The passage today is verse 12 all the way through the end of the chapter, verse 26. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room where they were staying. Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers. In those days, Peter stood up among the brothers, the company of persons, was in all about 120, and said, Brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language, ach el damach, that is, field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, may his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it, and let another take his office. So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us, one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was also called Justice, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, you, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. and they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the 11 apostles. Father, I pray that your word would go forth today with clarity and boldness and power and grace and encouragement, and may your spirit of peace be with us and may you illuminate for us the things we are to understand from your word. In Jesus' name I pray, amen. As we discovered during our walk through the book of Genesis, and as I hinted at last week, often in the narrative passages of the Bible, we must spend much more of our time explaining the text than applying it. And frankly, this is still a very good thing, because if you do try to apply something from the text in your life today, or in the church today, you're likely to get the application wrong if you don't understand the text or what's happening in the background. And so we want to work hard at understanding narrative texts so that we don't come up with erroneous theological conclusions or erroneous applications. And also so that we don't walk away thinking scripture contradicts itself in any way. And so we're going to do that kind of hard work in this passage today. I said last week that I would comment a bit more about verses 12 through 14 today because they definitely apply to this week's material as much as or more than last week's. Luke names off the apostles, the 11 at this point, and he mentions they were gathered in an upper room, quite possibly the same upper room where they had celebrated the Last Supper with the Lord. They were gathered now with the women, which included Mary, the mother of Jesus, and also with the brothers of Jesus, which certainly would have included at least James and Jude, who, as we just heard when we were going through the book of Jude, each authored their own letter that eventually became part of the New Testament. There were only 11, of course, because Judas Iscariot had killed himself after he betrayed Jesus. But before we get to that, I want to address this list of names. Because in some of the Gospel accounts, specifically in Matthew chapter 10 and in Mark chapter 3, we see someone named Thaddeus numbered among the apostles. Instead of this person, Luke calls Judas the son of James. And that distinction, this Judas the son of James, also occurs in Luke chapter 6. It's not unreasonable at all to suggest that this Thaddeus and Judas were the same person under two different names. Many people used different names, nicknames, different names based on the different cultures they lived in at the time. I mean, just look at verse 23 of this very passage. You have one person who is said to have gone by three different names, Joseph, Barsabbas, and Justice. And these sound very much like a Hebrew given name, Yosef, an Aramaic epithet, Barsabbas, which means son of the Sabbath. He was probably born on the Sabbath. And a Roman nickname, Justus, which means justice. So Thaddeus and Judas, son of James, were most likely the same person. Also, John, in his gospel account in chapter one, mentions a prominent disciple of Jesus named Nathanael. But the name Nathanael doesn't appear in any of the other accounts or lists of the apostles. Since Nathanael was so closely connected with Philip in John's Gospel, and since Bartholomew is so closely connected with Philip in all the other accounts, Nathanael and Bartholomew are usually assumed to be the same person. There's no way to know for sure, but it's not in any way unreasonable to suspect that to be the case as well. Most of the rest of this narrative is pushed along by Peter's speech. Remember last week I mentioned that Luke uses a number of speeches in Acts to propel the narrative. And here Peter explains to us, as he's explaining to the 120 people waiting and praying together, why Judas Iscariot had to be replaced as an apostle. We should say, though, that verses 18 and 19 are not to be considered part of Peter's speech, but rather an editorial comment by Luke, which is why many translations, like the ESV here, have it set off in parentheses. Peter would not need to tell them what Akkeldamach means in their own language, nor would he have to tell them what happened, what became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, either. Luke includes that information for the benefit of his readers like us. He had not mentioned in his gospel what had happened to Judas. And so he records it here. And if there's any concern about a couple of differences between this account and Matthew's account of what happened to Judas, these two accounts of Judas's death can be harmonized without much in the way of mental gymnastics. One could either say that Judas acquired the field, or that the chief priests and elders bought the field, as Matthew says, with the bribe money Judas gave back to them. Either of those statements is a reasonable account of one situation. And the falling headlong and bursting open could have been a result of being cut down after hanging himself. Again, it's easy to see how these different accounts could be harmonized, stitched together, that is, to show one slightly more complete picture. We see then that Peter's explanation of why Judas had to be replaced as an apostle, and then we see the method they used to accomplish this. And Peter's explanation requires a great deal of explanation on our part. Peter says it was necessary for Scripture to be fulfilled. This is the kind of necessity we see throughout the book of Acts. The events occurred because of the divine will of God. And many times, as we see even here, because these events were even foretold by God beforehand and written about for our sake in the Scriptures. But you don't have to ask Mary very many questions before you start wondering exactly what Peter might mean and exactly how the scriptures he cites have anything to do with Judas and his office as an apostle. Peter declares in verse 16 that the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David concerning Judas. And as I mentioned already, verses 18 and 19 are Luke's editorial comment for the reader's benefit. And so we see the content of David's prophecies in verse 20. Now if you compare the first verse quoted in verse 20 to Psalm 69 verse 25, you see that King David was praying to God about his own enemies, enemies in the plural. And if you compare the second quoted verse here in verse 20 to Psalm 109 verse 8, as we heard Michael read earlier, we again see that David was praying against his own enemies. So we see in this example in Acts 1, verse 20, a fairly common challenge for us readers of the New Testament, that the apostles and the writers of the New Testament often use quotations and references and allusions from the Old Testament in ways that we might find unexpected at best or badly out of context at worst. So this passage today allows us to discuss this somewhat thorny interpretive issue, the use of the Old Testament within the New Testament. Back in March, you remember that Sean preached about the road to Emmaus from the Gospel of Luke. Luke tells his readers that the traveler on the road, who we then learn was the risen Lord Jesus, that beginning with the Moses and the prophets, excuse me, Moses and the prophets, he explained to Cleopas and his companion in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. So the apostles from the very earliest days after the resurrection had the risen Lord explaining to them how he was written about throughout all the Old Testament scriptures. So we could mark this down to just the apostles receiving revelation from not only the Holy Spirit as they wrote, but also from the risen Lord Jesus while he was still with them. How the Old Testament scriptures actually revealed himself. But we can actually go a little bit farther than that in our own explanation. As we've said before, the writers of scripture often made use of what we call typology, where real people, events, and institutions in their own right with real histories In addition, prophesied and foreshadowed by their very existence, their very occurrences, and their very lives, a more escalated, a higher reality that they pointed forward to. And the fulfillment of these types in scripture was in almost every case Christ himself, or people, events, and institutions surrounding Christ. As a perfect example, Jesus himself pointed out to the Pharisees from Psalm 110 and from 2 Samuel chapter 7 that somehow the Messiah would be both David's Lord and also his son, his offspring. Son of David is one of the many titles we see for the Messiah in the gospel accounts. Jesus fulfilled this type. Jesus was the true Son of David, the utter fulfillment of the idea of the Davidic king, who would sit on David's throne forever. And so the words that King David spoke, what happened to him, his very life itself, often is a type and shadow of Jesus, the true Davidic king. In the same way, the enemies of David themselves often serve as types of the enemies of the true Davidic King, Jesus. And so the enemies David writes about in Psalm 69 and Psalm 109, though he was writing in his own time and praying in his own life to be delivered from them, Peter even tells us the Holy Spirit was also speaking through the mouth of David concerning the enemies of Jesus, again, the true Davidic King. and who was one of the greatest enemies of Jesus, the one who betrayed him, Judas Iscariot, and who could betray someone so thoroughly as one who was numbered among them and was allotted a share in that ministry, as Peter explains. Therefore, Peter can say that the Holy Spirit's prayer through the mouth of David in Psalm 69 was ultimately fulfilled in the death of Judas. His camp, his homestead, his home became desolate and there was none to dwell in it. And if you throw in the idea that his camp may have been the field that he acquired through the blood money bribe he received and then gave back, that field of blood became a burial place, a cemetery. Truly, no one dwelled in Judas's camp anymore. But Peter also connects another verse from the Psalms with Judas, Psalm 109, verse 8. Though his camp, his dwelling, must remain desolate, Judas' office, his apostleship, must be replaced. Judas truly fulfilled earlier words in Psalm 109. In return for the love he received from Jesus, he accused him. In reward for the good and the love bestowed on him by Jesus, Judas repaid him evil and hatred. And so, to fulfill the scripture, his office must be replaced. That's why they're doing this. They're choosing someone to replace Judas as one of the Twelve. Why else was that apostolic replacement important? Because the Twelve were seen as the representatives of the new people of God, the Church. Instead of 12 tribes, they now had 12 apostles. Think about what is later revealed in Revelation chapter 21. I'll read a few verses from Revelation 21 verses 12 through 14. This is speaking of the new city of Jerusalem as it's coming down from heaven. It had a great high wall with 12 gates, and at the gates 12 angels, and on the gates the names of the 12 tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed. On the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had 12 foundations, and on them were the 12 names of the 12 apostles of the land. How could that have been the case without a 12th apostle? And certainly we wouldn't expect Judas Iscariot, the son of perdition, we shouldn't expect his name to show up there on the foundation of the New Jerusalem. And so they needed to replace Judas. but it's still even more than just that. Remember that this book was being written for new Christians, as we heard in the dedication that Luke wrote both in the very beginning of this book and in the beginning of his first volume, what we call the Gospel of Luke in chapter one, so that they could have certainty about what they had been taught. This makes it even easier to see. Had Jesus made a mistake in choosing Judas? He betrayed him after all. If so, how could the others be trusted as the new representatives, the new authorities of Christ on earth? No, this was all part of God's divine plan. The apostles were rightly chosen, even Judas, because, as I said, who could betray the Son except someone from among his own number? Even the crucifixion itself was part of God's divine plan, which we're going to see Peter say not once, but twice in his upcoming speeches in Acts chapter two and in chapter four as well. They needed to go into Pentecost with 12 apostles ready to take on that new mantle from the Holy Spirit as the new representatives of God on earth. This choice had to be made before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred. Now, if you stop and dwell on this for a bit, that there had to be 12 apostles, you might wonder why they didn't have to replace any of the apostles that died soon thereafter. We're going to see in chapter 12 how James the apostle, the brother of John, is killed by King Herod. They didn't replace James. Well, James had fulfilled his duty to the end. He had upheld the name and honor of Christ. He had testified to his resurrection and to the gospel message. There was no need to replace him. Only because Judas had turned away, had committed apostasy, did they have to replace him. James still stands as one of the 12, one of the names that will be written on the foundation of the New Jerusalem. James is forever one of the 12, as were all of the rest of them after they died. So we see the explanation for why they had to replace Judas Iscariot as an apostle. And now in verses 21 through 26, we see the method they used. And you see that Peter explains it must be someone who had accompanied them the whole time from when Jesus was baptized until he ascended into heaven and in between had also witnessed the resurrection so that he could also become a witness of the resurrection to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. And based on those criteria, two men were chosen as candidates. Now, it's not obvious whether they were put forward by the other 11 or by the entire group. And it's also not obvious whether these were the only two who met those criteria or whether they were chosen out of a larger number of men who met those criteria. These two were, as I mentioned earlier, Joseph, who was also called Barsabbas and also called Justice, and the other was Matthias. Now, here's where the method used might get a little tricky for us. Verse 26 tells us they cast lots to determine which of those two would be the replacement. Now first of all, I want to explain that I don't think this was a democratic vote. I don't think they were casting ballots. If you read the King James here in verse 26, you might get that impression, though the King James language doesn't have to be understood that way. Now I believe this was essentially like having a pair of dice with one die having Justice's name on it, and the other having Matthias' name on it, and then whichever one came out would be the one chosen. Like us pulling names out of a hat. Or even more commonly today, when there are only two options being chosen between, we might think of flipping a coin. Now casting lots had plenty of support as a practice throughout the nation of Israel. We even see the rationale behind it in Proverbs 16, verse 33, as Michael read earlier. We cast the lot, but it's every decision is from the Lord. So it makes sense initially why the apostles would choose this way. But what may not make sense to us is why do we never see them do this again? throughout the rest of the whole New Testament. Why is this the last time that method is used? Well, as I discussed last week in my overview message, not everything in narrative passages of Scripture that is described for us is prescribed for us as well. What we see here in this instance is not necessarily commanded for the church. So how do we decide whether it is or it isn't? Whether or not this should be a normative practice for the church today? The key here is that there are a few unique things about this situation. As I already just explained, they're never going to have to choose another apostle again. So this is the only time an apostle must be replaced. But also, they haven't yet had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by this point. And since the Holy Spirit has been poured in since, Now, by this time and afterwards, once the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the church, all of a sudden the people of God, especially the apostles and leaders of the church early, they have the Spirit of God living in them. That's why you start to see language like what James, the brother of Jesus, writes after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, verse 19. He says, my judgment is that we should, so on and so forth. And right after that in verse 22 of chapter 15, we see Luke write, it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Why didn't they choose those men by lot? Why didn't they choose the first deacons in Acts chapter six by lot? Because the church had the Holy Spirit by that time. They had the Holy Spirit living inside them, and they had all the miraculous gifts at the time as well for the express purpose of validating and confirming the spread of the gospel message, the spread of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to the ends of the earth, and their own authority as representatives of God on earth. You never see them have to cast lots for this type of decision ever again. But there's even one more unique aspect to this situation at the end of Acts chapter 1. Who chose the original 12 apostles? Jesus himself. When he was walking the earth at the beginning of his ministry, he personally chose the 12 apostles. And Luke explains in verse 24 here, as they pray, Lord, you show which one of these two you have chosen, which one you have chosen. And I don't believe we should think they are simply praying to the Father here as they continue to refer to the Lord and even to pray to him. I will even see some explicit times that they're clear they're often praying directly to the risen Lord Jesus, risen and ascended Lord. Jesus clearly had to be the one to make this choice, not the apostles, not the rest of the gathered faithful, only Jesus himself. And this was the best way and the historic way for them to determine the will of God in such a matter. They put forth two candidates and then cast the lot, and its decision was from the Lord. So hopefully you understand now why there really is no need for casting lots in decision-making any longer. Spirit-filled believers ought to be able to weigh the principles outlined in Scripture and come up with God-honoring decisions. Now, if you come to a perplexing situation today in your life and you feel you've done everything you can, you've examined scripture, you've tried to assess not only specific passages that directly apply, but also general principles that indirectly apply, and you've received counsel from wise, spirit-filled counselors, and even then you still can't decide between two options, I can see baby flipping a coin then, but as long as you realize that's not God's way of telling you which course of action you ought to take in order to be in his will. There's simply no reason for us to need that much detail to make a decision that we can't decide between if we've already gone to those great lengths about. Choosing the 12th apostle to replace Judas Iscariot before the launching of the church, before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the expansion of the gospel mission to the ends of the earth was a unique situation in redemptive history. So we don't need such methods in the church today in our daily lives. And one more brief thing I'll say. I said last week that although this book is titled The Acts of the Apostles, we can rightly see it as the acts of the risen Lord, which is how I've titled this sermon series. They choose Matthias here, but you never see anything else about him again in the whole New Testament. And very little, if anything, is said again of most of the rest of the 12, at least not singling them out. Even with this new mantle, the Spirit begins to move through a much wider circle. And that's how the Lord directs his people today. There are leaders, and there are some given to certain offices of the Church, and for good reason, but every true believer carries the Spirit of God in himself or herself. So by the grace of God, let us not put too much stock, not too much stock, in positions and titles, while we still honor those who deserve honor. Let us simply be about the business of continuing the acts of the risen Lord Jesus in our daily lives, everything we do for the sake of the kingdom of God on earth. Let's pray. Father, everything in your word is written for our instruction. Sometimes it's plain as day for us. Sometimes we simply need to obey. And sometimes we have to do a little more work simply to understand what you're telling us. And we thank you that you have given us so much great material, and we can stand on the giants of the history of the church, those people who have examined the scriptures down through the centuries, so that we can know your will. And by your spirit, we can know the truth. Father, help us. in a situation like this to simply love your word more. Lord, as we grow in our understanding of the word, help us to be more comfortable realizing that your word can be discerned. You will illuminate your truths to your people. And the things that we most need to know, you will make very clear to us. Father, we give you all thanks and praise, and I pray that your spirit would live deeply within us today and the rest of this week, that we may be illuminated further as we read your word, as we meditate on your word, as we pray, and as we fellowship with each other. And together, you will continue in binding us together with Christ. And it's his name that I pray, amen.