendered, was choked, and that the words of the sacred historian in this place, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out, may be no other than a delicate mode of expressing the circumstance to which I have alluded under observation 6, perhaps this way of reconciling and explaining the evangelist and historian will appear, not only probable, but the most likely. To strengthen this interpretation, a few facts may be adduced of deaths brought about in the same way with that in which I suppose Judas to have perished. The death of Jehoram is thus related, 2Ch 21:18-19 : And after all this, the Lord smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease: and it came to pass that, after the end of two years, HIS BOWELS FELL OUT, by reason of his sickness; so he died of sore diseases; bethachaluim, with inflammations, or ulcers. The death of Herod was probably of the same kind, Ac 12:23. That of Aristobulus, as described by Josephus, WAR, book i. chap. 3, is of a similar nature. Having murdered his mother and brother, his mind was greatly terrified, and his bowels being torn with excruciating torments, he voided much blood, and died in miserable agonies. Again, in his ANTIQ. book xv. chap. 10., sect. 3, he thus describes the death of Zenodorus: “His bowels bursting, and his strength exhausted by the loss of much blood, he died at Antioch in Syria.”

Taking it for granted that the death of Judas was probably such as related above, collating all the facts and evidences together, can any hope be formed that he died within the reach of mercy? Let us review the whole of these transactions.

I. It must be allowed that his crime was one of the most inexcusable ever committed by man: nevertheless, it has some alleviations.

1. It is possible that he did not think his Master could be hurt by the Jews.

2. When he found that he did not use his power to extricate himself from their hands, he deeply relented that he had betrayed him.

3. He gave every evidence of the sincerity of his repentance, by going openly to the Jewish rulers:

(1.) Confessing his own guilt;

(2.) asserting the innocence of Christ;

(3.) returning the money which he had received from them; and there

(4.) the genuineness of his regret was proved by its being the cause of his death.

But,

II. Judas might have acted a much worse part than he did:

1. By persisting in his wickedness.

2. By slandering the character of our Lord both to the Jewish rulers and to the Romans; and, had he done so, his testimony would have been credited, and our Lord would then have been put to death as a malefactor, on the testimony of one of his own disciples; and thus the character of Christ and his Gospel must have suffered extremely in the sight of the world, and these very circumstances would have been pleaded against the authenticity of the Christian religion by every infidel in all succeeding ages. And,

3. Had he persisted in his evil way, he might have lighted such a flame of persecution against the infant cause of Christianity as must, without the intervention of God, have ended in its total destruction: now, he neither did, nor endeavoured to do, any of these things. In other cases these would be powerful pleadings.

Judas was indisputably a bad man; but he might have been worse: we may plainly see that there were depths of wickedness to which he might have proceeded, and which were prevented by his repentance. Thus things appear to stand previously to his end. But is there any room for hope in his death? In answer to this it must be understood,

1. That there is presumptive evidence that he did not destroy himself; and,

2. That his repentance was sincere.

If so, was it not possible for the mercy of God to extend even to his case? It did so to the murderers of the Son of God; and they were certainly worse men (strange as this assertion may appear) than Judas. Even he gave them the fullest proof of Christ’s innocence: their buying the field with the money Judas threw down was the full proof of it; and yet, with every convincing evidence before them, they crucified our Lord. They excited Judas to betray his Master, and crucified him when they had got him into their power; and therefore St. Stephen calls them both the betrayers and murderers of that Just One, Ac 7:52: in these respects they were more deeply criminal than Judas himself; yet even to those very betrayers and murderers Peter preaches repentance, with the promise of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, Ac 3:12-26.

If, then, these were within the reach of mercy, and we are informed that a great company of the priests became obedient to the faith, Ac 6:7, then certainly Judas was not in such a state as precluded the possibility of his salvation. Surely the blood of the covenant could wash out even his stain, as it did that more deeply engrained one of the other betrayers and murderers of the Lord Jesus.

Should the 25th verse be urged against this possibility, because it is there said that Judas fell from his ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his own place, and that this place is hell; I answer,

1. It remains to be proved that this place means hell; and,

2. It is not clear that the words are spoken of Judas at all, but of Matthias: his own place meaning that vacancy in the apostolate to which he was then elected. See Clarke on Ac 1:25.

To say that the repentance of Judas was merely the effect of his horror; that it did not spring from compunction of heart; that it vas legal, and not evangelical, c., c., is saying what none can with propriety say, but God himself, who searches the heart. What renders his case most desperate are the words of our Lord, Mt 26:24: Wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born! I have considered this saying in a general point of view in my note on Mt 26:24 and, were it not a proverbial form of speech among the Jews, to express the state of any flagrant transgressor, I should be led to apply it in all its literal import to the case of Judas, as I have done, in the above note, to the case of any damned soul but when I find that it was a proverbial saying, and that it has been used in many cases where the fixing of the irreversible doom of a sinner is not implied, it may be capable of a more favourable interpretation than what is generally given to it. I shall produce a few of those examples from Schoettgen, to which I have referred in my note, See Clarke on Mt 26:24.

In CHAGIGAH, fol. ii. 2, it is said: “Whoever considers these four things, it would have been better for him had he never come into the world, viz. That which is above-that which is below-that which is before-and that which is behind; and whosoever does not attend to the honour of his Creator, it were better for him had he never been born.”

In SHEMOTH RABBA, sect. 40, fol. 135, 1, 2, it is said: “Whosoever knows the law, and does not do it, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.”

In VIYIKRA RABBA, sect. 36, fol. 179, 4, and MIDRASH COHELETH, fol. 91, 4, it is thus expressed: “It were better for him had he never been created; and it would have been better for him had he been strangled in the womb, and never have seen the light of this world.”

In SOHAR GENES. fol. 71, col. 282, it is said: “If any man be parsimonious towards the poor, it had been better for him had he never came into the world.” Ibid. fol. 84, col. 333: “If any performs the law, not for the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he never been created.” These examples sufficiently prove that this was a common proverb, and is used with a great variety and latitude of meaning, and seems intended to show that the case of such and such persons was not only very deplorable, but extremely dangerous; but does not imply the positive impossibility either of their repentance or salvation.

The utmost that can be said for the case of Judas is this he committed a heinous act of sin and ingratitude; but he repented, and did what he could to undo his wicked act: he had committed the sin unto death, i.e. a sin that involves the death of the body; but who can say (if mercy was offered to Christ’s murderers, and the Gospel was first to be preached at Jerusalem that these very murderers might have the first offer of salvation through him whom they had pierced) that the same mercy could not be extended to the wretched Judas? I contend that the chief priests, c., who instigated Judas to deliver up his Master, and who crucified him-and who crucified him too as a malefactor-having at the same time the most indubitable evidence of his innocence, were worse men than Judas Iscariot himself and that, if mercy was extended to those, the wretched penitent traitor did not die out of the reach of the yearning of its bowels. And I contend, farther, that there is no positive evidence of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.

I hope it will not displease the humane reader that I have entered so deeply into the consideration of this most deplorable case. I would not set up knowingly any plea against the claims of justice; and God forbid that a sinner should be found capable of pleading against the cries of mercy in behalf of a fellow culprit! Daily, innumerable cases occur of persons who are betraying the cause of God, and selling, in effect, Christ and their souls for money. Every covetous man, who is living for this world alone, is of this stamp. And yet, while they live, we do not despair of their salvation, though they are continually repeating the sin of Judas, with all its guilt and punishment before their eyes! Reader! learn from thy Lord this lesson, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. The case is before the Judge, and the Judge of all the earth will do right.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

They gave forth their lots; the manner is not so certain, nor necessary to be known; but the whole disposing of the lot being from the Lord, as Pro 16:33, they were thus as it were immediately chosen by God, and were consecrated by Christ himself; no apostle ordaining another, but all of them being called and ordained by Christ.

He was numbered with the eleven apostles; the rest of the apostles, and the whole church, agreeing with that Divine choice which was made.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

26. was numbered“votedin” by general suffrage.

with the elevenapostlescompleting the broken Twelve.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And they gave forth their lots,…. Or “gave forth lots for them”, as the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions; for Joseph and Matthias; some for one, and some for another; and which were cast into a man’s lap, or into a vessel, and was no other than balloting for them; and so he that had the majority upon casting them up, when taken out, was declared the person chosen; or “they cast their lots”; that is, into an urn, or vessel; which lots had the names of the two persons on them; and into another vessel, as is thought, were put two other lots; the one had the name of “apostle” upon it, and the other nothing; and these being taken out by persons appointed for that purpose, the lot with Matthias’s name on it, was taken out against that which had the name of apostle on it, upon which he was declared to be the apostle: it may be that this was done in the same manner, as the goats on the day of atonement had lots cast on them, Le 16:8 which the Jews say was thus performed: there was a vessel which they call “Kalphi”, set in the court, into which two lots, which were made of wood, or stone, or metal, were put; the one had written on it, for Jehovah, and on the other was written, “for the scapegoat”; the two goats being, the one at the right hand of the priest, and the other at the left; the priest shook the vessel, and with his two hands took out the two lots, and laid the lots on the two goats; the right on that which was at his right hand, and the left on that which was at his left i; and so the goat which had the lot put upon him, on which was written, “for the Lord”, was killed; and that which had the other lot, on which was written, for the scapegoat, was presented alive; so the lot here is said to fall upon Matthias: or the lots being cast into the vessel, as above related, these two drew them out themselves; and Matthias taking out that which had the word apostle on it, the lot fell on him: the manner of Moses’s choosing the seventy elders, is said to be this k:

“Moses took seventy two papers, and on seventy of them he wrote, , “an elder”; and upon two, , “a part”; and he chose six out of every tribe, and there were seventy two; he said unto them, take your papers out of the vessel; he into whose hand came up “an elder” (i.e. the paper on which it was so written) he was sanctified (or set apart to the office); and he, in whose hand came up “a part” (the paper that had that on it), to him he said, the Lord does not delight in thee.”

And the lot fell upon Matthias; that is, either he had the largest number for him, their minds being so disposed by the providence of God; and it may be, contrary to the first thoughts and general sense of the body; since Joseph is mentioned first, and was a man of great character, and of many names and titles; but God, who knows the hearts: of men, and can turn them as he pleases, and to whom they sought for direction, inclined their minds to vote for the latter; or it was so ordered by divine providence, that in the casting or drawing the lots, the lot of the apostleship should fall on him:

and he was numbered with the eleven apostles; either chosen by the common suffrages of the people, as the word used signifies; or rather, he took his place among the apostles; he was registered among them, and ever after was reckoned one of them; Beza’s ancient copy reads, “with the twelve apostles”, their number being now complete.

i Maimon. Hilchot Yom Hacippurim, c. 3. sect. 1, 2, 3. Misn. Yoma, c. 4. 1. & Bartenora in ib. k Jarchi in Numb. xi. 26. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 15. fol. 218. 3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

He was numbered (). To the Jews the lot did not suggest gambling, but “the O.T. method of learning the will of Jehovah” (Furneaux). The two nominations made a decision necessary and they appealed to God in this way. This double compound occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Plutarch (Them. 21) in the middle voice for condemning with others. occurs in the middle voice in Ac 19:19 for counting up money and also in Aristophanes. with occurs in Lu 14:28 for counting the cost and in Re 13:18 for “counting” the number of the beast. The ancients used pebbles () in voting, black for condemning, white (Re 2:17) in acquitting. Here it is used in much the same sense as in verse 17.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

He was numbered [] . Only here in New Testament. See on counteth, Luk 14:28.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And they gave forth their lots; (lao edokan klerous autois) “And they doled out lots for them; the “they” who doled out or cast their votes were the one hundred and twenty, of the church who had companied with Jesus from the baptism of John the Baptist and from the Lord’s early ministry in Galilee where His church originated, Act 1:20-21; Act 1:11; Mat 3:17-17; Joh 15:16.

2) “And the lot fell upon Matthias; (kai epesen ho kleros epi Matthian) “And the dole, lot, or vote (of the majority) fell on or for Matthias,” whom God had chosen, Act 1:14, as He had earlier chosen the church, Joh 15:16; Joh 15:27.

3) “And he was numbered with,” (kai sungkatepsephisthe) “And he was numbered, identified, or counted in affinity with, or in colleague with,” the number of the other apostles. There is no reasonable cause to doubt that this church business transaction was of Divine order and had Divine Sanction, Mat 16:19; Mat 18:18.

4) “The eleven Apostles,” (meta ton endeka apostolon) “With the eleven Apostles,” again making up the twelve, number our Lord formerly or originally ordained, and concerning whom He pledged that they should set on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel in the Golden Millennium, Mat 10:1-7; Luk 22:28-30.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

26. They gave in their lots We will not, in this place, make any long disputation about lots. Those men who think it to be wickedness to cast lots at all, offend partly through ignorance, and partly they understand not the force of this word. There is nothing which men do not corrupt with their boldness and vanity, whereby it is come to pass that they have brought lots into great abuse and superstition. For that divination or conjecture which is made by lots is altogether devilish. But when magistrates divide provinces among them, and brethren their inheritance, it is a thing lawful. Which thing Solomon doth plainly testify, when he maketh God the governor of the event.

“

The lots (saith he) are cast into the bosom, and the judgment of them cometh forth from the Lord,” (Pro 16:33.)

This ordinance or custom is no more corrupt and depraved by corruption, than the corrupt vanity of the Chaldeans doth corrupt true and natural astrology. Whilst the Chaldeans go about, with the name of astrology, to cloak and color their wicked curiosity, they defame a science both profitable and praiseworthy. The same do those which tell men their destinies (as they call them) by casting lots; but it is our duty to discern the lawful use from the corruption. He saith the lots were given, that being put into a pot, or one of their laps, they might afterwards be drawn out. And here we must also note that this word lot is diversely taken in this place; for when he said before that Judas had obtained a lot of the ministry, his meaning was, (according to the common custom of the Scripture,) that he had a portion given him of the Lord. He speaketh afterwards properly, and without any figure of a lot, yet is it likely, forasmuch as the word גראל, (goral) is commonly used by the Hebrews for both things, that Peter meant to allude unto that which they were about to do, and that Luke had respect unto the self-same thing.

The lot fell upon Matthias. It came to pass as no man would have looked for; for we may gather by that which goeth before, that there was not so great account made of Matthias as of the other; for, besides that Luke gave him the former place, the two sirnames which Barsabas had do show that he was in great estimation. He was called Barsabas, (that is, the son of an oath, or of rest,) of the thing itself, as if he were some mirror, either of faithfulness and innocency, or of a quiet and modest nature. The other sirname did import singular honesty. This man, therefore, in men’s judgment, was the former, [superior;] but God did prefer Matthias before him. Whereby we are taught that we must not glory if we be extolled unto the skies in the opinion of men, and if by their voices and consents (76) we be judged to be most excellent men; but we must rather have regard of this, to approve ourselves unto God, who alone is the most lawful and just judge, by whose sentence and judgment we stand or fall. And we may oftentimes mark this also, that God passeth over him which is the chiefest in the sight of men, that he may throw down all pride which is in man. In that he addeth, that he was reckoned amongst the rest, he wipeth away all sinister note of rashness from the casting of lots, because the Church did embrace him as chosen by God on whom the lot fell.

(76) “ Eorum suffragiis,” by their suffrages.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(26) And they gave forth their lots.As interpreted by the prayer of Act. 1:24, and by the word fell here, there can be no doubt that the passage speaks of lots and not votes. The two men were chosen by the disciples as standing, as far as they could see, on the same level. It was left for the Searcher of hearts to show, by the exclusion of human will, which of the two He had chosen. The most usual way of casting lots in such cases was to write each name on a tablet, place them in an urn, and then shake the urn till one came out. A like custom prevailed among the Greeks, as in the well-known story of the stratagem of Cresphontes in the division of territory after the Doriar invasion (Sophocles, Aias. 1285; comp. Pro. 16:33). The practice was recognised, it may be noted, in the Law (Lev. 16:8).

He was numbered with the eleven apostles.The Greek word is not the same as in Act. 1:17, and implies that Matthias was voted in, the suffrage of the Church unanimously confirming the indication of the divine will which had been given by the lot. It may be that the new Apostle took the place which Judas had left vacant, and was the last of the Twelve.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

26. Gave forth their lots Their refers to the candidates, as the lots were supposed to belong to those who underwent their decision. For a method of casting lots, see our note on Joh 19:24. Grotius says they put two tablets, inscribed each with a name, into one urn; and into another urn they put one tablet blank, and one inscribed with the word Apostle. They then drew one from each urn, and the concurrence of the two decided the case.

The choosing of rulers, both sacred and secular, by lot, was very customary in Pagan and Jewish history. In both cases it was doubtless done under the assumption that Divine Providence decided the lot. By lot David distributed the functions of the priests, (1Ch 24:5,) and Moses assigned the inheritance of the twelve tribes, Num 26:52-56. Calvin says, “When magistrates divide provinces, and brethren their inheritance, the lot is a thing lawful. Which thing Solomon doth plainly testify: The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.” The Moravians use the lot religiously; and Mr. Wesley once adopted it from them.

Ordinarily, when a lot is deposited in a receiver, the train of events through which every lot passes is, of course, as truly controlled by a succession of natural causes as any event whatever. This train of causes is, indeed, immediately out of sight, and uncontrolled by any conscious human will. But as no divine interference is any more likely to take place because the process is concealed from our eyes, so the practice of deciding sacred things by lot is superstitious and absurd. It is only when, as in the theocracy or as in this case, the divine guidance is assured, that the sacred lot can be used. Then it is an act of committing the result to God, who, in his supreme wisdom, secures the event to accord with his will, either by overruling the volition or the motion of the depositor, or by some physical interference with the movements of the lot itself.

He was numbered An arithmetical word. That the legitimate number was permanently considered as filled is certain from Act 2:14; Act 6:2, where see notes. Paul, therefore, was not one of the twelve, but singly and alone the Apostle of the Gentiles.

The preparatories are now completed, and the lapse of the due fifty days from the crucifixion brings the PENTECOST.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And they gave lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.’

Choice by lot had been common in Israel right from the first giving of the Urim and Thummim which probably worked on the same basis. The Urim and Thummim appear to have allowed answers of ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘no answer’. It may be that it was the same here. We should note the forethought and prayer that accompanied this decision. The lots were not used lightly. Candidates for priestly offices in Israel were regularly selected on the same basis. Compare Pro 16:33, which does not mean that any use of lots produces the right results, but that it is so when used rightly and prayerfully. The lots could be shaken in a vessel, with the one that fell out giving the choice, or could be by throwing down objects and receiving the answer accordingly. But note that the lot was only called on once the choice had first been limited to two equally desirable candidates with little to choose between them, by the use of careful thought and consideration and prayer. It was not just a quick fix. It simply gave the Lord the last say.

The final selection was approved by the whole church, and Matthias was ‘numbered with the eleven Apostles’. He was seen as replacing Judas under the Lord’s instruction.

We should perhaps therefore note his involvement in the Apostolic ministry that followed:

He stood with Peter and the other ten on the day of Pentecost (Act 2:14).

He would be one of those who taught the early believers (Act 2:41).

He was one of those through whom wonders and signs were done (Act 2:43).

He was one of God’s servants through whom it was prayed that God would cause His word to be spoken boldly, accompanied by signs and wonders in the name of God’s holy Servant, Jesus (Act 4:29-30).

With the other eleven he stood and preached in Solomon’s porch when none dared join with them, and was held in high honour by the people (Act 5:12).

He was arrested along with the other eleven and imprisoned, and with them was released from prison by an angel during the night (Act 5:18-19), and went back with them at daybreak to the Temple, boldly to continue their ministry (Act 5:21).

With the other eleven he was set before the council and questioned (Act 5:27), and when they were reminded that they had been charged not to preach in the name of Jesus, was one of those who replied that they had no alternative (Act 5:28-32).

Along with the eleven he was beaten, and charged not to speak in the name of Jesus and let go, and subsequently rejoiced that he was counted worthy to suffer for the Name, and continued preaching and teaching (Act 5:40-42).

With the other eleven he stressed that no hindrance should be put on his teaching ministry (Act 6:2)

He remained with the other Apostles in Jerusalem when persecution caused the believers to be scattered (Act 8:1). It may well be that the persecution was at this time mainly aimed at the Hellenists.

He was still in Jerusalem with the other Apostles when they determined to send Peter and John to oversee the ministry among the Samaritans (Act 8:14). (Note there how Peter is subject to the authority of all the Apostles).

In chapter 15 he would almost possibly be a part of the general assembly that made the decision to accept Gentiles without circumcision and not put on them the whole burden of the ceremonial Law.

It is apparent then that Matthias was kept very busy and played his full part in the Apostolic ministry, even though we lose touch with him after chapter 15, as we do with most of the Apostles.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 1:26. And they gave forth, &c. This was, no doubt, most impartially adjusted, though we know not in what particular method. The honour which God had in peculiar instances conferred on inquiries by lot, (see Jos 7:14-15. 1Sa 10:20-21.) and the custom of fixing the offices of the priests in the temple, while in waiting there, by lot, (1Ch 24:5-7 and Luk 1:9.) might lead them to this turn of thought; or, very probably, they might have received an express revelation from heaven in respect to their mode of proceeding. Thus the number of the apostles of the circumcision was filled up again before the effusion of the Holy Spirit,that the Spirit might fall on Matthias in the same manner as upon the other eleven; and that he might not only have like spiritual gifts, and miraculous powers, but that they might be conferred at the same time, and in the same conspicuous and honourable mann

Inferences drawn from the character and conduct of Judas Iscariot. We have already made some reflections on the history of Judas. See on Matthew 26 : &c. From that character and conduct we now further observe, there arises “a strong proof of the truth of the Christian religion.” For in Judas we have a man, who in three respects particularly answers three distinct and most remarkable prophesies, and who, being thoroughly acquainted with the most secret conduct and views of the Lord Jesus, was therefore capable of detecting any fraud or imposture which might have been supposed to be carrying on by him;and yet this man, after having delivered up Christ through the strength of the temptations of avarice, ambition, and resentment, no sooner finds the consequence of what he had done, than his conscience, taking the alarm, makes him in the strongest manner retract, and attest his Master’s innocence, before those very rulers, to whom he had betrayed him but a few hours before; and to whom it is evident he had made no discovery of imposture, since they would not have failed, as well to have reproached him with it when he returned the money, as to have urged it against Jesus upon his trial, which yet they never did: and this man, finding that his retracting his evidence, or at least declaring the innocence of Jesus, had no effect with the chief priests, speedily put an end to a miserable being in an excess of grief and remorse. I have sinned, cried he, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood! an attestation to the innocence of Christ, so circumstanced, that it is scarcely possible to suppose a stronger; which nothing but the most thorough conviction could have extorted, as nothing but the deepest remorse could have hurried him on to so desperate a death, which, according to the idea of the Talmudists, was the punishment usually inflicted by the divine vengeance on such persons as bore false witness against their neighbours.

And Judas bore false witness against his Master and his God! Stirred up to a deed so execrable, by the vile temptation of miserable covetousness, he followed the blessed Jesus, not to partake of the riches of his spiritual kingdom, but in hopes of temporal power and wealth. As soon as he perceived the golden dreams vanish which he had formed, that there was no hope of temporal advantage from Christ, nay, that Christ was privy to the secret designs of his malevolent heart, full of resentment for his disappointed purposes, he, for a few silver pence, betrays his Master, whose innocence he perfectly knew, whose power he had fully experienced, and whose goodness and love had charms enough, one should think, to have engaged any heart but a covetous one.
And how do we see the crime of Judas, black and horrid as it is, daily re-acted upon earth, and repeated among professing disciples of Christ! How many are there, who prefer gold and temporal interest to their God, their Saviour, and their souls, and, strangely perverse, set so exorbitant a value on the gifts, as to forget, as to despise, as to betray the Giver! Covetousness is a crime above measure odious in the sight of God; whose liberal bounty freely extended to all his creatures, abundantly shews his abhorrence of it. Christ has given a particular charge against it, “Take heed and beware of covetousness.” St. Paul has stigmatized it with the opprobrious name of idolatry. It robs God of the heart; it robs our fellow-creatures of their due; it injures the poor and afflicted; and, what is worst of all, it robs the soul of everlasting bliss. Take heed therefore, and beware of covetousness.

One powerful reason to incline us to do so,a reason which should make the covetous heart bleed drops of blood, is, that the most execrable and horrid villany that ever was thought of, ever was heard of under the sun, was owing to covetousness; namely, the betraying to crucifixion the innocent Lamb of God. Nor let us suppose ourselves above the power of this lust; for who shall presume to be secure, when a disciple, an apostle, a preacher of righteousness, a worker of miracles, was yet seduced to sell his Master and his soul upon so sordid a consideration as thirty pieces of silver! This ought to put us all upon our guard; and the fate of Judas stands as a monument and perpetual admonition to all who make gold their god, and the fine gold their confidence.

We may observe again with respect to Judas, that, though never conscience was more distressed than his, yet was his sorrow wholly unavailing; and that for this plain reason, because he would not, he could not, (given over, as he then was, to a reprobate mind) fly for mercy to the blessed Lamb of God. Convinced that he had betrayed that Lamb to his crucifiers, and conceiving that there could be no grace for a wretch like him, he abandoned himself to all the horrors of despair, and, full of his own aggravated guilt, could bear the light no longer, but rushed from temporal into eternal punishment. For repentance by no means consists solely in, nor is its truth and efficacy to be gathered merely from, the inward anguish and sufferings of the mind. It is possible that these may be the most intense, and yet the sorrow utterly inefficacious. For such was the case of Judas, and such has been the case of many despairing sinners: they have seen their own guilt in its utmost horror, and most aggravated circumstances; and may have been ready with Judas to make restitution of their ill-gotten gains, and freely to confess their fault: but then they have been devoid of that humble and earnest application to the bleeding Redeemer, which is the only source of hope to the repenting soul; and which, as it is the only means whereby we obtain pardon, so it is the only means which can prevent or cure despair. This teaches us the heinous, the unspeakable guilt of self-murder; which is a voluntary cutting ourselves off from all possibility of the Redeemer’s mercy, a voluntary plunge into woe eternal, and misery unutterable. This fatal step for ever deprived Judas of hope and pardon, and he sunk into endless sorrow, and into the world of darkness, where there is no repentance, and where the doom is irrevocably sealed.

Upon the whole, from this example of Judas, we who, like him, are of the visible church of Christ, should take especial heed, that we deceive not ourselves by depending upon our outward privileges, while our hearts are not right before God, and our intentions are warped and biassed by worldly attachments. It behoves us to be especially careful, that we adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour by a suitable conduct; otherwise the excellence of our profession will serve only the more to enhance the severity of our future condemnation: and as Judas perished in the more extreme anguish, because he had been so particularly favoured by his Lord and Master, so shall we perish with aggravated confusion if we disobey a doctrine which is perfective of our higher happiness, and despise a Saviour who bled only to bless and to save. Judas could not bear the stings and arrows of his reproaching conscience; and all guilt, sooner or later, will find conscience as busy as it was with him. Let then the sinner reflect, who has lived days, and months, and years, in utter neglect of the God who created him,of the Redeemer who died for his soul.Let him think, what extremity of anguish will seize his soul, when death gives the last summons, and the future world is opening on his view! Ungrateful to his Father, his Saviour, his immortal Friend; neglectful of his own infinitely valuable interest, enslaved to concupiscence and sin, every circumstance of condemnation will crowd upon his mind; while his affrighted and tormented conscience anticipates the punishment to come. Let no man doubt of that punishment; the despairing sinner is a living proof: he carries his own hell with him; a worm within, which never dieth; a flame which never shall be quenched. It can only now be quenched; and now quenched only by one sovereign stream, the precious blood which flowed from the Lamb of God, when, betrayed by his own familiar friend, he died a willing sacrifice for the sins of the world.

REFLECTIONS.1st, St. Luke, the supposed penman of this book, addresses it, as he had done his gospel, to Theophilus his noble catechumen.

1. He reminds him of the former treatise which he had written for his edification and instruction, containing an account of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, laying the foundation of that Christian church on which they were to build, until the day in which he was taken up, continuing to instruct them in the nature of his kingdom, after that he, through the Holy Ghost, which the Father gave without measure unto him, had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen, commissioning them to preach his gospel, and, according to the plenitude of his power, enabling them for the arduous work.

Note; They who teach, must do: a minister’s practice must be correspondent with his precepts.

2. He mentions some of those many infallible signs which Jesus gave of his resurrection. He shewed himself to his disciples alive, convinced them fully of the identity of his person, was seen of them several times, in different places, during the forty days that he continued on earth; ate, drank, and conversed freely with them, instructing them in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, informing them of the nature of his kingdom, the powers they should be endued with, the success of their ministry, and the glory which was prepared for all the faithful.

3. Christ ordered them, at one of their solemn meetings, not to depart from Jerusalem, whither they had probably come from Galilee, after they had seen him on the mountain where he appointed them to meet him; but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me, fully and confidently expecting that Spirit whom the antient prophesies had foretold should be abundantly poured out in the days of the Messiah, and of whom he had so often spoken to them before his departure, as the Comforter whom he would send unto them from the Father, to enable them for the glorious work which was before them. For John truly baptized with water, and that was all he pretended to do; but ye, according to his declarations, shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence; receiving such abundant measures of light, grace, wisdom, courage, and utterance, as effectually to carry them through every difficulty, and make them successful in spreading the gospel, in defiance of all opposition. Note; We must patiently wait, and then we shall assuredly see the salvation of God.

2nd, The apostles had net yet quite dropped their expectations of the Messiah’s temporal kingdom, and the resurrection of Jesus probably flattered them with new hope.
1. They put the question therefore to him, whether at this time he would restore again the kingdom to Israel, raising the Jewish people to the highest pitch of grandeur, and bringing all the kingdoms of the earth in subjection to them: so hard is it to eradicate early prejudices.

2. Christ checks their vain curiosity. And, as the Spirit, which should be given them, would shortly rectify these mistakes, he tells them it was not for them to know the times or the seasons when those great expected revolutions should be brought about, which the Father hath put in his own power, and which are secrets concealed in the divine mind. Note; (1.) Secret things belong unto God. Curiosity to be wise above what is written, is foolish as well as fruitless. (2.) The uncertainty in which it has pleased God to leave us concerning future events, is graciously ordered, to the intent that we might be always prepared for that which God hath prepared for us.

3. He assures them, that poor, illiterate, and despicable instruments as they appeared, they should be endued with the most astonishing spiritual powers, through the mighty influence of the Holy Ghost, which should come upon them; when filled with zeal, courage, and wisdom, which none of their adversaries could gainsay or resist, they should be witnesses unto him, asserting his character as the divine Messiah, bearing testimony to his resurrection, publishing the glad tidings of salvation through his name, and confirming the truth of their words by the attestation of the most amazing miracles; beginning at Jerusalem, then going to the Samaritans, among whom, before, they had been withheld from preaching; and afterwards spreading the glorious gospel to the ends of the earth, not only among the dispersed Jews, but among the Gentiles also. Note; Gospel ministers must preach Jesus Christ, bearing witness to his grace and glory, and publishing to all, the free and full redemption, which is obtained for lost sinners through his infinite merit and intercession.

4. When he had spoken these things, while they beheld, earnestly regarding him, and duly attentive to the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, he was taken up; and with eager looks they followed him, till a cloud received him out of their sight; and, amid congratulating angels, he ascended to the throne of his glory. May I follow thee, Lord, with the eyes of faith now, and, when it shall please thee, ascend to behold thee face to face.

5. An angelic vision appears to them, as they stood gazing towards heaven after their dear Lord as he went up, willing to catch the last possible glimpse of him, and keeping still their eyes fixed on the place where he became invisible to them. Two celestial spirits in human forms, arrayed in white apparel, the emblem of their purity and grandeur, stood by them, and kindly addressed them, saying, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven, as if you expected your Lord and Master to return quickly to you? This same Jesus, which was delivered for your offences, and died on a tree, and is now taken up from you into heaven, and exalted to the mediatorial throne, shall so come in like manner, at the last day of his appearing and glory, in the clouds of heaven, attended by his angelic hosts, as ye have seen him go into heaven. O that we may be ready to meet him in that great day! O that the expectation of it may powerfully and continually influence our minds!

3rdly, We have,
1. The place whence our Lord ascended, the mount Olivet, about a mile from Jerusalem. There his sufferings began in the garden, and thence he entered into his glory as a triumphant conqueror, in full view of that devoted city, for which judgment was now prepared.

2. The return of the disciples. They came back to the city according to their Master’s orders, and when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, for greater secrecy. In that room probably they chiefly spent their time, with one accord, in prayer and supplications for the coming of that Comforter who was promised. The eleven apostles are particularly mentioned, all of whom kept close together, with the women, who had approved their fidelity, love, and zeal, in a very distinguished manner, and Mary the mother of Jesus, concerning whom we hear no more mention ever after; and his brethren, those of Christ’s kinsmen who now believed on him, (see Mat 13:55-56.) with many others. Note; (1.) It is good for the disciples of Jesus to unite together: the world is closely leagued against them. They need therefore maintain the closest fellowship with each other. (2.) Prayer is the blessed and constant employment of God’s people; and especially in all seasons of particular trial, when their faith and patience are called into exercise, they have need to redouble their supplications. (3.) Nothing can be denied to the united prayers of the faithful, who, with one accord, surround a throne of grace in the name of Jesus.

4thly, At one of those solemn meetings, where about a hundred and twenty of the disciples were assembled, Peter, the zealous servant of his Lord, stood up in the midst of them; not affecting to sit, as their master or superior, but proposing a matter to them as his equals. We have,

1. His speech. He addresses them as his friends, companions, and brethren in Christ; and having an important proposal to make to them, he reminds them of the fulfilment of the scripture in the wickedness and miserable end of Judas the traitor. As aggravations of his guilt, St. Peter observes,
[1.] The high dignity to which he was advanced. He was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry; and this but the more aggravated his sin and ruin. Note; Many are numbered with us, who are not of us; but a name to live, while persons are really dead in trespasses and sins, will avail nothing.

[2.] His sin was treachery. He was guide to them that took Jesus, a ringleader in iniquity, as apostates usually prove.

[3.] His end was notorious. His money, the wages of unrighteousness, served only to buy a field to bury strangers in; and, driven by the devil and a despairing conscience, he went and hanged himself: when the rope, or the place on which he hung, giving way, he fell; and his belly bursting asunder, his bowels gushed out; a fearful exit! of which great notice was deservedly taken; the fact being publicly known in Jerusalem, and noised abroad, insomuch that the people called the field purchased by this money, Aceldama, or The field of blood, with respect to the innocent blood, of which it was the price; perpetuating thereby the infamy, not only of the traitor who sold his Master, but of the rulers who tempted him to this atrocious deed. [See the Annotations.]

[4.] He cites the book of Psalms, in which the prophesy relating to Judas was found. Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein, Psa 69:25 and his bishoprick let another take, Psa 109:8.

[5.] He proposes to them, according to this prophetic word, that the sacred college should be filled up by the addition of one to their number, out of those who had approved themselves from the beginning faithful; and had been among the first who followed Jesus, and privy to all the transactions concerning him, from the time when he was baptized of John in Jordan, till his ascension to glory; that he might with them be a witness of his resurrection, of that grand article of faith, as well as of all the other glorious things relative to Christ’s divine mission and character. Note; (1.) None should be admitted into the ministry, but such as for a season have proved their fidelity to Christ, in a course of holy walking with him. (2.) They who have known Christ, and the power of his resurrection in their souls, cannot but make him the subject of all their discourses.

2. The church, approving the proposal, nominated two, Joseph and Matthias; and not knowing which to prefer, they applied to God, the Searcher of hearts, by prayer for direction, that he would be pleased to shew them which of these he had chosen to take part of that ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place, the dire abode prepared for fallen angels and rebellious sinners. Note; In our emergencies, we should never fail to look up to God for direction. Having commended the matter to God’s determination, they solemnly cast lots; when the Lord, at whose disposal the lot is, Pro 16:33 appointed Matthias, who was thenceforward numbered with the eleven apostles.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 1:26 . And they (namely, those assembled) gave for them ( , see the critical notes) lots i.e. tablets, which were respectively inscribed with one of the two names of those proposed for election namely, into the vessel in which the lots were collected, Lev 16:8 . The expression is opposed to the idea of casting lots ; comp. Luk 23:34 and parallels.

] the lot (giving the decision by its falling out) fell (by the shaking of the vessel, ; comp. Hom. Il. iii. 316. 324, vii. 181, Od. xi. 206, al. ).

.] on Matthias , according to the figurative conception of the lot being shaken over both (Hom. Od. xiv. 209; Psa 22:19 , al. ). Comp. LXX. Eze 24:6 ; Joh 1:7 .

This decision by the (Plat. Legg. 6:759 C; comp. Pro 16:33 ) of the lot is an Old Testament practice (Num 26:52 ff.; Jos 7:14 ; 1Sa 10:20 ; 1Ch 24:5 ; 1Ch 25:8 ; Pro 16:33 ; comp. also Luk 1:9 ), suitable for the time before the effusion of the Spirit , but not recurring afterwards , and therefore not to be justified in the Christian congregational life by our passage.

. . . .] he was numbered along with [108] the eleven apostles , so that, in consequence of that decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to be the twelfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark: “Non dicuntur manus novo apostolo impositae, erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus.” It is otherwise at Act 6:6 .

The view which doubts the historical character of the supplementary election at all (see especially Zeller), and assumes that Matthias was only elected at a later period after the gradual consolidation of the church, rests on presuppositions (it is thought that the event of Pentecost must have found the number of the apostles complete) which break down in presence of the naturalness of the occurrence, and of the artless simplicity of its description.

[108] in this sense, thus equivalent to (Act 19:19 ), is not elsewhere found; D actually has as the result of a correct explanation. The word is, altogether, very rare; in Plut. Them . 21 it signifies to condemn with . Frequently, and quite in the sense of . here, is found. * has only . So also Constitt. ap. vi.12.1.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

REFLECTIONS

Pause, Reader! on the very entrance at this sacred book of God, and mark well the blessed evidences here afforded of that most precious article of our faith, and hope; in the Lord’s return to glory. Jesus! we hail thee, as our risen, and ascended Savior! Thou art indeed gone up on high: thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men: yea, Lord, in the manhood of thy nature, thou hast all grace for men, even for thy rebellious children, that the Lord God might dwell among them. Send down, O Lord, the choice effusions of thy Holy Spirit; and remember Lord thy promise, in which thou didst say: I will not leave you comfortless, I will come unto you. Even so. Amen.

Reader! let it be our daily exercise of faith, to make this article of our Lord’s ascension, the constant subject of holy joy. There, would I say, as often as I consider the ascension of Jesus, there dwells the Lord Christ, in my nature, having accomplished redemption by his blood. The heavens must receive my God and Savior, until the times of the restitution of all things. And he is gone before, to take possession of the kingdom in his Church’s name, that where he is there they may be also. Moreover, by my Lord’s ascension, the justification of his whole redeemed is confirmed. Here, he offered his soul an offering for sin: and there, he presented it perfect before Jehovah. His sacrifice he made upon earth, as our Great High Priest: and in heaven, he still ministers, going in before the presence of God with his own blood. And by virtue of the everlasting efficacy of that blood, all heaven is perfumed; and the redeemed are sanctified. Hail! thou glorious, and ascended Savior! Send down Lord all thine ascension-gifts upon thy people!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Ver. 26. They gave forth their lot ] Either into the bosom, Pro 16:23 , or lap, or pot, or some other vessel in use for that purpose.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

26. . ] They cast lots for them, being a dativus commodi . The ordinary reading, whether is referred to the Apostles or to the candidates, would require . has been an alteration, to avoid the rendering ‘they gave lots to them.’ These lots were probably tablets, with the names of the persons written on them, and shaken in a vessel, or in the lap of a robe ( Pro 16:33 ); he whose lot first leaped out being the person designated.

.] The lot being regarded as the divine choice, the suffrages of the assembly were unanimously given (not in form , but by cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate thus chosen, and he was ‘voted in’ among the eleven Apostles, i.e. as a twelfth . That Luke does not absolutely say so , and never afterwards speaks of the twelve Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which to doubt this.

Stier seems disposed to question (in his Reden der Apostel, Act 1:18 ff., which however was a work of his youth) whether this step of electing a twelfth Apostle was altogether suitable to the then waiting position of the Church, and whether Paul was not in reality the twelfth, chosen by the Lord Himself. But I do not see that any of his seven queries touch the matter. We have the precedent, of all others most applicable, of the twelve tribes, to shew that the number, though ever nominally kept , was really exceeded . And this incident would not occupy a prominent place in a book where Paul himself has so conspicuous a part, unless it were by himself considered as being what it professed to be, the filling up of the vacant Apostleship.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 1:26 . , “they gave forth their lots,” A.V. But R.V. reads , “they gave lots for them”. R.V. margin, “unto them”. It is difficult to decide whether the expression means that they gave lots unto the candidates themselves or whether they cast lots for them i.e. , on their behalf, or to see which of the two would be selected. How the lot was decided we cannot positively say. According to Hamburger ( Real-Encyclopdie des Judentums , i., 5, p. 723) the Bible does not tell us, as the expressions used point sometimes to a casting, sometimes to a drawing out, of the lots; cf. Pro 16:33 : “Quo modo et ratione uti sunt Apostoli incertum est. Certum est Deum per earn declarasse Mathiam tum dirigendo sortem ut caderet in Mathiam juxta illud Pro 16:33 ” (Corn. Lapide). For the expression cf. Lev 16:8 . Hebraismus (Wetstein), so Blass. , i.e. , through shaking the vessel, Jon 1:7 ; cf. Livy, xxiii., 3; so in Homer and Sophocles , cf. Josephus, Ant. , vi., 5. : only here in N.T. “he was numbered with the eleven Apostles,” i.e. , as the twelfth. The verb is used in the middle voice for condemning with others, Plut., Them. , 21, but as it occurs nowhere else we have no parallels to its use here. Grimm explains it “deponendo ( ) in urnam calculo, i.e. , suffragando assigno (alicui) locum inter ( )”. But here it is used rather as an equivalent of ; cf. Act 1:17 (and also Act 19:19 ), (Blass and Wendt, in loco ) = , , , Hesychius. Wendt as against Meyer maintains that it is not proved that recourse was never again had to lots, because no other instance of such an appeal is recorded in Acts. But it is most significant that this one instance should be recorded between the departure of the Lord and the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and that after Pentecost no further reference is made to such a mode of decision. Cf., e.g. , Act 10:19 , Act 16:6 . With regard to the historical character of the election of Matthias, Wendt sees no ground to doubt it in the main, although he is not prepared to vouch for all the details, but he finds no reason to place such an event at a later date of the Church’s history, as Zeller proposed. To question the validity of the appointment is quite unreasonable, as not only is it presupposed in Act 2:14 , Act 6:2 , but even the way in which both St. Paul (1Co 15:5 ) and the Apocalypse (Act 21:14 ) employ the number twelve in a technical sense of the Twelve Apostles, makes the after choice of Matthias as here described very probable (so Overbeck, in loco ). No mention is made of the laying on of hands, but “non dicuntur manus novo Apostolo imposit; erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus,” Bengel. See also on Act 1:25 , and Act 13:3 .

Ascension of our Lord . Friedrich in his Das Lucasevangelium , p. 47 ff., discusses not only similarity of words and phrases, but similarity of contents in St. Luke’s writings. With reference to the latter, he examines the two accounts of the Ascension as given in St. Luke’s Gospel and in the Acts. There are, he notes, four points of difference (the same four in fact as are mentioned by Zeller, Acts of the Apostles , i., 166, E. T.): (1) Bethany as the place of the Ascension, Luk 24:30 ; Act 1:12 , the Mount of Olives; (2) the time of the Ascension; according to Acts the event falls on the fortieth day after the Resurrection, Act 1:3 ; according to the Gospel on the Resurrection day itself; (3) the words of Jesus before the Ascension are not quite the same in the two narratives; (4) in the Gospel the words appear to be spoken in Jerusalem, in the Acts at the place of the Ascension. Friedrich points out what Zeller fully admitted, that (1) has no importance, for Bethany lay on the Mount of Olives, and the neighbourhood of Bethany might be described quite correctly as ; (3) is not of any great importance (as Zeller also admitted), since Luk 24:47-49 and Act 1:4-8 agree in the main. With regard to (4), Friedrich is again in agreement with Zeller in holding that the difficulty might easily be solved by supposing some slight inaccuracy, or that the words in question were uttered on the way from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives; but he agrees also with Zeller in maintaining that the time of the Ascension as given in Luke’s Gospel and in Acts constitutes the only definite contradiction between the two writings. But even this difficulty presents itself to Friedrich as by no means insuperable, since the author has not attempted to avoid apparent contradictions in other places in the Acts, and therefore he need not have felt himself called upon to do so in the passage before us, where the book seems at variance with his Gospel (see pp. 48, 49).

But Friedrich proceeds to emphasise the many points in which the history of the Ascension in Acts reminds us of the close of the Gospel (see also Zeller, u. s. , ii., pp. 226, 227, E.T., and also Feine). Only St. Luke knows of the command of Jesus, that the Apostles should not leave Jerusalem, and of the promise of the Holy Spirit associated with it, Luk 24:49 , and Act 1:4-8 . So also Luk 24:47 reminds us unmistakably of Act 1:8 ; also Luk 24:52 and Act 1:12 , Luk 24:53 and Act 1:14 (Act 2:14 ) ( cf. also Act 1:5 and Luk 3:16 ). But there is no need to adopt Friedrich’s defence of the supposed contradiction with regard to the time of the Ascension. Certainly in the Gospel of St. Luke nothing is said of any interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension, but it is incredible that “the author can mean that late at night, Luk 3:29 ; Luk 3:33 , Jesus led the disciples out to Bethany and ascended in the dark!” Plummer, St. Luke , p. 569, see also Felten, Apostelgeschichte , p. 59, and Blass, Acta Apostolorum , p. 44. It is of course possible that St. Luke may have gained his information as to the interval of the forty days between the writing of his two works, but however this may be ( cf. Plummer, but against this view Zckler, Apostelgeschichte , p. 173), it becomes very improbable that even if a tradition existed that the Ascension took place on the evening of the Resurrection, and that Luke afterwards in Acts followed a new and more trustworthy account (so Wendt), that the Evangelist, the disciple of St. Paul, who must have been acquainted with the continuous series of the appearances of the Risen Christ in 1Co 15 , should have favoured such a tradition for a moment (see Zckler, u. s. ). On the undue stress laid by Harnack upon the famous passage in Barnabas, Epist. , xv., see Dr. Swete, The Apostle’s Creed , p. 68, Plummer, u. s. , p. 564, and on this point and also the later tradition of a lengthy interval, Zckler, u. s. For the early testimony to the fact of the Ascension in the Apostolic writings, and for the impossibility of accounting for the belief in the fact either from O.T. precedents or from pagan myths, see Zahn, Das Apostolische Symbolum , pp. 76 78, and Witness of the Epistles (Longmans), p. 400 ff. The view of Steinneyer that St. Luke gives us a full account of the Ascension in the Acts rather than in his Gospel, because he felt that the true position of such an event was to emphasise it more as the beginning of a new period than as a conclusion of the Gospel history, Die Auferstehungsgeschichte des Herrn , pp. 226, 227, deserves attention, and may be fitly compared with W.H [113] , Notes on Select Readings , p. 73.

[113] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

lots, lot. Greek. kleros. Same word as “part”, in Act 1:17.

numbered. Greek. sunkatapsephizo. Only here. See note on Luk 14:28.

with. Greek. meta. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

26. . ] They cast lots for them, being a dativus commodi. The ordinary reading, whether is referred to the Apostles or to the candidates, would require . has been an alteration, to avoid the rendering they gave lots to them. These lots were probably tablets, with the names of the persons written on them, and shaken in a vessel, or in the lap of a robe (Pro 16:33); he whose lot first leaped out being the person designated.

.] The lot being regarded as the divine choice, the suffrages of the assembly were unanimously given (not in form, but by cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate thus chosen, and he was voted in among the eleven Apostles, i.e. as a twelfth. That Luke does not absolutely say so, and never afterwards speaks of the twelve Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which to doubt this.

Stier seems disposed to question (in his Reden der Apostel, Act 1:18 ff., which however was a work of his youth) whether this step of electing a twelfth Apostle was altogether suitable to the then waiting position of the Church, and whether Paul was not in reality the twelfth, chosen by the Lord Himself. But I do not see that any of his seven queries touch the matter. We have the precedent, of all others most applicable, of the twelve tribes, to shew that the number, though ever nominally kept, was really exceeded. And this incident would not occupy a prominent place in a book where Paul himself has so conspicuous a part, unless it were by himself considered as being what it professed to be, the filling up of the vacant Apostleship.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 1:26. , they gave forth) They cast.- , their lots) the lots of Joseph and Matthias [not their own lots]. [With prudent consideration they had brought forward two out of the whole multitude, for the purpose of making choice between them: but there remained now no other way of deciding between these two, save that of casting lots.-V. g.] Whilst the apostles had the Lord with them, they had no recourse to lots; nor did they employ them after the coming of the Paraclete, ch. Act 10:19, Act 16:6, etc. [The Holy Spirit guided them]: but at this intermediate time alone, and in the case of this one business, they employed them most appropriately.-, he was numbered among) All acquiesced in the showing (the direction) of the Divine choice. Hands are not said to have been laid on the new apostle; for he was ordained by an altogether immediate call.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

they: Act 13:19, Lev 16:8, Jos 18:10, 1Sa 14:41, 1Sa 14:42, 1Ch 24:5, Pro 16:22, Jon 1:7

Matthias: Act 1:23

Reciprocal: Num 26:55 – by lot Jdg 20:9 – by lot against it 1Ch 25:8 – cast lots Pro 16:33 – General Mat 10:2 – apostles Act 2:14 – with 1Co 1:1 – an

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE ELECTION OF ST. MATTHIAS

The lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Act 1:26

The lesson of the festival of Matthias is emphatically one of encouragement.

I. The electors.First, note what a little band it was that gathered together to elect an Apostle in the place of the traitor Judas. The number of the disciples was about one hundred and twenty, and we are told by the historian Gibbon that the Roman Empire at that time contained a population of one hundred and twenty millionsjust one to every million. It was enough to make their hearts sink when they thought of the work that had been given to them. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Surely their hearts must have failed them when they thought of that.

II. Not the men but the work.And then notice, secondly, that of that little bandnay, of the inner circle of that little band, the chosen twelve, with Matthias among their number, how little we know of their individuality! If we take out of their number St. Peter and John, and perhaps Matthew, and St. Thomas, and St. James, we know little or nothing of the rest. Just a saying here and a saying there, and nothing more. Why is that? Is it not to encourage usthat the great thought is not the men but the work? The one great object they had before them was not to make a name in the world, not to hand down names that should be remembered and perhaps adored, but simply to give themselves up to the work of the Master.

III. The greatness of the work.And then, thirdly, notice what a great and enduring work it was. Let us look back on the world as it is presented to us at that timenineteen hundred years or so ago. There was one man who was lord of half the nations of the earthin power none could vie with him; in the wisdom of this world but few. What is left now? Here and there a name, and here and there a ruin. But, at the same time, there issued forth a nation among the most despised of the earth, twelve poor men with no sword in their hands, and but scantily supplied with the stores of human learning. They went forthnorth, south, east, and west, into all quarters of the world. They were reviled, they were trampled under foot; every engine of torture, every mode of death, was employed to crush them. And where is their work now? As has been eloquently said, It is set as a diadem on the brow of the nations.

Rev. J. H. Cheadle.

Illustration

There is in Westminster Abbey a well-known monument to the two greatest revivalists of old timesthe Wesleys, and on that monument are three sentences, taken from the arguments and the sermons of John Wesley. These three sentences seem to describe for us the three aspects of the great work of the Apostles and of the Church. When we think of it in the past we seem to think of it in these words: All the world is my parishwords which sound rather egotistical, perhaps, when referring to John Wesley alone, but words which express a great truth when we think of the workers in Gods Church. Thus runs the second sentence: God buries His workmen, but carries on His work. It is God Who is working in, and by, and through men, working out the salvation of the world. And the third sentence is: The best of all is that God is with us. Whether we look on the Church as a whole, and Gods work being done in the world; whether we look on that little part of it that we ourselves are privileged to dowhichever it be, this sentence rings true in our hearts, The best of all is that God is with us.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

The appointment of an apostle was such an important event, that I believe a full explanation should be made of the lot as a means of determining the selection. The word is from KLEROS, which Thayer defines, “An object used in casting or drawing lots.” He than explains the performance, “which was either a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood . . . the lots of the several persons concerned, inscribed with the: names, were thrown together into a vase, which was then shaken, and he whose lot first fell out upon the ground was the one chosen.” Fell is used figuratively, as it is used in Rom 14:4, where Paul uses the statement, “to his own master he standeth or falleth.” This also is according to Robinson’s definition for the Greek word for “fall” which is, “To fall to or upon any one, Act 1:26.” A natural question would be why such a thing as a “game of chance” would be used in determining the selection of an apostle. That was still in the period when the Lord used “sundry times and diverse manners” (Heb 1:1) to communicate his will to mankind. When He was pleased to use the lot on any matter, he would see that the proper piece would come out. That is the meaning of Pro 16:33, and it is the reason the apostles prayed that the Lord would “show whether [which] of these two thou hast chosen.” The inspired writer is the one who says Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles, which he would not have done, had the proceeding not been in harmony with the divine will. Hence we must understand that Matthias was the man divinely selected to take the place of Judas, and to fill out the original quota of the “twelve apostles.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 1:26. And the lot fell on Matthias. The lots alluded to here were probably tablets with the names of the persons written upon them, and shaken in a vessel or in the lap of a robe (Pro 16:33), he whose lot first leaped out being the person designated (Alford, Com. on Acts). This asking God directly to interfere in the choice of an apostle by guiding the chance of a lot, was not unfrequent in the history of the chosen people, especially before the invisible but direct sovereignty of Jehovah was partially superseded by the election of an earthly king. The lot we find used for the division of land, Num 26:55; Jos 18:10; in war, Jdg 20:20; for the royal office, in the case of the first King Saul, 1Sa 10:20-21.

In this solitary instance in the New Testament, to complete the number of the Twelve, broken by such a strange and awful crime, the hand of God was thus directly invoked, but never again. The Acts of the Apostles, a book to which in future ages the Church would often refer for guidance, contains no repetition of such an election, either in the Holy Land or in the Gentile countries. No church, from the days of the apostles to our own times (with the exception of the Moravian Church, Gloag, Com. on Acts), has ever attempted, in its election and choice of pastors, to follow the example of that first election in Jerusalem. The Church Catholic, while reverencing the unquestioned legality of the procedure in the choice of Matthias, has silently agreed to consider it as standing by itself in the history of the world, and as such never to be imitated.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Act 1:26. And they gave forth their lots That is, saith Grotius, they put two lots into two urns, the one containing the two names of Joseph and Matthias, the other a blank and the word apostle: and then drawing forth the name of Joseph and the blank, they knew that the lot containing the name of an apostle belonged to Matthias. This being in answer to their prayers, they concluded that Matthias was the man whom the Lord had chosen to the apostleship. The honour God had conferred on inquiries by lot, (Jos 7:14-15; 1Sa 10:20-21,) and the custom of fixing the offices of the priests in the temple, while in waiting there, by lot, (1Ch 24:5; Luk 1:9,) might lead them to take this method of knowing the will of God. Here, therefore, commenced in the Christian Church the proper use of the lot, whereby a matter of importance, which cannot be determined by any ordinary method, is committed to the divine decision. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles The rest of the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, so that for the future he made the twelfth of that venerable society of men.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

See notes on verse 23

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles