Jesus ascends into Heaven, A new Apostle is Chosen

Reference to former writings

1) In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach

The former account is the Gospel of Luke; at one time each was joined together as one book with two "volumes". Imagine what it would be like if the Book of Acts was missing. You would pick up your Bible and see the ministry of Jesus ending in John; next you would read about a guy named Paul writing to followers of Jesus in Rome. Who was Paul? How did the gospel get from Jerusalem to Rome? Acts answers these questions.

Acts is written in the literary style of the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint; "Since Luke can write in a different style (Luke. 1:1-4), this is something deliberate. Probably he regarded himself as recording sacred history." We really don't know all that much about Luke from the New Testament; we know that he was a doctor; we know that he was a Gentile; we know that he was a companion of Paul.

 There was a time when many scholars thought that Acts was sort of a romance novel of the early church, written at least one hundred years after the events supposedly happened. But William Ramsay, a notable archaeologist and Bible scholar, proved that the historical record of Acts is remarkably accurate regarding the specific practices, laws and customs of the period it purports to record; it is the work of contemporary eye-witnesses.

In the mid 1960's, A.N. Sherwin-White, an expert in Greco-Roman history from Oxford, wrote about Acts: "The historical framework is exact. In terms of time and place the details are precise and correct. . . . As documents these narratives belong to the same historical series as the record of provincial and imperial trials in epigraphically and literary sources of the first and early second centuries AD. . . . For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

Theophilus could be a Christians wanting instruction; he could be a Roman official being briefed by Luke about the history of the Christian movement; or the name could be symbolic (Theophilus means "God-lover"). In the introduction to the first volume (Luke 1:3), Luke addresses Theophilus with most excellent, an honorary form of address used to persons who hold high office. Since Acts ends with Paul awaiting trial before Caesar, some have wondered if Luke-Acts are not "defense briefs" on Paul's behalf to give a Roman official background on Paul's case. Luke wanted to show Rome that Christianity was harmless (some Romans officials had embraced it themselves), innocent (Roman judges could find no basis for prosecution) and lawful (as the true fulfillment of Judaism).

Notice that the former account concerned all that Jesus began both to do and teach; Luke's Gospel describes the mere beginnings of Jesus' work, Acts describes its continuation (continuing to our day!)

We must remember that Acts does not give us a full history of the church during this period; for example, the churches in Galilee and Samaria are barely mentioned (9:31), and the establishing of a strong church in Egypt during this time isn't mentioned at all. Acts takes us up to about 60 or 61 AD, with Paul in Rome waiting to appear before Caesar Nero. This same Nero began his infamous persecutions of Christians in 64 AD.

The last work of Jesus on this earth

2) until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3) After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, instructed the apostles regarding what to do in His absence.

Jesus also established the fact of His resurrection with many infallible proofs during the forty days after his resurrection but before His ascension.

The teaching Jesus gave during that period is not recorded, but we are told that He used that time to speak of things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Many Gnostic and New Age teachers would like to think that after His resurrection, Jesus used the forty days to teach His followers strange and obscure doctrines that must be "rediscovered" with new revelations today. But Luke reminds us that Jesus simply taught them much the same material that He had taught them in His earthly ministry: the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

The ascension of Jesus

Jesus' instructions to His disciples

4) On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5) For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

He has nothing else for them to do other than to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit; He knows that they really can do nothing effective for the Kingdom of God until the Spirit comes.

These verses give us another of the many "Trinity in Miniature" examples; Jesus tells of the Promise of the Father, which is the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The idea of baptism is to be immersed or covered over in something; even as John baptized people in water, so these disciples would be "immersed" in the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is more useful to describe the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as more a condition than an experience; we should perhaps say are you Baptized in the Holy Spirit instead of have you been Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The disciples' last question

6) So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

This was a question asked many times before; they must have believed that Jesus would certainly establish an earthly political kingdom (leaving them in charge) before ascending to the Father.

The disciples were certainly aware of the many Old Testament prophecies that described the rebirth of Israel politically as well as spiritually; it seemed logical that as the spiritual rebirth seemed certain, the political would come also.

Jesus replies with the final words of His earthly ministry

7) He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

He warns them against inquiring into aspects of the timing of God's kingdom; those things belong to God the Father alone.

How do you think they would have felt if they had known that the kingdom they wanted to see would not be coming for almost 2,000 years?

At the same time, Jesus did not say that there was to be no restoration of the kingdom to Israel; He simply said that speculation into the times and dates of it was not proper for the disciples.

If the political kingdom they wanted would be delayed, power would not; they would shortly receive power with the coming of the Holy Spirit. The disciples were still seeing power too much in terms of Caesar, and not enough in terms of Christ; Jesus offers them real power, but how attractive did that seem?

The natural result of receiving that power would be to be witnesses of Jesus, all over the earth. Notice that this really isn't a command; it is a simple statement of fact: when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you shall be witnesses of Me; shall be is in the indicative, not the imperative. Far more important than even the best course in evangelism is the filling of the Holy Spirit! Isaiah 43:10 has the Lord proclaiming to His people You are My witnesses; a cultic group today claims that this is their mandate for being "Jehovah's Witnesses." Unfortunately, they fail to see Isaiah 43:10 in the context of Acts 1:8; we are truly Yahweh's Witnesses when we are Jesus Witnesses.

The progress of the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and then to the ends of the earth becomes the outline of Acts. One may imagine objections to the spheres of ministry Jesus described; Jerusalem was the place He was executed at the word of an angry mob; Judea rejected His ministry; Samaria was regarded as a wasteland of impure half-breeds, and Gentiles were seen as nothing better than fuel for the fires of Hell.

Jesus ascends into heaven

9) After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10) They 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."

He was taken up from them, as He was blessing them (Luke 24:50); as He slowly disappeared into the sky, surrounded by a cloud (of Shekinah glory?), they continued to gaze upward.

Why did Jesus ascend this way? He certainly could have simply "vanished" to the Father's presence in a secret sort of way; but with the ascension, Jesus wanted His followers to know that He was gone for good, as opposed to His appearing and reappearing during the forty days after the resurrection. Remember Jesus' words to His disciples in John 16:7: It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

The two men (apparently angels), told the disciples to put their attention in the right place (obedience to Jesus' command to return to Jerusalem), not in wondering where and how Jesus went.

Some have suggested that the two men in white apparel were Moses and Elijah, which would correspond with their appearance during the Transfiguration in Matthew 17.

Jesus will return just as He left; physically, visibly, and to the Mount of Olives.

On the Mount of Olives, there is a church called The Church of the Holy Ascension. If you go there today, guides will show you a footprint which is supposedly the place from which Jesus took off when He ascended to heaven. Yet Luke 24 says that Jesus traveled with His disciples past the Mount of Olives to Bethany before He ascended. When people don't read the Word, they are vulnerable to traditions and myths which have no Biblical base at all.

Matthias is appointed to replace Judas

The followers of Jesus return to Jerusalem

12) Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. 13) When 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. 14) They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

A Sabbath's day journey describes a short distance, the only kind allowed on the Sabbath.

Who was there? The eleven disciples (the twelve minus Judas) are present; along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, the brothers of Jesus (such as James and Jude), the women who followed Jesus, and others, adding up to about 120 (verse 15). The brothers of Jesus never seemed to be supportive of His ministry before His death and resurrection, (John 7:5, Mark 3:21) but now that has changed - the power of the resurrected Jesus is already on display. Calvin translates with the women in verse 14 as with their wives, a reference to the wives of the apostles.

Their obedience is notable; Jesus told them to return to Jerusalem and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit, and that is exactly what they did. They didn't forget the sermon on the way to the parking lot; they actually did what Jesus told them to do - even though He was no longer physically present with them.

Their unity is notable; These all continued with one accord. When we saw the disciples in the gospels, it seemed that they were always fighting and bickering. What had changed? Peter still had the history of denying the Lord; Matthew was still a tax collector; Simon was still a zealot. Their differences were still there, but the resurrected Jesus in their hearts was greater than any of their differences.

Their prayer is notable; they all prayed, and they continued in prayer and supplication; the idea of supplication is a sense of desperation and earnestness in prayer.

Already, we see three important steps in making godly decisions: the disciples are in obedience, they are in fellowship, and they are in prayer.

Peter suggests selecting a replacement for Judas

15) In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16) and 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—17) he 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. 19) Everyone 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.'

Peter is taking a natural leadership role among the disciples; there is nothing wrong as seeing Peter as the leader of the first group of the apostles, even as he often was the spokesmen among the disciples during the earthly ministry of Jesus. However, the idea that the authority of Peter was supreme, and that he handed it down in unbroken succession, is unbiblical and wrong.

Peter's words show a wisdom we did not often see in him before; he begins by noting that Judas' didn't spoil God's plan, he fulfilled it (this Scripture had to be fulfilled) - something that only the wise and mature can see when evil happens.

Luke's historical note calls attention to how Judas died; Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hanged himself, but apparently he failed in the attempt, fell, and was killed by the impact of falling from the tree in the Field of Blood. It was a Field of Blood not only because Judas spilled his blood there, but also because the field was purchased with the "blood money" given to the betrayer of Jesus.

Peter, quoting from two separate Psalms, shows why God would have them choose another disciple to "officially" take Judas' place. Their reliance on God's Word is notable; this wasn't the wisdom of man at work, but a principle revealed in Scripture. Also, this is the first time in the New Testament we read that Peter quoted Scripture!

David, the writer of these quoted Psalms, knew what it was like to be betrayed by another. When he was a fugitive from Saul, he was betrayed by a man named Doeg (1 Samuel 21-22), and many innocent people died as a result. David may have penned these very words in reference to this betrayer.

When David was betrayed, he desired that the betrayer would be desolate and that another fill the betrayer's office; it wasn't hard to understand that the Son of David - Jesus, whom David often pictured - would desire the same thing.

Their desire for God's will is notable; because of the principle of the quoted Scripture, they will replace Judas because they believe it is what Jesus wants, not because it is what they want.

Qualifications are stated and two men are nominated

21) Therefore 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, 22) beginning 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."
23) So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.

The disciples were bold enough to make a decision because they knew from God's Word that this is what He wanted. The apostles did not sense an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them; that was yet to come. But God did not leave them without guidance; they knew what to do from the Word. Even when we don't "feel" the Holy Spirit, we still have God's voice permanently established in His Word. When we don't feel a special blessing from the Holy Spirit in an area revealed in God's Word, we still know what to do: obey God's Word.

Whoever replaces Judas must be one who had been with them since they were baptized by John, stayed with them during the days of Jesus' earthly ministry, and they must have seen the resurrected Jesus.

What told them that these were to be the qualifications? Sanctified common sense! There was no direct, awesome revelation from God; their common sense was being blessed because they were in obedience, in fellowship, in prayer, in the Word, and desiring God's will. Their sanctified common sense was notable; it didn't answer everything; but it did narrow it down to two men.

The main job of the new apostle was simply to become a witness with us of His resurrection; we can do the same job by showing that Jesus lives in our lives.

The disciples pray and cast lots to select a replacement for Judas

24) Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25) to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26) Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

They prayed first, and it was easy to pray because they had already been praying (1:14).Their doing what Jesus would do was notable. How did Jesus choose the disciples? He prayed (Luke 6:12-13), even as these disciples did to see who the Lord would add to their number.

Many people have questioned the method for choosing one of the two men - after all these great spiritual steps, they end up rolling dice to pick the winner. Is this any way to choose an apostle?

Their reliance on God is notable. Though they were not yet filled with the Holy Spirit as they would be, they still wanted to choose a method that would make them rely on God. The casting of lots may be an imperfect way to discern God's will, but it is much better than the methods many Christians use today, relying on emotions, circumstances, feelings, carnal desires and so forth.

Was Matthias the right man for the job? Some insist that Matthias was wrong choice and the use of lots was not right; the idea is that God would have chosen Paul if the office had been left vacant. But we must respect the testimony of the Scriptures; God did not want to leave the office vacant. If He did, it might be seen as a victory for Satan - Jesus picked 12, but one came up short and defeated Jesus' desire to have 12 apostles.

Even though we read nothing more of Matthias, we should not assume he was a "dud" as an apostle; except for Peter and John, none of the original twelve are mentioned again after Acts 1. Matthias was no more of a "dud" than Matthew or Andrew or Thomas or any of the others. Paul considered himself an apostle, but one born out of due time (1 Corinthians 15:8). Revelation 21:14 tells us that each of the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem has the name of one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; is "number 12" Paul or Matthias? Who can say?

No one can fault all the things they did before they cast lots; we must believe that all these things put them into the place where God would truly guide their decision. If we would put ourselves into the same place, we wouldn't make many wrong decisions!

• They were in obedience

• They were in fellowship

• They were in prayer

• They were in the Word

• They wanted to do God's will

• They used sanctified common sense

• They did what Jesus would do

• They did what they could do to rely on God