Acts 1:20

“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell in it', and, ‘His office (episkope) let another take'.

Peter then cites two Scriptures which had especially struck him in connection with the incident, one found in Psalms 69:25 and the other in Psalms 109:8. From them he recognised the justice of what had happened to Judas, and that therefore, because of the important ministry to which he had been called, it was necessary that he be replaced.

We should note that Peter only uses Psalms 69:25 generally in the sense that it indicated that those who opposed the house of David (it was a Davidic psalm) would suffer a dreadful end and lose their wealth. He does not apply the words ‘his habitation be made desolate and let no man dwell in it' to the specific purchasing of a field that became a cemetery, for he does not mention this fact in his explanation. That is described in Matthew 27:6.

The reference to Psalms 109:8 introduces the idea of a servant of the Davidic house being replaced by another. This indicates to him that it is necessary for Judas to be replaced because he has lost his position as the servant of the son of David through treachery and sin. After all Jesus had had good reason for appointing twelve Apostles. They represented the twelve patriarchs, and therefore the true Israel. It was therefore right that before their outgoing ministry began the twelve be made up as the campaign commenced. No such necessity was suggested when James was later slain (Acts 12:1) so that the thought was not of continually maintaining the twelve. The thought was rather that they must start with a full complement because the lack had arisen due to iniquity. With regard to James later things were totally different. It was probably kept in mind that James had not ‘died'. Unlike Judas he merely ‘slept'. Thus the twelve was not to be seen as deficient just because one of its members was with God.

So his point here is that they must follow God's revealed way of working. God had commenced the process. He had made Judah's habitation desolate. Now it was necessary for another to take his place in his important office. Note that Jesus Himself had drawn attention to this Psalm as relating to His own situation (John 15:25 compare John 2:17; Romans 15:3)

Note on Peter's Use of the Psalms.

The question might arise as to whether Peter saw the death of Judas' as the actual fulfilment of the Psalms. The answer is probably both yes and no. It is probable that he saw it as a fulfilling of the principles enunciated in the Psalm, and as a fulfilment that was ominously necessary, but not necessarily as the sole fulfilment. What it was, was its greatest fulfilment.

Firstly we must remember that prophecy in Scripture is usually not intended to be a forecasting of specific events in the future, although that sometimes necessarily comes into it, but as something taught in order to enable those living at the time to be aware of trends that God would bring about in the future, and in order to enable future generations to be aware of God's ways. They could therefore be seen as having a number of applications, and each ‘prophecy' as having several partial fulfilments. This was especially true of Psalms which could be applied to every generation. Psalms 69, which is quoted here, is a psalm of the Davidic house. It describes the suffering of a member of that house, and would therefore be seen as applicable to each 'David' (see 1 Kings 12:16) who came one after another in succession. Each ‘David' would sing these Psalms seeing them as applying to himself. That was why the Psalms continued to be sung. They were seen as applying anew to each generation. They had continuing contexts.

There were apparently many who caused suffering to the house of David and suffered this fate. It was necessarily so, for God's purposes were to be fulfilled through that house, and there would always be resistance to them. And that was what the Psalmist was seen as expressing. Here therefore Peter saw no inconsistency in applying it to the greatest of the house of David, and to His enemy, and saw in the situation of Jesus and Judas one which fulfilled the particular verse to the letter.

Often we take John 3:16 and apply it individually. 'God so loved Jim Bloggs that He gave His only begotten Son so that if Jim Bloggs should believe in Him --- he should have everlasting life.' Is that then wrong? Is this to misrepresent Scripture? Surely not, for Jim Bloggs is a part of the world. And that is what Peter did here. He points out that among the persecutors of the house of David here was one, among many, who caused suffering to a member of the house of David in this way. What was described by the Psalmist has happened again to the house of David, to David's greater son. Judas was thus a prime example of what was spoken of in the Psalm. The ‘prophecy' has been fulfilled. But he would almost certainly not have denied that it had also happened in the past. It was not a sole fulfilment.

The same principle applies to Psalms 109. Again it was a Psalm of the Davidic house which applied to each generation. In each generation, where the Davidic representative was faithful to God, his cry was that his opponents be replaced. And so here it now applies to Jesus as the greater David. Peter was thus taking it right in context for no Christian doubted that Jesus summed up the house of David. And here Peter's point is that God had ordained that when a scion of the house of David was oppressed, and was under God's protection as a righteous king, his oppressor would be removed from his office and replaced by another. Peter was not changing the sense in any way. He was simply applying Scriptural principles to a specific case.

We must beware of laying down rules for how New Testament writers should have used Scripture. As we all are, they were free to use them as they saw fit as long as the result was Scriptural truth. Some preachers today quote exactly, others paraphrase in order to make the point more clear. That cannot be faulted as long as the sense remains unchanged. It does not mean that they do not see them as Scripture or as prophecy. They are rather making clear the sense. This is what Peter is doing here with regard to Judas, and so he gives the verse in the Psalm a singular sense.

Furthermore we must note that most of the early church only ever used translations (as we do). The original Old Testament text was in Hebrew and Aramaic, but the New Testament writers used Greek. In fact they often used the Septuagint, a Greek Old Testament translation. Just as we have varying translations, so had they, in Greek. The Septuagint (LXX) was not the only one. That is why we often cannot be sure whether they themselves are translating or are using a version. They might even have been using an anthology of favourite verses., for not many had access to full manuscripts. Someone today might use AV, RV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV and so on, and see it in each case as 'quoting Scripture' and thus feel free to say 'it is written'. It is only if we have grounds for thinking that it was a mistranslation that we should not do so.

But it goes deeper than that. Many prophecies have a near and a far meaning, and none more so than the Psalms. They looked to the future working of God, and this was seen as especially so of the Psalms 'to/for David'. Sometimes that heading refers to David's authorship, at other times it is probably referring to a dedication of the Psalm to the Davidic house. But all were seen as referring to 'the anointed king'. Each crowned son of David was an ‘anointed' (Hebrew : messiach) king, was a new ‘David' (1 Kings 12:16). These Davidic psalms could thus be used through the generations as applying to each anointed king. When the One came who summed up the anointed kingship, the Messiah, it would especially apply to Him. This is clear from a number of Psalms.

This was the nature of much prophecy. Prophecy was intended to bless each generation as well as the final generation in which it was finally fulfilled. It described the principles according to which God worked as well as His final plan. Prophecies spoke of the trend of history. So, yes, the principles were often applied to a like situation without it being seen as an exact prophecy. And yes some were exact prophecies. Which was intended must be gathered from the context. Of the Psalms quoted here in Acts 1 it can be said that they were both. Peter could have used the plural had he wanted to because the Psalm was fulfilled in the plural. Many had combined to bring about Jesus' downfall. But he chose not to. He wanted all specifically to see a partial fulfilment in Judas. Judas did not alone fulfil the prophecy for others were involved as well. But he was a genuine part of its fulfilment.

The same will be seen to be true in Acts 2. The quotation from Joel there is an interpretive translation, an 'amplified version'. Peter was speaking to those who may not have been sure of the context (which was the last days) and so he brings out that 'afterwards' means 'the last days'. For they all saw the coming of Jesus as introducing 'the last days'. The coming of Jesus was the final stage in the fulfilling of God's purposes. (It still is). And he wanted those listeners who did not know Joel very well to jump straight into the context.

End of Note.