AFTER HE SAID this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
12Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
“ ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
“ ‘May another take his place of leadership.’
21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Original Meaning
THIS SECTION OF ACTS describes Jesus’ ascension into heaven, the obedience of the disciples to his command that they wait in Jerusalem for the promised Holy Spirit, and one of the main activities that they performed during this waiting period, namely, to choose a successor to Judas Iscariot.
The Ascension (1:9–11)
JESUS’ ASCENSION TAKES place after his giving the Great Commission for the last time (v. 9). In the early church the ascension was associated with Christ’s exaltation to God’s right hand (see Eph. 1:20–21; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:3; 2:9). The expression “he was taken up” carries this idea, for “the Jews thought of heaven as ‘above’ and earth as ‘below.’ ”1 The cloud also expresses this thought, “for in biblical language the cloud often served as a symbol of divine glory (cf., e.g., Ex. 16:10; Psa. 104:3).”2 The words “before their very eyes” show that Luke wants us to know that “something objective took place.”3
The upward gaze of the disciples is interrupted by the appearance of two men (v. 10), whose white clothes suggest that they are angels (see Matt. 28:2–3; John 20:12). There is a mild rebuke implied in their question about standing and “looking . . . into the sky” (v. 11a). It reminds us of the angelic rebuke that the women received as they were looking for the living among the dead (Luke 24:5). The disciples always seem to be one step behind the surprising moves of God!
The expression “men of Galilee,” which in 2:7 is in essence a “disparaging label,” may suggest a divine reminder “that the apostles were provincials who had a worldwide task ahead of them.”4 The angels specifically give Jesus’ post-ascension abode as “heaven” (1:11b). The promise that he “will come back in the same [exalted] way” (v. 11c) would have helped make some sense out of Jesus’ repeated statements to the disciples about his second coming. This prospect encourages Christians to “live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:12–13).
Waiting Prayerfully (1:12–14)
THE APOSTLES’ RETURN from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem was a Sabbath day’s walk (v. 12), which, according to the Mishnah,5 was a little less than three-fourths of a mile. Since this happened forty days after Easter, it was a Thursday, not a Sabbath day. The disciples “went up to the upper room, where they were staying” (v. 13a, NASB). While the definite article suggests that this room was a well-known place, we cannot tell which room it was.6 It must have been a good place for prayer as it was “above the tumult of the crowded streets and beyond the prying eyes of passersby.”7
Luke’s list of who had gathered in this upper room (v. 13b) includes the eleven apostles—the same list as given in Luke 6:14–16, but without Judas. The order, however, has been changed; this list begins with the three prominent apostles who alone appear later in Acts—Peter, John, and James. Women are also mentioned, in keeping with Luke’s practice of giving a prominent place to women in his writings. Faithful women were with Jesus during his ministry to minister to his needs (Luke 8:2–3); they were also prominently featured on the days of his death (23:27–31, 49, 55–56) and resurrection (24:1–10). Thus, it is not surprising to find them here as well (Acts 1:14). “Given the culture’s usual downplaying of women’s public roles, the equal participation of women is noteworthy, especially their apparent mixing with the men.”8 The early disciples were carrying on what Christ demonstrated about breaking human barriers. They will soon realize more revolutionary implications of this truth (Acts 10; 15; Gal. 3:28).
Mary, Jesus’ mother, is also mentioned here—her only appearance in Acts (v. 14). Luke had presented her as a model of trust and obedience in his Gospel (Luke 1:38). Now we see that she “not only gave birth to her Son; she also assisted in the birth of the church.”9 The undue veneration of her by some should not hinder us from appreciating the important role she played in the history of salvation.
Various theories have been given to explain who the brothers of Jesus mentioned here (and elsewhere in the New Testament) are, especially by those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. C. K. Barrett says, “The present verse contributes nothing to the arguments for or against any of these theories, though it is fair to add that the most natural meaning of adelphos [the word used here] is blood-brother, that foster-brother is not impossible, and that cousin is very improbable.”10 We know that Jesus appeared to James after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7). The unbelief of the brothers, which was still there as late as six months before this death (John 7:5), is now gone.
Luke-Acts abounds with references to prayer (mentioned thirty-one times in Acts and appears in twenty of its chapters).11 Thus, it is not surprising to find that, as the followers of Jesus wait for the promised baptism of the Spirit, they “all joined together constantly in prayer” (v. 14). The word translated “together” (homothymadon) literally means “with one mind or passion” and is a favorite word of Luke.12 Older translations translated it “with one mind,” following its etymological meaning. There is some question as to whether this word takes its etymological sense here, and the newer translations render it as “together” (the meaning it generally takes in the Septuagint).13 But the thought of unanimity in community life is a key theme in Acts, one that we will discuss in connection with other passages that unmistakably indicate this idea (4:32; 6:5; 15:25). The word translated “constantly” “is often connected with prayer (Acts 1:14; 2:42, 46; Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2). . . . It means resolute, sometimes obstinate, persistence.”14 The idea of “prevailing prayer” comes from this word.
Choosing Judas’s Successor (1:15–26)
TO FIND A replacement for Judas, Peter addresses a group of “believers [lit., brothers] . . . numbering about a hundred and twenty” (v. 15). “The term ‘brothers,’ used here for the first time in Acts, may have been the earliest Christian designation for church members.”15 With his concern for accuracy in reporting, Luke likes to qualify his numerical data with a cautious “about,” especially if a round number follows (2:41; 4:4; 10:3; 19:7). As this may not be the exact number present, the number one hundred and twenty is probably not significant, and Luke may simply be saying that the room was full. But the figure did have some significance for Jews, and this may be in Luke’s mind here.16 Whatever the case, it reminds us of how few disciples there were in those first days and of how much they were able to accomplish with the empowering of the Spirit.
Peter views Judas’s act of betrayal as a fulfillment of Scripture (v. 16). That, however, does not take away from the pain of what happened, for, as Peter says, “he was one of our number and shared in this ministry” (v. 17). Peter’s view of the divine authorship of the Old Testament Scriptures is evidenced in his words, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David” (v. 16).
Luke’s digression about how Judas died (vv. 18–19) uses the word “wickedness,” which shows that, while the betrayal was predicted in Scripture, it was a serious act of treachery. This eliminates the views of those who try to “rehabilitate” Judas by showing that his motives for betraying Christ were honorable. Jesus said, “The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him” (Luke 22:22).
There are significant differences between Luke’s account of Judas’s death here and that of Matthew (Matt. 27:1–10). According to Craig Keener, “these similarities and differences can be explained on the basis of two authors reporting different details and ancient historians’ freedom on such details.”17 Richard Longenecker has presented plausible explanations for these differences.18
Peter’s predictions in verse 20 are from Psalm 69 and 10:9. The early Christians saw David, the righteous sufferer, and his enemies as types of Christ and his enemies (the antitypes).19 Differences between David and Jesus and between David’s enemies and Judas in these psalms can be explained by the fact that the antitype is always greater than the type.
The theme of God’s sovereign will at work in the suffering and death of Christ is one that occurs several times in the apostles’ preaching, especially to Jews.20 When the disciples faced the first outlawing of evangelism, they again reflected on the sovereignty of God as it was manifested in the most terrible event in history: the death of Christ (4:25–28). This perspective helps us believe that God will turn the evil done to us into good (cf. Gen. 50:20). It would have helped take away the bitterness that the disciples must have had over the betrayal of Jesus by one who had been so close to them.
Peter felt that it was “necessary” to find a replacement for Judas (v. 21). The same verb “it is necessary” (dei) is used here as in verse 16, which presented the necessity of Judas’s betrayal (though in v. 16, the verb is in the imperfect tense, “it was necessary”). Thus, the early church followed Jesus’ practice of having exactly twelve apostles. When the community that gave rise to the Dead Sea Scrolls “chose a group of leaders which included twelve special officials, it was meant to symbolize that this community was the true remnant of Israel, faithful to God even though the rest of the nation was apostate.”21 The same can be said here.
Note that the first period of the church’s growth was in Israel and that in the Gospels the apostles had a special role in relation to Israel (Luke 9:1–6; 22:28–30). “The filling up of the number was probably meant to indicate that the task of witness to Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews was to be continued after the resurrection.”22 The qualifications required for the replacement had to do with the role of the apostles as witnesses (Acts 1:21–22). Later, Peter would say that those who saw the risen Lord were “witnesses whom God had already chosen” (10:41). Witnessing to the resurrection was a crucial, never to be repeated, role of a select group of men in the early Christian church.
The church cast lots since they felt a need for direct divine guidance on the final choice between the two equally qualified people. But the use of lots comes only after prayer for God’s guidance. That prayer shows what we should be looking for most in a leader: “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen” (v. 24). The believers had found two people with suitable external qualifications, but those would be useless if the person’s heart was not right. Only God knows the hearts of people unerringly, so they ask his help. Like most of the other apostles, the new apostle Matthias does not appear again in Acts. Later tradition presents him as a missionary to the Ethiopians.
LIKE THE PREVIOUS PASSAGE, this one continues the preparation of the church for Pentecost and for launching out on its mission. Again we will see principles that help the church today in preparing for mission.
The importance of the ascension. Though Jesus’ ascension (vv. 9–11) is not often mentioned today among Christians, “in the primitive preaching the resurrection and ascension of Jesus represent one continuous movement and together constitute his exaltation.”23 As this is of great importance to our evangelistic message, we will discuss it in our treatment of Peter’s message at Pentecost (2:17–36).
Prayer and revival. Luke clearly wants to communicate the fact that a key way in which the disciples prepared for the coming of the Spirit was through prayer (vv. 13–14). The connection between these two factors is well established in the Bible, especially in the Lukan writings.24 Arthur Matthews goes so far as to say that “the spiritual history of a mission or church is written in its prayer life.”25 This passage, therefore, has much to teach us about prayer.
The idea of “prevailing prayer” (cf. above) presents one key to powerful praying: praying without giving up until the answer comes. Jesus said that we “should always pray and not give up,” and gave the parable of the persistent widow to illustrate that point (Luke 18:1–8). But why do we need to keep on praying? Is God so reluctant to answer our prayers that we have to keep on asking him? No, he is not reluctant to give, but often we may not be ready to receive his gift. Prayer makes us ready, for in communion with God our hearts are attuned to his will.
Furthermore, prayer is a way of engaging in spiritual warfare against Satan and his forces. Battle language is often used for prayer (cf. Rom. 15:13; Col. 4:12). Immediately after Paul’s famous exposition on spiritual warfare in Ephesians, he says, “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests” (Eph. 6:18). F. F. Bruce observes that there is a strong connection between Ephesians 6:18 and the section on spiritual warfare that precedes it.26 In other words, prayer is a form of spiritual warfare. Note too that God has chosen to send most of his blessings to earth through human instruments, and praying is one of those instruments he uses. Finally, God in his sovereign wisdom has chosen the best time for sending an answer to prayer; until then, we “should always pray and not give up.”
If “together” in verse 14 does mean unanimous, then this accords with a principle that Jesus presented: “If two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven” (Matt. 18:19). Regardless of the meaning of this word, we know that the prayer talked about here is group prayer, in which “all joined together constantly” (Acts 1:14). Often great prayer movements start with one or more individuals with a burden to pray, who share this burden with others, and then keep on praying with them until the blessing comes.27
The pain of defection. The pain of defection by people who have been close to us (vv. 15–20) is something we often face in ministry. Paul expressed this pain when he said, “Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica” (2 Tim. 4:10). Such pain can leave us embittered and hinder our spiritual freedom and fruitfulness in ministry. Peter’s discussion of Judas’s action does not overlook the seriousness of his act of betrayal, but it does see it from the perspective of God’s sovereignty, for he saw it predicted in Scripture (Acts 1:16–20). This approach to personal hurt from colleagues has much to say to us today.
Choosing leaders and making decisions in the church. We noted above that it was significant for the early church’s ministering among the Jews to have exactly twelve apostles (vv. 21–22). But as the narrative of Acts proceeds, especially as it enters the phase of Gentile evangelism, the apostles receive less prominence. Only Peter, James, and John have individual roles in Acts, and none of these apostles is mentioned after chapter 15, by which time a non-apostle, James the brother of Jesus, had become leader of the church in Jerusalem. Thus, the number twelve is not intended to be a precedent to follow in church organization. This points us to the transitory nature of some of the events recorded in Acts. There is, however, “no exegetical support in any New Testament text”28 for the idea that the choice of Matthias to replace Judas was a mistake, and that “Paul . . . was God’s man for the filling of the gap.”29 Matthias’s not being mentioned again in Acts is shared with eight other apostles!
We also cannot say that the use of lots by these disciples was wrong. If it was a blind use of lots, then it would certainly have been wrong. But these believers had been careful to use all other available means of choosing the leaders, such as prayer and the requirements of adequate experience of and a relationship with Christ. Lots were used only after they had two candidates for one position who seemed to have the same qualifications. Lots were used in decision making in a variety of circumstances in the Old Testament.30 Proverbs 16:33 observes about this process: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” “According to the biblical usage, lots seem to have been used only when the decision was important and where wisdom or biblical injunctions did not give sufficient guidance. One of the advantages of the casting of lots was the impartiality of the choice.”31
It is probable that the disappearance of the practice of casting of lots in Scripture is related to the coming of the Holy Spirit, who is now the great Guide of the believers (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18). The fact that it is mentioned just before the record of Pentecost may suggest that Luke wants to highlight the truth that this is a symbol of the end—the signing off, as it were—of the old era.
Acts does not give us a fixed method of community decision making. But there are common features here and in other decision-making episodes that can be helpful to us.32 (1) Throughout the decision-making process was theological reflection, which most often involved the use of Scripture. This same feature is present in the other key community decisions (4:23–31; 6:1–6; 10:1–11:18; 14:26–15:35).
(2) The language used here suggests that the two names were proposed by the whole community. Thus, the community had a part in arriving at the decision, but so did Peter as leader. This interplay between congregational participation and direction by a leader appears in other important decisions taken by the church in Acts (6:1–6; 10:1–11:18; 14:26–15:35).
(3) Peter’s role in directing the church through theological reflection accords with the biblical understanding of leadership. As God is the real leader of the church, the human leader’s task is to direct people to God’s will, which is most clearly recorded in the Scriptures. In other words, the leader’s primary task is to direct people to God’s Word. Note that in the list of qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3, the only ministry-related qualification cited is that an elder should be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2; the rest of the qualifications relate to character, reputation, and family life). In our study of 6:1–6 we will note how a leader performs this “ministry of the Word.”33
(4) The choosing of Matthias also shows us that prayer should play a critical part in our strategy of appointing leaders. Note how Jesus spent the night in prayer before choosing his twelve apostles (Luke 6:12–13). In Luke-Acts, as Robert Stein points out, “prayer preceded every major decision or crisis in the life of Jesus and the early church.”34 Prayer is important before making any decision because it gets us in tune with God, so that we are receptive to his voice. In Antioch, for example, it was as the church was praying (and fasting) that the Holy Spirit spoke to them about separating Saul and Barnabas to the task of missions (13:2).
Here in 1:24 is a clear petition for guidance (“Show us . . .”). Prayer had an equally important part in the process of selecting and appointing elders in the first churches that Paul and Barnabas founded (Acts 14:23). From Jesus’ instructions to “ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field” (Matt. 9:38), we can conclude that prayer has an important role to play in the recruitment of mission workers.
(5) As already noted, the prayer in verse 24 implies that the disciples needed to have confirmed for them the inner nature of the person’s heart, which only God’s knows. Christian ministry is essentially spiritual in nature, and external qualifications are useless if a person’s heart is not right with God.
Contemporary Significance
PRAYER AND REVIVAL. Just as Pentecost came after constant prayer by the disciples, the history of the church demonstrates that revival also comes only after persistent prayer. Revival is something that God sends sovereignly, and therefore we cannot predict when it will come. But, as revival historian J. Edwin Orr observes, “no great spiritual awakening has begun anywhere in the world apart from united prayer—Christians persistently praying for revival.”35 I have heard a statement, attributed to Matthew Henry, that when God wants to do something special in the world, he first gets his people to start praying.
In the 1850s, for example, the United States was in a weak spiritual state, as people were preoccupied with concern for material things. In 1857 a quiet forty-six-year-old businessman, Jeremiah Lanphier, felt led to start a noon-time weekly prayer meeting in New York City, in which business people could meet for prayer. Anyone could attend, for a few minutes or for the entire hour. On the first day Lanphier prayed alone for half an hour. But by the end of the hour six men from at least four denominational backgrounds had joined him. Twenty came the next week and forty the week after. Soon they decided to meet daily, and the group swelled to over one hundred. Pastors who came started morning prayer meetings in their own churches. Soon similar meetings were being held all over America. Within six months there were more than ten thousand meeting daily in New York City alone. This was the start of what is now termed “The Great Awakening” in North America. It is estimated that in a two-year period (1857–1859), two million people were led to Christ (out of a population of thirty million).36
The prayer that took place in Jerusalem was persistent or prevailing prayer. This can happen today as well. The Lord sometimes gives a burden to someone, which he or she shares with others. They pray about this over an extended period of time, and with time they find that the Lord has wonderfully answered their prayers. It is a simple principle, but one that we must be regularly reminded of, given our natural tendency to drift toward prayerlessness.
In 1949, in the village of Barvas in the Hebrides Islands (off Scotland), the parish minister along with his church leaders began to pray for revival. In the same village two sisters in their eighties, whose poor health did not allow them to attend worship, prayed in their cottage for revival in Barvas. God gave them a promise: “I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground” (Isa. 44:3). On the other side of Barvas, knowing nothing about the others, seven young men met three nights a week in a barn to pray for revival. They committed themselves to prayer in keeping with Isaiah 62:6–7:
I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem;
they will never be silent day or night.
You who call on the LORD,
give yourselves no rest,
and give him no rest till he establishes Jerusalem
and makes her the praise of the earth.
The result of all this prayer was wave upon wave of revival over the entire island, through which thousands were converted and/or filled with the Spirit.37 Note how specific portions of Scripture spurred these people to persevere in prayer, just like Christ’s promise to his disciples of baptism with the Spirit. The Scripture causes us to look beyond our present experience and to yearn for the fullness God wants us to experience. This, in turn, stimulates prevailing prayer.
Often an individual has a burden that may not be shared by others but which triggers individual prevailing prayer. In November 1844 George Mueller began to pray for the conversion of five individuals. He says, “I prayed every day without one single intermission, whether sick or in health, on the land or on the sea, and whatever the pressure of my engagements might be.” After eighteen months of such praying, the first of the five was converted. Five years later the second came, and the third after another six years. In his sermon Mueller said that he had been praying for thirty-six years for the other two, but they still remained unconverted. His biographer says that one of those two “became a Christian before Mueller’s death and the other a few years later.”38
Often, as in the case of an adult but rebellious child or an unconverted spouse, we can do little directly to change the person. Advice and rebuke may only worsen the situation. But we can persevere in prayer for them. History is replete with examples of answers to such prayers.39
Healing the hurts inflicted by colleagues. The pain that comes from hurt caused by colleagues who leave a group can be deep in the life of a Christian. The fellowship in Christ that we have with other believers is one of the greatest blessings of being a Christian. But this means that we expect more from our brothers and sisters in Christ than from others. As a result, the pain of disappointment is also greater in our relationships with Christians. I have encountered so many people who are bitter about being betrayed by other Christians that it appears to me as if we are having an epidemic of such bitterness today.
This bitterness can greatly hinder one’s own spiritual life. It will battle with the love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5)—a battle that can be draining and lead to our being spiritually exhausted and losing the glow of the Spirit. Our lives and ministries suffer as a result. The pain of betrayal can also lead us to become hesitant to trust others enough to enter into relationships of spiritual accountability with them. We settle for superficial relationships, and, if this is in a working environment, we allow the job description to rule the relationship, so that we share only what is necessary to do the job properly. Such living is unscriptural.
The description of Judas’s defection in Acts 1 should teach us something about how to handle the pain of defection. The community that these first believers helped forge was not afraid of deep spiritual accountability, for they “were one in heart and mind” (4:32). In other words, they seemed to have overcome the blow of disappointment and developed principles of accountability. Paul too was deeply hurt by defection, apostasy, and unfaithfulness, but he kept opening his life to others and making himself vulnerable to more hurt. He felt hurt right up to the end of his ministry (2 Tim. 4), but he also helped develop many church leaders and left a huge legacy of fruitfulness when he died. Thus, learning how to overcome the hurt of betrayal is an important discipline to cultivate in the Christian life.
I can see two words of encouragement in this passage for Christians wounded by their fellow Christians. (1) Even Jesus’ own disciples experienced the pain that we are experiencing. The language used here for Judas’s defection is restrained, but it does not hide the tragedy and the pain. In this case there must have been great humiliation, for verse 19 says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this.” It would be a scar on Jesus’ reputation. David Gooding presents what may have been heard in Jerusalem like this:
You say Jesus is the Son of God, Israel’s Messiah, Savior and Restorer, come to right our wrongs and to expose the priests’ corrupt abuse of their sacred office for money? How then did he not know any better than to choose a man like Judas to be one of his chief companions, representatives and executives—and, if you please, treasurer of his group?40
Sometimes our biggest anger about betrayal by friends has to do with the humiliation it causes us.
All this should give us hope. Several years ago I suffered deep shock and pain when I found out that one of our workers had lied to us and been dishonest with money. Around this time I read John 12:6 about Judas: “He was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.” This ministered to me in a most unusual way. When I realized that even the greatest leader, Jesus, faced the same problem, I was comforted—and comfort is one of the greatest antidotes to bitterness.
(2) Peter viewed this episode as being part of God’s plan. Verse 16 literally reads, “Brothers, it was necessary for the Scripture. . . . [concerning Judas] to be fulfilled.” God was sovereign in what happened. Not only had he permitted it, he had also anticipated it and intended to use it for some good purpose. Romans 8:28 is indeed true: “In all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” If betrayal is going to be turned into something good in our lives, then bitterness is unnecessary. We will indeed have sorrow and pain over a brother or sister who has moved away from us and (from our perspective) done something wrong. But, because that wrong action was accommodated in God’s ultimate plan for our lives and will be converted into an instrument of blessing, we have no reason to be angry. We have strength to forgive this person and look forward to life with hope and joy. The sorrow and the pain may remain, but the bitterness is gone.
Of course, these are not ideas many people like to entertain. We would rather nurse our wounds and grudges. That gives us an excuse for our anger, even though theologically the anger is unwarranted. Besides, deep down we have a desire to show this person how much he or she has hurt us. That is our “Christian” way of getting justice for what has happened to us. In other words, many choose to ignore the truth of God’s sovereignty and remain in the gloomy world of bitterness. The message to us is: Let the experience of pain that Christ had comfort us, and let the knowledge of God’s sovereignty enable us to look at the pain with gratitude and hope.
Choosing leaders and making decisions today. Each of the five points about decision-making given in the “Bridging Contexts” section is significant for us. They should remain high on our agenda during times of selecting leaders and making decisions, though they are easy to forget. Recently I met the national head of one of our larger denominations shortly after he returned from an important committee meeting of a powerful world Christian body. He told me how surprised he was to find that at the meeting there seemed to be no spiritual dimension in the decision making. It had become so politicized that politics rather than a yearning to know God’s will ruled their deliberations. Such a state does not develop suddenly. It happens gradually, as little by little spiritual principles are overlooked or rejected—sometimes through sheer neglect and sometimes in the interest of expediency.
Two of the five principles in the selection of leaders listed above merit special mention. (1) The first is the place of prayer in choosing leaders. When the process of selecting leaders is saturated in prayer, the spirit of yearning to know God’s will unconsciously influences the process, so that the chances of acting according to that will are much greater. Today, many churches and groups have fine-tuned their procedures for selecting leaders. They have a list of necessary qualifications; such a list is acceptable, as long as the qualifications are biblical.41 Note that qualifications were listed for the appointment of Matthias too; this provides a process of eliminating unsuitable candidates. But often seeking God’s guidance in prayer is a mere formality, not a vitally important aspect of the selection process. A random sampling of churches and groups I am familiar with has revealed to me that this is far too often the case.
(2) There is a need to know, beyond the external qualifications, on how the person’s heart is. If the apostles, who had been relatively close to these two candidates for at least two or three years (depending on what is meant by “John’s baptism” in v. 22) needed this divine special guidance regarding the heart of the person, how much more do we when we make a selection. Written applications, interviews, personality profiles, and recommendations do help, but they can also fail to reveal what is in the heart.
We must be careful in making choices of leaders. One thing I always look for is whether the applicant has been part of a close community that practices spiritual accountability over a considerable period of time. Usually in such a fellowship one’s heart is revealed, and the inability to be part of such a group may indicate a serious spiritual malady. But these groups have been getting less common in the church today, being replaced by short-term groups that are more in keeping with our culture but which give much less opportunity for true spiritual accountability.42 However, the recent phenomenal growth of the Promise Keeper movement, with its program of accountability groups, may be signaling a welcome return to the biblical pattern of spiritual accountability.