Acts 1

ZerrCBC

‹ Chapter 0 Acts — All Chapters Chapter 2 ›

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts Chapter One THE FORTY DAYSAct_1:1-5 1 The former treatise I made, O Theophilus,—The “ former treatise” is the first treatise that Luke wrote; this was the Gospel according to Luke. Here is a continuation of the subject matter with which Luke closed his first volume. This is volume two of his writings. “ Theophilus” is addressed in the Gospel according to Luke as “ most excellent Theophilus.” It is not known who he was; some think that he was a man of honorable estate, and that Luke addressed both of his books to him; others think that as “ Theophilus” means “ friend of God,” or “ lover of God,” Luke is writing to all who love God; that he adopted this name to indicate any believer in Christ. However, this is improbable. “ Theophilus” is a Greek name probably applied to some Roman citizen. concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,—This gives the scope of Luke’ s first or “ former treatise.” He had “ traced the course of all things accurately from the first” (Luke 1:3), and wrote m detail about all that Jesus “ began both to do and to teach.” God and Christ begin, but there is no ending in their working; Jesus began working and teaching in the Gospel accord¬ing to Luke, and he is still working through the Holy Spirit in his church. The works of Jesus and the teachings of him go together; he lived his life and preached his doctrine; the entire earthly min¬istry is summed up by Luke in all “ that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” It is significant that Luke here puts what Jesus did before that which he taught; Jesus preached his own life. It was lived before his disciples and then taught to them. This is the way that Jesus placed it. “ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19.) 2 until the day in which he was received up,—The ascension of Jesus was the end of his earthly ministry; soon his heavenly ministry would begin; hence, this finds a place both in the gospel and in the Acts. The first two chapters of Luke record a brief ac¬count of the birth and childhood of Jesus, and then from the third chapter to the end of his record Luke gives what Jesus did and taught from his entrance on his public work to his ascension. The ascension of Christ took place “ after that he had given command¬ment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had cho-sen.” Jesus is represented in the Bible as acting by the special aid of the Holy Spirit; hence, he is said (Acts 10:38) to have been anointed with the Holy Spirit, and (Luke 4:1) to have been full of the Holy Spirit. God gave the Spirit to Jesus not “ by mea¬sure.” (John 3:34.) An account of his choosing the twelve apostles is found in Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:13-16. 3 to whom he also showed himself alive—After his resurrection Jesus remained on earth “ by the space of forty days” before he ascended. He made many appearances to his apostles during this time; we have a record of some of these appearances in Mat¬thew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus presented himself to them under different circumstances in such a way that they could not doubt that he had been raised from the dead. “ By many proofs,” he established the fact of his resurrection. The resurrection was the evidence that Jesus’ death was not mere martyrdom, but triumphant atonement. The resurrection was to be the subject of the preaching of the apostles; hence, they were left without a doubt as to his resurrection. The King James Version uses the word “ in¬fallible,” but the Revised Version omits it with the assumption that a proof implies certainty. “ After his passion” means after his suf¬fering and death. “ Passion” is from the Greek “ pathein,” and is used absolutely of Christ’ s suffering. (Acts 17:3 Acts 26:23.) During the forty days there are more than ten definite appearances mentioned; Jesus was not with them continually as he was before his death. The ascension was ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came; Moses was in the mount at the giving of the law forty days (Exodus 24:18), and Jesus fasted forty days (Matthew 4:2) just after his baptism. We are given the subject that Jesus discussed while with his apostles; he spoke to them “ the things concerning the kingdom of God.” “ The kingdom of God” appears thirty-three times in the Gospel according to Luke; fifteen times in Mark; four times in Matthew, who elsewhere has “ the kingdom of heaven” ; one time in John; and six times in the Acts. No distinction is to be made between “ the kingdom of God” and “ the kingdom of heaven.” 4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them—Among those things that Jesus taught his disciples during this period of forty days was “ repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem: . . . but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:47-49.) The law was to go forth from Zion, and the word of God from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:3.) The apostles were all Galileans far from home and in dan¬ger (John 20:19), but as Jesus had been denied the home com¬forts of Nazareth (Luke 4:16), so his disciples were all to remain in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came. It is called “ the promise of my Father.” (Luke 24:49; John 16:16-27 John 15:26.) Jesus had also emphasized this promise. (Luke 12:11-12; John 14 to 16.) 5 for John indeed baptized with water;—John baptized “with water,” but Jesus promised that his apostles should “be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” This baptism in die Holy Spirit is the promise of the Father. It was a promise made in the Old Testament which Peter quoted at Pentecost. Some of the apostles, if not all, had been disciples of John, and had heard John make the promise. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26.) Some had heard of the new birth. (John 3:3-5.) Now they were to know what it really meant, as they already knew in part. (John 20:22.) It is called a “baptism” to indicate the abundant and overwhelming outpouring of the Spirit which over¬whelmed the spirit of the apostles in the Holy Spirit. “Water” was the element in which John baptized, and “the Holy Spirit” was the element in which the apostles were to be baptized. TO THE Acts 1:6-8 6 They therefore, when they were come together,—At one of the appearances of Jesus, during these forty days, probably his last appearance before his ascension, while they were all together, his apostles asked him: “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” This shows that even after the resurrection of Jesus his apostles did not understand the nature of his kingdom. It was clear in their minds that he came to establish a kingdom, but they were still laboring under the misconception that his kingdom would be an earthly one. The word “restore” as used here is from the Greek, “apokathistaneis,” and as a double compound, it means “to restore to its former state.” The apostles asked him if he would restore the political kingdom to the Jews as it was in the days of David and other kings. Here is proof that the apostles needed “ the promise of my Father” before they began to spread the message of the risen Christ; they could not preach the gospel of the kingdom until they understood the nature of the kingdom. The apostles still looked for a political kingdom, and needed the en¬lightenment of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the gospel. 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know—Jesus passed over for the moment the nature of the kingdom and spoke more definitely as to the point which they made emphatic “ at this time.” They had asked Jesus whether he would “ at this time” re¬store the kingdom to Israel; so Jesus tells them that it was not for them now “ to know times or seasons.” He had repeatedly taught them the nature of his kingdom before he was crucified, but they had failed to comprehend his meaning; now during the forty days that he remained here after his resurrection and before his ascen¬sion, they asked him about the time of restoring the kingdom. “ Times and seasons” was not for them to know now; they must wait until the Holy Spirit comes to guide them into a fuller knowl¬edge of the truth and the nature of his kingdom. “ The Father hath set within his own authority” the time when the kingdom would be established. Christ named neither the day nor the hour: he wanted his apostles to watch and pray, and wait: they were to wait in the school of the pious, but not many days. God had at his own disposal the time for the kingdom to begin its work. Jesus does not teach them at this time the time or the character of the great future events which the Father has reserved under his own control. This is true of the second coming of Christ (Mark 13:32), where Jesus recognizes the Father’ s reservation of the question of time to himself exclusively. 8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you:—They should receive power, or strength; the power was from on high (Luke 24:49), or it was the promise of the Father, which was the baptism of the Holy Spirit; they needed this in order to do their work. They were not to have a profitless knowledge as they had asked for, but they were to have the power to bear witness for Jesus and convince people of the truth of his kingdom; they needed strength which was to come from a great promise. They needed the power and wisdom which their adver¬saries could neither gainsay nor resist; in this way they would be enabled to become Christ’s witnesses. Their question was ample proof of their need of this new “ power.” “ Power,” as used here, comes from the Greek “ dunamin,” and is used frequently with reference to the Holy Spirit. All needed power to equip them for the work that they were to do would be furnished by the Holy Spirit; hence, it was by the Holy Spirit’ s agency that the apostles were to preach the gospel to the entire world. and ye shall be my witnesses—Here Jesus gives a program of their missionary work. They are to begin in Jerusalem, and then advance to Judea, or the region round about Jerusalem; then they are to advance into Samaria, or the country beyond Judea, and continue in an ever-widening circle until they have reached “ the uttermost part of the earth.” The commission as here given to bear witness for Christ was to go beyond the limits of Palestine; even to the ends of the earth, they were to spread the gospel. The apostles were to go throughout the known world; wherever they could find, or make, an opportunity, they were to bear their testimony respecting Jesus. The providence of God would be with them, and the Holy Spirit would direct them, so that they could thus make the gospel known throughout the world. “ Ye shall be my witnesses” throughout the world; the peculiar mission of the church is to preserve to the world the living memory of a risen Christ. Further sections of the book of Acts record how this was done. OF JESUS Acts 1:9-11 9 And when he had said these things,—While his words were yet in their ears (Luke 24:51), and while their eyes were still gazing on him, the ascension took place. They were to be witnesses of it, and they saw it plainly and could describe it vividly and accur¬ately. Jesus was first raised from the earth in visible manner, and as he continued to rise higher and higher, their eyes followed him ascending; a cloud received him and surrounded and enclosed him and removed him out of their sight. Jesus had instructed them as their Prophet and Teacher; he had laid his command on them as their King; and now as their great High Priest he is to bless them as they bear witness for him throughout the world. Matthew and John (except indirectly in John 6:62) do not mention the ascension. Mark and Luke very briefly record the fact.

There is no display, no expletives or exclamations, in narrating this wonderful event; the fact is stated in a simple, direct, natural way that em¬phasizes its truthfulness. Jesus went up to Mount Olivet just before the ascension, though he could have ascended just as well from a plain or in a valley. 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven—The astonished disciples continued looking up where Jesus had disap¬peared, as if hoping to see him again. Suddenly “ two men stood by them in white apparel.” The past perfect active indicative of “ paristemi,” an intransitive form, is used here, and means literally, “ had taken a stand by them.” The apostles did not see these two angels until they were standing beside them; they had human forms and white clothing. The angels at the tomb are described in a similar way. (Mark 16 Mark 5; Luke 24:4; John 20 John 12.) 11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee,—The angels addressed the apostles as “ men of Galilee” ; they were all Galileans now; all the apostles except Judas Iscariot were Galileans, and five of them came from the village of Bethsaida. The angels asked: “ Why stand ye looking into heaven?” There was work to be done for Jesus; they are to return to the city of Jerusalem and wait for the descent of the Holy Spirit. The angels further instruct them that “ this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, 31 And when they had prayed,—God answered their prayers by this physical manifestation; the “ place was shaken” where they had assembled with the other disciples. Also “ they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,” which was a renewal of the Holy Spirit re¬ceived on Pentecost. The apostles were strengthened anew by the Spirit’ s influence; they rose above the fear of the rulers’ threats, and continued with boldness to bear testimony in the name of Jesus. It should be observed that these pious men went to the Lord in prayer under these trying circumstances.

It is encourag-ing to Christians to have the fellowship and companionship of oth¬ers in the work of the Lord; the apostles went to this company of disciples. It may be observed also that the enemies of God cannot thwart the purposes of God. They continued to speak “ the word of God with boldness” wherever occasion presented itself. shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.” The angels connect the ascension with the second advent; the ascension of Jesus is thus made a promise of his second coming. No representative of Jesus will come the second time, for “ this Jesus” that they saw disappear shall reappear. He is to come “ in like manner” as he ascended. Jesus himself foretold (Matthew 26:64) that he should hereafter come “ on the clouds of heaven.” WAITING FOR THE PROMISE Acts 1:12-14 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem—The usual name in the Bible for this mountain is “ mount of Olives,” and is used eleven times in the New Testament. (Matthew 21:1; Mark 13:3; Luke 22:39; John 8:1.) “ Olivet” is the Greek word here mean¬ing “ olive orchard” or “ olive yard.” This mountain was “ nigh unto Jerusalem.” The Mount of Olives is on the east of Jerusa-lem, and must be passed by those who go from Jerusalem to Beth¬any ; hence, Luke’ s expression, “ He led them out until they were over against Bethany.” (Luke 24:50.) No one knows the exact spot on the Mount of Olives from which Jesus ascended; it was “ a sabbath day’ s journey off.” Different parts of the Mount of Olives were, of course, more or less distant from Jerusalem. “ A sabbath day’ s journey” was about two thousand yards, or about three- quarters of a mile from the city wall. Luke says here that the Mount of Olives was a Sabbath day’ s journey from Jerusalem, not that Jesus was precisely that distance when he ascended. Bethany was on one side of the Mount of Olives, at the foot of the moun¬tain, on the east side, “ about fifteen furlongs off” (John 11:18), or nearly two miles from Jerusalem, and the ascension was “ over against Bethany.” (Luke 24:50.) 13 And when they were come in,—When the apostles came into the city of Jerusalem from the ascension, “ they went up into the upper chamber.” Some claim that this “ upper chamber” was the same room that was occupied by Jesus when he ate the passover, which is described both by Mark and Luke as a “ large upper room.” (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12.) This was in a pri¬vate house, as is indicated in Luke 22:11; and not in the temple, as is indicated in Luke 24:53. “ The upper chamber” is a phrase which suggests a well-known place, and this is as definite as we can make it. In this room the eleven were abiding, not in the sense of dwelling, but of sojourning; they were waiting for the promise of the Father. Here we have a list of the apostles; this is the fourth record or list of these names found in the New Testament. The lists of the apostles in the New Testament are as followsMat_10:2-4 Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Thomas Matthew James of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Zealot Judas Iscariot Mark 3:16-19 Peter James John Andrew Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Zealot Judas Iscariot Luke 6:14-16 Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James Judas Iscariot Acts 1:13 Peter John James Andrew Philip Thomas Bartholomew Matthew James of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James (Matthias) The list of apostles is grouped by fours into three groups; Peter heads all the lists as leader; Philip heads the list of the second group in all four of the lists; and James of Alphaeus heads the list of the last group in all four of the lists. Luke varies his roll in his gospel and Acts; Andrew follows Peter in the gospel, and in Acts he is the fourth; while John is the fourth in the gospel and second in Acts. Luke changes the order in the second group, but the arrangement is the same in the third group. Peter, James, and John are the only apostles whose names are mentioned again in the Acts; they are mentioned here at the beginning of the history of the church. When the roll is called by Luke in Acts the name of Judas Iscariot is omitted. 14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer,—The disciple company consists of four separately mentioned classes of persons: (1) the eleven apostles; (2) certain devout women, including Mary the mother of Jesus; (3) the brethren of Jesus, James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3); (4) the other disciples of Jesus. The Greek word for “ one accord,” “ homothumadon,” means more than being together in one outward society; it means concord or oneness of mind and of spirit. They were together “ in one place” because they had one purpose, and were of oneness of soul. They “ continued stedfastly in prayer” ; that is, they let nothing interfere with their prayers. They had been told to wait for the fulfillment of the promise, and that it would not be many days, so they spent their time in prayer. This was the best preparation that they could make for the great event of the descent of the Holy Spirit.

This is the last mention that we have of Mary the mother of Jesus; the New Testament leaves her on her knees in prayer waiting, with the others, for the descent of the Holy Spirit. OF Acts 1:15-26 15 And in these days Peter stood up—Peter had denied his Lord after the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed unto him, but we now find him in his old place impetuously speaking for the apostles. He had been forgiven, and had received a special message sent to him by the risen Saviour (Mark 16:7), and a special charge given him (John 21:15-18). He is here strengthening his brethren; he does not apologize for the sin of Judas, but rather reminds them that “ he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.” Some think that Peter was the oldest of the apostles; hence, he took the lead. There “ was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty.” The word for “ gathered” is not in the Greek here, but it does occur in Matthew 22:34, and it seems to be the same idea in Luke 17:35. The entire number of disciples is not mentioned as being one hundred and twenty, but that number was gathered together in Jerusalem ; evidently there were others scattered through the country. (1 Corinthians 15:6.) There is no significance in the number “ one hundred and twenty.” 16 Brethren, it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled,—“ Brethren” literally means “ men, brethren, or brother men.” Women are included in this address, though “ andres” refers only to men. Peter reminds them that the prophecy given by David through the Holy Spirit concerning Judas must be fulfilled. He evidently refers to Psalms 41:9, which referred first to Ahithophel, and in John 13:18 to Judas; hence, Peter here indirectly states that David wrote Psalms 41. Judas led the company of Jews and Romans to the Garden of Gethsemane to betray Jesus. Peter here found three things foretold, which had to be fulfilled: (1) that the traitor was to be one of themselves; (2) what his fate would be; (3) that his office from which he had been ejected was to be filled by another. 17 For he was numbered among us,—Peter is not ashamed to state that one of the twelve betrayed the Master; inspiration has been true to the fact and recorded this betrayal. One might think that it would be injurious to the cause of Christ to record the fact that one of his disciples betrayed him; however, Judas fulfilled the conditions of the prophecy. (Psalms 41:9 Psalms 109:2-5.) Judas had a mouth of deceitfulness, the lying tongue, the groundless enmity, the requital of evil for good; yet he was numbered among the twelve apostles. 18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward—Judas “ obtained” this field, or acquired it indirectly with the money which he received for the betrayal of Jesus. (Matthew 26:14-26 Matthew 27:3-8.) Verses 18 and 19 are not a part of Peter’ s speech, but seem to have been parenthetically included in Luke’ s account. The field was bought with the money that Judas received for be¬traying the Savior; he brought it back and threw it at the feet of the chief priest, and they took the money and purchased this property; they would not put the money in the treasury. (Matthew 27:5-8.) This field was bought by the chief priest in order to bury strangers in it. Matthew further says: “ That field was called, The field of blood.” (Matthew 27:3-8.) Luke here states that Judas fell “ headlong” and “ burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Matthew states that Judas “ went away and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5.) There is no contradiction here, as he could have hanged himself and then fallen and “ burst asunder.” Evidently in his attempt to hang himself the traitor’ s body fell and was mangled as described here by Luke. 19 And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem;—The fate of Judas and the way in which the purchase money was obtained caused the name to be changed from “ the potter’ s field” to “ The field of blood,” and all people recognized the appropriateness of this name. “ Akeldama” is the Aramaic word which Peter explained to mean “ The field of blood.” “ Aramaic” was the cor¬rupt Hebrew which was spoken in Palestine at that time. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms,—Peter here quotes from Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8. He changes the plural of the first quotation into the singular as David was speaking of many enemies of his own, and Judas was the instrument through which the many enemies of Jesus work out their will; hence, the punishment which came upon Judas as the chief of¬fender. Peter illustrates and points to its fulfillment in prophecy. The disciples would be disturbed at the treachery of Judas, but Peter answers by pointing to predictions in the Psalms which proved that none of these things were accidental; they were known long before by Jehovah. “ His office let another take” means that an¬other must be selected to fill the place that Judas was selected to fill. 21-22 Of the men therefore that have companied—The apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus; Peter here states the conditions required in the one who is to be appointed to take the place of Judas. He mentions two things; namely, that they should have been a disciple of Jesus “ from the baptism of John,” and that they should have accompanied him after his resurrection. This is another way of saying that one should have known and followed Jesus from the first of his personal ministry to his trials, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. These apostles were careful in selecting the successor to Judas’ place; the one selected must be a competent witness; no one can be selected who is not an eyewitness of the things to which he must testify, so that his knowledge may be firsthand and his evidence trustworthy. Peter had quoted from the Psalms that the place was vacant and that another should fill it; hence, he proceeded at once under the guidance of God to complete this task. 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas,— With the qualifications before them, “ they” began their search for one who met all qualifications. They found two who met these qualifications. It is supposed that these two were selected from the company that was assembled. It is not clear as to who is in¬cluded in “ they” ; some think that the entire assembly selected or found the two who were qualified; others think that only the apostles were included in the “ they.” Those who take the view that the assembly selected the two who had the qualifications draw the conclusion that the church may select its officers today. They should remember that the church had not been established at this time, and that this is no precedent for selecting officers in the church. “ Joseph called Barsabbas” also bore the name “ Justus” ; he was a well-known disciple at that time, and had been a companion of Jesus for three or more years, but we know nothing further about him. There have been different interpretations as to the meaning of his name; we cannot make him the same as “ Barnabas” mentioned in Acts 4:36. “ Matthias” is the contracted form of “ Mattathias,” and is the equivalent of the Greek, “ Theodore,” which means “ gift of God.” 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord,—Luke here gives only the substance of the prayer that was prayed; it is very probable that Peter led in this prayer, and that they all prayed with him. Some claim that this prayer was addressed to Jesus, and others that it was addressed to God. “ Lord” may refer to God and Christ. It is the same Greek word that Peter used four times in answering Jesus (John 21:15-17 John 21:21), and that the eleven used after the resurrection in speaking to Jesus (Acts 1:6). Jesus had not at this time become the Mediator and High Priest, as his church had not been established. “ Who knowest the hearts of all men” literally means who “ heart knowing all men.” There is a similar expression applied to God: “ Jehovah searcheth all hearts” (1 Chronicles 28:9) and “ I, Jehovah, search the mind, I try the heart” (Jeremiah 17:10). Since God knows the hearts of all men, he is asked to “ show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen.” It is clear that the Lord had chosen; that he was to make known which one should take the place of Judas. The Lord knew the heart; they knew only the men with their qualifications; hence, they asked the Lord to “ show” or “ point out” by some visible or other means which one of the two he had chosen. They wanted only the one that the Lord had chosen. 25 to take the place in this ministry—It is clear that they desire one to take Judas’ place and to become an apostle with them; they want him to participate in the office of the apostleship “ from which Judas fell away” that he might go to his own place. Judas had been chosen to the place by Jesus, but he was disqualified by his wickedness and went to his own place, and now another must be chosen by the authority of God to take his place. 26 And they gave lots for them—The Jews were familiar with the process of casting lots; this method of decision by lot was an Old Testament custom. The land of Canaan was divided and as¬signed to the different tribes by lot. (Numbers 26:55.) The guilt of Achan seems to have been determined by lot (Joshua 7:14); the king of Israel, Saul, was selected by lot (1 Samuel 10:20-21); the same method was used in determining the “ scapegoat” (Leviticus 16:8). Proverbs 16:33 indicates how the lot was cast. There are different ways by which the lot was cast, but we need not discuss these. The only thing practical here is that the apostles placed the responsibility of the selection on the Lord, and he made the choice; so Matthias was chosen by the Lord, “ and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” The Greek word for “ numbered” is not the same as in verse 17, but is a word used in one form to signify the person who was selected. Some have doubted as to whether the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting Matthias; they claim that Matthias was never an apostle.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 1Act 1:1-2. A of Jesus of Nazareth, designed to convince men that he is the Christ, would most naturally begin with his birth and terminate with his ascension to heaven. Such was the “ former narrative” which Luke had addressed to Theophilus, and he alludes to it as such in introducing his present work: (1) “The former treatise I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, (2) until the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up.” This reference to his former narrative is most appropriate in its place, inasmuch as the one now undertaken is based entirely upon it. The specific reference to “ the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up” is still more in point, from the fact that all the authority which the apostles had for the labors Luke is about to narrate was derived from the commandment given on that day. The history of that day furnishes but one commandment then given, which was the apostolic commission. In this commission, then, Luke locates the starting point of his present narrative. If we would appreciate the narrative thus briefly introduced to us, we must begin with the author, by a proper understanding of this commission. During the personal ministry of Jesus, he authorized no human being to announce his Messiahship. On the contrary, whenever he discovered a disposition to do so, he uniformly forbade it, and this not only to various recipients of his healing power, but to the apostles themselves. When Peter made the memorable confession, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” we are told that, at the close of the conversation, “ he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” Such was his uniform injunction on similar occasions. Even when Peter, James, and John had witnessed his transfiguration, and heard God himself proclaim him his Son, as they came down from the mount, “ Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man is risen from the dead.” This stern prohibition, quite surprising to most readers of the New Testament, may be accounted for, in part, by a desire to avoid that political ferment, which, in the existing state of the public mind, might have resulted from a general belief among the Jews that he was their Messiah. But there is a much more imperative reason for it, found in the mental and moral condition of the disciples themselves. Their crude conceptions of the Messiahship, their gross misconception of the nature of the expected Kingdom, their misunderstanding of much that he had taught them, and their imperfect remembrance of that which they had understood, rendered them incapable of presenting his claims truthfully, not to say infallibly, to the world. Moreover, their faith had not, as yet, acquired the strength necessary to the endurance of privations and persecutions. While laboring under these defects, they were most wisely prohibited from preaching that he was the Christ. During the last night he spent on earth, Jesus at length informed them that this restriction would soon be removed, and they should receive the qualifications necessary to be his witnesses. He says, “ The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.” “ I have many things to say to you, but you can not bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth.“ “ He shall testify of me: and you also shall testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.” In these words they have a promise that they shall testify of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit for their guide; but the promise looks to the future for its fulfillment. Finally, “ in the day in which he was taken up,” he gives them the commandment which is to unseal their lips, and authorizes them to preach the glad tidings to every creature. Without this commandment, they could not have dared to tell any many that he was the Christ; with it, they are authorized to begin the labors which our historian is about to narrate. But even yet there is one restriction laid upon them; for they have not yet received the promised qualifications. “ He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; but await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me.” Such was the necessity for the commandment in question, and for the limitation which attended it when given. The items of which it is composed are not fully stated by either one of the historians, but must be collected from the partial statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew presents three of them, as follows: “ Go, disciple all nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever I have commanded you.” Mark presents five items in these words: “ Go preach the gospel to every creature; he who believes and is immersed shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned.“ Luke simply states that Jesus said, “ Thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” If we combine these items, by arranging them in their natural order of succession, we will have the commission fully stated. The command quoted by Mark, “ Preach the gospel to every creature,” necessarily comes first. The command, “ Disciple all nations,” is next in order; for it is by means of preaching that they were to make disciples. But when a man is made a disciple he becomes a believer; and Matthew and Mark agree in the statement that he who believes, or in Matthew’s style, he who is discipled, is then to be immersed. Luke, however, says that repentance must be preached, and as repentance precedes obedience, we are compelled to unite it with faith, as antecedent to immersion. Next after immersion comes Mark’s statement, “ he shall be saved.” But salvation may be either that which the pardoned sinner now enjoys, or that to be enjoyed after the resurrection from the dead: hence this term would be ambiguous but for Luke’s version of it, who quotes that “remission of sins” is to be preached. This limits the meaning of the promise to that salvation which consists in remission of sins.

Next after this comes the command, “ teaching them to observe and do” what I have commanded you. Finally, they were to proclaim that they who believed not, and, consequently, complied not with the terms of the commission, should be condemned. In brief, they were commanded to go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations by preaching the gospel to every creature; to immerse all penitent believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, promising such the remission of their sins; then teaching them all their duties and privileges, as disciples of Jesus. In the mean time, all were to be assured that he who believed not should be condemned. Making this commission the starting point of his narrative, Luke proceeds, after a few more preliminary observations, to relate the manner in which it was executed. This is the key to the whole narrative. We will find the apostles adhering strictly to its guidance. Their actions will furnish a complete counterpart to the items of their commission, and the best exposition of its meaning. For the strongest confirmation of the brief exposition just given, we refer to the course of the narrative as set forth in the following pages. Acts 1:3. As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state briefly the ground of the qualifications for this testimony. He does this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have already quoted a part: (3) “To whom, also, he presented himself alive, after his suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” From the concluding chapters of the former narrative, we learn more particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. These, having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here repeated. We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that the space from the resurrection to the ascension was forty days. Acts 1:4-5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes of the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension: (4) “And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me. (5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence.” The command not to depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by some commentators, for the commandment mentioned above, as being given on the day he was taken up. But, in truth, as we have already seen, the commission constituted that commandment, while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in reference to the time and place of beginning. The “promise of the Father” which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which they now learn, is to be fulfilled in by their immersion in the Spirit. On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, ii. 16– 18. Acts 1:6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the commission by announcing, “ All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.” It was, probably, this announcement that led to the inquiry which Luke next repeats. Being informed that all authority is now given to him, the disciples expected to see him begin to exercise it in the way they had long anticipated. (6) “Now when they were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (7) But he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in his own authority. (8) But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.” The question, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” indicates two interesting facts: First, that the apostles still misconceived the nature of Christ’s kingdom; second, that the kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some attention at our hands, especially the latter. Their misconceptions consisted in the expectation that Christ would re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to its ancient glory, under its own personal reign. In his reply, the Savior does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves it as a part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the Holy Spirit. The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the point of transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements of which were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensation, which is to know no change, either of principles or of ordinances, in the course of time. It is necessary to determine this point in order to know what laws and ordinances of the Bible belong to the present dispensation. All things enjoined subsequent to this period are binding upon us as citizens of the kingdom of Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or granted as a privilege, under former dispensations, is applicable to us, unless it is specifically extended to us. It requires no less divine authority to extend into the kingdom of Christ the institutions of the Jewish kingdom than it did to establish them at first. This proposition is self-evident. To fix, therefore, most definitely this period is a matter of transcendent importance, and must here have all the space that it requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined by positive Scripture statements. The expression “ kingdom of heaven” is used only by Matthew. In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians uniformly say “ kingdom of God.” This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we conclude that the “ kingdom of heaven” is not heaven, but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, “ There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.“ The Apostle Paul also speaks of the “ kingdom of God’s dear Son,” and says “ He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.” Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which he became a king is the time at which “ the kingdom of Christ and of God” began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of Abraham. But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was made king. “ We see Jesus,” says Paul, “ who was made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” It was after his death, and not during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser. Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that he was made a king. For Paul says, “ Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, “ Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” He “ sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,” and the Father said, “ Let all the angels of God worship him.” At this word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is “ Lord of lord and King of kings.” It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, “ All authority, in heaven and on earth is given to me.” Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, “ This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” “ Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.“ This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on the first Pentecost after his ascension. We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, “ The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it.” Again: “ Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in.” And again: “ If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to you.” It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John’s ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, “ Then is the kingdom of God come to you.” But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand;” eggike, “is near.” Jesus exclaims, “ Among them who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he.” Again: “ There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” And, finally, the question we are now considering, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: “ From the days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” Whatever may be the true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can refer to the kingdom of glory. Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated by John can not do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should constantly preach, “ The kingdom of heaven is near.” Again: if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed. On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God.

Those who opposed them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both parties it could be said, “ The kingdom of God is come to you.” It had come to them in the influence of its principles. “ From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached,” not as an existing institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are capable, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness. We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, he was himself “ a minister of the circumcision,” and kept the law till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people for a “ better covenant.” Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he expired on the cross.

Then “ the vail of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom,” indicating the end of that dispensation. All the sacrifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way being consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had gone, but through the vail— that is to say, his flesh — he put an end to the priesthood of Aaron, and took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to his cross. At the death of Christ, therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the next Pentecost the new kingdom began. Regarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to consider, briefly, the Savior’s answer to the question which has detained us so long. He said to them, “ It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which God has appointed in his own authority.” By the expression “ in his own authority,” I suppose Jesus intended to indicate that the times and seasons of God’s purposes are reserved more specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more carefully from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. It is characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts and the succession of events than in definite dates and periods. The apostles were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, as proper preparation for their work did not depend upon a foreknowledge of the time, it was not important to reveal it to them. But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary power: hence Jesus adds, “ But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” The power here promised is not authority, for this he had given them in the commission; but it is that miraculous power to know all the truth, and work miracles in proof of their mission, which he had promised them before his death. He says to them, virtually, It is not for you to know the time at which I will establish my kingdom, but you shall receive power to inaugurate it on earth when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This is an additional proof that the kingdom was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost. While promising them the requisite power, Jesus takes occasion to mark out their successive fields of labor: first “ in Jerusalem,” next, “ in all Judea,” then “ in Samaria,” and finally, “ to the uttermost part of the earth.” It is not to be imagined that this arrangement of their labors was dictated by partiality for the Jews, or was merely designed to fulfill prophesy. It was rather foretold through the prophets, because there were good reasons why it should be so. One reason, suggested by the commentators generally, for beginning in Jerusalem, was the propriety of first vindicating the claims of Jesus in the same city in which he was condemned. But the controlling reason was doubtless this: the most devout portion of the Jewish people, that portion who had been most influenced by the preparatory preaching of John and of Jesus, were always collected at the great annual festivals, and hence the most successful beginning could there be made. Next to these, the inhabitants of the rural districts of Judea were best prepared, by the same influences, for the gospel; then the Samaritans, who had seen some of the miracles of Jesus; and, last of all, the Gentiles. Thus the rule of success was made their guide from place to place, and it became the custom of the apostles, even in heathen lands, to preach the gospel “ first to the Jew” and “ then to the Gentile.” The result fully justified the rule; for the most signal triumph of the gospel was in Judea, and the most successful approach to the Gentiles of every region was through the Jewish synagogue. Acts 1:9. Having completed his brief notice of the last interview between Jesus and the disciples, Luke says, (9) “And when he had spoken these things, while they were beholding, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” We learn from Luke’s former narrative, that it was while Jesus was in the act of blessing them, with uplifted hands, that he was parted from them and borne aloft into heaven. The cloud which floated above formed a background, to render the outline of the person more distinct while in view, and to suddenly shut him off from view as he entered its bosom. Thus all the circumstances of this most fitting departure were calculated to preclude the suspicion of deception or of optical illusion. It has been urged by some skeptical writers, that the silence of Matthew and John, in reference to the ascension, who were eye-witnesses of the scene, if it really occurred, while is mentioned only by Luke and Mark, who were not present, is ground of suspicion that the latter derived their information from impure sources. Even Olshausen acknowledges that, at one time, he was disquieted on this point, because he could not account for this peculiar difference in the course of the four historians. That the testimony of Mark and Luke, however, is credible, is made apparent to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, by simply inquiring, what became of his body after it was raised? It was certainly raised immortal and incorruptible. There is nothing in his resurrection to distinguish it from that of Lazarus, or the widow’s son of Nain, so that he should be called “ the first fruits of them who slept,” but the fact that he rose to die no more. But when he was about to leave the earth, there was only this alternative, that his body should return again to the grave, or ascend up into heaven. So far, therefore, is the account of the ascension from being incredible, that even if none of the historians had mentioned it, we would still be constrained to conclude that, at some time, and in some manner, it did take place. We may further observe, that though Matthew and John do not mention the ascension, the latter reports a conversation with Mary the Magdalene at the sepulcher, in which Jesus clearly intimated that it would take place. He said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” And that his ascension would be visible, he had intimated to the disciples, when he said, “ Doth this offend you? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” But still the question recurs, why should Matthew and John omit an account of this remarkable event, and why should Like and Mark, who were not eye-witnesses, make mention of it? It would be sufficient to answer, For a similar reason, no doubt, to that which led each of these writers to omit some interesting facts which are mentioned by others. But we may find a still more definite answer by examining the last chapter of each of the four gospels. It will be observed, that John saw fit to close his narrative with the fishing scene which occurred on the shore of Galilee, making no mention at all of the last day’s interview. Of course, it would have required a departure from, this plan to have mentioned the ascension. Matthew brings his narrative to a close with a scene on a mountain in Galilee, whereas the ascension took place from Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem. There was nothing in his closing remarks to suggest mention of the ascension, unless it be his account of the commission; but the commission was really first given to them at that time, though finally repeated on the day of the ascension. On the other hand, Mark and Luke both chose, for their concluding paragraphs, such a series of events as leads them to speak of the last day’s interview; and as the ascension was the closing event of the day, it would have been most unnatural for them not to mention it. Still further, in the introduction to the book of Acts, the leading events of which are to have constant reference to an ascended and glorified Redeemer, Luke felt still greater necessity for giving a formal account of the ascension. Acts 1:10-11. Not only the ascension of Jesus to heaven, but his future coming to judgment, is to be a prominent topic in the coming narrative, hence the introduction here of another fact, which not even Luke had mentioned before. (10) “And while they were gazing into heaven, as he went away, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, (11) who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in the same manner that you have seen him going into heaven.” These “ two men in white apparel” were, undoubtedly, angels in human form. This is the natural conclusion from the words they utter, and is confirmed by the fact that two others who appeared at the sepulcher, and are called “ men in shining garments” by Luke, are called “ two angels in white” by John. Luke speaks of them according to their appearance; John, according to the reality. It should be observed that the angels stated not merely that Jesus would come again, but that he would come in like manner as they had seen him go; that is, visibly and in his glorified humanity. It is a positive announcement of a literal and visible second coming. Acts 1:12. At the rebuke of the angel, the disciples withdrew their longing gaze from the cloud into which Jesus had entered, and cheered by the promise of his return, (12) “Then they returned into Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet, which was near Jerusalem, distant a Sabbath-day’s journey.” The ascension took place near Bethany, which was nearly two miles from Jerusalem, and on the further side of Mount Olivet. It was the nearer side of the Mount, which was distant a Sabbath-day’s journey, or seven-eighths of a mile. We learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they returned to Jerusalem “ with great joy.” Their sorrow at parting from the Lord was turned into joy at the hope of seeing him again. Acts 1:13. “And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where were abiding Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas brother of James.” This enumeration of the apostles very appropriately finds place here, showing that all of those to whom the commission was given were at their post, ready to begin work, and waiting for the promised power from on high. Acts 1:14. The manner in which these men spent the time of their waiting, which was an interval of ten days, was such as we would expect: (14) “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” The chief scene of this worship was not the upper room where the eleven were abiding, but the temple; for we learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they “ were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.” The mother of Jesus is here mentioned for the last time in New Testament history. The fact that she still remained with the disciples, instead of returning to Nazareth, indicates that John was faithful to the dying request of Jesus, and continued to treat her as his own mother. Though the prominence here given to her name shows that she was regarded with great respect by the apostles, the manner in which Luke speaks of her shows that he had not dreamed of the worship which was yet to be offered to her by an idolatrous church. Whether those here called the “ brothers” of Jesus were the sons of Mary, or more distant relatives of Jesus, is not easily determined, from the fact that the Greek word is ambiguous. The Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is dependent upon the solution of this question, but it properly belongs to commentaries on the gospels, and to these the reader is referred for the arguments, pro and con. Acts 1:15-18. We next have an account of the selection of an apostle to fill the place of Judas. There is no intimation that Jesus had authorized this procedure; on the contrary, it would be presumed that, as he himself had selected the original twelve, he would, in like manner, fill the vacancy, if he intended that it should be filled. Neither had the apostles yet received that power from on high which would enable them to act infallibly in a matter of this kind. From these considerations, it has been supposed by some that the whole procedure was both unauthorized and invalid. But the fact that Matthias was afterward “numbered with the eleven apostles,” and that the whole body were from that time called “ the twelve,” shows that the transaction was sanctioned by the apostles even after they were fully inspired.

This gave it the sanction of inspired authority, whatever may have been its origin. Moreover, Jesus had promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and the fulfillment of this promise required that the number should be filled up. The Apostle Paul was not reckoned among “ the twelve.” He distinguishes himself from them in 1 Corinthians 15:5 1 Corinthians 15:8. “ He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve,” and “ he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” The particular time within the ten days, at which this selection was made, is not designated. The incident is introduced in these terms: (15) “And in those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together was about one hundred and twenty,) (16) Brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas, who was guide to them that seized Jesus. (17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. (18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” The parenthetical statement that the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty is not to be understood as including all who then believed on Jesus, but only those who were then and there assembled. Paul states that Jesus was seen, after his resurrection, by “ above five hundred brethren at once.” The hundred and twenty were, perhaps, all who were then in the city of Jerusalem. The statement in reference to the fate of Judas is supposed by most commentators to be part of a parenthesis thrown in by Luke, though some contend that it is part of Peter’s speech. If the latter supposition is true, there is no ambiguity in it to the original hearers, for they all well knew that the field referred to was purchased by the Sanhedrim with money which Judas forced upon them, and which was invested in this way because they could find no other suitable use for it. Knowing this, they could but understand Peter as meaning that Judas had indirectly caused the field to be purchased. But whether the words are Peter’s or Luke’s, it must be admitted that a reader unacquainted with the facts in the case would be misled by them. Luke, however, presumed upon the information of his first readers, and that knowledge of the facts which they possessed has been transmitted to us by Matthew, so that we have as little difficulty as they did in discovering the true meaning of the remark. As respects the manner of the death of Judas, the common method of reconciling Luke’s account with that of Matthew is undoubtedly correct. We must suppose them both to be true, and combine the separate statements. The whole affair stands thus: “ He went out and hanged himself;” and, by the breaking of either the limb on which he hung, or the cord, “ falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Acts 1:19. The next statement, (19) “And it was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood,” is undoubtedly a parenthesis by Luke. Peter was addressing the very people in whose proper tongue the place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course, translate it to them. Hence, we can not attribute these words to him. But Luke was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done here prove the words to be his. Acts 1:20. The historian now resumes the report of Peter’s speech, which he had interrupted by the parenthesis. In the remarks already quoted, Peter bases the action which he proposes, not upon any commandment of Jesus, but upon a prophesy uttered by David. He also states, as the ground for the application of that prophesy which he is about to make, the fact that Judas had been numbered with them, and had “ obtained part of this ministry.” He now quotes the prophesy alluded to: (20) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein. His office let another take.“ These two passages from the Psalms, when read in their original context, seem to apply to the wicked in general, and there is not the slightest indication that David had Judas in prophetic view when he uttered them. This is an instance, therefore, of the particular application of a general prophetic sentiment. If it be proper that the habitation of a wicked man should become desolate, and that whatever office he held should be given to another, then it was pre-eminently proper that such a crime as that of Judas should be thus punished, and that so important an office as that of Judas should be filled by a worthy successor. Acts 1:21-22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on which Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appointment of an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. The qualifications, therefore, are found necessary to an election, must always be possessed by one who proposes to be a successor to an apostle. He states these qualification in the next sentence: (21) “Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) beginning from the immersion of John till the day he was take up from us, must one be made a witness with us of his resurrection.” There being no other instance in the New Testament of the selection of a successor to an apostle, this is our only scriptural guide upon the subject, and therefore, it is unscriptural for any man to lay claim to the office who has not been a companion of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection. The reason for confining the selection to those who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning, is because such would be the most reliable witnesses to his identity after the resurrection. One less familiar with his person would, certis paribus, be less perfectly guarded against imposition. Peter here, like Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, makes the whole value of apostolic testimony depend upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 1:23-26. “Then they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen (25) to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place. (26) And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles.”It will be observed that the brethren did not themselves select Matthias; but, having first appointed two persons between whom the choice should be made, they prayed the Lord to show which one he had chosen, and then cast lots, understanding that the one upon whom the lot fell was the Lord’s choice. The reason that they did not make the selection themselves was evidently because they thought proper that the Lord, who had chosen Judas, should also choose his successor. If it be inquired why, then, they ventured to confine the Lord’s choice to these two, the most plausible answer is that suggested by Dr. Alexander, that, after careful examination of the parties present, they were the only two who possessed the qualifications named by Peter. Whether the selection of these two was made by the body of disciples, or by the apostles alone, it is unimportant to determine. The case does not, as many have supposed, furnish a precedent on the subject of popular election of church officers; for the selection of the two persons between whom an election was to be made, was not the election itself; and when the election took place, it was made by the Lord, and not by the disciples or the apostles. One of them cast or drew the lots, but the Lord determined on whom the lot should fall. The prayer offered by the apostles on this occasion is a model of its kind. They had a single object for which they bowed before the Lord, and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. They do not repeat a single thought, neither do they elaborate one beyond the point perspicuity. The question having reference to the spiritual as well as the historical characteristics of the two individuals, most appropriately do they address the Lord as kardiognosta, the heart-knower. They do not pray, Show which thou wilt chose, or dost choose, as though there was need of reflection with the Lord before the choice; but, “ show which one of these two thou hast chosen.” They describe the office they desire the Lord to fill, as the “ ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place.” He had been in a place of which he proved himself unworthy, and they have no hesitation in referring to the fact that he had now gone to his own place. That place is, of course, the place to which hypocrites go after death.

Here is a simple address to the Lord, beautifully appropriate to the petition they are about to present; then the petition itself concisely expressed, and the prayer is concluded. So brief a prayer, on any occasion in this voluble age, would scarcely be recognized as a prayer at all, so prone are men to the delusion that they will be heard for their much speaking.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter One IN THIS CHAPTER

To begin our study of Acts with a review of things taught by Jesus between His resurrection and ascension: the kingdom of God, the Promise of The Father, being baptized by the Spirit
To note the role and qualifications of the apostles as witnesses of the resurrection of Christ
To see how Luke sets the stage for the great events described in chapter two

SUMMARY Luke begins his second book to Theophilus by alluding to the first (the gospel of Luke, Luke 1:1-4). He briefly reviews what occurred during the forty days between the resurrection and ascension of Christ (cf. Luke 24:1-53). Special attention is given to the Promise of the Father regarding the apostles being baptized by the Holy Spirit, who would empower them as witnesses for Christ in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and even to the end of the earth (Acts 1:1-8).

The ascension of Jesus is then described (cf. also Luke 24:50-51), along with the promise of His return by two men in white apparel standing by (Acts 1:9-11). Obeying the command of the Lord, the apostles return to Jerusalem, where they wait and continue in prayer along with the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers (Acts 1:12-14).

OUTLINE I. THE (Acts 1:1-8) A. THE FORMER ACCOUNT TO (Acts 1:1-3)1. Of all that Jesus began to do and teach 2. Until the day in which Jesus was taken up 3. After He had given commandments to the apostles a. To whom He had shown Himself alive, being seen during forty days b. Speaking of things pertaining to the kingdom of God

B. THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (Acts 1:4-8)1. The apostles commanded to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the Promise of the Father a. Which they had heard from Him b. For while John baptized with water, they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit shortly 2. The apostles question Jesus concerning the kingdom a. Would He now restore the kingdom to Israel? b. It is not for them to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority 3. When the Spirit has come upon the apostles… a. They shall receive power b. They shall be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the end of the earth

II. THE OF CHRIST (Acts 1:9-11) A. JESUS ASCENDS TO HEAVEN (Acts 1:9)1. When He had spoken these words, while they watched 2. A cloud received Him out of their sight

B. THE PROMISE OF HIS RETURN (Acts 1:10-11)1. While looking steadfastly as Jesus ascends, two men in white apparel stand by 2. They address the apostles a. “Men of Galilee” b. “Why do you stand gazing up into heaven?” 3. They promise Jesus will return a. “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven” b. “Will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven”

III. THE WAITING IN (Acts 1:12-14) A. THE RETURN TO (Acts 1:12)1. From the mount called Olivet 2. About a Sabbath day’s journey

B. THEY IN PRAYER (Acts 1:13-14)1. In an upper room where they were staying 2. The names of the apostles: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas the son of James 3. They pray with the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers

IV. THE OF (Acts 1:15-26) A. THE COUNSEL OF PETER (Acts 1:15-22)1. To about 120 disciples, of the need to replace Judas a. His betrayal prophesied by the Spirit through David

He became a guide to those who arrested Jesus
Though he was numbered with the apostles and had a part in their ministry b. His gruesome death described by Luke 1) He purchased a field with the wages of iniquity (Matthew 27:3-8)
He fell headlong, burst open in the middle, entrails gushing out
The field is called Akel Dama, Field of Blood c. His end and replacement foretold in the Psalms 1) “Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it” (Psalms 69:25)
“Let another take his office” (Psalms 109:8)

Stipulating requirements for one to be a witness of His resurrection with the apostles a. Having accompanied the apostles all the time Jesus went in and out among them b. Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day Jesus ascended to heaven

B. WITH THE (Acts 1:23-26)1. Two are proposed a. Joseph called Barsabas and surnamed Justus b. Matthias 2. Prayer is offered to the Lord, who knows the hearts of all a. To show which of these two He has chosen b. Who would take part in the ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell 3. Lots are cast a. The lot fell on Matthias b. He was numbered with the eleven apostles

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

What are the main points of this chapter?- The Prologue (Acts 1:1-8)

The Ascension Of Christ (Acts 1:9-11)
The Waiting In Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14)
The Selection Of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26)

What is the “former account” Luke has reference to? (Acts 1:1)- The gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4)
What three things does Luke mention Jesus did before He ascended? (Acts 1:2-3)- Gave commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen

Presented Himself alive by many infallible proofs
Spoke of things pertaining to the kingdom of God

How long a period was it between the resurrection and ascension of Christ? (Acts 1:3)- Forty days
What command did Jesus leave with His apostles? (Acts 1:4)- Not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the Promise of the Father
What did this “promise” pertain to? (Acts 1:5)- Being baptized with the Holy Spirit
What question did the apostles ask Jesus? How did he respond? (Acts 1:6-7)- Would He at that time restore the kingdom to Israel?

It was not for them to know the times and seasons which the Father has put in His own authority

What was promised when the Spirit came upon them? What would they then be? (Acts 1:8)- The apostles would receive power

His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to end of the earth

What happened as Jesus ascended to heaven? (Acts 1:9)- A cloud received Him out of their sight
As Jesus ascended to heaven, who stood nearby? (Acts 1:10)- Two men in white apparel
What did they promise? (Acts 1:11)- Jesus will return in like manner as they saw Him ascend to heaven
From where did Jesus ascend to heaven? How far was this from Jerusalem? (Acts 1:12)- Mount Olivet (near Bethany, cf. Luke 24:50)

A Sabbath day’s journey (nearly a mile)

Where did the apostles stay in Jerusalem? With whom did they pray? (Acts 1:13-14)- An upper room

With the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers (cf. Matthew 13:55; John 7:5)

How many disciples were gathered there in those days? (Acts 1:15)- 120
Who stood up to speak? What about? (Acts 1:15-20)- Peter

Replacing Judas who betrayed Jesus and hung himself

What happened to the body of Judas? In what field? (18;Matthew 27:3-10)- Fell headlong, burst open in the middle, and entrails gushed out (presumably after he hanged himself)

The field purchased with money paid to betray Jesus, known as Akel Dama, the Field of Blood

What were the requirements to be considered a replacement for Judas? (Acts 1:21-22)- Had accompanied the apostles all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among them

From the baptism of John to the day Jesus ascended to heaven

What would be a primary role of the replacement? (Acts 1:22)- To be a witness with the apostles of the resurrection of Jesus
What two candidates were selected? (Acts 1:23)- Joseph called Barsabas, surnamed Justus

Matthias

What procedure was used to determine who would replace Judas? (Acts 1:24-26)- Prayer, and then the casting of lots
Who was numbered with the eleven apostles? (Acts 1:26)- Matthias

Verse 1 I. THE CHURCH IN (Acts 1:1 to Acts 8:4) In this chapter are found Luke’s prologue to Acts (Acts 1:1-5), the ascension (Acts 1:6-11), the apostles and others waiting in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14), and a record of choosing a successor to Judas (Acts 1:15-26). THE (Acts 1:1-5) The significance of the prologue with its introductory address to Theophilus lies in the fact that everything Luke said in the prologue to his gospel (Luke 1:1-5) applies with equal force here, Acts being, in fact, the concluding book in a two-volume work, both addressed to the same person, both produced with the most painstaking accuracy, and both being founded upon eyewitness accounts. The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach. (Acts 1:1) The former treatise … refers to the Gospel of Luke. O Theophilus… This proper name has the meaning of “one who loves God,” but there is no valid reason for understanding it as anything other than the personal name of Luke’s friend to whom he addressed both the Gospel and Acts. As Bruce said, “Theophilus was a perfectly ordinary personal name, being used from the third century B.C. onwards."[1]Concerning all that Jesus … This is not an affirmation that Luke recorded “all” that Jesus did and taught, but it has the meaning that “all” Luke wrote concerned those things. A basic truth evident in all the sacred gospels is that the things written concerning Jesus have recorded only a small fraction of his mighty works and teachings, this having been powerfully stated by John (John 21:25). Began both to do and to teach … When Jesus bowed his head upon the cross and said, “It is finished,” the reference was primarily to the personal ministry of our Lord. The great redemptive act was indeed finished; the law of Moses was nailed to the cross; Satan’s head was bruised; the sabbath day was abolished; and the foundation for human justification was forever established. Charles H. Roberson loved to tell how Handel bowed his head after writing the score of “The Messiah,” saying, “It is finished.” But, as Roberson said, “Only the score was finished. All would have gone for naught unless other hands and voices should take it up and sing it!” Complete and final as Jesus’ atoning life and death were, even these were but the enabling achievements providing the grounds of salvation and setting in motion forces that would continue to bear fruit in all subsequent generations. As Boles expressed it: God and Christ begin, but there is no ending in their working; Jesus began working and teaching in the Gospel of Luke, and he is still working through the Holy Spirit in the church.[2]The learned McGarvey took a different view of this verse, and was sure that: It is a mistake to suppose that there is an allusion in this expression to the personal acts and teachings of Christ as a mere beginning of that which he continued to do and teach after his ascension.[3]In view of the fact that Luke frequently used “began” with various verbs to express simple action idiomatically as in the following reference from his gospel: Begin not to say within yourselves (Luke 3:8). He began to say this generation is an evil generation … (Luke 11:29). Then shall ye begin to say, We did eat, etc. (Luke 13:26). Thou shalt begin with shame to take the lowest-place (Luke 14:9). All that behold begin to mock him (Luke 14:29). and in the light of the further consideration that both Mark (Mark 6:2 and Mark 13:5) and John (John 13:5) used this same idiom for simple action, it would appear, therefore, that McGarvey’s view is preferable, especially as it regards what is SAID in this place. However, this is not to deny the truth of what Boles, Lange, Bruce, and many others have written about this. [1] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), p. 31. [2] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1953), p. 17. [3] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 1. Verse 2 Until that day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen.He was received up … This statement makes the ascension of Jesus Christ to have been something God did for Jesus, and not something that Jesus did himself. This corresponds with Daniel’s prophecy that “they brought him near before him” (Daniel 7:13), and also with the mandatory deduction from Luke’s parable of the pounds to the effect that Jesus did not “set up” a kingdom, but he “received” one as a gift from the Father. It is often alleged that only Luke and Mark mention the ascension, but this is not correct. John’s gospel has two references to it (John 6:62 and John 20:17), and Matthew’s record of the great commission, “all authority in heaven and upon earth,” may be understood only in light of the fact of his ascension. Commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles … Here at the very beginning of Acts, Luke brought into view the work of the Holy Spirit which received such extensive emphasis throughout the book. The commandment in view here was given on the day Jesus was taken up, this commandment being in fact the enabling charter for all that the apostles were to do. This is a reference to the great commission; and, as McGarvey said, “This is the key to the whole narrative before us; and in Acts are recorded the counterpart of its terms and the best exposition of its meaning."[4]Before the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, they were not fully capable of proclaiming the gospel of Christ, due to their misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom; but after Pentecost, they were guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Through the Holy Spirit … All that Jesus did was “through” the Holy Spirit, for Jesus was in possession of the measureless gift of the Spirit throughout his ministry (John 3:34). ENDNOTE: [4] Ibid., p. 3. Verse 3 To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days. And speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.Many proofs … It is regrettable that the KJV rendition of “many infallible proofs” was not followed here; for, while it is true that “infallible” is not in the Greek text, that meaning “is really included in the noun (proofs), which was used by Plato and Aristotle to denote the strongest proof of which a subject is susceptible."[5]The space of forty days … The teaching here is that at intervals throughout a period of forty days Jesus made frequent appearances to the apostles. Unto the apostles … Significantly, Jesus never appeared to any of his enemies. “The testimony of them that knew him best would be stronger than that of mere acquaintances."[6] Furthermore, the refusal of the Pharisees to believe, even after Lazarus’ resurrection, proved that it would have done no good for Jesus to have appeared to the wicked and self-hardened priests. Jesus himself said, “Neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31). “This implies, obviously, much unrecorded teaching."[7] Certain specifics, however, are clearly visible in what is recorded, such as: (1) that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:47 Luke 24:44-45); (2) that all men, including the Gentiles, were to be received into the kingdom through their faith and submission to baptism (Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16); (3) that Jesus would be with his church perpetually, watching over his followers providentially (Matthew 28:20 and Mark 16:17 ff), etc. Concerning the kingdom … Not only here, but in Acts 8:12 Acts 20:25; and Acts 28:31, Luke identified the gospel in this manner. [5] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1866), p. 8. [6] R. E. Walker, Studies in Acts (College Press, Reprint Library, n.d.), p. 10. [7] E. H. Plumptre, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 1. Verse 4 And being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me.Assembled together … The Greek text here may be translated “eating with them,” and thus there were possibly many occasions when Jesus ate food with his apostles after he was raised from the dead. Luke also in his gospel mentioned Jesus’ eating with the apostles (Luke 24:43); and Peter referred to it in Acts 10:41. To be sure, the Lord needed to do no such thing, but it was important for the apostles to witness such a thing. Not to depart from Jerusalem … Not until after Pentecost and the baptism of the Holy Spirit would the apostles become fully qualified preachers of the gospel, hence the command the Lord gave that they should remain in Jerusalem until they were empowered from on high by their reception of the Holy Spirit. Wait for the promise of the Father … This has reference to a definite promise of God delivered to the apostles by Jesus himself (“which, said he, ye heard from me”), corroborating exactly all that John recorded in the five Paraclete passages of his gospel, and thus vanquishing the conceit that the synoptists knew nothing of such a promise. Thus the apostles were to wait in Jerusalem because the promise of the Father was not yet given, and without it they were without power to accomplish their divine mission. Also, the prophet Isaiah had written: Let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3). Thus it was foreordained of God that the gospel should begin in Jerusalem; and it is hard to imagine a more significant verse in the whole Bible. Religions which were launched from Boston, Rome, Salt Lake City, or anywhere else on the face of the earth except “from Jerusalem” cannot be identified with the “word of the Lord”! Verse 5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.The new birth is a dual thing, as Jesus said, being both “of the water” and “of the Spirit.” The apostles had all been baptized with the baptism of John, hence the mention of it here; and the new birth in the Twelve themselves would be an actual reality upon their reception of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. It is a mistake to understand the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Twelve (promised here) apart from their having already submitted to John’s baptism. Not many days hence … That is, within ten days intervening between Jesus’ ascension and the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost. A further word regarding the baptism of the Twelve. Chrysostom said, “They were baptized by John”; but even apart from such ancient testimony, the deduction is mandatory from the fact of the apostles having aided in the administration of John’s baptism (John 4:2). It is impossible to imagine that they were baptizing others with a baptism to which they themselves had not submitted.[8]ENDNOTE: [8] A. C. Hervey, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 18, Acts, p. 2. Verse 6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?THE (Acts 1:6-11) Error always dies hard, especially that type of error which is deeply ingrained and fortified by human lusts and desires. An earthly kingdom was never, in the long history of Israel, or at any other time, contained in the purpose of God for Israel. Even the kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon, which God permitted but never approved, was from its inception a rejection of God’s government of the chosen people (1 Samuel 8:7). Israel’s desire for the restoration of THAT kingdom blinded their eyes to the Christ; and here it is evident that even the sacred Twelve themselves were contaminated with the earthly kingdom virus! McGarvey’s deduction from this passage is significant. He said: The question shows unmistakably that Jesus’ kingdom had not yet been inaugurated; for, if it had been, it is inconceivable that these men, who were its chief executive officers on earth, knew nothing of the fact; and it is equally inconceivable that if it had been, Jesus would not have promptly corrected so egregious a blunder on the part of his disciples.[9]ENDNOTE: [9] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 5. Verse 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority.The kingdom in its present phase would begin very shortly; but Jesus passed over their ignorance on that point, fully aware that with the coming of the Spirit upon them they would have it brought to their remembrance all that Jesus had already taught on that question; but human curiosity is unlimited, and Jesus immediately warned his apostles that the final phase of the kingdom, including the resurrection and final judgment, would come at a time unknown to any man, not even to himself in his earthly limitation. Bruce called this: The last flicker of their former burning expectation of an imminent political theocracy with themselves as its chief executives. From this time forth, they devoted themselves to the proclamation and service of God’s spiritual kingdom.[10]Those interpreters who hold to the future conversion theory regarding Israel usually assert their conviction as related to these verses, as for example, Harrison: “This does not mean that God is through with Israel;Romans 11:26 says that all Israel shall be saved."[11] However, the “Israel” in view there is spiritual Israel, not the hardened secular Israel. There is no New Testament teaching to the effect that secular Israel will accept Jesus Christ; but, on the other hand, it is indicated that they will remain hardened “until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” (Romans 11:25), a time that may coincide with the coming of the end of the world. The future conversion of secular Israel is neither affirmed in Scripture nor denied as possible. [10] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 38. [11] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 385. Verse 8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.This promise, addressed directly to the apostles, has been grossly misinterpreted. For example, Bruner said: To be baptized in the Spirit is to become Christ’s. The baptism of the Holy Spirit joins men to Christ so that they become Christians … This promise is inclusive and not selective, which is another way of saying that it is gracious and not conditional. There are no conditions in Acts 1:8.[12]It is impossible, however, for such a view to be reconciled with Galatians 4:6, which states that “Because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, etc.” God’s Spirit was never given to any man to make him a son, but it may be received only by them that are sons and in consequence of their being so. As for the affirmation that there are no conditions in this verse, there is no way for this to be true. The apostles had already complied with the requirement to be baptized (see under Acts 1:5); and since Luke quoted Jesus as saying that those who refused John’s baptism had “rejected the counsel of God against themselves” (Luke 7:30), it must be allowed that if any of the apostles had done such a thing, they never could have received the promised Spirit. This same teaching is even more clearly evident under Acts 2:38, which see. Since the apostles had already complied (through their baptism) with one of the principal prerequisites of receiving the Holy Spirit, Jesus naturally omitted reference to any conditions here, except, of course, that of their remaining in Jerusalem until the Spirit came. To make the sending of God’s Spirit unconditional, while at the same time understanding it as that which makes a man a Christian, is to remove all responsibility from men regarding their salvation. The Scriptures do not teach this. Jerusalem … all Judaea and Samaria … and the uttermost parts of the earth … As Harrison noted, “This verse is a table of contents of the Book of Acts."[13] This is, in part, the outline used in this commentary. Jerusalem (Acts 1:1 to Acts 8:4), Judaea and Samaria (8:5-11:18), and the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 11:19 to the end of Acts). There were the most excellent reasons underlying Jesus’ command that the gospel should first be proclaimed in Jerusalem. First, there was the prophecy already noted (Isaiah 2:1-3). Again, as Root noted: There was good reason for selecting the Holy City for the birthplace of the church, also for choosing the date of one of the great Jewish festivals for the time. On such occasions, myriads of Jews flocked there as they made their holy pilgrimages to worship God. The gospel could then be proclaimed to a waiting multitude of the faithful, who in turn would carry the glad tidings back to their respective homelands.[14]The amazing love of Christ is also seen as another reason. Not even his bitterest enemies who made up the ruling class in Jerusalem were to be denied their right to hear the gospel, either receiving it or rejecting it. Only the Lord Jesus had such love as this. [12] Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1971), pp. 160,161. [13] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 385. [14] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 2. Verse 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.There had been at least ten appearances of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection, and possibly many, many more; but this event was, in a sense, final. What happened on the fortieth day was that this series of visitations came to an end, with a scene which impressed on the disciples their Master’s heavenly glory.[15]A cloud received him … There was such a cloud at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5); Jesus spoke of his coming “in the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62); and in the Old Testament, a cloud was the visible token to Israel that the glory of God dwelt in the tent of meeting (Exodus 40:34). ENDNOTE: [15] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 40. Verse 10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold two men stood by them in white apparel.Of course, “heaven” as used here merely means that they were looking upward, not that they actually saw Jesus entering into the heaven of heavens which is the place of God’s throne. And, as Bruce observed: We need not be alarmed by suggestions that the ascension story is bound up with a pre-Copernican conception of the universe, and that the former is therefore as obsolete as the latter. Anyone appearing to leave the earth’s surface must appear to spectators to be ascending.[16]Two men … in white … These were angels, so identified from their dazzling apparel, as frequently spoken of in Scripture (Matthew 28:3; John 20:12). ENDNOTE: [16] Ibid., p. 41. Verse 11 Who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.The message of the angels to the heavenward gazing apostles has the spiritual effect of challenging every believer to be busily engaged in the service of the Lord, rather than wasting time by gazing into those things which are beyond all human knowledge of them. Shall so come in like manner … This is a heavenly pledge that the Second Coming will be literal and physical as was Jesus’ departure. Also, the manner of his coming will be “in the clouds of heaven,” as frequently stated in the New Testament. Verse 12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem to the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a sabbath’s journey off.WAITING IN (Acts 1:12-14) Bethany, on the eastern slope of Olivet, was fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem (John 11:18); and, since the distance from the site of the ascension to Jerusalem was a sabbath day’s journey (approximately 3,000 feet), the site would have to be about two-thirds of the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem (fifteen furlongs being about 9,100 feet). “Over against Bethany” (Luke 24:50) means “in the direction of” that village.[17]ENDNOTE: [17] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 1324. Verse 13 And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.The upper chamber … may not be certainly identified, despite persistent tradition to the effect that it was the place where the Last Supper was held, and that it was in the home of Mary, sister of Barnabas and mother of John Mark. The list of the Twelve is given four times in the New Testament, in Matthew 10; Mark 3; Luke 6, and here. This list is like the others in that Peter, Philip, and James are recorded first in three groups of four each, of course, the name of Judas being deleted here. The mention of the apostles by name stresses that the Twelve (Luke would immediately record the replacement of Judas by Matthias) were on hand in Jerusalem, as Jesus commanded, waiting for the promise of the Father. Simon the Zealot … There is no reason for writing “Zealot” with a capital “Z” and then identifying Simon as a member of some revolutionary party which bore that name in 66 A.D. Acts was written before that name was so used;[18] and, besides that, “the name zealot can be used as a non-technical common noun."[19]If one really wishes to know what “Zealot,” as applied to Simon, actually means, he does not need to search any further than the word of the Lord. In both Mark 3:19 and Matthew 10:4, this apostle is called “The Cananean”; and as Bruce explained, “Cananean represents the Hebrew and Aramaic words for Zealot, which is of Greek origin."[20] Thus, Simon’s native title, “Cananean,” translates “Zealot” in Greek, the language in which Luke was writing; and being, himself, a Gentile, Luke did not bother to use the old Aramaic form as did Matthew and Mark. People who wish to make a revolutionary out of one of the Lord’s apostles will have to find some other means of doing so! [18] F. B. Bruce, op. cit., p. 43. [19] Ibid., p. 44. [20] Ibid., p. 43. Verse 14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.As Boles noted, “There are four separately mentioned classes of persons”[21] who made up this company. They were (1) the apostles, (2) Mary the mother of Jesus and certain other devout women, (3) the brothers of Jesus, and (4) certain other disciples (Acts 1:15). In prayer … No better way of waiting God’s promise could be imagined than that followed here. Mary the mother of Jesus … This is the last mention of the Blessed Mary in the New Testament; and, from the fact of her being here with the apostles, it is evident that John honored the Lord’s commission to receive her into his home and care for her (John 19:27). And with his brethren … The brothers of Jesus were James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55); and from the fact of their being mentioned apart from the apostles, it is clear that those apostles bearing some of these same names were not brothers of the Lord. As maintained throughout this series of commentaries, these brethren were the literal half-brothers of our Lord, being sons of Mary born after the birth of Jesus. A TO JUDAS (Acts 1:15-26) One of the most significant passages in the New Testament is this, wherein a successor to an apostle was chosen, the same being the only example of any such thing in the whole New Testament. ENDNOTE: [21] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 26. Verse 15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty.)DeWelt is obviously correct in his observation that: The apostles knew they were going to be baptized with the Holy Spirit according to promise and prophecy and that there should be Twelve in the group. Because of this Peter directed the selection of one to fill the vacancy left by the betrayal of Judas. This truth lends still more force to the thought that only the Twelve were baptized in the Holy Spirit.[22]ENDNOTE: [22] Don De Welt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 32. Verse 16 Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus.Here again, as invariably throughout the word of God, the prophets and writers of the Old Testament are represented, not as originating the words they delivered, but as receiving them from the Lord by means of the Holy Spirit. Thus it was not David who spoke, but the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself emphasized this emphatically (Matthew 22:43). Verse 17 For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.This verse makes two statements, (1) that Judas was numbered with the Twelve, and (2) that he “received” his portion of the apostolic ministry. This means that Judas, at first, was a genuine apostle, he, not less than the others, being commissioned to cast out demons and to heal all manner of diseases (Matthew 10:1). This refutes the allegation that Judas was a devil from the beginning. Verse 18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.)These verses, of course, were not spoken by Peter, but by Luke, as proved by “their language” in Acts 1:19. Peter would have said, “our language.” Matthew’s account of this incident (Matthew 27:7 f) has been alleged to contradict what Luke said here; but, in actuality, the two accounts are in perfect harmony. Judas hanged himself, as Matthew related; but his body also fell, as in Luke. We do not know whether the fall took place as a result of Judas’ bungling efforts at suicide, or if his body hung until it fell of natural causes. Tradition says that he fell while in the process of hanging himself. Johnson says: He probably hanged himself on a tree projecting over the precipices of the Valley of Hinnom, and afterward, on account of the rope or limb breaking, fell headlong with such force as to burst his body open on the jagged rocks. This is the traditional account of his death.[23]Such alleged “contradictions” as skeptics delight to point out from such variations in the holy gospels are called “pseudocons,” which means sham-contradictions, being, in fact, not contradictions at all but variations expected from independent accounts of events in the New Testament. Another pseudocon based upon this event appears in Matthew’s statement that the priests bought the field of blood, whereas in Luke it is stated that Judas “obtained” the field. Judas provided the money, which remained his after his death; and therefore the field properly belonged to Judas, his estate, and his heirs (if any). Certainly, the priests refused to accept the returned money, either for themselves or for the temple treasury. Thus it is exactly true that Judas “obtained” the field. His money bought it. The priests, however, actually did the purchasing, hence the statement that “they” bought the field. The diligence of those who cavil at the sacred text is apparent in a third pseudocon based on this same transaction. It regards the two reasons given for the name of the field, Akeldema, the reason assigned for this name in Matthew being the fact that the money that bought it was “the price of blood,” and the reason in Acts appearing to be derived from the bloody death of Judas. Both reasons are true, either one of them being sufficient to suggest the name. Matthew’s mention of one reason does not deny the other, nor does Luke’s mention of the other deny the one. For more on this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:10. The apparent reason for this parenthesis was to show the desolation of Judas’ estate, that is, “The field of blood.” Peter’s speech, which Luke immediately resumed, quoted prophecy with reference to that very desolation. ENDNOTE: [23] B. W. Johnson, New Testament with Explanatory Notes (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 418. Verse 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.The two passages from Psalms are Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8, where certain unnamed enemies of the Psalmist are imprecated. Peter’s reason for applying these words to Judas appears to be this: since the enemies of David, who was only a type of Christ, were thus denounced, then certainly an enemy and betrayer of the greater Son of David would be the proper object of the same denunciation. Verse 21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.If not even a successor to Judas could be named an apostle except from among those who were constant companions of Jesus from John’s baptism until the resurrection of Christ, how is it possible that any person in subsequent ages should be hailed as an apostle? These two verses shed light upon two of the most important subjects in the New Testament, (1) the qualifications of an apostle, and (2) the purpose of an apostle, that of witnessing the resurrection of Christ. It should be noted that death did not remove Judas from his office; it was his betrayal of Jesus that removed him. When James was executed by Herod (Acts 12:2), no successor was chosen. Moreover, Christ had promised the Twelve that “in the times of the regeneration” (that is, this present dispensation) they would reign concurrently with Christ, “sitting upon twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of (spiritual) Israel” (Matthew 19:28). Therefore, all of the Twelve except Judas are still in office, all thought of a successor to any of them being absolutely an error. Went in and went out … This is an idiom. “It is a familiar Hebrew phrase for the whole of a man’s life and conduct."[24] Luke used it again in Acts 9:28. Witness with us of his resurrection … The prime function of an apostle was that of a witness of Christ’s resurrection; and, in the history of the world, there was never any such thing as a person not a witness becoming a successor to a witness. In the very nature of witnesses, there can be no such thing as a successor. Also, here is identified the principal doctrine of Christianity, namely, the resurrection of our Lord. As Hervey noted: The resurrection of Christ from the dead thus appears to be a cardinal doctrine of the gospel. The whole truth of Christ’s mission, the acceptance of his sacrifice, the consequent forgiveness of sins, and all man’s hopes of eternal life, turn upon it.[25][24] E. H. Plumptre, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 5. [25] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Acts, p. 6. Verse 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.They put forward … Who did the putting forward? Is it to be supposed that the 120 disciples mentioned a little later did this? There is no evidence whatever that such a group had been disciples from the beginning of John’s baptism; and thus it is not reasonable to suppose that anyone participated in the selection of Justus and Matthias except the apostles. Furthermore, there is a strong inference in this passage that only two qualified men could be found, other than the apostles themselves. It appears that those two were equally qualified, hence the decision through casting lots. Verse 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen.Lord … This could refer either to the Father or to the Lord Jesus. As Bruce said: As the verb used in “thou hast chosen” (end of Act 1:24) is the same as that used in “he had chosen” (end of Act 1:2), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the subject here as in the former place.[26]ENDNOTE: [26] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 51. Verse 25 To take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.From which Judas fell away … is a forced rendition, the KJV being far better: “From which Judas by transgression fell.” Those exegetes who would make Judas a wicked sinner from the very time of his appointment evidently influenced the rendition as in English Revised Version (1885). The Greek word [@parabaino], which means “transgression,” is in the Greek text;[27] and it should most certainly appear in the English, thus making it crystal clear that sin resulted in the fall of Judas from a spiritual condition and from an office, both of which he once possessed. His own place … Hervey called this “an awful phrase, showing that every man has the place in eternity which he has made for himself in time."[28]The reticence of the New Testament writers regarding the fate of Judas is noteworthy. Their mention of him was in sorrow, nor did any of them embellish the traitor’s deed in any manner. Even here, it is not stated what the fate of Judas was, the same being merely inferred. The circumstance of his death gave them little ground for hope in this regard, but they would not take it upon themselves to say definitely what “his own place” was to which he went.[29]Matthias … Eusebius declared that this man was one of the seventy mentioned in Luke 10:1, which is probable but not proved. Some have suggested that the apostles erred in choosing a successor to Judas and should have waited for the Lord’s call of the apostle Paul to fill the vacancy, but such an opinion cannot be justified at all. Paul did not possess the qualifications in view here. He was a special apostle to the Gentiles, himself confessing that he was “not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Corinthians 15:9); and, besides that, Paul mentioned “the twelve” as not including himself (1 Corinthians 15:5). Regarding the casting of lots, as practiced here, it may or may not be significant that there is no New Testament example of such a thing being done after this occasion. The device of making decisions through casting lots was highly respected in the Old Testament. The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah.

Proverbs 16:33 [27] Vine’s Greek Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1962), Vol. IV, p. 149. [28] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 6. [29] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 51. “ACTS OF THE "

During this time, Peter addresses the (120) disciples regarding Judas who betrayed Jesus. Both the fall and replacement of Judas were foretold by the Spirit through the mouth of David, so Peter proposes guidelines for nominees to take the place of Judas in the apostolic ministry of being a witness of Jesus’ resurrection. Two men are selected for consideration, and following prayer for the Lord to show which of the two He has chosen, lots are cast and Matthias is numbered with the eleven apostles (Acts 1:15-26). OUTLINEvvvvvvvvvv i. THE (Acts 1:1-8) A. THE FORMER ACCOUNT TO (Acts 1:1-3)1. Of all that Jesus began to do and teach 2. Until the day in which Jesus was taken up 3. After He had given commandments to the apostles a. To whom He had shown Himself alive, being seen during forty days b. Speaking of things pertaining to the kingdom of God

IV. THE OF (Acts 1:15-26) A. THE COUNSEL OF PETER (Acts 1:15-22)1. To about 120 disciples, of the need to replace Judas a. His betrayal prophesied by the Spirit through David

He became a guide to those who arrested Jesus
Though he was numbered with the apostles and had a part in their ministry b. His gruesome death described by Luke 1) He purchased a field with the wages of iniquity (Matthew 27:3-8)
He fell headlong, burst open in the middle, entrails gushing out
The field is called Akel Dama, Field of Blood c. His end and replacement foretold in the Psalms 1) “Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it” (Psalms 69:25)
“Let another take his office” (Psalms 109:8)

Stipulating requirements for one to be a witness of His resurrection with the apostles a. Having accompanied the apostles all the time Jesus went in and out among them b. Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day Jesus ascended to heaven

What happened to the body of Judas? In what field? (Acts 1:18; Matthew 27:3-10)- Fell headlong, burst open in the middle, and entrails gushed out (presumably after he hanged himself)

The field purchased with money paid to betray Jesus, known as Akel Dama, the Field of Blood

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF ACTS by I.A. Douthitt Acts 1:1-26 Review the Outline on Acts I. POINT OF THE . Acts 1:1-5.

Luke takes up Jesus where he left him in Luke 24:46-53.
He closed his last treatise and starts this one with the ascension. Luke 24.
“The day” of verse 2 refers to the great commission which is the key to the book of Acts. No great commission, then; no preaching, no obeying, no Christians, no churches, no epistles, no revelation addressed to the churches, and no heaven pictured for the Christians.
He was with them forty days. 3 cf. Leviticus 23:15-16.
“Theophilus” means loved of God.
Many proofs. Acts 1:3 cf. Luke 24:13 to Luke 3:6. On way to Emmaus and in their midst.
Tarry in the city. Acts 1:4 cf. Luke 24:49. II. FINAL PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Acts 1:6-8.
When Jesus died all hope was lost. Mark 16:14.
Hope is now revived, Acts 1:6.
They didn’t yet understand the kingdom, Acts 1:6.
The church or kingdom was not yet established, Acts 1:6 cf. Hebrews 2:9; Acts 2
God says certain things will come but does not tell us when, Acts 1:7. Example: Death, judgment, and second coming of Christ.
To begin in Jerusalem. 8. Because there is where the prophets had said he would set up his church, there is where Jesus had been condemned and there is the place for him to be vindicated; and Jerusalem is the best prepared place for the church to start, more preparation had been made there than anywhere else, and Jerusalem was the religious center and the most pious met there. The Jews had seen more of Jesus, the Samaritan less and the Gentiles the least. III. THE OF OUR LORD. Acts 1:9-11.
Took place near Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem. Luke 24:50.
He was in the act of blessing them when he ascended. Luke 24:51.
Only Mark and Luke record the ascension. Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51.
They return with great joy. Luke 24:53. Hope of seeing him again gives the joy.
Second coming and the judgment are suggested. Acts 1:11 cf. Matthew 25:31-46. IV. WAITING IN . Acts 1:12-14.
All eleven are at their post waiting. Acts 1:12-13.
This is the last time the Lord’s mother appears in New Testament history. Acts 1:14.
They waited ten days. Acts 1:3. cf. Leviticus 23:15-16.
They are praying now, faith has been fully restored. Acts 1:14.
‘‘The women” waiting, are from Galilee. Luke 23:49. V. JUDAS’ PLACE FILLED. Acts 1:15-26.
Peter is in the lead and will stay there for awhile. Acts 1:15.
Jesus had more than 120 disciples. 1 Corinthians 15:6.
What Judas did. Acts 1:17-19.
Why the “field of blood” was so cheap. Acts 1:18-19. “Potter’s field”, Judas died there.
Qualifications to succeed an apostle. Acts 1:21-22.
Two selected. Acts 1:23.
Model prayer, no repetitions, but one thing wanted and they ask for it. Acts 1:24-25.
Even mentioned in their prayer where Judas had gone. Acts 1:25. It certainly would be out of order now say anything about the destiny of a dead sinner.
Matthias was considered one of them from then on. Acts 1:26 Acts 2:14 Acts 6:2. VI. WAS REALLY ONE OF THE TWELVE ?Some reasoning in the following.
He was numbered with the eleven. Acts 1:26 Acts 1:17.
He received the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:26 to Acts 2:4. All were filled.
Peter stood up with the eleven. Acts 2:14 cf. Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14. “With”.
There were twelve before Paul was converted. Acts 6:2 Acts 9:27.
Peter says this fulfills prophecy. Acts 1:16 Acts 1:20 cf. Psalms 69:25 Psalms 109:8.
Matthias had the qualifications. Acts 1:21-22.
His choice was in answer to prayer. Acts 1:24-25 cf. Jno. 14:13-14, before H. S. too. Acts 1:118. This fulfills a prophecy of Jesus. Matthew 19:28. (1) Twelve thrones, Matthew 19:28. (2) Regeneration began on Pentecost, Acts 2:38-39. (3) Christ on his throne on Pentecost, Acts 2:22-36. (4) One had to be selected before Pentecost, Acts 1:16.
Paul never included himself with the twelve, he was a special apostle to the Gentiles. The twelve were to judge the Jews (Matthew 19:28), and Paul is to the Gentiles. Acts 9:15; 1 Timothy 2:7; Galatians 2:7¬9.
Paul could not have been one of the twelve he refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:5 for Paul was not with them then. Matthias was, tho he had not been selected at that time.
Paul had the qualifications for an apostle but he did not have the qualifications for a successor to an apostle. 1 Corinthians 9:1 cf. Acts 1:15-23.
Because of the eleven reasons above I conclude that Matthias was one of the twelve.
Luke wrote the book of Acts years after and it seems that he, too, so concluded. VII. REVIEW.1. He started with the commission.
Holy Spirit is assured.
They are to be witnesses.
Twelve men waiting ready to go to work.
Coming of the Holy Spirit and Power is all that is lacking. THEY START IN Acts 2:1 Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts 11. To what document does “ former treatise” refer
State the subject matter of that treatise.
Until what event did the narrative continue?
What did he give to the apostles ?
Through what means did he give these ?
What showing did he make to the apostles ?
By what did he do this showing?
What is meant here by his passion?
For what length of time was he with them?
Of what things did he speak to them?
While assembled what did he command not to do
For what should they wait?
What is here said of John?
Who are the antecedents of “ ye” in 5th verse?
State their advantage over John’ s disciples.
What question was now asked of Christ?
To what institution did they refer?
What had happened to this institution?
Give the answer of Jesus to them.
Who had the power over this matter?
What was to come upon the apostles?
This would cause them to receive what?
And cause them to become what for Christ?
What was to be their territory ?
After this conversation what happened to Christ
What object shut him off from view ?
Who next appeared on the scene?
State the question they asked.
What important prediction did they then make ?
Name the location of the ascension.
To where did the apostles now go?
How much of a journey was it ?
Into what place did they go ?
Who were dwelling there?
How were they passing the time?
Tell what noted woman was in the group.
State the number of disciples.
Who was the spokesman?
In what term did he address the others?
To what document did he refer ?
Why couple the Holy Ghost and David together ?
Concerning what person did he speak ?
What had he done?
In what position had he been formerly ?
Tell what he purchased.
With what did he make the purchase?
Was it purchased before his death?
In what way was the purchasing made ?
How is his death here described?
Explain this and the former account.
How extensively known did this event become?
State the name given to the place.
What would make this name appropriate ?
From what book does the speaker quote ?
Tell the meaning of the word bishop rick.
Of what circumstances is this verse a prophecy ?
What association must the chosen man have had ?
Name the period covered by this association.
Why begin with the baptism of John?
What is the chosen man to become ?
Who are “they” of verse 23?
Did they put two into the apostleship ?
Why were the two men named?
Did “they” know outward qualification of the men
What did the Lord only know about them?
State what religious exercise was first performed.
By what means did Judas fall from his office?
What is meant by ‘ ffiis own place” ?
Is “he was numbered with the 11 apostles” inspired

Acts 1:1

1 The Greek word for treatise is Locos. The definitions in the lexicon are very numerous, likewise the word is translated by a great variety of terms in the King James Version. I believe it will be well to state the different terms, and the number of times it is so rendered by each, so the reader may form a general idea of the scope of the original. It has been translated by account, 8 times; cause, 1; communication, 3; doctrine, 1; game, 1; intent, 1; matter, 4; mouth, 1; rumor, 1; saying, 50; shew, 1; speech, 8; talk, 1; thing, 4; things to say, 1; tidings, 1; treatise, 1; utterance, 4; word, 208; Word, 7; words, 4; work, 2. In our present passage it means volume or document, since it refers to the Gospel of Luke. The salutation to Theophilus is the same as in Luke 1:3, which proves that one man is the author of both books. All of the writers in the Nicene Library, a work composed by scholars in the church in the first four centuries of the Christian Era, agree that Luke is the author of the book we are now studying, as well as the Gospel bearing his name. Referring to his former work (his Gospel record), the author says it was a treatise of all that Jesus began both to do and teach.

Acts 1:2

2 The preceding verse states something of the subject matter of Luke’s former book, and the present tells of the event at which it concluded its narrative. Was taken up refers to the ascension of Jesus, recorded in Luke 24:51. These commandments pertain to the “Great Commission” given to the apostles, to go and preach the Gospel in all the world. (See Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:47-48.)

Acts 1:3

3 Whom means the apostles referred to in the preceding verse, who were to be the witnesses for Jesus in the nations of the world. In order for them to be qualified as witnesses to the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead, it was necessary for him to show himself to them. Passion is from PASCHO, and Thayer’s general definition is, “to feel, have a sensible experience, to undergo; to suffer sadly, be in bad plight.” As Luke uses it, it refers to the sufferings and death of Jesus on the cross. Showed himself alive indicates how long after his death it was that he showed himself, namely, after his resurrection, since he was alive. Infallible proofs comes from one Greek word , and Thayer’s definition is, “That from which something is surely and plainly known; an indubitable [unquestionable] evidence, a proof.” A proof that was merely reasonably sure was not enough, but it must be so evident that it would be impossible to misunderstand it, and there were to be many of them. That would enable the apostles to say, “we know that Jesus lived after his death on the cross, for we saw him, heard him speak, and had this experience so often that it could not have been any delusion or imagination.

And this kind of experience extended over a period of forty days, which would make it impossible to have been mistaken about it. Another thing that confirmed their recognition of the identity of Jesus, was the fact that he talked with them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, a subject that no stranger would have known anything about, especially if he had been an impostor.

Acts 1:4

4 This book reaches back over the last part of the Gospel record, which connects the line of thought regarding Christ. The assembling mentioned in this verse took place before Jesus made his ascension, at which event this book is supposed to begin. The promise of the Father was the bestowal of the) Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth. That promise may be found in Joe 2:28-29; John 14:16-17; John 15:26; Matthew 3:11. The apostles were not to depart from Jerusalem until they had received this Spirit, since it was necessary for their guidance in the work assigned to them.

Acts 1:5

5 When John predicted the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11), he also included that of fire. But he was talking to a mixed multitude, in which were some whom John knew would live and die in sin and finally be cast into the lake of fire. And there also were some in his audience who were destined to become apostles, and hence would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John’s speech was addressed to the multitude as a whole. But when Jesus uttered the promise of this verse, he was talking to his apostles only, so it was unnecessary to say anything about the baptism of fire.

Acts 1:6

6 The apostles held to their notion that Christ was going to erect a temporal kingdom like the one the Jews had before, and deliver it to them as a restoration of their power as a nation. They had given up that hope for a time on account of the death of Jesus (Luke 24:21). But after his resurrection, they seemed to think they had been a little hasty in their despondency, and that now perhaps he would give them the kingdom, hence the question of this verse.

Acts 1:7

7 The specific time or date of the plans of the Father were not to be announced beforehand to the apostles. That is why they were told to tarry in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit, and then they would know all they needed to know to carry on the work for which they had been called.

Acts 1:8

8 Power is from DUNAMIS, which means might or ability. The Holy Ghost or Spirit was to impart this qualification to the apostles, so that they could take the testimony to the uttermost parts of the earth. The need for such power was the reason they were told to wait in Jerusalem for the descent of the Spirit as promised through the prophets.

Acts 1:9

9 This verse corresponds with the closing ones of the book of Luke. Both places record the ascension of Jesus, but the present one only mentions the cloud; the other merely says he disappeared. The cloud feature in the ascension is significant, because Revelation 1:7 says that He will come in the clouds. That agrees also with what will be stated in verse 11 of the present chapter.

Acts 1:10

0 Looked steadfastly toward heaven. The last word is from OURA-NOS, which is the only word in the Greek New Testament for the English word “heaven.” Yet the inspired writers speak of the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2) which means there are a first and second. Hence we have three definitions of the word in Thay-er’s lexicon, which I will quote in their order: “1. The vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it. 2. The sideral or starry heavens. 3. The region above the sideral [starry] heavens, the seat of an order of things eternal and consummately [entirely] perfect, where God dwells and the other heavenly beings.” Jesus finally entered the third heaven, but the one the disciples saw Him enter was the first.

It was logical that Jesus went “up” to heaven, since that is the only direction that can be realized by human eyes. But the term is accommodative only, for literal directions as to altitude are based on the earth; “up” meaning away from the earth, and down meaning toward it. Were the earth and other material bodies destroyed, there would be no “up” or “down” as we use those terms. Whether Jesus left the earth at noon or midnight, he would still have gone “up” as we use the word. The two men in white apparel were the “angels” of John 1:51.

Acts 1:11

1 Jesus will come in like manner, which is why Revelation 1:7 says he will come in clouds, and also adds that “every eye shall see him.” That prediction explodes the heresy that Jesus has come to the earth in such a manner that only the self-styled “witnesses” can see him.

Acts 1:12

2 In Luke’s Gospel record, he merely states (chapter 24:52) that the disciples returned to Jerusalem with great joy. In our present verse he states from where they made the journey, namely, from the mount called Olivet, which is the same as the Mount of Olives, a distance from Jerusalem of a sabbath day’s journey, or about three-quarters of a mile. The law of Moses has nothing to say about “a sab-bath day’s journey,” but that was a tradition of the Jews, based on a strained interpretation of Exo 16:29 and Joshua 3:4. Neither Jesus nor the inspired writers endorsed the tradition, but on account of its common use, the term came to have a secular meaning as to distance.

Acts 1:13

3 Where abode does not mean they resided there, as the word generally denotes, but that they were remaining or passing the time there. That was in obedience to the command of Jesus that they “tarry” and wait for the coming of the “power from on high” (Luke 24:49). The word both commonly denotes that two things only are being considered, but Thayer explains the Greek as meaning, “things are thus connected which are akin, or which are united to each other by some inner bond, whether logical or real.” The men named were related to each other as apostles of Christ.

Acts 1:14

4 While waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples were improving the time by religious devotions. These exercises included the women, for it says they continued thus with the women. This is the last time the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name in the New Testament; others are named of that term, but not His mother. His brethren means the children of Joseph and Mary; not his disciples, for they were already named in verse 13.

Acts 1:15

5 As usual, Peter was the spokesman on this occasion. The hundred and twenty disciples means the ones who were present in this assembly. In 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul says that Jesus was seen (after his resurrection) by “above five hundred brethren,” most of whom were living when the apostle wrote the epistle. Just where they were when the assembly was going on mentioned in the present verse we do not know, for only the apostles had been commanded to tarry at Jerusalem; the others were there by their own voluntary desire only.

Acts 1:16

6 The Holy Spirit had not yet come down, but the divine record afterwards indicates full approval of all the proceedings, hence we must conclude that what Peter and the others said and did was by the guidance of the Lord. Peter began his speech with a reference to Psalms 69:22-25, pertaining to the conduct and fate of Judas.

Acts 1:17

This means that Judas had been included among the apostles. The verse also indicates that the purpose of the present session was to secure a man to become an apostle in the place of Judas.

Acts 1:18

8 Purchased a field refers to the “potter’s field,” mentioned in Matthew 27:7. With the reward of iniquity. Judas did not personally have any part in purchasing this field, for it was done after his death (Matthew 27:5-8). The phrase means the field was bought with the money that Judas had received as a reward for betraying Jesus. Falling headlong. If two statements seem to disagree, they should not be taken as a contradiction if it is possible for both to be true.

The other record of the death of Judas says he “hanged himself.” There were no “up-to-date” scaffolds available in those days, so Judas would naturally select a place, such as a tree near a precipice, for clearance of his body when he plunged from the footing under him. Then when his weight pulled suddenly on the limb (as the tradition reports it), his body broke it off and he was ruptured as he fell down upon the rocks below.

Acts 1:19

9 There is nothing strange in the general knowledge of the affair of Judas. The suicide of a man prominently associated with Jesus could not escape the attention of the people. And the setting aside of a piece of land that ordinarily was discarded, would naturally bring forth many inquiries, and that in turn would suggest the title given to the place. Field of blood. Judas did not actually shed the blood of Jesus, neither did the crucifixion directly shed it. The law of capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 says, “He that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Nobody would think this is restricted to cases where the veins of another were literally opened and the blood poured out, either in the act of murder or the punishment for it.

Were that the case, a murderer could escape the penalty by merely using some other method of slaying his victim besides bloodletting. The origin of the term is in the declaration of God that the blood is the life (Genesis 9:4). From this truth the term “bloodshed” came to mean any act of violence that would cause one to lose his life. Judas caused Jesus to lose his life by violence, and hence he was properly charged with bloodshed.

Acts 1:20

0 The quotation being cited is in Psalms 69:25. Habitation means a house or place of dwelling, and to be desolate means that it was to be deserted. There is no information that the home of Judas was ever occupied by others, or that he left any family to take charge of it. Bishoprick is from , and is the word for “office of a bishop” in 1 Timothy 3:1. Thayer defines the word as, “oversight, office, charge,” which explains why it was applied to the apostle Judas. Let another take denotes clearly that the man who is about to be appointed as apostle was to take the place of Judas, and should therefore be regarded as an apostle after the Lord has indicated his choice.

Acts 1:21

1 One of the qualifications required in the man to be placed in office as an apostle, is that of constant association with the others and with the Lord Jesus. This idea of being “with him” is set forth in Mark 3:14.

Acts 1:22

2 The extent of time when this association was to have been had was from the baptism of John to the ascension of Jesus. Such an experience would qualify him to be a witness of the resurrection of Jesus, because the death and return to life of the Lord took place between those two events. The proper man would be ordained to the office of apostle. (See the notes on ordain at John 15:16.)

Acts 1:23

3 Appointed is from HISTEMI, which Thayer defines in this place, “To bid to stand by.” It has the same meaning as our modern word “nominate,” but not placed in any office as yet. They named Barsabas called Justus, and Matthias, who were to “stand by” and be ready for whatever might be determined upon.

Acts 1:24

4 As far as the apostles knew, each of these men named for the office left vacant by Judas’ death was qualified. But the Lord could see defects that man could not, or could observe superior qualities of one over the other that could not be known by human beings. That is why they prayed to the Lord who knoweth the hearts of all men, to make the final choice between their candidates.

Acts 1:25

5 Ministry is from , and its general meaning is “service.” The word will apply to anyone and to any activity that is of service to the Cause of Christ. The apostleship was a specific service to be administered only by those qualified and authorized to do it. Judas fell from his position as apostle by transgression, hence was responsible for his actions. His own place meant perdition according to John 17:12.

Acts 1:26

6 The appointment of an apostle was such an important event, that I believe a full explanation should be made of the lot as a means of determining the selection. The word is from KLEROS, which Thayer defines, “An object used in casting or drawing lots.” He than explains the performance, “which was either a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood . . . the lots of the several persons concerned, inscribed with the: names, were thrown together into a vase, which was then shaken, and he whose lot first fell out upon the ground was the one chosen.” Fell is used figuratively, as it is used in Romans 14:4, where Paul uses the statement, “to his own master he standeth or falleth.” This also is according to Robinson’s definition for the Greek word for “fall” which is, “To fall to or upon any one, Acts 1:26.” A natural question would be why such a thing as a “game of chance” would be used in determining the selection of an apostle. That was still in the period when the Lord used “sundry times and diverse manners” (Hebrews 1:1) to communicate his will to mankind. When He was pleased to use the lot on any matter, he would see that the proper piece would come out. That is the meaning of Pro 16:33, and it is the reason the apostles prayed that the Lord would “show whether [which] of these two thou hast chosen.” The inspired writer is the one who says Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles, which he would not have done, had the proceeding not been in harmony with the divine will. Hence we must understand that Matthias was the man divinely selected to take the place of Judas, and to fill out the original quota of the “twelve apostles.”

Zerr's Bible Commentary

E.M. Zerr (1877–1960) was an American minister and Bible teacher in the Churches of Christ who devoted decades to producing a comprehensive commentary on the entire Bible. His six-volume Bible Commentary provides thorough, verse-by-verse exposition reflecting Restoration Movement theology, and it …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

LEV NUM 2KI PSA ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 0 Acts — All Chapters Chapter 2 ›