Acts 1
LenskiCHAPTER I
THE OPENING EVENTS, CHAPTER 1
ΠράξειςτῶνἈποστόλων, “Acts of the Apostles,” is the title of Luke’s second composition, and this superscription is found as far back as scholars are able to carry their research. This title has remained constant even in the versions. The four Gospels have no titles, for the phrases “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” etc., were added at a later time, chiefly in order to distinguish these writings from each other. Their subject was the same, the εὑαγγέλιον, “the good news” (“gospel” in Old English) concerning Jesus Christ. The question whether Luke himself gave his second account the title it has always borne is affirmed by some although all admit that he left his first account without a title, and those who think that he intended to write a third account are naturally unable to say whether he had a title in mind and what that title might be. Since, however, Luke gave no title to his first account, it is hazardous to assume that he gave a title to the second.
We purposely avoid using the term “books.” Luke did not call his first writing a “book” but a λόγος, an account. Both of his writings are of a personal nature and are addressed to one man for reasons that are personal to that man. We are not to think of Theophilus as a patron to whom Luke dedicated books in order that this patron might have them published. That idea has been advanced by men who themselves write books and seek to have them published. So they think that Luke wrote a title for what they call his second book but overlook the fact that he left what they call his first book without a title. When Luke thought of his writings as λόγοι or accounts he needed no titles and used none. The idea of a book is of later origin, hence also we have the captions, including the one that was affixed to his second account and that is still used everywhere.
Acts 1:1
1 The first account I made concerning all things, O Theophilus, which Jesus began both doing and teaching until what day he was received up after having given behests through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he chose for himself; to whom he also, after he suffered, presented himself alive in connection with many proofs, letting himself be seen by them during forty days and declaring the things concerning the kingdom of God; and while partaking together of salt he ordered them not to be withdrawing from Jerusalem, on the contrary, to be awaiting the promise of the Father, which you heard from me; seeing that John baptized with water, that you, however, shall be baptized in connection with the Holy Spirit not many days after these.
The periodic sentence with which Luke begins his Gospel is greatly admired as a wonderful example of the literary Koine, and in this admiration one feels a note of disappointment because of Luke’s failure to score as highly a second time in the opening sentence of his Acts. But Luke did score just as highly; this time, however, he wrote a complex sentence which in a most concise and certainly masterful way connects Acts not merely with the Gospel in general but with all the salient points of the Gospel, so that these combine into one focus for the great new narrative that now begins. Instead of registering the fact that this is not another Periode (B.-D. 464) or remarking that here, too, Luke attains the literary Koine (R. 121), more attention might be paid to the aim and the contents of this complex sentence in summarizing the vital features of the entire Gospel so as to take up the thread of the new narrative.
Luke reaches back to John and his baptism and to the promise of the Father, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is now so close at hand; he brings to mind all that he had written about the deeds and the teachings of Jesus up to the time of the ascension; he lets his reader again meet the apostles whom Jesus elected for himself; he recalls the forty days in which Jesus gave all those proofs of his resurrection and spoke of the things of the kingdom in the light of his resurrection; and he repeats the command that the apostles must not leave Jerusalem, for in a few days the promise will be fulfilled. All this is arranged in one grand sentence. With it Luke places his reader just where he ought to be placed in order to go on with the new account. A study of the details of these five verses should not cause us to lose sight of their great sweep through the Gospel which brings us to the front portal of Acts.
We are unable to translate solitary μέν which merely lends a delicate stress to the clause in which it appears; “indeed” is too strong although it tends in the right direction. The older view that δέ should follow, that a contrast is implied, that this must appear at least in the thought, or that, with δέ absent, the construction is broken and results in a kind of anacoluthon, is untenable. See R. 1150. Solitary μέν does not require even a contrasting thought, to say nothing of a δέ. The fact that Luke had already written his second account the reader would see by having that account in his hands as he began to read. “The first account” is all that Luke needs to say in order to place the two side by side. The word λόγος does not mean “book”; the term never means “book,” and even when there is a reference to a book, not the book as a book is referred to but only its contents.
When Luke refers to a “book,” the ancient manuscript roll, he writes βίβλος (Luke 3:4; 20:42; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 19:19) or βιβλίον (Luke 4:17, 20). “Treatise” in our versions is better. Luke wrote an “account” of certain things to Theophilus, a full account, indeed, but only an account, and is now penning another. He is not thinking of publication nor suggesting such a thing to Theophilus.
We have discussed πρῶτος in the Introduction. Luke uses it in the sense of “first” as well as in the sense of “former”; in fact, he never employs πρότερος, even as it is fast disappearing in the Koine, M.-M. 557; R. 280. Zahn supports his view by an appeal to Luke’s education as a grammatikos; but the appeal must be made to the grammars and the lexicons which register the facts of language. But this implies that the word cannot be referred to as a support for the theory that Luke intended to write also a third book. When Luke writes that he prepared the first account “concerning all things which Jesus began doing,” etc., we understand that “all things” is a popular hyperbole; for this statement has the preposition περί, “concerning.” One can write “concerning” all things without actually recounting all of them. It is a correct summary of the Gospel when Luke calls it the account “concerning all things which Jesus began both doing and teaching until what day he was received up.” The relative ὧι is attracted from ἅ to the case of its antecedent, and the antecedent of ἧς is itself drawn into the relative clause: “what day” for “the day in which.”
As far as the use of “began” is concerned, the discussion about the force of this word overlooks two things, that the tense of the two infinitives is present and thus durative, and that the terminus of this doing and this teaching is named to the very day, the day when Jesus ascended to heaven. Jesus “began” (aorist, the start); he engaged in working as well as in teaching (present, the whole course of his work, both activities continuing together); “until what day he was received up” (aorist) records the end. So we dismiss the emphasis on “began” as though this beginning might be of special importance; and also the deduction that Luke implies that what Jesus began the apostles were to continue and to conclude. No; what Jesus began and also continued reached its end the day he ascended.
Nor should one overlook the fact that Luke gives a decided emphasis to the phrase “concerning all things” plus its relative clause by inserting the vocative between them, “O Theophilus.” The name Theophilus and all these things regarding Jesus about which Luke wrote to him are thus brought together in what appears to be a significant way.
Does his omission of the title κράτιστε, “Your Excellency,” which appears in the Gospel, mean anything? It will not do to say “no,” for such high titles (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25) cannot be bestowed upon a person at the beginning of one document and then withheld from that same person at the beginning of another document that is altogether similar. In early Christian literature we are told that no Christian addressed a fellow Christian with such a title. We, therefore, conclude that in the Gospel the title was in place because Theophilus was then not as yet a Christian, but that it is no longer in place in Acts because Theophilus had now become a Christian, for which reason Luke sends him this second account. The gracious and mighty miracles of Jesus (ποιεῖν) and the gracious and true teaching of Jesus (διδάσκειν) had won this man, who was either a Roman knight or a Roman official or a man of very great prominence, to faith. Luke’s Gospel had scored a great missionary success.
Acts 1:2
2 The terminus of the Gospel is the ascension. In Luke 24:51 one verb is used, here, in v. 11 and 22, and in 1 Tim. 3:16, another verb occurs, but all five verbs are passive: “he was received up,” the agent in the passive being God. Yet in John 3:13; 6:62; Eph. 4:10; Heb. 4:14 we have the active: Jesus himself ascended. Both statements are true, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa; they are ascribed equally to the different Persons. But before Jesus ascended, as the aorist participle ἐντειλάμενος shows, he gave behests to the apostles, ἐντολαί, as the participle suggests, Auftraege. Ἐντέλλω is not the common verb “to command” or “to order” which applies to slaves, servants, soldiers, and the like, but the verb that indicates a more personal relation. Beza has the idea: Ut facere solent qui ab amicis, vel etiam ex hoc mundo, discedunt—injunctions such as those leave who part from friends or who leave this world.
We need not be told what these behests were. They were given during the forty days and are recorded in Luke 24:47; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15–18; John 20:21–23. If anything were yet to be said, this last passage shows that the behests were given “through the Holy Spirit,” and that this phrase should not be construed with the relative clause: “whom he did elect through the Holy Spirit.” All the acts of Jesus were done in connection with the Spirit who had been bestowed upon the human nature of Jesus. We do not read that the election of the apostles was connected with the Spirit, but John 20:22 specifically informs us that, when Jesus sent forth the eleven, he breathed on them and bade them receive the Holy Spirit.
The relative clause “whom he did elect for himself” is added to “the apostles” in order once more to bring to mind the elective act which constituted these men “the apostles,” the specially commissioned messengers (ἀποστέλλω, to send with a commission) of Jesus, we may say, his ambassadors. The middle voice is important: “he did elect for himself”; we may place a good deal into this middle; to represent him, to continue his work, etc. All this, too, lies in the title, “the apostles.” Although it is sometimes used in a wider sense to include also the immediate assistants of the apostles (Luke was one), here it refers to the eleven only who received the final behests of Jesus.
Note the position of the phrase “through the Holy Spirit” before the relative clause “whom he elected.” In the Greek the phrase might belong within the relative clause, but if that were the case, it would receive the strongest kind of emphasis, an emphasis for which no one could account in the present connection. Since it modifies the participle, “having given behests,” no emphasis rests on the phrase. The Greek is content to mark only the past fact that lies in the aorist, “he did elect,” whereas the English marks also the relation to other past facts: “he had elected.”
Acts 1:3
3 In another relative clause (οἷςκαί) Luke adds that these behests were given after the resurrection of Jesus, during the forty days. Jesus “presented himself alive or as living after he suffered.” The aorist παθεῖν is constative and speaks of the suffering as something complete, thus including also the death. To present himself as alive or living (durative present participle) after this fatal suffering implies his resurrection from the dead. This presentation of himself was not a bare presentation but was “in connection with many proofs,” sure tokens which made the apostles certain of the fact that their dead Lord was, indeed, alive.
Ἐν does not mean “by,” for the proofs were not the means of the presentation but were “in connection with” it. In Luke 24:36 we see just what is meant: Jesus appeared in the midst of the disciples, then, however, he made them feel his flesh and his bones and also ate a piece of fish before them. These proofs were multiplied until they actually became many. This prodigality was intended to remove all doubt so completely as never to permit it to arise again. Luke makes the matter still clearer and adds more data: “letting himself be seen by them during forty days,” etc. In this way Jesus presented himself alive.
The temporal phrase is placed before the participle for the sake of emphasis. No less than forty days were used for these appearances. Again and again Jesus let himself be seen. The apostles (and others) had time to think, to consider, to talk the matter over, to make any new test they might desire. The present participle fits the repetition of the appearances to their proofs; the agent for the passive, as so often, is expressed by the dative “by them.” Thayer calls ὀπτάνομαι a Biblical word, but it has been found elsewhere (Deissmann, Light, etc., 79 and 252: “I am seen,” “I let myself be seen”). It expresses exactly what Jesus did when he would suddenly stand in the midst of the apostles.
Valuable is the addition: “and declaring the things concerning the kingdom of God,” as recorded in Matt. 28:18, etc.; Mark 16:14, etc.; Luke 24:25, etc., and 44, etc., John 20:21, etc. These were the same things Jesus had been teaching throughout his ministry, but now they appeared in a new light. Romanists insert the thought that Jesus instructed the apostles about the hierarchy, the seven sacraments, etc.
One of the greatest concepts of the New Testament is “the kingdom of God” (Matthew, “of the heavens”). It is misunderstood when earthly kingdoms are used as a pattern for this spiritual concept. An earthly kingdom is a land and a nation on which the king depends. Take his people away, and the king ceases to be king; they, too, are what they are without him as a king. But God (Christ) makes his kingdom, it depends wholly on him and could not exist without him. God’s kingdom is found wherever God is and rules by his power, grace, and glory.
He makes his own domain and his own people, and never they him. It is the kingdom of the heavens because heavenly powers make it and also give it heavenly character; the kingdom of God (Christ) because he is over and in it everywhere, at once its source and its control. This rule or kingdom goes back to the beginning and extends to eternity. When we look at the power and the omnipotence, it rules the whole universe; when we look at grace, it embraces the whole church; when we contemplate the glory we see heaven and all its inhabitants. The kingdom and rule of grace fills the whole Testament from Adam onward; it is the rule of grace through the Messianic promise. A new era began when the promise was fulfilled in Christ, the era of the New Testament which extends to the end of time.
It is of the kingdom in this sense that Jesus spoke during the forty days. About to ascend on high, he would rule with grace and through the apostles reach out to the ends of the earth. So he rules through their written Word to this day. But since this is a rule of grace, it makes all who are won by grace partakers of the kingdom. It makes them kings unto God (Rev. 1:6) so that they, too, rule with him by means of his Word and have kingly crowns awaiting them (2 Tim. 4:8, and all the passages that speak of a crown). See the author’s Kings and Priests where the entire subject is treated.
Acts 1:4
4 This verse does not begin a new sentence, for καί only carries the great introductory statement to its conclusion by adding the command to stay in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit who had been promised already by the Baptist. Thus in one grand sweep everything from the time of the Baptist until Pentecost is combined with reference to the kingdom.
In συναλιζόμενος we have a crux interpretum. If the root is ἁλής, the adjective meaning “crowded,” “in a mass,” we have the translation of our versions: “being assembled together”; but if the root is ἅλς, “salt,” we have the marginal translation of our versions: “eating together,” or more precisely: “while partaking together of salt.” Rather decisive against the former meaning is the fact that the singular fits only a collective noun, like a multitude, and never only a single person. Then, too, the tense should be the aorist, for the assembling must precede the commanding. Sense and tense are correct if we accept the other derivation, “eating with them,” and we have in our favor all the ancient versions and the fathers plus also Luke 24:41–43, where Jesus did eat. Still we lack classical examples for this meaning. See B.-P. 1257.
One is surprised at M.-M. 601 who advocate a difference in spelling so that we have a verb that means “to spend the night with.” We may take it that Luke refers to his own Gospel, 24:41–43, 49, where he reports both that Jesus ate broiled (and thus salted) fish and ordered the disciples to remain in the city until they received the promise of the Father. Luke recalls this order because he is now about to report the descent of the Spirit. He even uses the same expression: “the promise of the Father” (Luke 24:49), and adds that they had heard this from him before (the aorist where we prefer the perfect).
Acts 1:5
5 Ὅτι does not state the reason for awaiting the promise of the Father although it is quite generally so translated: “for” (meaning “because”), German denn. How could John’s baptizing with water be a part of such a reason? This is the so-called consecutive ὅτι (R. 1001), “seeing that.” In view of the fact that John began with water in order to have a greater than he finish by pouring out the Holy Spirit the eleven must stay in Jerusalem. Read Luke 3:16, also John 1:33. We repeat only in brief the exegesis of these passages. John’s baptism was the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins, hence had the Holy Spirit even as this Spirit alone wrought faith throughout the Old Testament era.
To reduce John’s baptism to a mere water ceremony that was devoid of the Spirit is to contradict Luke 3:3. John began the work with his baptism, Jesus was to finish at Pentecost. We know of none of the apostles who received any other baptism than John’s; by receiving it they confessed themselves as repentant and believing.
This ἐν does not imply that the Spirit became the counterpart of “water,” a sort of fluid that sprinkled, washed, or even immersed a person. We note fire at Pentecost and not a fluid. Ἐν is here used exactly as it was in v. 3: “in connection with the Holy Spirit”; βαπτισθήσεσθε, like our expression that the Spirit “was poured out,” cannot be stressed to get the idea of a fluid. When Jesus was baptized with the Spirit, when the Spirit was poured out upon him, Luke 3:22 describes this as the coming down of the Spirit in a bodily form like a dove. There were different phenomena at Pentecost (sound of wind, tongues of fire), but the act was the same: the Spirit filled the disciples in a miraculous way and gave them great power. This is called “being baptized.” And the verb is evidently used in a figurative and unusual way. The apostles had heard this before, but now they are told that the event will occur “not many days after these,” a litotes for “after only a few days” (R. 1205). We must note that οὑ is always placed before the preposition (B.-D. 433, 3), that ταύτας is predicative (R. 656): nicht viele Tage nach den jetzigen (B.-D. 226), an idiom we cannot duplicate.
Luke has made his masterly connection with his great Gospel account; he is now ready to proceed with the new narration.
Acts 1:6
6 Now they, having come together, began to inquire of him, saying, Lord, art thou at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel? He, however, said to them: It is not yours to know times or seasons which the Father did place in his own authority. On the contrary, you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in Samaria and to the last part of the earth.
Luke uses μὲνοὗν once in the Gospel but twenty-seven times in Acts; there are only a few other instances elsewhere in the New Testament; the favorite combination in Acts is οἱμὲνοὗν as here, often with a participle. A δέ need not follow although one does follow (v. 7). The particles do little more than to express an accord of the new statement with the one that precedes and may be rendered “accordingly”; no deduction is intended; “therefore” in our versions is too weigthy. There is an ambiguity with regard to the participles as to whether these are to be substantivized: “those come together,” or regarded as modifiers: “they having come together.” We prefer the latter because it can be carried through while the other at times causes difficulty.
Luke is speaking of the apostles (v. 2); they came together on the Mount of Olives (v. 12) whither Jesus himself led them (Luke 24:50). Some think that the apostles were still in the house where v. 4 and the participle, “partaking together of salt,” placed them, so that now the scene of v. 4, 5 merely continues through v. 6–8. Much labor is then expended on v. 9 to show that, without saying so, Luke transfers us to the Mount of Olives. But if Jesus is eating with the apostles in v. 4, why must Luke in v. 6 remind us that they had come together? There is no reason why the apostles should not have asked as they did when Jesus had led them out to the Mount of Olives. Luke is retelling with important additions what he told in the Gospel, 24:50–53. The descriptive imperfect reads as though more was said than Luke records, as though there was some hesitation, and the impression seems to be made that the apostles had talked the matter over and took courage now at last to ask.
In the Gospels κύριος is often only a form of address that indicates respect, but beginning with Luke 7:13 we find the title used as it has ever since been employed in the church in the sense of divine Lord which includes the deity of Jesus and the grace and the redemption which made him our Lord. We shall thus continue to meet “the Lord,” “the Lord Jesus,” “our Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. Direct questions, like indirect ones beginning with εἰ, are called Hebraistic or elliptical: we should like to know “whether.” Consider whether this ει is not merely an interrogative particle (B.-D. 440, 3) that adds a note of hesitancy to the question.
The point of the question is the time, whether “at this time” Jesus is restoring the kingdom to Israel. In his answer Jesus distinguishes “times” (longer stretches) from “seasons” (shorter ones, each marked in a certain way). So the apostles do not mean “right away” but “before so very long.” The fact that the kingdom is, indeed, to be restored to Israel is taken for granted. The scepter had, indeed, sadly departed from Judah—would it now be restored in Shiloh, in Jesus? Luke 24:21: “But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.”
There is a difficulty to determine exactly what the apostles had in mind when they asked this question. We venture to say that they thought of a glorious earthly rule for Israel, the Jewish people, through Jesus, the Messiah, who would soon return in his Parousia. Jesus answers only regarding the times and the seasons and does not explain about the kingdom (see v. 3) and how Israel (the remnant, Rom. 9:27; 11:5) shall have the kingdom restored. The fact that the apostles still expressed strong earthly conceptions by their question can scarcely be denied.
Acts 1:7
7 The relative clause contains the reason why it is not for the apostles to know even the times to say nothing of the seasons. The word χρόνος denotes a stretch of time but καιρός a definite period that is marked by what transpires in it. The genitive with εἶναι = it does not belong to you, is not your business or concern. The aorist infinitive means “actually to know” and does not exclude the idea that the apostles may know something about times and seasons. Jesus uses the plural to convey the thought that everything regarding time and season is in the Father’s province. He placed times and seasons where alone they belong, “in his own authority,” for him alone to determine their course and their length.
This certainly ought to dissuade all timesetters (Mark 13:32). The fine old exegete Bengel made this very mistake of trying to determine the time of the return of Christ in a calculation that was most miserably wrong. Once for all, as the aorist ἔθετο shows, the Father has put these things beyond our reach.
By saying that they are placed in the Father’s authority Jesus does not imply that the Father has not yet determined times and seasons and thus also the date of the end. In Matt. 24:22, and in Mark 13:20 Jesus informs us that the days of the final tribulation shall be shortened for the sake of the elect, and that the Father alone knows that day and the hour. The conclusion is, therefore, that God had, indeed, determined all times and seasons, but had done so by taking all things into account, especially those pertaining to his elect, and that he thus knows these times and seasons even as his omniscience is without bounds. As far as the Son is concerned, only during the days of his humiliation did he restrict himself in the use of this as of the other divine attributes to what was needed in his mediatorial work.
Acts 1:8
8 After a negative, ἀλλά brings the positive; so decidedly are the apostles not to know that, “on the contrary,” their only concern is to be the promise of receiving power for their world-wide testimony. This is spiritual power which is communicated directly by the Holy Spirit in the Pentecostal miracle, a complete and an adequate equipment of mind and of spirit for the great future task. A genitive absolute explains how the apostles are to receive this power: “the Holy Spirit having come upon you.” This describes the Pentecost miracle in advance and defines in Jesus’ own way what “being baptized in connection with the Holy Spirit” actually means. “To come upon” is certainly far removed from anything like immersion. In a moment Jesus will leave these men, but he leaves them with this great promise; in fact, his leaving is to make good that promise, for the ascension of Jesus was necessary in order to send us the Holy Spirit.
Although the connective is only “and,” the thought presented is the result of thus receiving power, and the future tense reads as though being witnesses is a continuation of the promise. This is not an admonition, but only a glorious future fact: “you shall be my witnesses” even as Jesus designated them already in Luke 24:48. They are to be more than heralds (preachers) who proclaim only what they are ordered to proclaim; they are to be herald “witnesses” in the sense of 1 John 1:1, men who have themselves seen, heard, touched, experienced, and are qualified, even called, to testify accordingly.
We must not pass too lightly over this word “witnesses.” In the sense in which the apostles were Christ’s witnesses no others were or could be. All the great things they saw could never be repeated; yet all these things had to be made known and made known properly, not only to the men of that age, but to the men of all ages. For this reason the descent of the Spirit bestowed a special equipment upon the apostles. They received the gift of inspiration in the sense of John 14:26, and 15:26, 27. Thus, besides filling the world of their own day with the gospel, by their inspired writings they are witnessing to the end of time. Individual names are, indeed, attached to the four Gospels and also to the other New Testament writings, but what these Gospels report is the testimony of all the apostles.
In Acts Luke is only the scribe, the apostles here continue their testimony by deed and word. The same is true with regard to the Epistles. In the whole New Testament we have “my witnesses” speaking to the end of time in a great apostolic chorus. In their testimony speaks “the Faithful Witness”’ himself (Rev. 1:5). “My” witnesses = called to witness by me, for me, about me, yea, all about me.
The course of the work of the apostles is outlined in one grand sweep: “both in Jerusalem,” etc. The τε … καί, “both … and,” is extended by the addition of a second “and.” Note that Judea and Samaria are regarded as a unit since only one article is used (R. 787); also that to reach the utmost or last part of the earth involves passing through all the parts that intervene. The city is named first and made prominent because the apostles were to do much work right in Jerusalem, founding and extending there the mother congregation of all Christendom, radiating from which all the sister congregations were to be established elsewhere. Jesus here announces the program which we see carried out in Acts. We know, too, that Paul reached Spain and Thomas reached India.
Acts 1:9
9 And having said these things, while they were looking, he was taken up, and a cloud took him from their eyes. And as they were earnestly gazing into heaven, while he was going, lo, two men were standing beside them in white apparel, who also said, Galilean men, why are you standing looking into heaven? This Jesus, received up from you into heaven, shall so come in what manner you viewed him going into heaven.
Except for the brief statement in Mark 16:19, we have only Luke’s descriptions of the ascension, which are thus invaluable, especially this one in Acts which so graphically describes just what the witnesses saw and thus just what we are so glad to know. The Lord had concluded his address (hence the aorist participle). The eyes of the apostles were resting upon him (note the present tense of the genitive absolute and its emphatic forward position). The verb means to see, to look, to direct the eyes and the attention upon an object. Jesus was not suddenly snatched away out of their sight; this time he did not vanish as he had done when leaving them during the forty days. Now his leaving had a different meaning.
Before this, when he would vanish, they knew that he would appear again; now his presence was slowly and visibly taken away, upward, in a heavenly way. They see it all with their very eyes as the witnesses they were to be.
An awed silence comes over them. Jesus spreads his hands over them in blessing (Luke 24:50) and slowly, majestically, mightily rises heavenward from the earth, higher and higher. Their eyes are wide with astonishment and follow him and strain in looking (ἀτενίζοντες, v. 10). Far aloft they see the holy body of Jesus until at last a flimsy cloud folds him in. They still gaze after him—but he is gone. They know whither—he has ascended into heaven.
The verb used is ἐπαίρω, “to lift up.” It is passive like the two other verbs that were used with reference to the ascension in the Gospel and in Acts; see v. 2 regarding both the passive and the active. The ascension was visible solely for the sake of the apostles. The moment the cloud hid Jesus from their sight, he was transferred timelessly into the heavenly glory, the abode of God and of the saints and of angels. This is the great article of our faith: “he ascended into heaven.” Chrysostom says: “Of Christ’s resurrection the disciples saw the final part, not the first part, but of his ascension they saw the first part, not the final part.” In ὑπέλαβεν the preposition conveys the idea that the cloud received Jesus by appearing under him. When it is said that the cloud carried Jesus up into heaven, motion is put into the cloud; it served only to hide Jesus. The ascension, like the resurrection, pertains only to the body of Jesus and thus to his human nature in union with the divine. The greatest part of the miracle was that which occurred after the cloud hid Jesus when he was instantly in the glory of heaven, seated at the right hand of majesty and of power in order to exercise these forever also according to his human nature.
Yes, he is visible in heaven as is Elijah. He has the same body that died on the cross and lay in the grave. But he is not confined in heaven like Elijah. He is at the same time wherever he has promised to be, and that according to both natures. It is incomprehensible to finite minds, and all who philosophize about it may know in advance that they are childishly wrong. The recorded facts are true, beyond them no man can go.
The cloud was only the divinely chosen earthly means in a final and appropriate way to remove the visible body of Jesus from the eyes of the apostles. They were to cease looking. Jesus was not rising on and on in the regions of distant space—he was gone—gone where there is no space, no time, or any other mundane restriction. It is allegory to say that the cloud served “to make visible the gracious, saving presence of God,” or to think of the cloud as “the visible revelation of the presence of God who receives the Son unto himself into the glory of heaven.” Let no such allegory becloud the stupendous fact that all in an instant the body of Jesus was in the glory of heaven.
Acts 1:10
10 Ἀτενίζω refers to strained and earnest looking; the periphrastic imperfect, more than the simple form would do, pictures the continuousness of the act. The added genitive absolute with its present tense, “he going” (“while he was going”) pictures once more what the earnest gaze of the apostles saw. In new words Luke describes what the witnesses beheld but now in order to add a second astonishing fact with the interjection “lo” Sometimes καί is added to introduce the main clause. This may be due to Hebrew influence although it is found also in Homer and strongly resembles ἐγένετοκαί plus a finite verb (B.-D. 442, 7). This explains the untranslatable καί before the interjection.
Not after the ascension but while it was in progress the two angels appeared. When the apostles looked, there “they were standing beside them in white apparel”; the past perfect of this verb is always used in the sense of the imperfect and is here used descriptively. The presence of these angels marks the ascension as one of Christ’s great saving acts. Luke calls the angels in the tomb ἄνδρες, “men” (24:4) and here he again writes “men”; Mark 16:5 has νεανίσκος, “young man.” They appear in this form in order to draw as near to those to whom they appear as heavenly spirits can. They are, of course, without sex (Luke 20:35, etc.) but they come visibly as men, young men, images of strength and of beauty combined, never as women or maidens—a point which only the best artists have noted. On the rare word ἔσθησις see R. 267. The whiteness of their apparel is noted, which we may take as signifying purity, holiness, heavenliness.
Acts 1:11
11 No second look was needed to tell the apostles who stood before them in greatness, power, and glory. These angels had come to complete what was necessary in regard to this act of Jesus. They are his spokesmen who at once confirm the ascension and then also connect it with the future return of the Lord. We may say that here we have another part of the answer of Jesus to the apostles concerning the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (v. 6). These apostles are to fill the world with their witness; then at last Jesus will return for the consummation of his kingdom. We cannot entertain the idea that these two men were Moses and Elijah; but were they the same two mentioned in Luke 24:4? If we are asked in what garments Jesus appeared during the forty days and here at his ascension, the answer must be that no man knows, for the witnesses have left no word in regard to this.
The address, “Galilean men,” is used less because these apostles were native Galileans (Judas alone was from Judea) than because it would bring back to them in a flash their long and blessed association with Jesus, especially in Galilee. “Why are you standing looking into heaven?” is not a rebuke. It was only natural to gaze after Jesus in this manner. The question intends to turn their minds from mere astonishment to more important thought. The ascension of Christ and his return at the Parousia go together. And these heavenly messengers bring a glorious promise to the apostles at this great moment. For now when Jesus is received up they are once more to hear that he will come again in the same visible way.
For a third time the ascension is described but now by the angel spokesman: “this Jesus, received up from you into heaven,” this very one who is known by this his personal name and described by the act just witnessed, he shall return. On the passive participle of the verb see v. 2; compare the verbs in v. 9 and in Luke 24:51. A moment ago the apostles spoke with this Jesus, now his glorious reception into the heavenly world is already accomplished. What this implied Jesus had himself told them: not mere rest while they struggled here below, but a mighty, all-transcending exercise of power and authority. The angels have nothing to add to all that Jesus had told them on this subject; they restate another assurance which the Lord had left his apostles, restate it in the most emphatic and direct form: this Jesus “shall so come in what manner you viewed him going into heaven.”
Note the emphatic words: οὗτος—οὕτως—ὃντρόπον (a set phrase in which the antecedent is drawn to the relative, R. 718), “this” Jesus—“thus”—“in the (same) way in which” you viewed, etc. He departed visibly, he shall return visibly; he went to heaven, he shall come from heaven; he went away bodily, he shall come back bodily. It is not added that he will return in all his glory with all the angels of God about him for the final judgment, although Jesus had given these additions. It is not added that every eye shall see him when he returns, also those who pierced him, Rev. 1:7. But one may ask how this can be possible when the earth is a globe, and when he who appears on one side of the globe cannot be seen on the opposite side. All such questions assume that space, time, and earthly conditions as we know them shall continue and govern at the last day. But time shall be no more, space shall no longer exist, heaven shall come down to earth (Rev. 21:1, 2), and a few other tremendous changes that our science never dreamed of will so arrange it that even the most skeptical doubter shall not have the least trouble in getting the fullest view of “this Jesus coming out of heaven” for the judgment also of all skeptics and unbelievers.
Acts 1:12
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olive grove, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath journey away. They returned “with great joy,” Luke 24:52. It is important to know that the apostles returned to Jerusalem even as Jesus commanded (v. 4), and that the following events took place there. It is likewise of interest to know that the ascension occurred on the mount called “Olive grove.” Sometimes a name is retained in the nominative, here it appears in the genitive in agreement with the genitive participle, and the nominative must be Ἐλαιών (not circumflexed). On the forms used in the passages in the Gospel see R. 267. The distance from Jerusalem to Olivet was as far as Jews were allowed to walk on the Sabbath, namely 2, 000 paces.
Luke might have given the distance in terms of stadia; the expression which he uses shows that he is following a Jewish source. “Having a Sabbath’s journey” is the Greek idiom. Yet this does not state the entire distance to the place on Olivet from which Jesus ascended, but only the distance to the base of Olivet. Luke 24:50 indicates how far up the mount Jesus took the apostles, namely, to the place where the road branches, one branch going toward Bethany, which lies about 4, 000 paces from the city beyond the ridge.
The spot now pointed out to travellers as the one from which Jesus ascended cannot be taken seriously. Because the ascension is so important Luke records the place of it for Theophilus in both the Gospel and the Acts. The view that the ascension occurred on Sunday is refuted by both the forty days mentioned in v. 3, which fix the day as a Thursday, and the distance indicated, for a Sabbath’s journey would extend only to the base of Olivet and not to the place on Olivet from which the ascent was made.
Acts 1:13
13 And when they came in they went to the upper room where they were abiding, both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon the Zealot and Judas of James. These all were continuing steadfastly with one accord in prayer together with women, also Mary, the mother of Jesus, and together with his brothers.
“They came in” means from Olivet into the city. They did not scatter but at once went up “to the upper room where they were abiding.” The relative clause cannot be separated from its antecedent so that it does not define which upper room is referred to, namely the one where they were abiding. But some make this separation in order to make room for the conjecture that this upper room is the same as the one mentioned in Luke 22:12, where Jesus celebrated the Passover, and for the added supposition that it belonged to Mark’s father. But the article in the phrase “to the upper room” cannot refer to a passage in the Gospel. “They were abiding” means that the apostles and other disciples were making this room their headquarters while they were in Jerusalem. Nor can it be assumed that all of them, so many men and women, lived in this room. The best guess as to its identity is that it was the room where the apostles gathered after they heard the news of the resurrection, John 20:19, 26.
Such upper rooms were quite common. Sometimes they were merely booths that were erected on the flat roof of the stone building. The author saw many of them in the Holy Land. We shall note them in the Acts; the body of Dorcas was laid out in one of them. Sometimes they were roomy and even ornate like the one with its tiled floor that is mentioned in Luke 22:12. They were used as places for retirement and quiet and, for the company here described, as a place that was free from interruption and disturbance. The fact that the house belonged to a friend of Jesus need scarcely be added. The effort to locate this upper room in the Temple is futile. Nor does abiding in this room contradict Luke 24:53, the constant stay in the Temple; the disciples divided their time between the two places.
Luke introduces the apostles in verse 2. He intends to write about them in this account, presently also to tell how the vacant place of Judas Iscariot was filled. Very properly he lists their names at this point so that Theophilus may also know just who had witnessed the ascension of Jesus. The chief feature of this list is the order of the first four names which constitute the first group. Here Peter and John are grouped together, and James is third, for these three were distinguished by Jesus in Jairus’ house, at the transfiguration, and in Gethsemane. Peter is always first but only as primus inter pares, for Matt. 18:18 gives to all the apostles the powers bestowed on Peter in Matt. 16:19.
The only reason commonly assigned for pairing John with Peter is Luke’s further narrative in which the two appear as companions; but the conclusion of John’s Gospel shows that the two were also close friends and constant companions. Luke 6:14, etc., just lists the names, but if we make three groups we shall in all four lists find the identical names in each group although in varied order. The present list has four groups that are marked by asyndeton; but if we count three groups we shall find the same name heading each group as in the other lists, Peter, Philip, and James of Alpheus. Andrew and Philip have Greek names.
Philip is from the home of the two pairs of brothers and must be distinguished from the deacon and evangelist Philip. The other name of Thomas is Didymus, “Double” or “Twin.” Bartholomew is a patronymic for Son of Tolmai; his personal name was Nathanael, John 1:46; 21:2. Matthew is the former publican, the writer of the first Gospel. The second James is distinguished by the genitive of his father’s name: son of Alpheus. The second Simon is distinguished by the apposition “the Zealot,” for he had at one time belonged to the militant Jewish party which contended for the honor of the law and the theocracy of Israel. Judas is distinguished from the traitor by the genitive of his father’s name.
We do not take “of James” in the sense of “brother of James,” for we have just had a genitive of the father (“of Alpheus”) and also a patronymic. If the last genitive is to be different and to indicate “brother,” ἀδελφός would have to be added. If Jesus conquered the world through the testimony of these men, the victory was certainly not due to the men but to their Lord as whose witnesses they appeared.
Acts 1:14
14 These eleven, Luke states, not only had their headquarters in this upper room, but “were continuing steadfastly in prayer,” τῇπροσευχῆ, a res sacra that was always directed to God. And they did this “with one accord,” ὁμοθυμαδόν. This word occurs ten times in Acts and is a significant adverb to express oneness of heart and mind. Abstract nouns such as “prayer” may or may not have the article in the Greek. The next verses show that Luke does not have in mind a continuous ten-day prayer meeting with audible praying going on constantly. The word προσευχή is at times used in the wider sense of worship.
Prayer marked these ten-day gatherings. This word has thus far been found only once in paganism in the sense of “prayer or supplication,” in a lone letter, M.-M. 547, and is thus distinctively Jewish and Christian, that is, Biblical.
And now with two σύν Luke expands the group that was thus together in Jerusalem by adding women as one class and the brothers of Jesus as another. He does not say “together with the women” but only “women,” an indefinite number and not a fixed group. Who they were we gather in part from the Gospel: those mentioned in Luke 8:2, 3, at the crucifixion, and at the tomb; but in these places a number of them is left unnamed. From Luke 24:49 we conclude that they were from Galilee. Luke names only the mother of Jesus (καί = “also”) who was in John’s care. With two exceptions in Luke’s Gospel he calls her “Mariam,” and a few texts have this form here. One cannot say apodictically that some of these prayers were directed to Jesus; if they were, Mary would have prayed to her son as did all the rest that were in the upper room.
A separate preposition adds “his brothers” and does this after mentioning the women. This makes it certain that none of these brothers of Jesus were apostles. In John 7:3–5 they are not even believers. It is generally thought that the resurrection of Jesus brought them to faith so that we now find them here. Who were they? As far as the writer is able to see, the problem is not solved.
The answers given are: sons of Joseph by a former marriage; cousins of Jesus, sons of a half-sister of Mary; and the modern answer, sons born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus. Strong objections may be lodged against each one of these views. When the latter is stressed on the strength of the word ἀδελφοί, “brothers,” the passage before us raises gravest doubts. Right after “Mary, the mother of Jesus,” we read not “her other sons” but “his brothers.” Why is their relation to Jesus instead of their relation to their own mother mentioned if she was their natural mother? Nobody has as yet been able to answer. Mary is under John’s care; yet here are her own natural sons, even more than one, and why is she not in their care?
We are still waiting for a satisfactory answer. We, therefore, leave the problem where it is and note only that the objections to making them sons of Joseph and Mary are very strong.
Acts 1:15
15 And in these days Peter, having arisen in the midst of the brethren, said (now there was together a multitude of persons, about a hundred and twenty): Men and brethren, it was necessary that the Scripture be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke in advance through David’s mouth concerning Judas who became guide to those who seized Jesus, seeing that he had been numbered among us and obtained the lot of this ministry.
“These days” are those between Ascension and Pentecost. Here for the first time in Acts “brethren” is used as a designation for the disciples of Jesus; hereafter it is the standard term. The present meeting could not have been held in an upper room of a house; a place in the Temple courts also seems unlikely. So we are left without this information. The matter of filling the place of Judas must have been discussed, at least by the eleven, prior to the action that was finally taken. Jesus had appointed no substitute for Judas during the forty days.
The fact that the number of apostles must be twelve according to the choice Jesus had originally made which matched the twelve patriarchs and the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve thrones awaiting them to judge these twelve tribes, was taken for granted. But the eleven do not act by themselves; they wait until as large a number as possible could be brought together and then the eleven act only as brethren who are on a par with all these others. It is the first vivid illustration of what we shall see throughout the Acts and the early church. There is nothing hierarchical in their procedure. The apostles do not constitute a superior order. All are brethren, each having his place and his task; by Jesus’ own appointment the apostles have the most important task.
Luke is not certain that exactly 120 were present; in general, he is not so precise in regard to numbers. Therefore his 120 is not symbolical, 12 times 10. In v. 14 he mentions no number. It seems that number was recorded for two reasons: first, because it was the church that acted, and secondly to show the ratio in which the disciples increased, adding 3, 000, then growing to 5, 000 men, finally increasing to so many that count is lost and many priests are won until the first persecution causes a great scattering. Ὀνόματα “names,” is used in the sense of “persons,” all of them being true believers. This, however, does not include the women. The phrase ἐπὶτὸαὑτό, “at the same place,” is used in the sense of “together.” It was natural that Peter should take the lead in the matter at hand just as he had done among the Twelve in past days.
Nowhere do we note the least indication that he acted with any special right or authority. Today we should say that he served as chairman of the meeting by general consent.
Ἄνδρεςἀδελφοί is the formal address to a body of men and is quite commonly used thus; it is less familiar than ἀδελφοί, so that the translation of the A. V. is preferable to that of the R. V. The assembly consisted of men, otherwise ἄνδρες could not have been used; ἀδελφοί might include ἀδελφοί, just as today “brethren” may include “sisters,” but ἄνδρες could not include γυναικές, just as to this day the address “men” omits “women.” Throughout the Acts, in all the highly important transactions of the apostolic church, the men and the women abide in their divinely designed places.
Δεῖ may express any type of necessity; the imperfect refers to the necessity of a certain fulfillment of Scripture which was necessary all along and was now recently fulfilled. Some things God foreordains; when these are recorded in Scripture prophecy, the fulfillment is certain because of God’s will and foreordination. But in all contingent matters such as the betrayal of Judas prophecy is fulfilled because of the infallibility of the divine foreknowledge. God did not decree the betrayal; Judas determined that himself; God foreknew that ungodly determination, foretold it, however only in a general way, and so Judas fulfilled the prophecy.
Here is Peter’s clear definition of Inspiration: in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit is the speaker, and (in this case) the mouth of David is the medium for his speaking. This definition is oft repeated. The Spirit = the causa efficiens; the human mouth (pen) = causa instrumentalis. The significant preposition is διά “through” a medium or an instrument. And this was done not merely “through David” but through his “mouth,” his very utterance. This is Verbal Inspiratian, than which none other ever occurred according to the Scriptures themselves. The prophecies involved are quoted by Peter in v. 20, 21, now, however, saying that they refer to “Judas who became guide to those who seized Jesus,” which graphically describes the act of betrayal.
Acts 1:17
17 Ὅτι cannot be causal “for” or “because”; it is what R. 1001 calls the consecutive ὅτι, here naming the point on which the prophecy rested: Judas was an apostle. If he had not been that, the Scripture could not have dealt thus with him. Peter puts this vital point, consecutive to which was the necessity of the Scripture fulfillment, into a double statement. First “he had been numbered among us,” the periphrastic past perfect expressing his ordination as one of the Twelve prior to his act of betrayal. He had received from Jesus this highest station which was graciously bestowed upon so few. Such high honor, such glorious prospects were granted to Judas by the Lord’s grace.
Secondly, and helping to define the first statement: “he obtained the lot of this ministry.” The highest of all offices came to him. Λαγχάνω, “to obtain by lot,” is used in the general sense of “to obtain,” hence κλῆρος, “lot,” can be used with it and is here also used in the broad sense of “portion,” the entire expression being a choice one for appointment to an office. “The lot of this ministry” is a portion or share in the voluntary service to which the apostles were called. Διακονία is also choice, denoting a service freely rendered for service sake in order to help others. At the wedding in Cana not douloi, but diakonoi assist; in Matt. 22, douloi, slaves, invite, but diakonoi cast out the guest, and these latter are angels. “The lot of this ministry” is the one the eleven still have; the genitive is partitive and thus shows the great apostolic ministry to be a unit in which each apostle had his share. Back of the Scripture statements is this high position of Judas; this brought him into those prophecies.
Acts 1:18
18 This man, accordingly, acquired a field out of the iniquity wage and, on going headlong, burst in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became a thing known to all that inhabit Jerusalem, so that field is called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.
The R. V. makes these verses a parenthesis, an insertion into Peter’s speech. Yet when those who regard these words as a parenthesis admit that Luke wove them into Peter’s address, we dismiss this idea and read them as the A. V. does. No parenthesis is indicated save the small insertion for the sake of the Greek readers: “in their language,” and “that is, Field of Blood,” which every reader at once notes as having been written by Luke and not spoken by Peter who spoke Aramaic. How Judas acquired a field “out of the iniquity wage,” the silver paid him by the high priest for his iniquitous betrayal, might be doubtful if we did not have Matt. 27:3–8.
Judas did not acquire that piece of ground by himself going and buying it but by throwing that money into the Temple, hanging himself, and confronting the high priests with the problem of what to do with this “blood money.” They solved the difficulty by buying the piece of ground to make a potter’s field of it. Peter is brief because all his hearers know the facts.
Matthew reports only that Judas hanged himself, but Peter adds the detail that, on falling headlong, his body burst open, and all his bowels gushed out. The two statements are not contradictory. We need only supply the thought that Judas must have hanged himself in a place where his body could fall down far enough to burst open the abdomen with such horrible results. Ahitophel, the Old Testament type of Judas, also hanged himself. The end of the traitor is most terrible.
Acts 1:19
19 It is not this end alone that Peter recalls to the brethren but also the fact that the whole city came to know of it with the result that that piece of ground was named by the people: Akeldama (Akeldamach), which Luke, like Matthew, translates, “Field of Blood.” Here again something must be supplied from Matthew’s account, namely, the fact that the high priests refused to put the money into the Temple treasury because it was “blood money” just as Judas said he had betrayed the innocent blood. All this became known together with the horrible death of Judas, and this name, “Field of Blood,” was the result. The name primarily refers to the blood of Jesus and secondarily to the death of Judas who betrayed Jesus’ blood. There is no evidence that Judas hanged himself on this very piece of ground. The later stories of Papias and others are fiction and are in part due to a misunderstanding of Peter’s words.
Acts 1:20
20 For it has been written in the Book of Psalms:
Let his habitation become desolate,
And let not one be dwelling in it!
and,
His overseership let another take!
Peter uses the common formula for introducing Old Testament quotations: γέγραπται, the perfect, “it has been written” and thus now stands as so written. We see that David’s “mouth” mentioned in v. 16 and his writing are regarded as being identical, something that is constantly done in the New Testament with reference to Old Testament writers. The γάρ is explanatory. When v. 18, 19 are made parenthetical, this “for” is connected with v. 17, but we see that it connects even better with v. 19. For all that is said of the terrible end of Judas accords with the two passages of the Psalms (69:25; 109:8) which are now introduced; in fact, γάρ may be translated, “for instance.” Peter certainly knew the Scriptures well to be able to adduce these two striking statements. He does not cite them as by any means being the only ones that refer to the case of Judas.
A glance at Ps. 69, for instance, shows its typical character. The Jews themselves refer many of its statements to the sufferings of the Messiah and thus to the enemies who inflict these sufferings upon him. When he exposed the traitor, Jesus, too, used Ps. 41:9, David’s word regarding the traitor Ahitophel (2 Sam. 15:31; 17:1, 23), Luke 22:21; John 13:21–27.
Peter cites two passages, one regarding the removal of Judas from his place and position, the other regarding the filling of his vacant place by another. Both passages deal with the enemies of the theocracy during David’s time; it is thus that they apply to Judas who by his traitorous act stands forth among these enemies as their chief representative. All those enemies of David’s time are the type of whom Judas became the great antitype. It is thus that the Holy Spirit spoke about Judas in advance. When he spoke through David, Judas was fully foreknown. When he quotes Ps. 69:25, Peter renders the LXX quite exactly and makes only verbal changes that retain the full meaning. David’s plural is, however, made a singular because the passage is used specifically with reference to Judas.
The two lines are synonymous Hebrew poetry. The second line repeats and thus emphasizes the first with different words. “Let his habitation become desolate,” his ἔπαυλις or dwelling, with Judas being forever removed from it; “and let not one be dwelling in it” in the sense of continuing what he was. So the damnable career of Judas ended, and no one was there to continue it.
Psalms 109:8 already had the singular and called for no verbal change: “His overseership, his ἐπισκοπή, let another take.” This means his high, responsible office, which is not the same as his habitation and dwelling. The abused office must continue. Since the unworthy incumbent is gone, the Lord will provide one that is worthy. This is true even with regard to the lesser positions of ordinary believers. When the Jews scorned to take their places, the apostles turned to the Gentiles, Acts 13:46. It is this second passage which both warrants and leads to the action now proposed, namely the filling of the office of Judas.
Acts 1:21
21 It is necessary, therefore, that of the men who went together with us at every time the Lord Jesus went in and went out on us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day he was received up from us, one of these become a witness of his resurrection together with us.
Οὗν draws the conclusion which forms a necessity (δεῖ) that was brought on by the act of Judas which entailed that another be put into his office. The entire sentence, packed full of a variety of statements, is neatly and compactly constructed. Peter names the qualifications which the man who is to replace Judas must have. He must be one of those who went together with the eleven every time Jesus came to them, walked with them, and then parted from them for awhile during the whole period that extended from the days of the Baptist until the ascension. Only one who had these requirements would be qualified to be the twelfth in the chosen band who were to act as witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection.
We at once see from the modifiers that τῶνσυνελθόντων refers to going together with the eleven during the whole ministry of Jesus and not as the same participle in v. 6 to only one, namely, this present meeting with the eleven. Peter also says ἐνπαντὶχρόνῳ, “at every time,” and not, “in all the time,” (ἐνπαντὶτῷχρόνῳ), and describes these as the times when Jesus “went in and went out on us.” The Gospels, too, show that especially during the first part of his ministry Jesus at times left the apostles and then returned to them. Note the designation “Lord Jesus” and compare 1:6 on “Lord.” The grammars regard ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς as applying only to the first verb: “went in on us,” and let us supply for the second: went out “from us” (B.-D. 479, 2); but “on us” would have to fit the second verb if this were a case of zeugma and not the first. “On us” fits both verbs quite well.
Acts 1:22
22 The period thus covered begins with “the baptism of John,” which simply denotes the time when John was baptizing and not merely when John had finished his baptizing. A point to be noted is that Peter connects the Baptist with the ministry of Jesus as the activity of these two is always linked together. This period ends with the ascension, for which Peter uses the same verb he used in v. 2 (which see) and in v. 11. The genitive ἧς need not be an attraction from the dative as R. 717 and B.-D. 294, 2, assert by pointing to one other example found in one other text (D in Luke 1:20); it is the genitive of time within which something occurs. “Until he was received up from us” (the eleven) does not imply that the qualification includes presence at the ascension; for we know of none but the eleven who were present at that time. It seems to be a hasty conclusion that quite a number possessed the qualifications here laid down by Peter; we venture to conclude the contrary. When investigation was made, only two were found.
The construction is δεῖγενέσθαιἕνα, “it is necessary that one become,” and “these” at the end takes up and emphasizes the fact that only such men are to be considered. While the predicate (become a “witness of his resurrection together with us”) is unemphatic in the Greek it describes the apostolic office according to its chief task, that of testifying to the resurrection of Jesus. This implies that every apostle must himself have seen the risen Lord and be able to testify accordingly. All else that he saw and heard about Jesus must reach a climax in this final sight. For it is the resurrection of Jesus that is the supreme and ultimate proof of his Messiahship, at once the seal and the crown of all his words and his deeds, especially of his Redeemership. Take away the resurrection, and all else crumbles; but when the resurrection is a fact, all else is established (1 Cor. 15:13–22).
The fact that those who had followed Jesus from the time of John’s baptism would also have seen the risen Lord, Peter does not need to state. What he had to say was that one who had followed thus could join the eleven in their official witness-bearing regarding the resurrection.
Acts 1:23
23 And they stood up two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was called besides Justus, and Matthias. Why only these two? Because only these two met the requirement laid down by Peter. This is so obvious that one is surprised to find the claim that quite a number of men met the requirement, and that only two of these were selected. And on the strength of two texts Zahn claims that Peter did this selecting. By what right were these two singled out and the rest discarded if the Lord was to make the choice.
If the assembly eliminated many, and the Lord only one, he did very little of the choosing. One out of many could just as well be selected by lot as one out of two. It cannot be said that the assembly or that Peter had reasons for eliminating all but two, for that would only be saying that Peter had not stated all the requirements. Only two met the requirements stated by Peter. The entire choice was left to the Lord.
We really know nothing beyond the names of the two here recorded. All that is worth noting is the statement of Eusebius that both belonged to the Seventy. The name Joseph was so common that it became necessary to state also his other names. The first, Barsabbas (Barsabas), is a patronymic, “son of Saba” or “son of the aged.” On the significance of the spelling see Zahn, Forschungen, IX, 334, etc. Nor is it surprising that a Latin name was added, “Justus,” even as Saul became Paul. In the case of Matthias nothing further than the name was needed because no other man with this name was connected with Jesus. From later sources it is concluded that he was also called Thulmai (Ptolomy).
Acts 1:24
24 And praying they said: Thou, Lord, heart-knower of all, show forth whom thou didst elect out of these two as the one to. take the place of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas passed away to go to his own place. And they gave lots for them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted as voted in together with the eleven apostles.
The choice between the two was entrusted to Jesus by means of prayer. When the aorist participle expresses the same act as the aorist finite verb it indicates simultaneous action: when they prayed they spoke. Peter no doubt spoke the prayer in which all joined silently. The emphatic σύ is more than an address; Jesus is asked in contrast to any selection the assembly might make. And the reason for the appeal to him is that he is the “heart-knower” and thus able to choose with unerring insight. If anything is needed to show that κύριε is here the Lord Jesus (v. 21) and that these believers are directing a prayer to him, the petition itself shows this, the very verb ἐξελέξω being repeated from v. 2 and from Luke 6:13.
As their very name shows, the apostles are elected as his own ambassadors by Jesus in person. So Jesus is here asked to show “whom he did elect of these two as the one,” etc.; ἕνα is predicative to the relative ὅν. The aorist “did choose” places the act into the past; all that is needed is that Jesus make this known.
Acts 1:25
25 The office is fully designated; διακονία recalls v. 17. The second genitive, “of this apostleship,” helps to lend weight to the entire designation; at the same time it brings out the thought that the chosen one is to be an apostle. The relative clause adds the idea that this place is now vacant. Judas passed out of it to go to what is significantly called “his own place.” The two words “place” are in contrast; but this means that, since the first does not denote a locality but, as the genitives show, an office, no stress should be laid on the second as being a locality although in Luke 16:28 we have “place of torment.” The fact that Gehenna or hell is referred to is beyond question. Somehow even those who otherwise speak about an intermediate place, a Totenreich, “a realm of the dead,” unanimously state that Judas went to hell. “His own” place means, of course, the one and only one befitting him. The view that this refers to the burial place his money bought is scarcely worth noticing. “To go” to his own place, an aorist, means that he arrived there, and this verb conveys the idea that he went of his own volition. He, too, made a choice: the high and holy place of his office he passed up and elected to go to this other place in spite of all the efforts on the part of Jesus to stop him.
Acts 1:26
26 The lots were not given “to them” but “for them.” Somebody attended to this. Probably two markers, each with one name upon it, were placed into a vessel which was shaken so hard that one flew out. This one indicated the choice. The custom of casting lots in this way was very ancient; it dates back to Homer; compare Lev. 16:8. The lot fell upon Matthias; the marker that had his name upon it flew out. The verb συγκαταψηφίζομαι, from ψῆφος, the pebble, black or white, which was used in voting, is found only in one other place in Greek literature and is here used, not with reference to voting, but with reference to counting one as having been voted in, as belonging “together with the eleven apostles.” The idea that he was in any way discounted as an apostle because he was elected so late is wholly foreign to Acts.
No further example of this Old Tesament method of turning a decision over to God appears in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it was justified since God often intervened in the affairs of Israel in an outward and a direct way; He himself appointed the casting of lots in Lev. 16:8 and in apportioning Canaan. Prov. 16:13. The Moravians wanted to continue this practice in the Christian Church in cases where the Word of God does not decide: in the reception of members, in allotting offices, in sending out missionaries (see, however, Acts 6:2, etc.; 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1, etc.; Tit. 1:5), in entering marriage (where, however, obedience was not compulsory). Even Zinzendorf finally warned, “Those having no call may burn themselves with the lot.” Recourse to drawing or casting lots was abandoned already by the apostolic church; we must follow the enlightenment the Spirit affords and the indications of Providence in both church matters and our personal affairs.
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.
M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.