Preparation for Pentecost: Awaiting the Promise (1:12–26)

If 1:1–11 introduces the promise of the Spirit and provides the transition to the church’s ministry, 1:12–26 concerns waiting for the promise. In 1:12–14, Jesus’s followers wait in prayer for the promise; in 1:15–26, they also make preparations in faith for the renewal of their people. Parallels with the Qumran community on numerous points suggest that Luke in fact preserves early Palestinian tradition, though he freely composed the narrative in his own words and for his purposes.

In Luke-Acts, fulfillment often follows predictions immediately, but the fulfillment of Acts 1:8 in 2:2–4 is interrupted by “a problem left over from the Gospel,” as Johnson puts it. One of the twelve witnesses must be replaced. Yet there is also a sense in which 1:12–26 is not simply a “problem” but part of the preparation for Pentecost. Not only must the disciples be praying together (1:14; often linked with the Spirit’s descent [cf. Luke 3:21–22; 11:13; Acts 4:31; 8:15, 17]); the leadership structure for the righteous remnant of Israel must be restored (see comment esp. on ). Because the pivotal connection between Luke’s Gospel and Acts reinforces the continuity between Jesus’s mission, rooted in the heritage of Israel, and the Gentile mission, exemplified particularly in Paul, this transition in defining the character of God’s people is of paramount importance. (A righteous remnant of varying size had always existed within the larger ethnic-national entity Israel; the question at root here is what identifies this remnant at this stage in salvation history.)

If Jesus promised that the witnesses would be empowered (Acts 1:8), the apostles must also define for the community who the authoritative witnesses of the Jesus tradition are (1:22). The rest of the book of Acts, in fact, addresses the issue of witness (see comment above on ). Trusting Jesus’s promise, the disciples demonstrated their faith by preparing for the Spirit’s coming, establishing the witnesses who would carry out the mission once the Spirit came.

Although this narrative has some general significance for Luke (establishing “team” leadership structures remains important elsewhere in Acts, e.g., 13:1; 14:23), Luke is also concerned for specificity concerning the apostles’ number (1:20–22, 26) and identity (1:13, 26). The Spirit may inspire anyone to prophesy (2:17–18), but only the apostles chosen (1:2) by the Lord, who had been close to him in person (1:21–22), are guarantors of the Jesus tradition.

The genre of Acts suggests that Luke is interested not only in general moral applicability (common as this was in histories) but also in the history of the movement (most histories also were concerned with the foundations of present nations or movements). Further, he has both apologetic and theological reasons to emphasize that the apostles provided continuity with Jesus. Apologetically, this continuity underlines the accuracy of his report about Jesus and hence the movement’s continuity with Israel’s ancient faith. Theologically, it defines the contours of the movement that grows from the apostolic witness, contrary to others who might claim to speak for the movement. In particular, it will support the transition to the Gentile mission that the apostles approved (15:7–29).

Luke connects the more detailed scenes in 1:9–11 and 1:15–26 with a summary of intervening events in 1:12–14; this observation, however, does not exhaust the passage’s narrative significance. After returning from the Mount of Olives, the disciples do what Jesus has instructed: they wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit (1:4). Luke names the male disciples and mentions the women (notably Mary, Jesus’s mother) and his brothers (1:12–13), providing connections with the Gospel narrative that preceded in his two-volume account. Finally, he emphasizes that the believers were praying together (1:14), behavior that commonly precedes the Spirit’s coming in Acts (e.g., 8:15; see esp. Luke 11:13).

At some points elsewhere, Luke tidily mentions people’s return home after fulfilling some activity. The disciples returned to Jerusalem as the women had after their revelation (Luke 24:9) and like Zechariah after completing the days of his priesthood (1:23) and Mary after visiting Elizabeth (1:56).

The location, the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12), is of greater significance. It proved central to Jesus’s final days; this was where the crowds met him (Luke 19:37; not in Mark) and where he regularly stayed (Luke 19:29; 21:37; 22:39). Jesus was arrested there (22:39), connecting his arrest and passion with his exaltation. Most significantly, however, it reinforces the thought that Jesus would return in the same way that he had left (Acts 1:11), since Luke’s biblically literate audience expected the Lord’s coming to that mountain at the time of the parousia (Zech 14:3–5, a passage also apparently applied to Jesus in Mark 8:38; 1 Thess 3:13; Rev 19:11–14; and Luke 9:26). Although most of Luke’s original audience probably would not know this additional detail, apparently some other messianic figures also chose the Mount of Olives as a staging ground for establishing the kingdom, presumably in view of Zechariah’s prophecy (Jos. War 2.262; Ant. 20.169). (Luke and his audience may also know that Jesus gave an eschatological discourse there, though Luke does not explicitly repeat this information from Mark 13:3.)

Luke mentions the Sabbath day’s journey to show their proximity to the holy city (fulfilling Luke 24:49) but also to indicate that they continued to observe the law (cf. 23:54–56). This may be part of the Palestinian Jewish coloring that characterizes the early chapters of Acts; it displays significant knowledge (or a knowledgeable source) for a probable Diaspora Gentile. The measurement of a Sabbath day’s journey (Acts 1:12) need not imply that it was a Sabbath, but it implies that Luke’s sources thought in terms of such distances. Luke might expect his audience to take the forty days as a round number (“forty” often functions this way in the OT), but if he expects them to take it more precisely (hence his omission of his characteristic “approximately,” Luke 3:23; 8:42; 9:14; Acts 1:15; 2:41; 4:4; 5:7, 36; 10:3, 9; 13:19; 16:25; 19:7, 34; 22:6), this is probably forty-one days after the Sabbath of Luke 23:56.

A Sabbath day’s journey was between one-half and three-quarters of a mile and thus not a very long walk. Luke likely knows the popular measurement used also by Pharisees and reported in later rabbinic literature, namely, 2,000 cubits, estimated in various commentators (on the basis of varying cubit estimates) at about 960 yards, or 1,120 meters; this fits the distance from Jerusalem to the mountain’s summit, which overlooks Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. 20.169; War 5.70). This measurement was more generous than the normal rule at Qumran, which was 1,000 cubits, though 2,000 cubits was permitted when one was pasturing animals. Bethany, also mentioned by Luke as the site of the ascension (Luke 24:50), was on the eastern slope of the mountain (cf. 19:29).

The seventh day was already important in the Genesis creation narrative, but it became still more so in later tradition (e.g., Jub. 2), which declared that angels kept the Sabbath and that this day was holier than any other holy day (2:21, 30). Some later rabbis even said, in notoriously hyperbolic language, that the Sabbath outweighed all other commandments of the Torah. A well-educated first-century Jew such as Josephus could assume that Moses commanded Jewish people to assemble to learn the law together each Sabbath (Ag. Ap. 2.175), though the law itself commanded no such thing. The same writer testifies that Jewish laws required, and even the laxer Jews of Tiberias observed, retiring to one’s home for a dinner when the Sabbath began around 6:00 p.m. (Life 279).

Thus later rabbis meticulously detailed a fence around the Sabbath law. Most Jewish people allowed some exceptions, especially for saving a life. After Syrian troops slaughtered a thousand Israelites who refused to defend themselves on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:34–38), most Jewish pietists contended that the law would permit defensive warfare on the Sabbath (2:41). But any activity that could be done before the Sabbath was prohibited on the Sabbath. Although matters of life and death remained exceptions and common people were probably less particular, the Pharisees probably opposed minor medical cures on the Sabbath. Later rabbis expected that the Sabbath and all festivals be devoted partly to religious observance and partly to relaxation.

Under later rabbinic rules, which may or may not reflect earlier Pharisaic ideals, Sabbath violation was, in theory, worthy of death. Nevertheless, under the same rules it would have been impossible to have found someone sufficiently guilty of Sabbath violation to warrant execution in practice. The Essenes observed the Sabbath more strictly than others, probably sharing the view of Jubilees that death was appropriate for even minor infractions such as intercourse with one’s wife (Jub. 50:8) or fasting (50:12–13) on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in practice they commuted the biblical death sentence for its violation to seven years of excommunication.

Despite some pagan hostility toward Jewish Sabbaths, some Christians, probably especially Jewish believers in Jesus, continued to observe the Sabbath centuries later, just as many Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, convinced that the teaching remains scriptural, continue to do today. Nevertheless, some later rabbinic texts stereotype sectarians, probably most of them Christian, as challenging the Sabbath, suggesting that correct interpretation and practice of the Sabbath remained a major issue of controversy between many of Jesus’s followers and many of their Jewish contemporaries.

Should we infer from Luke’s mention of the Sabbath day’s journey that his ideal audience continued to keep the Sabbath? It is not clear that Pauline churches expected this behavior of Gentiles (Rom 14:5–6; Col 2:16), but Diaspora God-fearers would know the Sabbath and probably knew some customs surrounding it; Jewish believers continued to observe it, perhaps with some Gentiles (Rom 14:5). Certainly, Luke can refer to common Jewish festivals such as the Sabbath (twenty-seven times), Passover (Acts 12:4; Luke 2:41; 22:1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15), Pentecost (Acts 2:1; 20:16), and the Day of Atonement (27:9) without explanation, and sometimes he sounds as if Paul observed such festivals with other believers (cf. 20:6; perhaps 20:16), a not implausible scenario historically (cf. 1 Cor 16:8). Most Gentile Christians, whether as slaves or as other workers, would not have the liberty to stop work on the seventh day of every week, but they surely knew that it was the Jewish Sabbath (perhaps ideally applicable universally; see Gen 2:2–3). Compare comment at Acts 20:7.

One might suppose that the entire group was “staying” in one upper room, but Luke means only that they “habitually met there.” Even if some were staying there, certainly the women of Acts 1:14 were not staying there along with the men of 1:13, and it would be impossible for the 120 of 1:15 all to sleep there. Since upper rooms were typically approached from the outside by steps, those who entered would not need to disturb residents of the ground floor.

The home that welcomed them was certainly an exceptional one. Most people who lived in the cities of the empire were confined to crowded insulae, or tenements; they would not own their own upper room. Further, very few upper rooms could have accommodated so many people (cf. 9:37, 39; the one in 20:8 is large but probably not this large). Upper-city Jerusalem, however, had large homes rather than tenements, with central courts in Hellenistic fashion, and many of the homes included their own immersion pools. Yet few Jerusalem homes even in the upper city would hold more than fifty people, though a courtyard (which obviously would not occur in an “upper room” but could occur in the same compound) with a house or homes built around it could have accommodated more.

This is not to suggest that Luke is architecturally naive; he shows no sign of defensiveness that he strains his credibility (and is expending it on a nonmiraculous report at that). Not all homes were designed the same way; potentially a home could have an upper floor as large as the lower one, with members of the family living in each. More important, it is not clear that all the people were present during the entire day, and the 120 may represent a larger number than was usually gathered at one time, perhaps for a special meeting (1:15). It is doubtful that we should think of banqueters reclining on couches at this point; most of us with experience among the poor in the Majority World can testify that many impoverished churches and mosques there cram more people sitting (cf. 2:2), and certainly standing, into a room than we in the West would think possible. (It is also possible that large meetings like this one were not held in the upper room, although we cannot gather that perspective solely from the flow of the narrative.)

External evidence also indicates that a large number of sages had gathered in an upper chamber to make many decrees in the generation before Jerusalem’s fall; tradition claims that this included both Shammaites and Hillelites (m. Šabb. 1:4; t. Šabb. 1:16). Other sources speak of elders and sages in an upper room in Yavneh a generation after Jerusalem’s fall or of sages reclining in an upper room of a home in Jericho in R. Gamaliel II’s time (end of the first century C.E.). Other traditions also report sages meeting and sometimes voting in upper rooms of homes. An inscription shows that synagogues could include upper rooms (ὑίερῷα); at least some other early Christians also worshiped in them (Acts 20:8).

The definite article might suggest that this was a well-known upper room. The reader of Luke-Acts will infer that it is probably the same upper room that hosted the Last Supper (Luke 22:11–12) and perhaps was also the site of a resurrection appearance (24:33–36). Whereas Jesus took the disciples to the Mount of Olives to pray after leaving that upper room (22:39–40), here they gather in an upper room after leaving the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12) and praying (1:14). The upper room of Luke 22 was “large” and “furnished”; the home included at least one servant, since, in a home without a servant, a woman would generally be carrying the water (22:10). (Then again, the number of servants seems limited. If the household had several servants, a woman presumably would have been carrying the water.)

Given the relative unlikelihood that Jesus had many followers among the elite from the very beginning, it is possible that this home is that of John Mark’s mother (see Acts 12:12–13), as later tradition suggests. If this were the case, however, one might expect Luke to mention it here, allowing him to introduce some characters earlier. Even if the earliest passion tradition obscured the owner’s name to protect the owner, Luke’s Pauline connection (and Paul’s Markan connection) should have made this information available to him. Further, gatherings this large would not have escaped notice, making it less likely that the more secretive gatherings in time of persecution in Acts 12 would have occurred in the same home.

Some scholars argue for the traditional site of the Cenacle, in spite of the obvious objection that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E. In favor of their position, second-century evidence exists for a Christian presence in Aelia Capitolina; given the obstacles that Christians must have faced living there, their commitment to locating their heritage could allow for the traditional claim. Granted, the visible remains are late medieval, but the location might be roughly accurate.

This argument is debatable but not impossible. Exiles returning a generation or two after Jerusalem’s first destruction by conflagration still could remember and discern the remains of many sites (Neh 2:13–15; 3:1–31; cf. 7:4; 11:21). The case is similar in most cases of war devastation today. In upper-city Jerusalem, where homes were larger and more distinct, someone might be able to locate at least an approximate area; certainly, everyone knew where the Temple Mount was.

Still, the fire was severe in this area, and the argument for continuity with this site appears much more difficult than for some other traditional locations. Apparently, no complete buildings survived the destruction of 70, and archaeologists have differed over even whether the legion stayed in Jerusalem at this time (cf. Jos. War 7.5). Epiphanius’s claim of Jewish Christians assembling in this location in Jerusalem (Epiph. De mens. 14) appears reasonable, but this is much more modest than the identification with the Pentecost site first attested in Byzantine times and the site of the Last Supper attested in the fifth century.

Jesus undoubtedly selected twelve as representatives for the righteous remnant of the eschatological people of God, in a manner analogous to the twelve select leaders in 1QS VIII, 1. (See further comment at Acts 1:26.) Thus, selecting a twelfth apostle to restore the symbolic value of leaders for Israel’s remnant (Acts 1:15–26) fits well into this context of the Spirit and Israel’s restoration (1:6–8). The reason for a list of these names, however, invites further exploration.

Starting from Homer’s catalogue of ships (Il. 2.484–877), catalogues (e.g., of gods; genealogies; chains of proofs) became a common Greek literary form. Lists of heroes’ names were common, and their variants often suggest older tradition. Readers in later centuries could refer back respectfully to such lists (Philost. Hrk. 6.3; 7.2) and expand on them by means of traditions and literary imagination (6.3); this tendency may have aided the growth of traditions about apostles in later centuries. Ancient literature also sometimes included lists of disciples (e.g., Iambl. V.P. 23.104), whether the most prominent (35.251), a chain of successors who passed on the early tradition (36.265–66; m. ʾAb. 1:1–12), or a list of all known disciples’ names (Iambl. V.P. 36.267).

The designation “the twelve” undoubtedly is authentic tradition (given the embarrassment caused by Judas, not to mention Q material such as Matt 19:28//Luke 22:30, which did not suit typical Gentile Christians’ theology). The term was established tradition well before the writing of the Gospels (1 Cor 15:5) despite the likelihood that those who passed on the tradition knew that one of Jesus’s own disciples betrayed him (cf. possibly 1 Cor 11:23; the criterion of embarrassment). The variations in the lists among NT documents are slight, but the variations probably testify to the idea of a group of “twelve” more widely known than a standardized list of names. (Thus Luke both here and in Luke 6:16 has “Judas son of James” rather than Mark’s “Thaddeus.”) Since Luke mentions the “twelve” again only in Acts 6:2 and does not even mention “the apostles” after the Jerusalem council (15:6, 22, 23; 16:4), his primary interest in them seems historical rather than hagiographic.

The list of apostles here is identical to the list in Luke 6:14–16 except for sequence and the obvious omission of Judas. The changes in sequence are also minimal; James and John here intervene between Simon and his brother Andrew because the three had become a special group (Luke 8:45, 51; 9:28; cf. Mark 3:16–17; 14:33; though cf. Mark 13:3). Although pairs of brothers figure in Greek hero stories and lists, our sparser gospel tradition makes less of their joint activities (cf. Luke 5:10; 9:54; Mark 10:35, 41). Beyond that, only Bartholomew and Thomas change places. The following narrative (Acts 1:15–26) will explain the omission of Judas.

The mention of Peter first suggests his influential position (also Luke 6:14; Mark 1:29; 3:16; 13:3). Peter, who appears outspoken, often functions as spokesman for all the disciples, is part of Jesus’s intimate circle, and is recognized as a leader (Luke 22:31–32; cf. Mark 14:37). Hebrew burial inscriptions attest that biblical names were common in this period, and hence Jesus’s circle included three persons named James (lit. “Jacob”), four Simons (similar to the biblical Simeon), three Judases, and so forth. Patriarchal names were dominant in Diaspora Judaism, and Hasmonean names (though some of these were also patriarchal) in first-century Palestine.

“Simon” occurs in Palestinian (e.g., CIJ 2:117, §890; 2:126, §905) and Diaspora Jewish (e.g., 1:117, §165; possibly 1:138, §197) inscriptions and was one of the most common Jewish names in Egypt (see CPJ 1:29; 3:191–92). “Simon” was perhaps the most popular masculine name of the period, requiring a distinguishing name to accompany it (such as “Peter”). A Greek name (e.g., Lysias Or. 3.1, §96), it was readily identified with the patriarchal “Simeon” (see comment on Acts 15:14). “Peter” functions as a nickname, and nicknames normally signified something about the person. It translates the Aramaic Kepha, or “Rocky”; this was not a personal name in this period, though later it was common among Christians (and used as the baptismal name of a Jewish convert to Christianity).

As one would expect in an authentic list of names, some of the names were much more common than others; our extant evidence for ancient names is nowhere close to complete, though it is surely representative for the more common names.

“John” and its variant forms appear commonly enough. “Andrew” is a rare name, so far attested in first-century Palestine on only two ossuaries, never in the first-century Diaspora, and only rarely in the Diaspora outside the first century. Some scholars argue that “Thomas” appears as a first name in the sixth and seventh centuries and was not so used by first-century Jews. Most likely it is a nickname, meaning “twin.” The name “Philip” is much better attested, though it was not particularly popular, for first-century Jews in Palestine. We lack clear Jewish examples of the name “Bartholomew,” but it makes sense as “son of Tolmai” or “son of Talmai.” “Matthew” and variants such as “Mattathiah” and “Matthiah” (Acts 1:23) were very common among Palestinian Jews in the first century but very rare in the Diaspora.

Readers would understand “James of Alphaeus” probably as “James, son of Alphaeus.” The formula appears elsewhere—for example, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ ἱερέως (CIJ 1:291, §375), which probably means “Maria, [daughter] of the priest,” and Ἰωσήίου Σίμωνος (2:112, §880), presumably “of Joseph, Simon’s [son].” Different individuals with the same name (see further comment on Acts 1:23) were confused frequently enough that later writers sometimes tried to distinguish earlier people with the same name (who sometimes were probably not distinct). Because “James” (lit. “Jacob,” Ἰάκωβος) was a common name and two of the Twelve shared it, one needed to supply patronyms or epithets to distinguish them or others who also shared the name. Apart from James “of Alphaeus” and Alphaeus, Levi’s father, in Mark 2:14, the only attestation for James’s father’s name appears in a few other Aramaic names with halaf-roots. Given the name’s rareness, the Alphaeus who is father of Levi might also be father of James. But if so, if Luke’s and Mark’s Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) is Matthew’s “Matthew” (Matt 9:9), Luke seems unaware of the connection; he points to no clear connection between Matthew and James in his lists.

Josephus, ossuaries, and two disciples among the Twelve with the name attest the great popularity of the name “Judas” among first-century Palestinian Jews.

Simon’s surname, “Zealot,” translates an Aramaic word (קנאה) transliterated Καναναῖος in Mark 3:18; Matt 10:4; this might indicate that he had belonged to, or resembled a member of, the sort of revolutionary group later associated with the “Zealot” revolutionaries. But whereas “Zealot” could mean a particular kind of “revolutionary” to an audience after the first Jewish revolt (66–70), it is doubtful whether most people employed the term this way in the earliest period when Aramaic (the source of Mark’s designation) was the primary language. Alternatively, since we lack certain evidence for this title for a group of revolutionaries before 66 C.E., it may thus simply indicate that he was “zealous” in the law (See comment on Acts 22:3).

Evidence seems to tell against a unified revolutionary movement in first-century Palestine. The term “Zealots” applies strictly only to some, rather than to most, early Jewish revolutionaries; Josephus seems to reserve the title for a limited group. Indeed, Josephus employs the title primarily in his Jewish War and, apart from War 2.651, does not employ the title in this sense until War 4 (of the War’s seven books). Horsley and Hanson see the Zealots as peasant brigands in contrast to more educated levels of resistance.

Josephus portrays the revolutionaries as “brigands,” endeavoring to marginalize them from the mainstream Jewish population. Some modern scholars view the brigands before the Jewish revolt in the light of modern studies of social bandits. The revolutionaries and bandits of Jesus’s day may have had some support from Galilean villagers; at least Cumanus thought so (War 2.228–29). But it is not clear to what extent Galilean peasants really supported the goals of such bandits, especially in the Lower Galilee, whence Jesus came (see comment on Acts 9:31); one should also allow for the impact of some degree of urban unrest. Nevertheless, many bandits may have circulated among the peasantry.

Much of this brigandage before the first revolt may have been “prepolitical” rather than aimed at an overthrow of Roman domination, as the objective became toward the beginning of the Jewish War. Brigandage was common in antiquity and inevitably warranted execution if the brigands were captured. Yet revolution was always a possibility. Many dissatisfied persons opted to work within the system, but many likewise hoped for its overthrow eschatologically or otherwise. Even Josephus informs us that some of these fancied themselves kings (Ant. 17.285), suggesting that the authorities could view the line between revolutionary and messianic sentiment as thin (see Luke 23:2).

Although some Pharisees may have opposed the revolutionary ideal, many of the revolutionaries, though distinct from other Pharisees, seem to have carried out a basic Pharisaic ideology in a more militant manner. Sanders is surely right that the Fourth Philosophy was “largely Pharisaic in opinion” and its “members would accept no master but God (Antiq. 18.23; War 2.118).” Most of their ideas were probably widespread in early Judaism, and eschatological expectation probably fueled all levels of Jewish resistance. Both resentment against Rome and confidence that God would defend those loyal to him were also widespread. Josephus disparages “brigands” of all sorts except in the one case where he need not do so, the speech he creates for Eleazar.

Witherington points out that some Pharisees did “basic training” (Jos. Life 11–21) and that revolutionary leaders could send Pharisees in charge of military contingents (Life 197). In the earlier Jewish War, when the material is still sensitive, Josephus plays down both Pharisaic involvement in the revolt and Jewish involvement more generally, but in the later Antiquities of the Jews, a revolt as early as 6 C.E. appears part of a larger movement toward the revolution (Jos. Ant. 18.9–10, 23–25; Acts 5:34–35). Menahem in the revolt of 66–70 was descended from Judas the Galilean in the earlier revolt (Jos. War 2.433), and Josephus admits the revolutionaries’ theological commitments (Ant. 18.4–5, 23); in all, the evidence may not support the early use of the title “Zealot,” but it does support the continuing existence of simmering revolutionary sentiments through the early first century.

Luke often balances genders in his narrative where his information allows. The women, in general, hark back to the Gospel (Luke 8:2–3), especially to the passion and resurrection narratives (23:49, 55; 24:5, 10), providing a line of continuity and also an example of consistent faithfulness not found with the male apostles. The mention of Mary, in particular, connects the beginning of Luke’s second volume with the beginning of his first (Luke 1:27). Jesus’s “brothers” (naturally related to Mary) appear only briefly but may offer an alternative form of leadership (or at least contribute that of James) that is never clarified in Acts (cf. Acts 12:17).

Some Greek philosophic schools included women (see introduction, , ), although even in these schools they remained a minority. Thus Iamblichus, after listing all known names for male disciples of Pythagoras (218 of them, and where each was from), lists the best-known women from the movement (seventeen in number; Iambl. V.P. 36.267). Although Luke’s focus in the first two chapters of Acts is on the apostles, especially Peter, because of his theme, he pauses to explicitly mention the women present, as he often does (Acts 2:18; 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2; 17:4, 12; 22:4).

By referring to Mary, “Jesus’s mother,” in his introduction, Luke recalls the first two chapters of his first volume, which also evoke Jewish piety. Because the Holy Spirit overshadowed her in Luke 1:35, her reception of the Spirit may function paradigmatically for female servants (δούλας, Acts 2:18, a term elsewhere reserved in Luke-Acts for Mary alone, Luke 1:38, 48). But while Mary fills a special role in Luke (Luke 1:42, 48), her role is qualified in 2:48–50; 8:19–21; and 11:27–28; she too is a disciple. When Luke mentions “Mary,” he must specify which Mary he has in view, having mentioned several in his own work (hence “Jesus’s mother” here). Here he does use the fuller Jewish name “Mariam” (i.e., the Hebrew “Miriam”), which refers to Jesus’s mother except in Luke 10:39, 42 (1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 46, 56; 2:5, 16, 19, 34), but Jesus’s mother could also be simply “Maria” (1:41), a name shared with Mary Magdalene (8:2; 24:10) and with one or two mothers (Luke 24:10; Acts 12:12). “Maria” (also meaning “Miriam”) is one of the most common Jewish names of the period, appearing both in Jerusalem (e.g., CIJ 2:247, §1214; 2:274, §1284) and in the Diaspora. It was apparently not popular (despite the name of Moses’s sister) until Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess executed (and, in the eyes of many Judeans, martyred) by her husband, Herod the Great. After her death, the popularity of the name exploded. In its various forms, “Mary” was “easily the most popular woman’s name in 1st-century Palestine” across all social levels; the commonness of the name in Luke simply reflects its commonness in his genuine Palestinian tradition.

Luke distinguishes Mary from the other women perhaps partly because of her special role but, more to the point, because he did not mention her presence, or that of Jesus’s brothers, at Jesus’s final Passover in Jerusalem (unless she is designated “mother of James” in Luke 24:10, but this would be a strange description after the emphasis on her bearing Jesus in Luke 1–2). On the basis of their omission in the Synoptic passion narrative, some scholars suggest that Mary and Jesus’s brothers simply came to Jerusalem “to claim his body, as family members should.” But given the length of the journey, the Sabbath’s beginning on Friday evening and the discovery of the empty tomb early Sunday morning, they might have received the resurrection report at the same time as the crucifixion report had they stayed in Galilee for that Passover. Alternatively, James’s resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:7) could have drawn them to Jerusalem. So could have the apostles’ brief return to Galilee, suggested above (see comment on ).

More important, it is not clear that they would not have been in Jerusalem; if the family regularly made the relatively short journey from Galilee for Passover (Jos. Life 269; cf. Luke 2:41; John 2:13; 7:10), would they have avoided the city at the height of Jesus’s career? If Paul’s list of resurrection appearances is chronological, it seems plausible that James was near Jerusalem, like the recipients before and after him (1 Cor 15:5–8), though this suggestion is not provable. The apparently independent tradition in John (John 19:25) suggests Mary’s presence, though many scholars question John’s historical veracity (especially because he varies so far from the Markan story line, followed by Matthew and Luke). The brothers’ apparent lack of association with Jesus’s followers at that time could suggest either that they did not come or that the standard passion tradition had reason to omit their presence; but their presence cannot be ruled out. In any case, Luke’s failure to mention Mary in his passion narrative requires him to explicitly note her presence here in addition to “the women.”

Codex D, which seems to betray an antifeminist bias at other points, wrongly assumes that “the women” here are the apostles’ wives. But the apostles’ wives are nowhere else mentioned in Luke-Acts (though Peter’s wife is implied in Luke 4:38). For one who approached Acts after having recently heard Luke’s Gospel, the identity of “the women” would have been clear enough. They undoubtedly are those who appeared at the end of Luke’s Gospel: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James (Luke 24:10); also the women who followed from Galilee (23:55), who probably would be Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna (8:2–3); and other women (24:10; perhaps not specifically named by Luke or preserved in his oral sources because they were lower in status or simply forgotten).

The presence of these women may not be significant by itself; women certainly attended synagogues, and (against some scholars) we lack clear evidence for their segregation there. Moreover, although later rabbinic tradition exempted women from some prayer requirements incumbent on observant men, they were expected to participate in other prayers, such as the Tefillah, Mezuzah, and the after-meal benediction (m. Ber. 3:3). The significance is less in their presence than in their mention alongside members of the Twelve, a mention that reminds us of Luke’s consistent practice in telling of women’s as well as of men’s responses to Jesus (e.g., Luke 8:2; Acts 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2; 17:4, 12; 22:4).

Even if Mary occupies a special place in Luke’s story, this need imply nothing concerning his perspectives on women in general. A few “mythic women” attained heroic roles in Greek tragedy without thereby abolishing the system that restricted Athenian matrons to the domestic sphere. It is therefore important to survey Luke’s treatment of women in general before coming to conclusions about Luke’s perspectives on gender. Although this commentary briefly surveys women in business and as converts in Acts 16:13–15 and women working alongside husbands in 18:3, Luke’s perspective on women is treated especially in our introduction, (particularly sects. , ), which argues, contrary to some, that Luke’s perspective on women is strongly favorable, more so than that of most of his contemporaries.

Jesus’s brothers here must include James (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19; cf. Jas 1:1; Jude 1); though he is not named here, Acts 12:17 introduces him as if he is already known to Luke’s audience. Luke is able to take for granted some knowledge among his audience (cf. likewise 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9, 12). His presence here prefigures his leadership role later in the book. Despite his later role (and Paul’s apparent mention of him as an “apostle,” Gal 1:19), no prominence is accorded him here; he cannot be numbered among the Twelve in Acts 1:15–26 because he was not a witness of Jesus’s ministry (1:21–22). (This was due to his own hostility, according to a tradition not likely to have been invented; see Mark 3:21, 31–35; John 7:5).

Over the centuries, commentators have advanced various views regarding the identity of Jesus’s brothers. Jerome defended Mary’s perpetual virginity, arguing that there are different kinds of brothers. Barrett summarizes the views as follows:

The Helvidian (i.e., Helvidius’s) view: sons of Mary and Joseph after Jesus

The Epiphanian (i.e., Epiphanius’s) view: “sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage”

The Hieronymian (i.e., Jerome’s) view: cousins, sons “of Mary’s sister”

A more recent view: cousins from Joseph’s side, brought up as foster brothers

Although any of these views is possible, Barrett concludes, with the majority of scholars, that “the most natural meaning of ἀδελφός is blood-brother, that foster-brother is not impossible, and that cousin is very improbable.”

Jesus taught that disciples must be prepared to risk alienating and losing the support of their families for the sake of the kingdom (Luke 14:26; 18:29; 21:16), including by caring for the needy more than for near kin who were not so needy (14:12). Jesus had treated his own family accordingly, ranking discipleship above family ties (8:19–21; cf. 18:22–30); that his family now followed him (Acts 1:14) might encourage others who had to make similar sacrifices (cf. 16:31–32). Luke’s contemporaries probably would have found perfectly credible the portrait of a great sage’s not being believed by his brother (cf. John 7:3–5) but the brother’s being won over by the sage (cf. later Philost. Ep. Apoll. 44–45).

Although not unique to Luke’s work, prayer is a regular theme in Luke-Acts. Indeed, many interpreters have argued that prayer is viewed as the method through which God accomplishes his purposes and directs history. In Acts, it appears in 2:42; 3:1; 4:24; 6:4, 6; 7:59–60; 8:15; 9:11, 40; 10:2, 4, 9, 30–31; 12:5; 13:3; 14:23; 16:13, 16, 25; 20:36; 22:17; 27:29; 28:8.

This passage specifically links the prayer with waiting for the coming of the Spirit, as often in Luke-Acts (Luke 3:21–22; 11:13 [contrast Matt 7:11]; Acts 4:31; 8:15; 13:2). Early Judaism understood the divine spirit as an aspect of God and agent of God’s activity (see introduction, , , excursus), so by praying to receive the Spirit, the petitioners in this passage are, in a sense, praying to receive God himself (for such prayers, cf. John 14:13–17; Porph. Marc. 13.226–27). Jesus had taught about the kingdom (Acts 1:3) and the Spirit (1:4–5) earlier in this context, and these two themes occur again immediately afterward (1:6, 8). Now the disciples are praying for precisely these promised blessings.

A prayer for the coming of the Spirit (1:14) was also a prayer for the coming of the kingdom (esp. Luke 11:2, 13) because it was the Spirit who would empower the witnesses to take the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), something that would precede Jesus’s return and Israel’s restoration (1:6, 11). Prayer precedes the coming of the Spirit also in 4:31 (which includes prayer for signs and consequent boldness) and 8:15 (for the Spirit) and seems implied in 9:17 (cf. 9:11) and 19:6 (laying on hands could accompany prayer, as in 6:6; 13:3; 28:8). (Although Luke likes this pattern, he does not impose it on his material; 13:52 does not mention it, and 10:44 does not allow for an immediately preceding prayer for the Spirit, though the intense prayer experiences of both Cornelius and Peter directly led to it [10:2–4, 9, 30–31].)

Some scholars think that a particular place of prayer is in view here, in view of the definite article. The term προσευχή, employed here, frequently functioned as a designation for Jewish prayerhouses, which were clearly gathering places. These were always specifically Jewish; on only one occasion do we know of Gentiles using the term, and even then they applied it to a specifically Judaizing group. The title more common in Palestine, as regularly in the NT (even for the Diaspora) is “synagogue” (συναγωγή), but this difference in nomenclature should not lead us to think that prayer was a marginal activity there (cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.209). Perhaps in Jerusalem prayer was held more frequently in the temple, minimizing the need for synagogues to perform this function. This possible practice cannot, however, be assumed for all of Palestine (Matt 6:5; Jos. Life 277, 293). Although Josephus’s audience is a Diaspora audience, it remains significant that he calls a Galilean assembly hall a προσευχή (Life 277); this was a large building that may have held the entire citizen assembly on this occasion (Life 277–78). But the term functioned more in some parts of the empire than in others; “prayerhouse” is most common in Egypt but appears rarely in Rome, where (as in Palestine) συναγωγή is dominant. (On synagogues, see the excursus at Acts 6:9–10.)

Against the suggestion that Luke thinks of a particular place of prayer, we should remember that this title for prayerhouses was used mainly in the Diaspora, yet Luke, even when writing of the Diaspora, uses the term συναγωγή. Further, the definite article appears at points where a place cannot be in view (e.g., Acts 6:4); in the one place in Acts where the phrase may mean a meeting place for prayer, it can appear either with or without the article (16:13, 16). The phrase for “continue in prayer” (προσκαρτερέω τῇ ίροσευχῇ) is one that recurs in 2:42 and 6:4 (cf. also Rom 12:12; Col 4:2), indicating that this devotion to prayer continued to characterize the apostles (for whom it was a major priority, Acts 6:4) and was meant to characterize the Christian community as a whole (2:42).

That the believers acted with “one mind” (ὁμοθυμαδόν) suggests a theme that runs through Acts (2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25; see further comment on Acts 2:46). Indeed, their unity offers an inclusio framing the section regarding their preparation for the outpouring of the Spirit (2:1). The emphasis on unity is not of course unique to Luke; it was a common one in the Pauline churches as well (e.g., Rom 12:4–6; 1 Cor 1:10; 12:12–13; Eph 4:3–4, 13; Phil 1:27; 2:1–5; Col 3:14) and fits the Greco-Roman rhetorical and moralist emphasis on concord or harmony. To act “as one” also emphasized unity, acting in concert, in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., in Judg 20:1, 8; 1 Sam 11:7; 2 Sam 19:14; Ezra 3:1; Neh 8:1).

The appointing of leaders for the movement’s future, despite its modest numbers so far, indicates confidence in Jesus’s promise. These leaders would shepherd the massively growing church but also functioned as witnesses (Acts 1:8), repositories, and guardians of the tradition for the rest of the church (cf. 1:21–22). Like prayer (1:14), establishing the church’s future testifying leadership is a preparation for Pentecost, an act of faith. Even more generally, the church’s leadership is important for Luke (e.g., 6:3–5; 14:23).

Many scholars recognize that an important issue in this section is the choosing of a twelfth apostle because of the emphasis on Israel’s restoration. That Jesus originally chose twelve as the nucleus of a reconstituted or remnant community of Israel is widely accepted. The Qumran community also had a group of twelve leaders meant to signify an eschatological nucleus of the righteous remnant of Israel. The restoration of the Twelve here thus fulfills a theological purpose for Luke’s audience and for the earliest apostolic community.

The analogy with Qumran may be significant here more generally. In the Qumran scrolls, members of the sect appear to constitute the members of God’s covenant, those eligible for salvation. Although they did not usually apply the name “Israel” exclusively to themselves, they viewed themselves as a “miniature Israel,” with Levites, priests, and Israelites, and as the fulfillment of Israel’s history. Certainly, they portray themselves repeatedly as the “remnant.”

Some commentators believe that Luke inserts the account of restoring the apostolic number (1:15–26) into the previously existing story of disciples waiting for (1:14) and experiencing (2:1–4) Pentecost. This may well be true in terms of arrangement (the story does interrupt the flow of the narrative), though digressions were standard fare in ancient literature, including in Acts (see 11:30–12:25). Yet even if Luke has inserted the account, it would not mean that Luke invents this tradition; inserting preexisting material into new frameworks was common rhetorical practice.

Historically, there is no reason to doubt Luke’s claim that the early Christians sought another apostle, who turned out to be Matthias, to fill up again the number of the twelve chief witnesses. Luke might have reasons to wish to bring the number back to twelve, but then again, so would the earliest church, on whose traditions he depends. Early Christians would have hardly invented a betrayer among the Twelve (Luke 22:47); at the same time, after the betrayal the official number (if not the actual number) remains “the Twelve” in our earliest sources (1 Cor 15:5), inviting the sort of scenario Luke describes here. Unless Matthias was a Palestinian Jew specially honored by Luke’s Diaspora community (which is unlikely, especially since he nowhere appears in Acts again) or that of his source, it is unlikely that Luke would have invented a story about such a secondary figure (even apart from such an invention’s inconsistency with Luke’s normal historiographic practice; see introduction, –). Further, most groups would have recognized the importance of replacing leadership as quickly as possible for the sake of the group’s efficient functioning.

Some think that Luke views the believers as wrong to choose another apostle because they still misunderstood Jesus’s teaching, as in Acts 1:6. But this is not Luke’s perspective. Although it is likely true that the apostles wished to raise their number to twelve to prepare for the kingdom, we should not forget that in Luke (and Q) it was the reliable character Jesus who promised them this (Luke 22:30); further, Peter maintains this restoration expectation even when he preaches the gospel after Pentecost (Acts 3:21–26), and Paul also affirms a hope shared with the twelve tribes (26:6–7). The qualifications for membership in the Twelve in 1:21–22 are sensible (see comment ), and by these conditions, neither James nor Paul (the most frequent candidates proposed by those dissatisfied with Matthias) qualifies.

Many church assemblies in Acts addressed controversial issues (Acts 6:1; 11:2–3; 15:1–7; 21:21–22); the matter of choosing Judas’s successor, however, seems not so much controversial as necessary to prepare a united witness for the time when the Spirit would come (2:14). Peter speaks confidently and articulately (a far cry from his character as narrated before the resurrection), developing his argument from Scripture. The lot oracle (see comment on ) also suggests that the disciples acted in accord with God’s purposes. Some scholars contrast the peaceful meetings of the church in Luke’s narratives with the more chaotic scenes of assemblies hostile to the apostolic message.

Peter takes the lead role, as Jesus had promised (Luke 22:32; cf. Matt 16:18) and as fits Peter’s very visible personality in the Gospel (Luke 5:4–10; 8:45; 9:20, 33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:33–34, 54–62; 24:12, 34) and his being named first (5:10; 6:14; 8:51; 9:28, 32; 22:8; Acts 1:13). (Luke’s portrayal comports well with our other historical tradition: Peter’s role as leader of the disciples in the early church fits the unanimous testimony of our early sources.) Jesus had given Peter a special resurrection appearance (Luke 24:34; cf. 1 Cor 15:5); Peter was also first among the Twelve (Luke 6:14), and his family had reason for gratitude to Jesus from early in Jesus’s public ministry (4:38–39). But Peter also admitted his sinfulness (5:8), would be tested in a special way (22:31–34), and denied Jesus (22:54–62), allowing for character development; likewise, he must learn in Acts (Acts 10:28) and provide a suitable comparison for Paul the converted sinner (9:4).

That Peter “stood” to address the assembly fits the standard ancient practice for speaking in assemblies (e.g., 1 Cor 14:30), and its mention is characteristic of Luke’s style (Acts 5:34; 11:28; 13:16; 15:5, 7; 17:22; 23:9; 25:18; 27:21). “In those days” is a regular Septuagintal and Semitic idiom that also appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 1:5, 39; 2:1; 6:12; Acts 6:1; 7:41; 11:27). Peter speaking “in the midst” may recall Jesus’s role, which would be natural, given Peter’s leadership among the disciples (Luke 22:27; esp. 24:36; cf. 2:46; 4:30; for Paul “standing” in the “midst,” Acts 27:21); it probably, however, represents simply Luke’s characteristic style (Luke 4:35; 5:19; 6:8; 8:7; 10:3; 17:11; 21:21; 22:55; 23:45; Acts 1:18; 2:22; 4:7; 17:22, 33; 23:10).

That those gathered here are called the “crowd” (ὄχλος) may provide connections with Jesus’s speeches in the Gospel. “One hundred twenty” appears elsewhere as a round number, for example, for the minimum population of men in a village to warrant its own judicial assembly (according to some rabbis, m. Sanh. 1:6). It may relate to the sort of standard quorum attested in Qumran literature, which also had about ten members per (priestly) leader (1QS VI, 3–4; CD XIII, 1–2; cf. 1QSa II, 22); scholars who object to this sort of connection note that Luke’s count probably includes women (Acts 1:14), which Jewish quorums would not typically count. Further, Qumran, in at least some periods, probably did not include women, especially if (as many still think) the primary residents there were Essenes. Those who suggest that it simply represents an estimate of about ten times as many believers as apostles may also be correct; this would indicate the participation of all the community rather than a decision from the top (cf. 6:3, 5).

Luke includes a parenthetical remark about the number of disciples, perhaps preparing for the greater growth of the church to come (2:41; 21:20). The large number of disciples here is not surprising, given other traditions (see ); despite Mark’s (and Luke’s) focus on the Twelve, Luke is aware of a much larger number of disciples. He earlier reports the sending of the seventy-two (or seventy; Luke 10:1, 17); after the resurrection, he mentions the eleven “and all the others” (24:9).

Nor is the evidence limited to Luke; indeed, he emphasizes the more limited group of the “Twelve” more than our other sources do. If Paul reports that more than five hundred witnessed the risen Jesus on a single occasion (1 Cor 15:6), there is no reason to doubt that more than a hundred may have remained in Jerusalem at this time, especially if we take seriously Luke’s report that Jesus ordered his disciples to stay in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4). Luke’s numbers here are plausible enough; a well-known teacher at a given time might easily have about a hundred students and, over the course of some years, more disciples and many more adherents. Schools for Greek boys could hold 60 to 120 students and “ranged from a handful to two hundred in both grammar and rhetorical schools.” Associations in antiquity generally ranged from ten to twenty on the lower end to one to two hundred on the higher end. Given Jesus’s ministry of healing, he probably had hundreds of followers among the Galilean festal pilgrims.

Peter’s initial sermon had a respectable hearing that prefigures his greater ministry to come (Acts 2:41). This portrayal, while credible (as noted above), also would play well to Luke’s audience; an orator visiting a town needed to attract sufficient numbers for his initial audition or risk shame. One could address a large crowd in a usual place of prayer (cf. Jos. Life 277–78), as undoubtedly happened regularly in ancient synagogues. Peter may have addressed this (presumably mostly Galilean) assembly in Aramaic, though neither Luke nor any oral informants who could have communicated the substance to him had reason to show interest in or highlight it. His address, “Men, brothers” (Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), need not imply that on this occasion the women (Acts 1:14) were absent (cf. discussion about women’s participation in some Jewish gatherings above; comment on Acts 1:16 below); the masculine address was common rhetoric for addressing public assemblies (see comment on ) and appears even where gender-mixed audiences may be presumed (2:14, 22, 29).

That one of Jesus’s own intimate disciples betrayed him would have been an embarrassment to the rest of his followers. Following the regular practice of Jesus in the Gospel, however, Peter reaches into Scripture for principles addressing their situation. In 1:18–19, Luke interrupts this part of the speech temporarily to digress about Judas’s sorry end, vindicating God’s purpose in the situation.

Judas’s apostasy may have been an embarrassment in natural terms but could be explained as part of God’s plan, just as Jesus’s crucifixion itself was (2:23). That the speaker (Peter) also denied Jesus in the passion narrative may underline the difference made by the resurrection.

It is helpful here to digress momentarily to comment on Peter’s address to his associates. There is some question as to whether the title “men” is intended gender exclusively here (because the text employs a form of ἀνήρ rather than a form of the more gender-inclusive ἄνθρωίος). Some scholars have proposed that Peter treated the gathering like a synagogue and hence have suggested that the title is not gender-inclusive; but synagogues were not gender-segregated in this period, at least not so far as our sources indicate. Possibly because many people of status in the empire still regarded the public sphere as male, Luke protects the public image of the movement by emphasizing a male decision-making body here. But this solution is too narrow for Luke’s usage, since the phrase used here appears in other speeches, even to clearly gender-mixed groups (e.g., 2:29, 37). Luke instead simply employs the conventional vocative for such speeches. For discussion of the traditional title “men,” See comment on ; on “siblings,” see comment on Acts 9:17.

When Peter speaks of Judas as a guide to those who arrested Jesus, Luke’s audience would think of the fuller account of this betrayal in Luke 22:3–6, 21–22, 47–48. Treachery or betrayal was considered one of the most heinous offenses in antiquity, a breach of sacred trust. Most ancients regarded with disgust traitors against their own peoples; such behavior was worthy of death and invited the hatred of even one’s family. Disloyalty to friends likewise remained despicable (e.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442.13–14). In particular, to injure or kill those with whom one had eaten at table was a terrible offense from which all but the most wicked would normally shrink; such behavior was held to incur divine wrath. Those who eat together at table should not even betray friendship by slandering one another. This experience was a matter of shame and hardly likely to have been invented by the later church.

The Holy Spirit testified about Jesus through prophets in advance, just as the new prophetic movement would do retroactively (Acts 1:8; 2:17–18; cf. 1 Pet 1:10–12); the Spirit’s scriptural testimony is elucidated in Acts 1:20. By citing David as the psalmist, Luke may add to the comparison with the righteous sufferer a specific connection with David’s household (see 2:30); that is, if such a psalm applied to anyone, it would certainly apply to the Davidic king. David offers both inspired prophecy (Luke 20:42–44; Acts 2:25; 4:25) and a limited messianic model (cf. Luke 6:3; Acts 13:22, 34; 15:16).

To attribute Judas’s apostasy to God’s plan reinterprets the shame of this event in a manner analogous to that in which early Christians reinterpreted the shame of the cross (e.g., 1 Cor 1:17–25; 2:2; See comment on ). This seems evident also from Luke’s use of δεῖ, which often in Luke-Acts connotes divine necessity; one may compare especially the necessity of Scripture’s fulfillment, including regarding Jesus’s passion, in Luke 24:44.

The involvement of God’s plan also reduces the apparent shame and incongruity of a disciple of God’s chosen betraying him. This is a real issue of cultural honor and shame that must be addressed. Pupils occasionally became antagonists (Eunapius Lives 493); more often they turned out poorly and so reflected badly (in popular opinion) on their teachers (e.g., Alcibiades with Socrates). One could somewhat exonerate a leader blindsided by others’ unscrupulousness by attributing his naiveté to a benevolent disposition (e.g., Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.12), but obviously, this approach would not work for a prophet such as Jesus. God’s salvation-historical plan explains the case with Jesus.

Emphasizing that Judas belongs in the category of a traitor rather than merely a failed disciple may help alleviate the shame. States treated traitors as among the worst of criminals (Xen. Hell. 1.7.22), and betrayal of intimate friendships was no less awful. Some also felt that those who were once good but became bad merited greater punishment.

Peter begins by noting that Judas the traitor had received the same privileges of calling that the other eleven had; Judas is described as being “numbered” with them for their “service” and “lot” (see below). In the context of Luke’s entire work, Judas’s failure to persevere sounds a warning to other would-be disciples (Luke 8:12–13; 9:62; Acts 8:20–24; 14:22; 20:26–30), though it was also possible to sin yet be restored (Luke 22:32; Acts 8:22–24). In its immediate context, though, it has created a problem that must be resolved. Most Jews thought of apostasy as a particularly heinous crime, yielding severe divine punishment; when possible, it would yield human punishment as well.

Peter describes the apostolic calling here as a “service” (διακονίας) in which Judas once shared (also in Acts 1:25). Luke elsewhere refers to such “service” as the sort of work done by women (Luke 4:39; 10:40) and slaves who wait on tables (12:37; 17:8), a role Jesus himself filled (22:26–27). The apostles ultimately must relinquish literally waiting on tables (Acts 6:1–2), but only so that they can devote themselves to “serving” the message (6:4).

Peter also describes this calling in terms of a “portion” or “lot” (κλῆρον) in the service. This description reinforces the fact that possessors of the office were chosen by divine purpose, including the betrayer. Just as God “allotted” to Levites their specific duties (see 1 Chr 24:5, 7, 21; 25:8–9, 13–14), God also assigned particular roles to Jesus’s various disciples; one tenth of the 120 disciples here might be allotted to apostleship, as the lot determined which tenth of the people would abandon their land to resettle Jerusalem (Neh 11:1). God gave the Levites the “lot” of their ministry rather than land (Deut 10:9; 18:1–2; cf. also Num 18:21; Deut 12:12; 14:27, 29); likewise, God was the one who chose Jesus’s witnesses for a special calling that left little room for unjust “wages” (Acts 1:18; cf. Luke 12:13–48, esp. 12:41–42; Acts 3:6; 1 Cor 4:11). Money could not purchase a “lot” in God’s calling (Acts 8:21), and the one who betrayed his calling for land would be left with desolation on his land (1:20). Judas abandoned his “portion” (1:17); thus the next apostle would need to be chosen by “lot” (1:26). (The scriptural argument in 1:17, 20, may resemble an incomplete syllogism.)

Luke adds an explanatory aside here to inform the reader what has happened to Judas since his betrayal in Luke 22:47–48 and Jesus’s prediction that a terrible fate awaited him (22:21–22). Just as the Iliad uses digressions to catch the reader up on earlier parts of the Trojan War (such as Calchas and Iphigeneia) and the Odyssey uses them to survey what has transpired since the close of the Iliad, Luke uses a digression here, probably to inform the reader what has happened since the end of his Gospel or at least since his last mention of Judas. Digressions were common practice among ancient historians, as among many modern ones. This was also true in other genres. Luke often avoids them but sometimes inserts them at seemingly awkward moments (here and Acts 2:7–11), perhaps for emphasis.

As scholars often note, disembowelment or bowel pains were considered a particularly painful and appropriate way for a wicked person to die (e.g., Agrippa’s stomach pains, Jos. Ant. 19.346–50, though not elaborated in Acts 12:23). But they also provide a graphic image for a terrible death that is not limited to the wicked (e.g., 2 Sam 2:23; 3:27; 20:10, 12). Historians were not above reporting the later suffering of an evil character in the account as just deserts for evil behavior. The gruesome reports of Judas’s death here and in Matt 27:5 help conform his death “to that of other notoriously evil men, such as Herod the Great or Nadan in the story of Ahikar.” Judas’s death, like that of Herod (Acts 12:23) and Ananias (5:5), warns Luke’s audience of the dangers of opposing the kingdom.

That the field is “of blood” (1:19) reinforces the goriness of Judas’s end (1:18), although “Field of Blood” is from tradition (see discussion below). It may also draw attention to Judas’s bloodguilt, a concept that Luke elsewhere reflects (Luke 11:50–51; Acts 5:28; though he does not explicitly associate this language with Judas as Matthew does in Matt 27:4, 6, 8). Jewish sources sometimes spoke of God’s bringing “like” punishments, analogous to the crimes, in Scripture (Exod 1:22; 7:20; 12:29; 14:27–28; Prov 26:27) and very frequently in early Jewish tradition. Gentiles, too, understood the concept.

Multiple accounts emphasize Judas’s terrible end. Yet Matthew’s version of Judas’s demise differs at key points from Luke’s and also from another early version in Papias. Is it possible to reconcile these accounts or at least to find a core of common tradition? Papias claims that Judas was so inhumanly (we might add, supernaturally) swollen that not even his head could pass where a wagon would, until worms and pus emerged from every part of his body, leading to terrible pain (frg. 24). This account appears later, sounds less plausible, and may derive from garbled oral traditions based on the earlier accounts reported in Matthew and Luke.

Thus we focus especially on the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts. Judas’s hanging in Matthew recalls especially Ahithophel, who betrayed King David (2 Sam 17:23; Jos. Ant. 7.229). Davies and Allison doubt Matthew’s account for this reason but Acts’ account even more, noting that “the bursting of the bowels must be reckoned a conventional fate for the wicked.” But as noted above, convention could supply a reason for historians to emphasize a tradition without their having composed it.

The comparison with other gory accounts remains relevant even if it is Judas’s corpse that experiences this disfigurement (rather than Judas, alive, experiencing a painful end). But the sources suggest that historical as well as novelistic disembowelments happened, including to people whose enemies would be happy to report this end for them. Further, if at least Matthew’s tradition that Judas died by suicide is correct (certainly disputed but explaining his quick disappearance), both Matthew and Luke provide plausible pictures of how such a suicide could have occurred (though Matthew’s report represents the more common method). Hanging constituted a common form of suicide, though many considered it a particularly dishonorable method (as opposed to falling on one’s sword; cf. comment on Acts 16:27). Jumping to one’s death was less common but appears as a form of suicide at times (e.g., Cic. Scaur. 3.4); it could be presented as one method of suicide alongside of (but not compatible with) hanging (Lucan C.W. 2.154–58).

Although full harmonization appears historically implausible here, I admit that the conflict between the two accounts should not be overstated. Contrary to what some scholars suppose, it is not impossible to harmonize Matthew’s depiction of hanging with Luke’s depiction of bowels bursting; stranger “contradictions” in oral sources have, in fact, been verified as stemming from accurate facts. This congruency is not likely to be found in the occasionally proposed harmonization that the weak, makeshift rope broke during the suicide attempt or that, as an ancient tradition proposed, someone cut him down before he died. Such incidents were not, of course, impossible or unknown. Thus the elder Seneca describes theoretically a person who hangs himself from a tree unsuccessfully because someone cuts the noose, saving him against his will (Sen. E. Controv. 5.1; cf., similarly, 8.1). Such a reconstruction is possible but not likely; ancient texts describe such an occurrence—but it is most prominent in comic descriptions of “losers” who could not even commit suicide successfully. Had Judas met his end in a failed suicide attempt, Matthew and Luke might well have both wished to capitalize on it!

Much more plausibly, if Judas hanged himself from a tall tree or building in the sort of rocky field natural in Judean hill country, his innards might well spatter (assuming that the tree was tall) when someone cut or (less likely) untied the rope (or it eventually broke). (This assumes that the body was cut down before it decomposed or before it was picked apart by scavengers; in view of Judean piety, this assumption is likely, again assuming that the corpse was found, as it probably would have been if near Jerusalem.) Others have suggested the possibility of the body’s being torn down and opened by wild dogs, fitting both versions. Luke or his source would then report the gorier fate of Judas’s corpse rather than his actual mode of death (even if he were cut down in part to avoid the shame of hanged corpses; Deut 21:23; 2 Sam 21:10). Nevertheless, it is not clear how many details Matthew and Luke knew of about Judas’s death, about which both writers share some common tradition.

Luke (no less than Matthew) has theological reasons for his report. Noting its appropriate description of the fate of corpses of the wicked (dishonored and a matter of insult [πτῶμα ἄτιμον; ὕβριν]), Luke may allude to Wis 4:18–19, which claims that God will cast the wicked headlong (πρηνεῖς). We should not forget how well this depiction of Judas’s end fits Herod’s abdominal destruction (Acts 12:23; cf. the stomach pains in Jos. Ant. 19.346, 348, 350). Yet the accounts of Matthew and Luke, though plainly independent, share much information in common. One may compare and contrast some details as follows:

Matt 27:5–8

Acts 1:18–19

Judas as the betrayer

†

Judas hanged himself (27:5)

He fell and his abdomen ruptured (1:18)

(Apparently the story remained widespread; 27:8)

Judas’s sorry end became widely known (1:19)

This occasion prompted naming the field “Field of Blood” (27:8)

This occasion prompted naming the field “Field of Blood” (1:19)

^*One could argue that they bought this particular field for burial because it was already defiled by Judas’s blood, but objective support for this reconstruction would depend on the tradition in Acts. Goulder, Type and History, 176, derives the purchase of the field in Acts 1:18 from Jer 32 (Jer 39 LXX), but this suggestion will not work as well for those who regard Matthew as independent from Luke.

^†Κτάομαι usually carries the sense “buy” in Luke (Acts 8:20; 22:28; cf. Luke 18:12; but not in Luke 21:19); the term appears elsewhere in the NT only rarely (only Matt 10:9; 1 Thess 4:4). Rare words here indicate nothing about sources; λακάω and πρηνής appear nowhere else in Luke-Acts, but they appear nowhere else in the NT either. Parsons, Acts, 33, contrasts Judas’s purchase of a field with believers selling fields (Acts 4:34; cf. 5:3, 8) and Peter’s forsaking all (Luke 18:28).

Clear parallels exist between the two accounts; certainly, “Field of Blood,” for which Luke cites an Aramaic expression, is not his own invention. The story apparently spread widely; although Luke probably uses this claim to emphasize how divine vengeance spread fear of the Lord (as in Acts 5:11, 13), Matthew also implies this account’s circulation by mentioning that the field’s name remained for at least a generation. Gossip probably spread quickly in cities such as Jerusalem; whether the reports were true or false, they were widespread and apparently accepted by Matthew’s and Luke’s sources without protest. In Matthew’s account, the land is, in a sense, desolated, thereafter useful only for the unclean activity of burial (Matt 27:7); in Acts, it is implied that the land becomes “desolate” and will not again be lived in (Acts 1:20).

Further, the common tradition also indicates that the wage paid for his betrayal bought this field and that Jerusalemites came to call the field “Field of Blood” in relation to Judas, who also (probably implied in both accounts) met an early and terrible death. Some other details may cohere but are not fully clear: since Acts 1:18–19 is a parenthetical aside, Judas’s death need not have occurred before Peter’s speech, but on the whole, it seems more likely to have done so (at least in the story world, in view of 1:20, 25) and hence probably within a month and a half of Jesus’s betrayal. Likewise, in Matthew’s account, the suicide seems to follow Jesus’s arrest fairly closely (Matt 27:3), though this could be Matthew’s narrative tidiness (cf., e.g., Matt 21:12–22 with Mark 11:12–25). Thus in both sources Judas appears to have died relatively quickly after Jesus’s betrayal, though this is not absolutely clear. And if he died so quickly and we do not attribute this to a surprising coincidence, Matthew’s explanation of remorseful suicide is at least plausible.

The major differences are (1) whether Judas obtained the field himself (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:7) and (2) how he met his end (Acts 1:18; Matt 27:5). It is possible that in the former case Luke’s report stems from his (or his sources’) abbreviation of a longer account that could have included the high priests or that the priests, counting “the money as legally belonging to Judas,” could have “bought the field in his name.” (Because of Judas’s “unclean” death there, the owner might have been willing to sell it for a burial plot.) Although such an explanation is plausible, a larger question remains over one of the accounts: how would Matthew’s tradition have access to conversation that transpired between Judas shortly before his decease and high priests who remained hostile to the Christian movement (see discussion of unreported scenes in comment on Acts 25:14–22)?

If Acts focuses on the gory fate of Judas’s corpse, which bloodied the land, rather than on his mode of death, the other difference between the accounts is explained. But if one must choose one account or the other, Luke’s account better explains the clearly traditional title “Field of Blood” than does Matthew’s (since Judas presumably would have had to hang himself with rope, not with nails).

Still, the differences between the two accounts underline their independence, hence highlighting the substantial tradition that they share, as Benoit points out: “This tradition, vaguer in Acts, more precise in Matthew, is especially well authenticated on those points where the two agree independently, namely on the violent death of Judas following his crime, and on the connection between his death and a certain ‘field of blood’ which was well-known in Jerusalem.” On the whole, Luke’s historiography seems generally more careful than Matthew’s, though this observation does not determine the accuracy of the respective traditions on which they depend at a given point (though Luke appears to depend on a source that claims that Judas’s end was “widely” known in Jerusalem; Acts 1:19). Matthew might use midrashic wordplay to expand on details (especially the “Field of Blood”), but common details are too striking to be coincidence.

Luke often looks for general patterns and principles in Scripture (as in Acts 7; see comment there). As Israel’s hymnbook, the psalms were commonly quoted and remembered; they constitute the most popular work at Qumran (though one might readily expect this of a monastic sect). If the psalmist could speak of the righteous sufferer, this role would apply to Jesus par excellence (cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52). Thus it is not surprising that Peter quotes two verses both applicable generally to the wicked who persecute the righteous (Pss 69:25 [68:26 LXX]; 109:8 [108:8]). Because Jewish interpreters frequently applied the psalms to King David, it made sense to early Christians to apply them to the Davidic king par excellence (cf. Acts 2:30, 34); depictions of the psalmist’s enemies thus become appropriate for the enemies of the Messiah and his people (cf. Acts 4:25–27). If these verses applied to oppressors of the righteous generally, then “how much more” (qal vaomer, a “light to heavy” argument) ought they to apply to Judas, betrayer of the righteous one.

In contrast to faithful disciples who did not seek to accumulate wealth (Luke 12:13–48; Acts 3:6; 20:33–35), Judas’s “wage” bought what became a “Field of Blood” (Acts 1:18–19)—making his dwelling place desolate (1:20). In the OT, the Levites’ “lot” or “portion” was to serve God’s sanctuary rather than be given land (see comment on ); Judas chose land over God’s “lot,” and so his land became desolate. Now, as his new property is “vacant,” so is his office among the apostles.

The selected texts are particularly useful for the point. Both are laments crying for deliverance from enemies; both pray for the wicked to lose what they have owned, which allows one to link them by means of a common key thought. Early Christians regularly applied Ps 69 to Jesus’s passion—for example, 69:9 in John 2:17 and Rom 15:3; Ps 69:21 in Matt 27:34; and Ps 69:22 in Rom 11:9. The persecuted one there is also called the Lord’s servant (παιδός, Ps 69:17 [68:17 LXX]), which allows for midrashic connections with Isaiah’s servant (see comment on ; 8:32–33). Luke adjusts the Septuagintal wording—for instance, making it singular to apply to Judas but retaining even words elsewhere rare in Luke (e.g., ἔίαυλις, which is a NT hapax legomenon despite its frequency [thirty-seven times] in the LXX). While Judas’s ministry office remains available (Ps 109:8), the land he exchanged for that office (Acts 1:18) will remain desolate (Ps 69:25; Acts 1:20a). Luke plays on what Judas gave up, which is now available to another, in return for the worthless thing he received (see the play on τόίον, “place,” in Acts 1:25).

The LXX’s use of ἐίισκοίὴν for Ps 109:8’s (LXX Ps 108:8) פקדתו (“office”) works well for Luke’s application to an office of ministry. Luke applies the title ἐίίσκοίος to the elders who shepherd their fellow Christians (Acts 20:28; cf. 1 Pet 2:25 for Christ as shepherd and overseer), a usage that seems to have become technical in Pauline churches at some point (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1–2; Titus 1:7). Making his household “desolate” (ἔρημος, Acts 1:20, from Ps 69:25) may play on Judas’s lack of heirs or lack of inheritance (cf. κλῆρον in Acts 1:17) to give them: to make a household desolate was to prevent it from having heirs to carry on the line.

If Peter addressed this crowd in Aramaic, Luke could quote in Greek the verses that Peter would have quoted in Hebrew. The problem with this suggestion is that the two verses might be connected by an implicit gezerah shevah based on the way they begin in Greek: γενηθήτω (Ps 69:25 [68:26 LXX]) and γενηθήτωσαν (Ps 109:8 [108:8]). To this, one might respond that Peter may have spoken in Greek, as undoubtedly in Acts 2, 3, and 10, or that the gezerah shevah is unclear (it is at least subtle, since Luke omits the relevant part of the second quotation), or that the gezerah shevah’s very subtlety points to a more complete source on which Luke here depends. As to whether we should expect Luke to have reproduced Peter’s very Scripture texts, see the discussion of ancient speeches in our introduction, . On the one hand, it is not impossible that some members of the earliest church would have remembered Peter’s texts on this significant occasion; on the other, it would be within Luke’s prerogative as a historian to supply the kinds of verses Peter would most plausibly be thought to have offered. On the whole, I think the implicit gezerah shevah probably does point to pre-Lukan tradition (it is not typical of Luke’s own method of handling Scripture); if even this detail actually goes back to Peter, he likely would have given the speech in Greek.

The title “Scripture” borrows standard nomenclature (as early as Let. Aris. 155, 168). The quotation formula “as it is written” appears already even in Scripture itself but grew more popular in time in the Qumran scrolls and elsewhere. A formula resembling “as it is written” also remained common in later rabbinic and related texts; these are instructive but are sometimes less close than the earlier Qumran examples. Sources also often employed formulas such as “it is said.” Naturally, “it is written” became common in early Christian literature. Although, as we have seen, some of these citation formulas are quite early, Greek use of citations may have disposed Jewish people to their abundant use of them in this period.

“It is written” is common in Luke-Acts, whether for laws cited by Luke (Luke 2:23), commands cited by disputants in the narrative (cf. 4:4, 8, 10; 10:26; 19:46; Acts 7:42; 23:5), prophecies concerning John (Luke 3:4; 7:27), or messianic prophecies (24:46), including Davidic psalms (Acts 13:33) or prophecies about David’s house (15:15). Other similar quotation forms also became common, though many are less common in early Christian usage. “It is written” is naturally much rarer in Greek literature, which preferred verbs of speech to verbs of writing, even when appealing to written texts. (Fulfillment-formula quotation forms, of the type common in Matthew, are much rarer.) As Fitzmyer notes, most of the “explicit quotations introduced by such formulas in Acts are found in the early chapters which deal specifically with the early Jewish Christian church.”

Peter now lists the qualifications, based on his exposition of Scripture (1:20), for Judas’s replacement among the twelve foundational witnesses. In response, the community provides the best-qualified candidates, and the lot decides which of the two is God’s choice.

Lists of qualifications were common in antiquity (e.g., 1 Tim 3:2–4; see comment on Acts 6:3). Certainly, witnesses had to be credible morally (Cic. Flacc. 15.34); such a restriction probably could already be safely assumed, however, among those who had persevered in following Jesus. The statement of qualifications also fits a comparable OT account of supplementing leadership (Exod 18:21).

Luke here implies that this gathering of 120 (probably mostly Galilean) Jews included many original disciples besides the Twelve. This is not surprising, given other sources about Jesus’s followers (1 Cor 15:6). Since the apostles had to be witnesses (Acts 1:8), choosing those who had spent the most time with Jesus was important so that they could guarantee and interpret the message about him. Eyewitness sources were considered the best, and those further removed from the witnesses were considered weaker (e.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.3.1). Although Peter’s language specifies that the witness be from the “men” who had accompanied them, the new apostle’s maleness is probably assumed rather than emphasized; in the cultures most relevant to both Peter and Luke’s audience, male testimony was nearly always accepted most highly, a point relevant to the issue of “witnesses” here. Further, as noted at Acts 16:13 and the introduction, , too much cross-gender association among leaders could play into hostile accusations. Moreover, one could argue that while Peter is a mostly reliable character, Luke does allow him to retain some views that he undoubtedly historically held at this point, without necessarily endorsing those views. Finally, we should not think that Peter’s description here excludes from all important leadership roles anyone who does not fit it; otherwise, it would exclude Paul and Barnabas (accepted as apostles at least in Acts 14:4, 14) and James (cf. 15:13; 21:18).

That Jesus went “in and out among” them is Semitic idiom for association and freedom of movement, often long and close (in 9:28, perhaps only close). Those who “accompanied” Jesus and the Twelve presumably are those who participated in his journeys, including Luke’s long travel narrative (Luke 9:51–19:44) and Jesus’s final journey (23:49, 55), which had brought most of Peter’s listeners there (“Galileans,” Acts 1:11; 13:31). If we may judge by Luke’s more expansive descriptions of events in his “we” narratives, he valued the testimony especially of companions.

Luke could recount Jesus’s story accurately because he had investigated how it happened “from the beginning” (Luke 1:3), presumably by depending on those who were eyewitnesses (1:2) “from the beginning” (Acts 1:21; cf. John 15:27). Thorough historians liked to address their topics “from the beginning” (ἀί’ ἀρχῆς, Diod. Sic. 4.8.5). (In biographical literature, this often means starting with the person’s adulthood or public career.) For many early Christians, “the beginning” of the gospel story was Jesus’s introduction by John (Mark 1:1–4; John 1:19–37; Acts 10:37; 13:24).

The outline of the gospel story to which they are witnesses (Acts 1:22) includes the part of the story that Luke’s Gospel covers after the introductory infancy narratives; early Christians often started the narration with John’s ministry, even when they also rooted it in prior Scripture (Acts 10:37; 13:24; Mark 1:1, 4; John 1:19–37). Although their testimony includes all of Jesus’s ministry (Acts 10:39), its focus is Jesus’s resurrection (Luke 24:46, 48; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:31–32; 10:40–41; 13:30–31). The ministry of John the Baptist is attested outside the NT, in Josephus, as is widely noted. We may note in passing the contrast between the status of the new apostle and the fate of Judas (Acts 1:18).

That they put forward two candidates who met the qualifications may suggest a practice in which disciples would put forward candidates they thought best for apostolic ratification (see comment on Acts 6:3; cf. Deut 1:13), in this case (for numerical reasons) narrowed down further and ratified by divine choice (Acts 1:26). (Where assemblies consisted of newer disciples, founding leaders apparently selected the leaders themselves [14:23; cf. Titus 1:5].) Luke has not introduced these individuals before, but a reader might infer that they probably belonged to the seventy/seventy-two whom Jesus had already sent on an earlier occasion (Luke 10:1).

Not surprisingly, “Joseph” was a very common name (cf., in Luke-Acts alone, Luke 1:27; 3:24, 30; 23:50; Acts 4:36; 7:13–14), requiring here some distinguishing epithets. Historians often concerned themselves with distinguishing various historic people with the same name (sometimes distinguishing too thoroughly, when only a single person was actually in view). Multiple names appear frequently in ancient business documents and even funerary inscriptions. In Roman Asia, for example, the use of two or more names was normal (often with such phrases as “x, who is also y”). Nicknames are widely attested and were especially common in Palestine “because so many people tended to have the same first name.” Regardless of the historic origin of double names in the Hebrew Bible, they were generally accepted as part of a venerable and seamless tradition by the apostolic period; thus Horeb was Sinai (Exod 3:1; 19:11; 24:13) and Jethro was probably Reuel (2:18; 3:1; 4:18; 18:1–12; Num 10:29).

Cornelius Nepos opines that in human history only one Aristides displayed such integrity as to merit the title Justus (“the just”; Corn. Nep. 3 [Aristides], 1.2), but this claim is certainly hyperbolic. The name and the nickname are both common (e.g., Acts 18:7; Col 4:11). (Roman surnames often sounded like nicknames because the surnames originally began as nicknames; see Plut. Cic. 1.2.) Apparently, Jesus’s younger brother James eventually took the surname “the Just.” Since Joseph Barsabbas was Galilean (Acts 1:21, 23), he may have acquired the nickname near Greco-Roman Tiberias, or “Justus” may transliterate a later Latin translation of the Hebrew הצדיק, “the righteous one,” “one of several honorific nicknames” in Palestinian Judaism (for Jesus, cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14). Rare in Cyrene and Egypt, the name is more common in Greece, Gaul, and Asia Minor; but whatever Justus’s possible earlier experience abroad, the aorist ἐίεκλήθη argues against this being a nickname later appended from missions work abroad. As a nickname rather than a given name, it is suitable enough even in Palestine.

The Aramaic nickname “Barsabbas” means “son of the Sabbath” and would have been applied to someone born on the Sabbath (cf. 15:22; like various “Sabbath” compounded names found in both Palestine and the Diaspora). According to a second-century tradition, which Papias attributed to one of Philip’s daughters, Barsabbas was unharmed when he drank poison. “Matthias” and “Mattathias” were common names (e.g., 1 Macc 2, passim; 16:14), though apparently not so common among the disciples as to require a surname here.

The recognition that God knows the heart is used to support the Spirit’s testimony to the genuineness of Gentile conversions in Acts 15:7–8. Dunn argues that the use of the same language both here and in that passage highlights the contrast between that incident, empowered by the Spirit, and this one before Pentecost. But the use of the same language more likely suggests continuity than contrast, at least in this case; Jesus cites God’s knowledge of hearts to condemn the Pharisees for valuing merely what is externally valuable (Luke 16:15). It was natural to appeal to this principle in depending on God to reveal the appropriate leader (1 Sam 16:7).

God’s omniscience, particularly concerning hearts, is widely cited in early Christianity (e.g., Rom 8:27; 1 John 3:20; Rev 2:23; Acts Paul 3.24). It is also emphasized in Greco-Roman antiquity in general (where some high gods knew or saw all things) and especially in ancient Judaism. This omniscience also entailed knowledge of persons’ hearts (as, again, often for the highest deities among the Gentiles), so that God “who knows” or “searches” the heart (Ps 7:9; Jer 17:10) became a familiar designation for God in later texts. Long before the first century, Jewish people called God the ἐίίσκοίος (and synonyms), the one who oversees all things, especially concerning human hearts. That God sees yet remains unseen seems to have become a popular saying.

The assembly’s prayer indicates that they are depending on God to provide the right replacement for Judas. The Lord’s “choosing” Matthias (Acts 1:24) provides continuity with his “choosing” other apostles in 1:2 (cf. Luke 6:13). Acts repeatedly stresses the divine plan (See comment on ); dependence on God’s omniscience here supports the choice that will occur in Acts 1:26.

The Spirit uses various forms of guidance after Pentecost; although drawing lots is not one of them, we should certainly not question its value in Acts 1. Luke’s first narrative in the Gospel includes God’s directly selecting Zechariah by lot (Luke 1:9) before sending those with prophetic ministry (1:15–17, 67); his first narrative in Acts after recapitulating the Gospel’s ending includes a leader selected by lot before the prophetic empowerment of the church (Acts 2:17–18). The parallel use of lots suggests analogous divine superintendence in both cases.

Do the disciples here invoke Jesus as “Lord” in prayer (cf. 1 Cor 16:22; 2 Cor 12:8–9), or do they address God the Father? Luke frequently uses “Lord” for Jesus (e.g., Acts 2:21, 36; 4:33; 9:10–11, 15, 17, 27–28; 11:16, 17, 20; 15:11; 16:31; 19:5, 13, 17; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13; 22:10; 26:15; 28:31), including in the immediate context (1:21), sometimes even in prayer (7:59–60). Further, Jesus “chose” the other eleven (Acts 1:2; Luke 6:13), and so it is reasonable to suppose that he does the choosing here (Acts 1:24). Yet Luke regards the title as applicable to both (see Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34) and hence also applies the title to Jesus’s Father (e.g., Luke 1:16, 32; 2:22–24, 29; 4:8; Acts 4:26), including in prayer (Luke 10:21; Acts 4:24). Perhaps the analogous prayer in Acts 4:24–30 shifts the weight in favor of addressing the Father, since that prayer addresses the Father in the second person and speaks of the Son in the third.

Historians, like rhetoricians in legal settings, commonly imputed motives, though someone who disagreed could attribute the imputation to malice (as in Plut. Mal. Hdt. 25, Mor. 861DE). One may contrast the typical positive eulogies offered for the fallen in classical Athens and elsewhere.

Because Judas abandoned his apostleship and service (see comment on regarding the latter), someone else would take that “place” (τόίον) while he would go to his own “place” (τόίον). Judas abandoned his calling for land (Acts 1:18), leaving the literal land desolate (1:20a; cf. Matt 27:7) but his oversight position available for another to take (Acts 1:20b). His “place,” then, is, in the first case, his office but, in the second, the field he bought, where he met his gory end. “His own [ἴδιον] place” contrasts with the disciples who left their “own” (ἴδια) property to follow Jesus (Luke 18:28; cf. Acts 4:32) and possibly with the new community whom the apostles received in return (Acts 4:23; 24:23; cf. Luke 18:29–30).

The primary emphasis of Acts 1:15–26 is the selection of a twelfth apostle to prepare for Israel’s renewal and restoration. Why was it necessary to restore the number from “eleven” (Luke 24:9, 33) to twelve? Though only one answer stands out above the rest, one could offer many possible associations with the number twelve. Twelve was a significant number throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. Classical Greek religion had twelve chief deities on Olympus, often called simply the “twelve gods” (δώδεκα θεοί). The number remained from tradition even though some specific members of the pantheon changed over the centuries (a potential explanation for divergent lists of the Twelve if multiple names were not so common). Ancients regularly noted the twelve signs of the zodiac, and some referred to them simply as “the twelve” (e.g., Aratus Phaen. 703, 740). Persians appointed twelve leaders over their groups, following the pattern of their twelve tribes. Rabbis spoke of “the twelve” with reference to the twelve biblical “minor prophets.”

Yet despite various significations attached to the number twelve in various circles, for Luke and other biblically informed early Christians, it surely carried the same connotations for which Jesus presumably chose it. Twelve naturally could symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel, and many contemporary interpreters understood other references to “twelve” in this manner (even the twelve signs of the zodiac). Jesus undoubtedly selected twelve as representatives for the righteous remnant of the eschatological people of God, in a manner analogous to the twelve select leaders in Qumran texts (e.g., 1QS VIII, 1–2; 4Q259 II, 9), as is widely noted.

That the title “the twelve” remained for Paul even after Judas’s death (1 Cor 15:5) suggests a representative function for the number. The church that was built on this foundation of the twelve leaders of Israel’s remnant represents the true heir of God’s ancient promises. The twelve apostles may be viewed as akin to the twelve patriarchs (cf. Rev 21:12, 14) or to the princes of the tribes (cf. Num 2:3–29; 7:11, 18–78; 17:6), who would rule over the tribes at the time of their eschatological restoration (Luke 22:30//Matt 19:28). In Luke’s perspective, in contrast to the unfaithful leaders of Israel in Acts 3–5, the apostles become the true leaders for Israel, who should have been followed by the Jewish people. (Less significant for Luke but perhaps significant to some in his audience was the effectiveness of this number of witnesses; legal documents typically settled for half as many.)

It was common to refer to groups of leaders by their number. In classical Athens, the Eleven (cf. Acts 1:26; 2:14; Luke 24:9, 33) were the police magistrates supervising prison and executions. The Thirty were a group of tyrants who held power in Athens for a time; in David’s kingdom, a group with the same numerical title (and varied membership) represented David’s elite military corps (2 Sam 23:13, 18–19, 23–24; 1 Chr 11:11, 15, 20, 25; 12:4, 18; 27:6). Athens also knew another group, the Four Hundred, who appear rather frequently in the sources considering how quickly they fell from power. In addition, Athens had a ruling council called the Six Hundred (which replaced the Five Hundred). Rome had groups of cultic officials called the Fifteen, the Seven, and so forth. “The Ten” referred to the board of decemviri; “the Fifteen” to the fifteen priests in Rome guarding the Sibylline Books. Rome’s centumviri (lit. “100 men”) was a court that had 105 men during the republic but 180 during the empire. Luke himself speaks of the “seven” (Acts 21:7) and “the seventy-two” (or “the seventy”; Luke 10:17).

Paul may refer to the “twelve” as a group (1 Cor 15:5) even after the betrayal (which he probably knows, 11:23); groups once named for numbers (such as the Hundred) retained these names even when the actual membership numbers fluctuated. (Some early church fathers felt that Matthias must have been chosen before Jesus’s ascension, so that the number remained twelve during the resurrection appearances, as in 1 Cor 15:5; but in view of ancient usage for defined groups this interpretation is not strictly necessary.) Some ancients did feel that an official number of members in a small group of leaders could function as an average, with more or fewer persons at different times in practice, depending on who was most qualified. Roughly ten or twenty was an acceptable size for a small group and an acceptable number for a core group of disciples.

The casting of “lots” here does not refer to a vote; that the κλῆρος “fell” underlines its literal sense here (cf. LXX 1 Chr 26:14; Esth 3:7; Jonah 1:7; Ezek 24:6). Lot oracles (usually answering yes/no questions or other binary choices as here) were common in antiquity and more dominant even at Delphi than the Pythia’s responses. Most cities of Lycia and Pisidia had dice oracles for their citizens to consult in city centers. Early Greek leaders cast lots for guidance; Greek myth claimed that Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades divided their realms by lot.

More relevant here is the use of lots for choosing public officials. Various classical Athenian officials were chosen by lot. Democracies in particular, but also other Greek cities, used lots to distribute, with a minimum of conflict, public offices “among those who were equally eligible.” The use of lots is also well documented in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. In the Roman Republic, Romans could evade partisan politics by drawing lots (sortes). Romans did not use lots for selecting normal magistrates but did use them for selecting judges and vestal virgins and for dividing duties of consuls or praetors. Romans used lots to determine where governors would be sent and which sphere of office each praetor would take (Cic. Verr. 1.8.21).

Lots could be used to decide who would lead in battle (Xen. Cyr. 6.3.34), which general would go to war (Val. Max. 1.5.3), which positions the legions would take in battle (Tac. Hist. 2.41; cf. Judg 20:18), which members of a disgraced cohort would be beaten to death (Tac. Ann. 3.21), who might be sacrificed (Quint. Decl. 384), and whose property would have to be sold (Val. Max. 6.3.4). Lots selected the pairs for wrestling or the pancratium in the Olympic Games (Lucian Hermot. 39). If necessary, they could be used to decide whose court trial would come first (Quint. Decl. 250 intro) or even which brother would go into exile to leave the kingdom to the other (Vell. Paterc. 1.1.4).

Ancient Israel used lots to choose workers for special duties (1 Chr 24:7; 25:8; see comment on ); Judas had earlier received a “lot” by Jesus’s choice (Acts 1:17). The members of the Qumran community also viewed their membership as ordained by divine lot (1QS V, 2–3; VI, 16; 1QM I, 5). At the command of priests, the lot (הגורל) determined rank in the community (1QS XI, 7).

Jewish people also believed that lots could give them divine direction. In Jewish tradition Noah divided the land for his three children by lot (Jub. 8:10–11); Israel divided some of the land by lot (e.g., Josh 14:2; 18:6, 8, 10; Ezek 45:1); priests and Levites received their duties by lot (e.g., 1 Chr 24:5, 31; 25:8; 26:13–14), as Luke knows (Luke 1:9); lots determined the cities for Levites (e.g., 1 Chr 6:61–65) and who would settle in Jerusalem (Neh 11:1). Later Jewish texts even use biblical texts as lot oracles of a sort.

In the ancient world, lots also were used in punishments, as in determining which two prisoners would fight each other to the death (Polyb. 3.62.7, 9), which tenth of a shamed company would be beaten to death (6.38.2–3), and who would be executed first (ʾAbot R. Nat 38 A). Of course, lots could be manipulated, as was probably the case in Josephus’s suspicious survival in War 3.388–89; as the general, he may have “supervised” while those demanding suicide eliminated themselves.

Not everyone agreed with the use of lots. Socrates reportedly opposed choosing public officials by lot, noting that one would not choose a helmsman or builder this way (Xen. Mem. 1.2.9). Some opined that, despite the false tradition that Zeus and Pluto drew lots for Olympus and Hades, Zeus had in fact merited Olympus by his power (Callim. Hymns 1 [to Zeus], lines 60–66). But most people did believe that lots revealed the divine will (e.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.3.36; 7.1.15). On fate and providence, see the excursus at Acts 2:23. Here, as suggested above, the lots (toward the beginning of Luke’s second volume) positively evoke the lots through which Zechariah was chosen for his duties in the temple (toward the beginning of his first volume, Luke 1:8–9); in both cases God performs his purposes.

The lots may have been stones or pottery fragments shaken in a container, with Matthias’s being the first to emerge. Barrett notes that “the usual method of casting lots” entailed collecting “names . . . in a vessel and” letting “one . . . fall out.” Commentators suggest that either cloth bags or vessels could be used. The lots used for matching competitors at the Olympics may be instructive. Lucian reports: “A silver urn dedicated to the god is placed before them. Into this are thrown small lots, the size of beans, with letters on them. Two are marked alpha, two beta, two gamma, and so on in the same way, if there are more competitors, two lots always having the same letter. Each of the competitors comes up, offers a prayer to Zeus, puts his hand into the urn, and picks up one of the lots.” A guard keeps the competitors from examining the letters they have drawn; then a guard or one of the judges inspects the lots and matches them.

Sometimes minor characters provide new options for readers, bridges through which the implied audience can better identify with the story. Thus the opportunity for a disciple unnamed in the Gospel (and perhaps unknown to Luke’s ideal audience) to serve may invite his implied audience to feel welcome to participate (even if not among the Twelve, cf. Acts 5:13) in the story—the way Gentiles may identify with the Diaspora Jewish crowds in 2:5–11; more with the bicultural ministers in Acts 6–8; and still more with Gentile converts and evangelists to Gentiles in later chapters. Given qualifications in 1:21–22 that limit the 120 present (1:15), it would be reasonable for Luke’s ideal audience to surmise that Matthias and Joseph may also have participated in the mission of the seventy-two (or seventy) earlier in Luke’s narrative (Luke 10:1).

↑ Back to top