Acts 2

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 2 DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRITAct_2:1-13 1 And when the day of Pentecost was now come,—The apos¬tles had now been waiting about a week “ for the promise of the Father.” There were three annual feasts of the Jews— the Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The Passover commemorated the salvation of the first born in Egypt; the Pentecost celebrated the beginning of their harvest; and the Feast of Tabernacles commemorated their sojourn in the wilderness. There were four names given to this feast: (1) “ Feast of Harvest” (Exodus 23:16); (2) “ Feast of the First-Fruits” (Leviticus 23:17; Numbers 28:26); (3) “ Feast of Weeks” (Exodus 34:22; Deuteronomy 16:10); (4) “ Pentecost.” The last name is found only in the New Testament; it came fifty days after the Passover, and came on the first day of the week. In many respects it was considered the greatest feast of the year, and brought more people into Jerusalem than any of the other feasts. Some have contended that it commemorated the giving of the law upon Mount Sinai as it was, as they claimed, fifty days from the time they left Egypt to the giving of the law. There is no reference in the scriptures to this event in connection with this feast.

At this time the Jews were scattered among all the civilized nations of the earth; many had come to the Passover, and had remained over to keep the Feast of Pentecost; also many came to this feast that had not attended the Feast of the Passover. On this day probably more Jews were in Jerusalem than at any other day in the year. This was a memorable day with the Jews, and became the birthday of the church. It was an opportune time for the Holy Spirit to come as a fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus. All things are now ready; Jesus had ascended to the Father about a week before this, after telling the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit; they had spent much of the time in prayer, and were now ready for the advent of the Holy Spirit. “ They were all together in one place.” We do not know what place this was; probably it was the same room where they had spent the week. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven—While the group was waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit, suddenly a sound came “ as the rushing of a mighty wind.” There is no evidence that there was “ a mighty wind,” but the sudden sound was like that of a storm or hurricane. The sound “ filled all the house where they were sitting.” This describes the posture that they occupied at the moment that this sound came. This sound “ came from heaven” as of a violent wind rushing along; this was the first miracle or manifestation of the great event. 3 And there appeared unto them tongues—This was the second miracle of the visible manifestation of the descent of the Holy Spirit. There appeared “ tongues parting asunder,” or tongues parting among them; it seems that there was one great sheet of light, and that this broke up into different parts called “ tongues,” and rested on each one of them. This was not “ fire” ; it was “ like as of fire” ; it is not said that there was either fire or wind; there was a noise and there were tongues; but there was felt neither blast nor burning. The noise was like a gust of wind borne violently along, and bringing with it tongues of flame which, distributing themselves among the disciples, settled for a moment on the head of each. There were not “ cloven tongues,” but there was one tongue that rested upon each person. Some have contended that the tongue on each person was parted or forked, but this is not the meaning of the Greek word. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit,—Here we have the third event— they were “ filled with the Holy Spirit.” The first was the sound which affected the ear, the second was the tongues which affected the eye, and now the Holy Spirit came upon them. These three events, the sound “ from heaven,” the appearance unto them “ tongues parting asunder,” and “ all filled with the Holy Spirit,” came close together, but whether in quick succession or all together at the same moment cannot be determined with certainty. As a result of the Holy Spirit’ s coming upon them they “ began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” It seems clear that the Holy Spirit here came only upon the apostles; they were Galileans, and verse 7 says that those who were speaking were Galileans. It is not to be understood that the company of one hundred and twenty mentioned in chapter 1 were all filled with the Holy Spirit, because not all of these were Galileans. They were speaking as “ the Spirit gave them utterance.” They were not uttering unintelligible sounds nor using mere jargon of syllables with no meaning; their sentences were clear and their words distinct, so that “ every man heard them speaking in his own language.” Hence, they used such language and such words as could be understood. There were probably twelve to fifteen different languages or dialects spoken by the multitude on this day; there were fifteen countries and provinces named, but we do not know whether there was a different dialect for each country. 5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,—Only a small portion of the Jews lived in Jerusalem or Palestine at this time; the greater number were natives of other lands dwelling in large colonies or in small communities. “ Dwelling at Jerusalem” literally means “ there were being housed in Jerusalem,” either temporarily or permanently in the city, Jews who were devout, religious men; they had a sacred regard for the law of Moses and the worship according to that law. “ Devout men” literally means “ taking hold well” ; that is, “ cautious,” “ fearing.” The Jews were widely scattered over the Roman Empire at this time, and only the “ devout” ones would make the long journey to Jerusalem to keep this feast. 6 And when this sound was heard,—There has been much discussion as to the meaning here; some think that the “ sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind” was heard and brought the multitude together; others think that their speaking “ with other tongues” was noised abroad and thus brought the multitude to¬gether. It could have been both; the miraculous manifestation, both of the physical appearance of the sound like that of a violent tempest and that of the speaking of tongues, when noised abroad, brought the curiosity-seeking multitude together. It is clear that the multitude did not come together until after the Holy Spirit had come upon the apostles. As the multitude assembled they were amazed, or caused to stand out by themselves, with wide open astonishment. The wonder grew and grew and spread and spread until the whole city had been brought together. This furnished the occasion for the proclamation of the gospel. 7-8 And they were all amazed and marvelled,—“ Amazed” and “ marvelled” are from different Greek words, and describe the state of confusion and astonishment that prevailed over the multitude. In their bewildered and astonished condition they were unable to account for such conditions, and asked: “ Are not all these that speak Galilaeans?” This was one of the main forms of their exclamations; these men who were speaking were from only one province, and yet they were speaking the different dialects of all the people represented. Some think that the entire company of a hundred and twenty were speaking, but this is not sustained by the evidence, as all of those speaking were recognized to be Galileans. Greek was almost universally spoken over the whole of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, but most districts had their own dialect ; Aramaic was spoken in Palestine, and the people of Lycaonia h^d a language of their own; hence, Luke meant to say that the utterances of the disciples, inspired by the Holy Spirit, were made in a variety of dialects or languages. 9-11 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers—The countries mentioned here are in geographical order; the Parthians and Medes and Elamites lived far eastward beyond the Tigris River and the Caspian Sea; the Jews had been scattered there for several hundred years. “ The dwellers in Mesopotamia” are mentioned next, and they lived between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers; “ Mesopotamia” means “ between the rivers.” -The Jews had been taken as captives there; the Babylonian captivity was “ between the rivers,” and some of the Jews never returned from that captivity. Next the Judeans are mentioned, because they designated a dialect of southern Palestine as distinguished from that of Galilee. Next in order are mentioned five provinces in Asia Minor; they are Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia; Cappadocia is in the southeastern portion of Asia Minor; Pontus is in the northeastern part bordering the Black Sea; Asia, meaning not the continent nor Asia Minor, but a smaller territory, the Roman province of that name which included the little countries of Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, bordering on the Aegean Sea and opposite to Greece. Phrygia and Pamphylia were located a little south of the central part of Asia Minor. Egypt is next mentioned, which was in Africa, south of the Mediterranean Sea, and Libya was west of Egypt, bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Many Jews dwelt in all these countries in Egypt as well as in Asia Minor; large colonies of Jews dwelt in Egypt, so that a Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, had been made at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian Era. “ Sojourners from Rome” were thought to be Romans who were proselytes or dwelling in Jerusalem for trade. “ Jews” means those born of JewisJi parents; “ proselytes” means those who were born of Gentile parents, or were of mixed parentage, partly Jewish and partly Gentile, but had become Converts to the Jewish religion.

It cannot be determined whether both classes came from all the countries or from Rome only. It is sure that sojourners at Rome are included. Cretans were from the island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea; the Arabians were the Jews who had settled in Arabia; a large number of Jews had settled in Arabia. 12-13 And they were all amazed, and were perplexed,—The effect that these wonderful things had on the multitude is here briefly described by the words “ amazed, and were perplexed.” They were confounded, “ perplexed,” and “ amazed” at what they saw and heard. They turned in their amazement to each other and asked: “ What meaneth this?” Literally their question meant: “ What will this be,” or “ become.” They believed that it was a sign or omen that signified something remarkable, but they did not know what to think of it. This question also describes a further state of their feeling— they were, in addition to being confounded, perplexed, and amazed, awestruck. Some attempted to dismiss the matter with the suggestion that “ they are filled with new wine.” “ New wine” is from the Greek “ gleukous,” which means “ sweet wine,” but was considered highly intoxicating; “ sweet wine” kept a year was very intoxicating. There is some discussion as to who the “ others” were; some had asked, “ What meaneth this ?” but “ others” mocked and accused them of being “ filled with new wine.” Some think that those who made this accusation were other than those who had been mentioned. However, it seems that in the confusion and amazement some asked the question and others made the accusation; they were not agreed as to the cause of the manifestations which they saw and heard. THE CHURCH AT Act_2:14 to Acts 6:7 PETER’ S ADDRESSAct_2:14-36 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven,—Each step in the progress of the history is important; Peter had been selected to be the spokesman, for to him had been committed the “ keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19); he had waited in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit had come; he, with the others, was now ready to testify for Jesus. Through the miraculous manifestations the multitude had assembled and were anxious to know the cause of these momentous manifestations. They have given Peter an opportunity, or an invitation to speak, and he stood “ up with the eleven” and made his address. Peter and the eleven make the twelve apostles now. Peter becomes the spokesman for the twelve. The large crowd and the confusion of tongues demanded loud speaking; hence, he “ lifted up his voice.” By this means he demanded the attention in order that he might say to them what the Holy Spirit prompted him to speak. He first addressed the “ men of Judaea,” or literally, men, Judeans, and dwellers at Jerusalem; he addressed them in a respectful way and received a respectful hearing. 15-16 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose—-Peter first clears the situation; he removes the accusation that some had brought against them; this must be done before he can proceed with the more important things which the Spirit was to speak through him. The apostles had spent the time of vigilant waiting in prayer, as all devout Jews were accustomed to doing before the worship at Pentecost; hence, the charge that they were drunken was a serious one at this time, more serious than at other seasons; for, in the eyes of the Jews, it was a greater sin to be drunken at this time than at others. The impetuous Peter is now calm and courageous; he flatly denies the charge that he and his comrades are drunken. The charge had been made without proof; hence, circumstances were strongly against the assumption of his accusers. It was in the morning hour of prayer, only the third hour of the day; no Jew, certainly no devout Jew, would eat or drink before this hour was past. Men that got drunk did so at night, and this was only nine o’ clock in the morning.

The accusation was so absurd that Peter passes it by with the emphatic denial and the ob¬servation that all could make. He now points them to the real cause of all that they had heard and seen. He directed the atten¬tion of these pious Jews to one of their own prophets, Joel. 17-21 And it shall be in the last days, saith God,—This quotation from Joel is one of the scriptures that the Jews relied upon to prove the coming of the Messiah; they were correct in their un¬derstanding that it referred to the Messiah’ s kingdom, but they were in error with respect to Jesus as being that Messiah. He claimed to be, but they rejected his claim; he proved that he was the Messiah, but they refused to accept the proof; they did not be¬lieve the evidence. “ The last days” had come, and God had poured “ forth of my Spirit,” and a literal fulfillment was at that time taking place in their very midst. The “ wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath,” were taking place at that time. “ The sun shall be turned into darkness” ; this had been done at the crucifixion of Jesus. (Luke 23:45.) “ Before the day of the Lord come, that great and notable day,” has received various interpretations. The darkening of the sun with all the physical phenomena that go with it may have a primary fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem; this expression usually designates some time of fearful judgments. Whatever the prophecy of Joel may mean, Peter said that what was occurring at that time were the things which Joel said would come to pass in “ the last days,” and hence “ the last days” were now upon them. At this time “ whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” In the midst of these alarming events and wonders and terrible phenom¬ena that foretold awful judgments, opportunity would be given to all who would “ call on the name of the Lord” to be saved.

That time was now, and they should begin calling upon the name of the Lord. The promise of deliverance, the “ door of hope,” had now come to them, and the blessings were conditioned on their calling on the name of the Lord. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words:—Peter’ s sermon may be divided into three divisions: (1) an explanation of the outpour¬ing of the Holy Spirit with the fulfillment of the promise as made by Joel; (2) a description of the Lord upon whom they should call; and (3) a pointed appeal to acknowledge the Messiahship of Jesus who had been crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and ascended back to the Father. The first part of Peter’ s address begins with verse 14 and closes with verse 21; the second part begins with verse 22 and closes with verse 28; the third part begins with verse 29 and closes with verse 36. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God—In the audience there are those who knew Jesus as “ the Nazarene,” so he uses the title so that they could not misunderstand him. When Jesus asked the Jews and Romans in the Garden of Gethsemane whom they sought, they answered: “ Jesus of Nazareth.” (John 18:5 John 18:7.) Jesus was not only “ a man approved of God,” but he was proved to be from God. “ Approved,” as used here, means to “ show to be true,” or “ to prove” to be true. All the miracles of Jesus are here included in “ mighty works and wonders and signs” ; three words to cover all that God did through Jesus. They could not deny the miracles wrought by Jesus. 23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel—This shows that Jesus was delivered by the Jews to the Roman authorities according to a definite plan that had been outlined by the prophets. Jesus willingly, when his hour came, gave himself into the hands of his enemy, and let them do what they would with him. God had willed the death of Jesus (John 3:16) and the death of Judas (Acts 1:16), but that fact did not clear Judas of the re¬sponsibility and guilt (Luke 22:22). Judas acted as a free moral agent; hence, Peter could say that “ ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.” This places guilt upon those who took part in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews cried, “ Crucify, crucify him” (Luke 23:21), and Pilate attempted to constrain them, but finally gave sentence against Jesus. Peter here made a bold charge against his hearers. They charged Peter and the other apostles with being drunk, but he charged them with the crucifixion of their Messiah. 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death:—They had, with the hands of lawless men, crucified the Son of God, but God had raised him from the dead; what they did to Jesus is put in contrast with what God did for him. The works of man are frequently put in contrast with the works of God. This strong antithesis is emphasized frequently in the preaching of the apostles. When the time came, or when his hour arrived, God delivered Jesus into the hands of the wicked Jews; when they crucified him, God raised him from the dead, because it was not possible for the powers of death to keep him in the grave. It was as much the “ determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” to raise Jesus from the dead as it was to deliver him into the hands of lawless men to be crucified. There had been rumors of the resurrection in Jerusalem of Jesus, but Peter now stands without equivocation and declares the fact of his resurrection. 25-28 For David saith concerning him,—Peter here quotes Psalms 16:8-11; he attributes his prophecy to David. It is noticed that quotations in the New Testament from the Old Testament are not “ word for word” and punctuation exact; often the Holy Spirit gives the meaning and not the exact words. David often spoke concerning himself, but the Holy Spirit who spoke through David also spoke of Christ; hence, a prophecy would have a primary fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment. The sepulcher of David was in the city of Jerusalem. (1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16.) The site of David’ s tomb was then known to every Jew. David as a prophet took upon himself the task to speak of the Messiah as he was guided by the Holy Spirit; hence, he was not speaking altogether of himself when he referred to his flesh seeing corruption. “ Hades” means the “ unseen world.” David died and was buried and his tomb was in their midst; his body had decayed; hence, David could not have spoken of himself, but of the Messiah. Peter now argued that this prophecy of David that his body should not see corruption could not have referred to David himself, but to the Messiah. 29-31 Brethren, I may say unto you freely—Here begins the third part of Peter’ s address. He shows them that David died and was buried within the city of Jerusalem, and that his tomb was with them and that his body had decayed; hence, David as a proph¬et did not apply the language to himself, but being a prophet he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne. Peter here refers to Psalms 132:11. Furthermore, Peter argues that God has fulfilled that oath and promise to David and that Christ was raised from the dead to sit on David’ s throne. Peter here declares that David knew that in Psalms 16:10 he was describing the resurrection of the Messiah. David as king occupied the throne of the nation of Israel, the national people of God.

The Messiah, who was to descend from him, was in like manner to be King of God’ s people, his spiritual people; hence, the Messiah was to sit on David’ s throne ruling the people of God. The royal government among the Lord’ s national people was, properly speaking, a theocracy; that is, a government of which God was considered the Supreme Ruler, while the earthly king was God’ s agent. Christ or the Mes¬siah was to sit on David’ s throne, or to be his successor, by becom¬ing the King of God’ s spiritual people. 32 This Jesus did God raise up,—Again, the Jews crucified Jesus, but God raised him up and has made the apostles witnesses of that resurrection. Peter now had proved that the prophecy was not fulfilled in David, and could not refer to him, or to an earthly king or person long after him; but it did refer to the Messiah. Then he affirmed that God did raise up Jesus from the dead, and proceeded to prove that this Jesus is the Christ. The “ we” who “ are witnesses” of the resurrection includes the twelve apostles, and may include other disciples who had seen Jesus after his resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:6.) 33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted,—God had raised Jesus from the dead that he might sit on David’ s throne, which is here called “ the right hand of God exalted.” Jesus was not only raised from the dead, like Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus to die again, but he was raised from the dead to be exalted to the right hand of God. Again we see the contrast between what the Jews had done for Christ and what God had done. There is a similar phrase in Psalms 98:1 : “ His right hand, and his holy arm, hath wrought salvation for him.” He had prom¬ised that if he returned to the Father he would send the Holy Spirit; since he had returned to the Father he has now sent the Holy Spirit. The physical manifestations which so confused and astonished the multitude were evidences that the Holy Spirit had come and they saw and heard these things. 34-35 For David ascended not into the heavens:—Peter further argues and proves that the prophecy here did not apply to David. He quotes Psalms 110:1. David had not ascended into the heavens, but Jesus had. It is clear that David understood this to refer to some other than himself; David with the Holy Spirit saw the Messiah come to the earth, suffer and die, be buried, raised from the dead, and ascend back to the Father, and seated at his right hand. This prophecy of David as to the Lord had been fulfilled. Some in that audience could recall that a few weeks before this time the Pharisees had been confused by a question about the meaning of this same passage, and they could not answer Jesus; if they had answered him truly they would have conceded his claim. (Matthew 22:42-45.) 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know—“ Let all the house of Israel” is equivalent to saying “ let every house of Israel”; this appeal could be made only to Israel, for they only had known the prophecies, and they only had received the promises. “ Know assuredly” is equivalent to believing the evidence that Peter had given to establish the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and therefore the Son of God. This was another way of telling them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact that they were to believe was that God had “ made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.” Jesus who had been crucified, God had raised from the dead, exalted him to heaven, and set him on his own right hand; in this way God had shown that Jesus was the Messiah. He has been made “ Lord” or ruler; he has all authority in heaven and on earth; he also had been made “ Christ,” which means the Anointed One. This concluded Peter’ s address; it closed with an appeal to believe the evidence that had been presented. THE FIRST Act_2:37-41 37 Now when they heard this,—The effect of Peter’ s address is now briefly narrated; it was a wonderful address and there were wonderful results. The simple declaration of facts, together with prophecies which supported the claim of Jesus as the Savior of the world, had such an effect on the hearts of the people that many were moved. “ They were pricked in their heart,” which means that they were stung with remorse at the exceeding wickedness of their crime in the crucifixion; they must have been amazed at the stupid blindness with which they had acted. The leaders and the people had closed their eyes to the teaching of the prophecies which had spoken of their Messiah. “ Pricked” is from the verb “ katanusso,” which means “ to pierce, to sting sharply, to stun, to smite.” Peter’ s sermon carried conviction, and they felt keenly the sting of their conviction; hence, they asked Peter “ and the rest of the apostles,” “ What shall we do?” This shows that they regarded the other apostles with Peter as witnesses for Christ. Since he had brought conviction to them, surely Peter and the rest of the apostles would know what to do. They had been with J esus; they had seen him and talked with him since his resurrec¬tion ; they had seen him as he ascended; surely the Messiah would leave some word with them as to what they should do in order to receive remission of their sins. They recognize that there is something that they must do. 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized—This is possibly one of the most mooted scriptures in the New Testament; many theological controversies have been based on this verse. It should be remembered that after being convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and knowing that they had crucified him, they asked what they must do. This verse gives the answer to that question. While much controversy has been had about the meaning of the answer, it is plain and simple enough. These believers are told to “ repent ye.” John had taught repentance and Jesus had taught repentance. He had included repentance in the com¬mission. (Luke 24:47.) “ Repent” had been the clarion cry of John in the wilderness (Matthew 3:2); it was the gospel call of Jesus (Mark 1:15); it was the demand of the apostles as they went out on their limited commission (Mark 6:12).

They were not only to repent, but they were to “ be baptized.” In giving the commission, Jesus said: “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” John and Jesus had both preached baptism; Jesus had placed baptism in the commission; hence, the apostle Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, gave the answer and told them what they should do. “ Repent ye” is singular, while “ be baptized every one of you” is in the plural. There is here also a change from the second to the third person; this change shows a break in the thought; the first thing to do is make a radical and complete change; this is done in repentance; then let each one be baptized “ in the name of Jesus Christ.” This is the same as the command in Matthew 28:19. There is no distinction between “eis to onoma” and “en toi onomati” with “baptizo,” since “eis” and “en” are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 “en toi onomati Iesou Christou” occurs, but “eis to onoma” is found in Acts 8:16 Acts 19:5. The use of “ onoma” means in the name or with the authority of one, as “ eis onoma prophetou” (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. unto the remission of your sins;—The Greek is “eis aphesin ton hamartion humon” ; this is the phrase over which there has been so much controversy. It seems to be clear. After Peter con¬vinced the multitude that they had crucified the Messiah and that God had exalted him and that he was now at the right hand of God, in this state they asked: “ What shall we do?” Evidently they were asking what to do to obtain remission of sins. Peter answers them and tells them to do two things—repent and be baptized. This is to be done by every one of them “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” “eis aphesin ton hamartion humon” “ unto the remission of your sins.” Much depends on the meaning of “eis” ; some have claimed that it means “ because of” ; hence, they claim that baptism is “ because of the remission of sins” ; or one receives remission of sins before baptism. Others claim that “eis” means “for,” “in order to,” “unto” the remission of sins. Repentance and baptism are both “eis aphesin ton hamartion humon.” Herewith is submitted the best scholarship on the translation of “ eis” and its accompanying phrase.

MEANING OF “EIS” IN Acts 2:38 TranslationNameDenominationWork‘ for the putting away” ‘ for, to or toward” ‘ unto, for, in order to” ‘ for, unto” ‘ for, unto” ‘ end toward which” ‘ in reference to” ‘ unto, to” ‘ is always prospective” ‘ aim, purpose” ‘ purpose” ‘ in order to” ‘ the object to be obtained” ‘ unto, in order to receive” unto’ ‘ unto, to this end” ‘ denotes object” ‘ with a view to” ‘ unto” ‘ might receive” ‘ in order to” ‘ unto, to the end” ‘ into, to, toward” ‘ in order to” Abbot Alexander Axtell Benson Bickersteth Butcher Adam Clarke Dill Ditzler Godet Goodwin Harkness Harmon Harper Hovey Jacobus Meyer McLintock Church of England Presbyterian Baptist Methodist Church of England Presbyterian Methodist Baptist Methodist Presbyterian Congregationalist Baptist Methodist Baptist Baptist Presbyterian Lutheran Methodist Presbyterian Methodist Methodist Congregationalist Baptist ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on Bible” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on Bible” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Wilkes-Ditzler Debate” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on John” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” McLintock & Strong Encyclopedia ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Shepherd’ s Handbook” ‘‘ Commentary on Acts” Greek-English Lexicon Baptist Quarterly, 1878 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.—Peter, by the Holy Spirit, promised two things on the condition that they repented arid were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ—“ the remission of your sins” and “ the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Much controversy exists as to whether this meant the Holy Spirit as a gift in that measure that the apostles now enjoyed, or whether “ the gift of the Holy Spirit” was the ordinary measure that belonged to all Christians. It seems that some of the early Christians received miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit, and that this is what Peter meant. Joel had been quoted by Peter as being fulfilled at this time; hence, the Spirit dispensation was now beginning and those who obeyed the gospel would receive all the blessings promised by this dispensation. 39 For to you is the promise, and to your children,—“ The promise” is the promise mentioned above; it was what Christ had termed “ the promise of the Father” (Acts 1:4), and described as the baptism “ in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” This promise carried with it the blessings of salvation in Christ and all that accompanied a faithful life in his service. “ To your children” includes the Jews, and “ all that are afar off” includes the Gentiles; hence, all flesh would receive the blessings of the Holy Spirit. The limitations were set by the qualifying clause, “ even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.” The Lord calls people by his gospel: “ Whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14.) “ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:13-14.) “ And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45.) This shows how they are to learn of Jesus and how they are to call upon him. The gospel is to be preached which makes known Christ to the world; people hear it and believe it; they obey its commands and receive its blessings; in this way they come to God through Christ. 40 And with many other words he testified,—Luke did not record all that Peter said on this occasion; he gave a brief outline of the address that Peter made. The address may be formally ar¬ranged as follows:

PETER’ S ADDRESSIntroduction:

1. Defense of the Apostles
2. Explanation of the Events I. The Theme— Jesus Is the Christ II. The Proof
3. The Works of Jesus
4. His Resurrection a. Quotation from David b.Exposition of Quotation c.The Witness of the Disciples
5. The Gift of the Holy Spirit PromisedPeter exhorted the people to “ save” themselves from “ this crooked generation.” Peter’ s “ many other words” exhorted the people to accept Jesus as the Messiah. “ Crooked” is from the Greek “ skolias,” which is a word opposite of “ orthos,” which means “ straight”; they were “ crooked” mentally, morally, and spiritually, since they were unbelieving Jews who had crucified their Messiah. , ,,,,41 They then that received his word were baptized:—Some ancient manuscripts omit the word “ gladly,” and the Standard Version follows the oldest manuscripts. They received the word by believing and obeying the gospel. People receive Christ today by receiving his teachings. Jesus said: “ He that receiveth whom¬soever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20.) “ He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16.) To hear the apos¬tles was to hear Christ, and to hear Christ was to hear God who sent him; hence, when they received the words of the apostles spo¬ken by the Holy Spirit they were hearing the words of Christ, and therefore the word of God. They were baptized; all who received the word were baptized; the Holy Spirit through Peter had commanded them to be baptized. Those who were baptized were “ added unto them” ; that is, those who were baptized were added together, added to the church; there were “ about three thousand souls.” Some think that these three thousand were added to the hundred and twenty, but since the phrase “ unto them” is in italics, or supplied, they were simply added together.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH Acts 2:42-47 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles* teaching—These new disciples were not fickle; they “ continued” in those things which they were taught. Here are mentioned four things in which they continued: (1) “ apostles’ teaching,” (2) “ fellowship,” “ in the breaking of bread,” and (4) “ the prayers.” The teaching here mentioned is that which Jesus commissioned when he told his apostles to teach all the baptized ones everything that he had commanded. (Matthew 28:20.) “ Fellowship” here means that common interest and mutual participation in those things which concern the welfare of each other. “ Breaking of bread” comes from “ klasei,” which is used only by Luke, and only in the phrase “ breaking of bread” ; the kindred verb for “ break” occurs often, but, like the noun, only of breaking bread; hence, it is used to designate the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper. “ The prayers” means that all the services were accompanied with prayer; only stated times were given to prayer under the law, but now the prayers are offered continually, at any time and all time. (See Luke 5:33.) 43 And fear came upon every soul:—Wonder and amazement pervaded the entire group; the attention of the public was attracted to the disciples. “ Fear” is used here in the sense of deep rever¬ence and awe. “ Many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” The mockers were put to silence and awe came over them, and they were deterred from further opposition, even though they did not repent. The apostles were able to work many miracles, though no particular one is described at this point except the one in the next chapter, and that one is noticed only because it is con¬nected with the arrest of the apostles. 44-45 And all that believed were together,—Some have thought that this means that they lived together in one house, but this is impossible since three thousand were converted on this day. It simply means that they “ were together” in mind, in purpose, in faith, and in heart. It refers to the unity of spirit and mind and not so much to unity of organization. They “ had all things com¬mon.” This clause seems to convey the idea of community of goods, lands, and possessions. It does not mean that everyone sold everything that was possessed, but that all held their posses¬sions as a trust for the good of all. Christianity teaches that we are responsible for the welfare of each other and that we should render service, money, and everything for the welfare of others. “ But whoso hath the world’ s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17.) Many of these Jews had come from a distance and had brought but little with them; their sojourn was longer than they expected; hence, they did not have sufficient supplies. In this condition those who did have gladly shared with those who had not. 46-47 And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord—This was not “ communism,” but the disciples had their property at the disposal of the common good as it was needed. The disciples were still worshipping in the temple, as no wide separion had as yet come between the Christians and Jews. They broke their bread at home, and rejoiced in all of the temporal blessings that God had given to them. Those who contributed of their means to those who had not rejoiced in the opportunity to help others; while those who received help rejoiced that there were those who loved them and were able to help them. It was an occasion of all rejoicing together. The description of these early disciples closes with their praising God and finding “ favor with all the people.” “ And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.” The word “ church” is left out of the Standard Version asfnd “ to them” is expressed; hence, the meaning is that those who heard the word, believed it, repented of their sins, and were baptized, were by this process added together, and thus formed the church. Every step was taken by divine guidance, and all rejoiced in the unity of the faith and in the love and fellowship of each other. As we leave this instructive chapter we are impressed with the power of the gospel as preached by Peter. We also are impressed with the simple procedure of the apostles in thus forming the church. The church is now functioning under the direction of the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. We see how people become Christians and we see them living the Christian life. Luke, the historian, is ready now to proceed further with the expansion of the church.

J.W. Commentary On Acts 2Act 2:1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative, (1) “When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour. On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, “ the feast of weeks.” But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost, which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required every male Jew of the whole nation to be present. The condemnation and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now, the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that event.

In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred on that day— the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day. That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was crucified on Friday, he says, “ The fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath.” He seems to have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was “ preparation day,” and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread. According to the law, the count began on “ the morrow after” this day, which was Sunday. Counting seven full weeks and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning at six o’clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday. Why Luke uses the expression, “ When the day of Pentecost was fully come,” is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be “ all with one accord in one place;” for upon this depends the question whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who will read the first four verses of this chapter, noticing the connection of the pronoun “ they,” which occurs in each of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in the first verse to be together in one place, are said in the fourth to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the statement, “They were all together in one place.” Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter to find the antecedent.

But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and second chapters, and take the last verse of the former into its connection with the latter, we will find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: “ The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters, severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had said, on the day of ascension, “ You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit.” It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception of the design of the event, to suppose that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty. Acts 2:2. It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled together: (2) “And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called oikoi, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required more space than any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the apostles had been lodging. Acts 2:3-4. Simultaneous with the sound, (3) “There appeared to them tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” This is the immersion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for its occurrence. There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, “ it sat upon each of them,” the singular pronoun it is used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these tongues.

We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for some time “ continually in the temple, praising and blessing God,” and “ continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication,” would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all. We have already said something of the necessity of this event; but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted— power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, “ You shall receive power (dunamin,) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This power they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of apostolic teaching. But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named, but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate conviction.

There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then, of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an indisputable exercise of it. It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous physical power. Acts 2:5. The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus. (5) “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” The native tongues of these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle. Acts 2:6-12. “And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.” The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, (7) “And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans? (8) And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.“ Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) “And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?“ Acts 2:13. We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use of the term all in the New Testament, to signify a great mass; for after saying that “all were amazed,” etc. Luke immediately adds, (13) “But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine.” The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet. In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the effects of this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects thus far produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amazement among the greater part, and merriment among the few. It was impossible that any of them, without an explanation, could understand the phenomenon; and without being understood, it could have no moral or religious effect upon them. It was, indeed, quite natural, that some of the audience, to whom most of the languages spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish, and who were of too trivial a disposition to inquire further into the matter, should exclaim that the apostles were drunk. This being true of the phenomenon while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral power which it is to exert upon the multitude must reach their minds and hearts through the words in which the explanation is given. To this explanation our attention is now directed. Acts 2:14-15. “Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either day or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk so early in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward off the present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere levity, while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for a perfect refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the multitude, of which they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such a way as only a sober man could speak, and this is the best way to refute a charge of drunkenness. Acts 2:16-18. Peter continues: (16) “But this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (18) And on my men-servants and on my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerning, are mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would be experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to operate by an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly the nature of the operation here contemplated, was designed to take effect immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccountable, that neither by the prophet foretelling the event, not by Luke describing it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the contrary, the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, and prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that species of prophesy which consists in speaking in unknown tongues. We desire to note such observations as this, wherever the text suggests them, in order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It will be found the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power of the Holy Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual faculties, leaving the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the ideas revealed, in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their hearers were affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired lips. It is quite common with pedobaptist writers and speakers to make use of the expression, “ I will pour out my Spirit,” to prove that pouring may be the action of baptism. The substance of the argument, as stated by Dr. Alexander, as follows: “ The extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. . . . This effusion is the very thing for which they (the apostles) are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with such an application.” That the apostles must have expected something to occur, in their reception of the Holy Spirit, to which the term baptism would properly apply, is undoubtedly true, for Jesus had promised that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But, in the event itself, there are two facts clearly distinguishable, and capable of separate consideration: 1st. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, called an outpouring. 2d.

The effect which followed this coming. It is important to inquire to which of these the term baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who argue with him, assume that it is applied to the former. He says, “ This effusion is the very thing,” which they had “ heard called a baptism.” If this assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that baptism consisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour: otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the word pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If the act of pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured, was the thing baptized; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, and not the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was baptized. The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpouring itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably requires; for he says, “ You shall be baptized.” These words express an effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not be expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could not be poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pouring; for Jesus explains the promise, “ You shall be baptized in the Spirit,” by saying, “ You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This is still further proof that it is an effect which the outpouring of the Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But if it be said, that, at any rate, we have here a baptism effected by pouring, we reply that this very fact proves the baptism and the pouring to be two different things; and that an immersion may be effected by pouring.We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; for the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. The term pour, here, is used metaphorically.

In our vague conception of the nature of Spirit, there is such an analogy between it and a subtle fluid, that the action, which, in the plain style of the Savior, is called a coming of the Spirit, may, in the highly figurative style of the prophet Joel, be properly styled an outpouring of the Spirit. The analogy, therefore, which justifies the use of the word pour, is not that between baptism and the act of pouring, but that between a subtle fluid and our inadequate conceptions of spirit. We now proceed to consider the propriety of styling the effect in question an immersion. When Jesus said, “ John baptized in water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit,” his words suggested an analogy between John’s baptism and that of the Spirit. But they could not have so far mistaken this analogy as to suppose that their bodies were to be subjects of the Spirit baptism, for this is forbidden by the very nature of the case. But they would naturally expect that their spirits would be the subjects of the baptism in the Spirit, as their bodies had been of the baptism in water. The event corresponded to this expectation; for they were “filled with the Holy Spirit;” he pervaded and possessed all their mental powers, so that, as Jesus had promised, it was not they that spoke, but the Spirit of their Father that spoke in them. Their spirits were as literally and completely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as their bodies had been in the waters of Jordan. Acts 2:19-21. So much of Peter’s quotation from Joel as we have now considered was in process of fulfillment at the time he was speaking, and is of quite easy interpretation; but not so with the remaining portion: (19) “And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky vapor. (20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and illustrious day of the Lord come. (21) And it shall come to pass that every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” It is quite evident that there was nothing transpiring at the time of Peter’s speech to which the multitude could look as the fulfillment of these words; hence the remark with which he introduces the quotation, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” is to be understood only of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The remainder of the prediction must have still looked to the future for its fulfillment. How far in the future is not indicated, expect that the events mentioned were to take place, “before that great and illustrious day of the Lord.” This day of the Lord is certainly spoken of as a day of terror and danger; and no doubt the salvation contemplated in the words, “ every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” is salvation from the dangers of “ that great and illustrious day.” The interpretation of the whole passage, therefore, depends upon determining what is meant by that day. Is it the day of destruction of Jerusalem, or of the final judgment? The best way to settle this question is to examine the use of the phrase, “ day of the Lord,” in both Old Testament and New. In the first eleven verses of the second chapter of Joel, the phrase “ day of the Lord” occurs three times, and designates a time when the land should be desolated by locusts, insects, and drought. But with the passage now under consideration, in the latter part of the same chapter, the prophet begins a new theme, and therefore speaks of some other great and terrible day. Throughout the prophesies of Joel, and of all the Old Testament prophets, this phrase is used invariably to designate a day of disaster. Isaiah calls the time in which Babylon was to be destroyed, “ the day of the Lord,” and says of it, “ The stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Ezekiel, in like manner, foretelling the desolation of Egypt, says, “ The day of the Lord is near; a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.” Obadiah uses the same phrase in reference to the destruction of Edom; Amos, in reference to the captivity of Israel; and Zechariah, in reference to the final siege of Jerusalem. And induction of these passages establishes the conclusion that “ the day of the Lord,” with the prophets, is always a day of calamity, the precise nature of which is to be determined in each case by the context. In some cases the context is so obscure as not to determine the reference with certainty. The text before us possesses some of this obscurity, yet with the aid of the above remarks, and the use made of the passage by Peter, we may determine the reference with no small degree of certainty. It is evident from Peter’s application of the first part of the quotation to the the advent of the Spirit, that the latter part, which is contemplated as still future, was to be fulfilled after the scene then transpiring. Now, if the dangers of the day, as indicated by the words employed, were such as concerned the Jews alone, there would be good ground to suppose that reference was had to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the parties contemplated in the prophesy are “all flesh;” therefore, all classes of men are embraced in the prophetic view, and the “ day of the Lord” must, according to Old Testament usage, be a day of terror in which all are interested. But in the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews alone had any thing to dread; hence this can not be the reference. It must, then, be the day of judgment; for this is the only day of pre-eminent terror yet awaiting all mankind. This conclusion is confirmed by the invariable usage of New Testament writers. The apostolic writings afford little ground indeed for the prominence that has been given to commentators to the destruction of Jerusalem, in their interpretations of prophesy. There was another and far different day, in their future, to which they gave the appellation, “ the day of the Lord.” Paul says, “ Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.“ “ We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.“ “ Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.” “ But the day of the Lord will comes as a thief in the night.” These are all the occurrences of this expression in the New Testament, and they show conclusively that “ the day of the Lord,” with the apostles, was the day of judgment. The great and illustrious day must not be confounded with the “signs and wonders” mentioned by the prophet; for these are to occur before that day. Whatever may be the exact symbolic meaning of the “ blood and fire, and smoky vapor,” and the darkening of the sun and moon, they represent events which are to take place before the day of judgment. Having now determined the reference of the day in question, we can at once decide what salvation is contemplated in the declaration, “ Every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The only salvation connected with the day of judgment is the salvation from sin and death. The reference, therefore, is to this, and not to salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem. This salvation is made to depend upon calling on the name of the Lord, an expression equivalent to prayer. It is, of course, acceptable prayer which is intended, and it therefore implies the existence of that disposition and conduct necessary to acceptable worship. Certainly no one calling upon the name of the Lord while persisting in disobedience can be included in this promise. Thus far, in his discourse, Peter has directed his attention to the single object of proving the inspiration of himself and his associates. This was logically necessary previous to the utterance of a single word by authority, and most logically has he conducted his argument. The amazement of the people, upon beholding the miraculous scene, was a tacit acknowledgment of their inability to account for it. They were well prepared, therefore, to hear Peter’s explanation. But if even he had attributed the effects which they witnessed to any less than divine power, they must have rejected his explanation as unsatisfactory. The question with them, indeed, was not, whether this was a divine or human manifestation, but, admitting its divinity, they asked one another, “ What does this mean?” When, therefore, Peter simply declares, that this is a fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God, they had no alternative but to receive his explanation, while the fact that it was a fulfillment of prophesy gave to it additional solemnity. If Peter had closed his discourse at this point, the multitude would have gone away convinced of his inspiration, but not one of them would have been converted. All this has yet been said and done is preparatory; a necessary preparation for what is to follow. We are yet to search for the exact influence which turned their minds and hearts toward Jesus Christ. Acts 2:22-24. It is impossible, at this distance of space and time, to realize, even in a faint degree, the effect upon the minds so wrought up and possessed of such facts, produced by the announcement next made by Peter. (22) “Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you yourselves know; (23) him, delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; (24) whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held under it.” Filled with amazement, as they were already, by a visible and audible manifestation of the Spirit of God, they now see that the whole of this amazing phenomenon is subservient to the name of the Nazarene whom they had despised and crucified. This conviction is brought home to them, too, in a sentence so replete with overwhelming facts, as to make them reel and stagger under a succession of fearful blows rapidly repeated. In one breath they have just heard no less than seven startling propositions: 1st. That Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and wonders and signs which God had done by him. 2d.

That they, themselves, knew this to be so. 3d. That it was not from impotence on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that he was yielded up to them. 4th. That when thus yielded up they had put him to death, by the torture of crucifixion. 5th. That they had done this with wicked hands. 6th. That God had raised him from the dead. 7th. That it was not possible that death should hold him. Here is a complete epitome of the four gospels, condensed into one short sentence. The name “ Jesus of Nazareth” brought vividly before their minds a well-known personage, and all his illustrious history flashes across their memory. The first assertion concerning him is an appeal to his miracles as a demonstration that he was from God. There is no need of argument to make this demonstration clear; nor of evidence to prove the reality of the miracles; for they were done “ in your midst, as you yourselves also know.” The fearfulness of the murder is magnified by the thought, that he had been voluntarily delivered to them, in accordance with a deliberate purpose of God long ago declared by the prophets. The manner of his death makes it more fearful still. They had nailed him to the cross, and compelled him to die like a felon.

These things being so, how penetrating the appeal to their consciences, “ with wicked hands you have crucified and slain him!” This was no time for nice distinctions between what a man does himself, and what he does by another. The “ wicked hands” are not, as some suppose, the hands of Roman soldiers, who had performed the actual work of his execution, but the hands of wicked Jews.

Here, before him, were the very persons who had been assembled but fifty days before at the Passover, and had taken a hand in the proceedings of that awful day. He appeals to their individual consciousness of guilt; and this gives an intensity to the effect of his discourse upon their hearts, which it could not otherwise have possessed. Conscious of fearful guilt in having thus cruelly murdered the attested servant of God; and suddenly revealed to themselves as actors in the darkest scene of prophetic vision, how shall they endure the additional thought, that God has raised the crucified from the dead? Never did mortal lips pronounce, in so brief a space, so many thoughts of so terrific import to the hearers. We might challenge the world to find a parallel to it in the speeches of all her orators, or the songs of all her poets. There is not, indeed, such a thunderbolt in the burdens of all the prophets of Israel, nor among the mighty voices which echo through the pages of the Apocalypse. It is the first announcement to the world of a risen and glorified Redeemer. Acts 2:25-28. There are two points in this announcement which required proof, and to the presentation of this Peter immediately proceeds. Having stated that Jesus was delivered according to the determined purpose of God, he now quotes that purpose as expressed by David in the 16th Psalm. (25) “For David says concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. (26) Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad. Moreover, my flesh shall rest in hope; (27) because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (28) Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance.” Only so much of this quotation as refers to the resurrection suits the special purpose of the speaker, the preceding portion serving only to connectedly introduce it. The words, “ Thou shalt make known to me the ways of life,” constitute the affirmative assertion of a restoration to life, which had been negatively expressed, “ Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption” The words “ Thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance,” no doubt refer to that joy set before Jesus, for which “ he endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that in the sentence, “ Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption,” there is no distinction intended between the condition of the soul and that of the body; but that the whole is merely equivalent to the statement, Thou wilt not leave me among the dead. I am constrained, however, to adopt the opinion advanced, but not defended, by Olshausen, that the apostle does intend to fix our attention upon the body and soul of Jesus separately. The most obvious reason for this opinion is the fact that his body and soul are spoken of separately, and with separate reference to their respective places of abode during the period of death. The soul can not see corruption, neither can the body go into hades; but when men die, ordinarily, their bodies see corruption, and their souls enter, not the grave, but hades. The words in question declare, in reference to both the body and soul of Jesus, that which must have occurred in his resurrection, that the one was not left in hades, neither did the other see corruption. The apostle, in commenting upon them, makes the distinction still more marked, by saying, (verse 31, below), “ He spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left in hades, nor his flesh see corruption.” Why do both the prophet and the apostle so carefully make the distinction, unless they wish to fix attention upon it? The term hades designates the place of disembodied spirits. It is, as its etymology indicates, (a, privative; idein, to see) the unseen. The Greeks were good at giving names to things. When they watched a friend sinking into the arms of death, they could see, by the motion of the frame and the light of the eye, the continued presence of the soul, until at last, the muscles were all motionless, and the eye fixed and leaden. They could still see the body, and after it had been deposited in the grave they could revisit it and see it again. But where is the soul?

You see it no longer. There are no signs of its presence. It is gone; and its invisible abode they call hades, the unseen. That the soul of Jesus entered hades is undeniable. That it returned again to the body at the resurrection is asserted by Peter; and it is this return which was predicted by the prophet, and which caused the exultation both of himself and the apostle. The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul from hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-abhorred purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tendency to absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, that they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the body of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the resurrection of their own bodies. As long as men entertain the idea that their spirits enter into final bliss and glory immediately after death, they can never be made to regard the resurrection of the body as a matter of importance. This idea has been produced a general skepticism among the masses, in reference to a resurrection of the body; for men are very apt to doubt the certainty of future events for which they see no necessity. As respects the resurrection of the body of Jesus, the most popular conception of its necessity is no doubt this, that it was merely to comply with the predictions of the prophets and of Jesus himself. It would be far more rational to suppose that it was made a subject of prophesy, because there was some grand necessity that it should occur. It would occupy too much space, in a work of this kind, to fully develop this subject, we must, therefore, content ourselves with only a few observations, the complete vindication of the correctness of which we must forego. When the eternal Word became flesh, he assumed all the limitations and dependencies which belong to men; “ for it behooved him to be made in all things like his brethren.” One of these limitations was the inability to work without a body; hence, to him, as well as to his brethren, there was a night coming in which he could not work. He says, “ I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; the night is coming when no man can work.” This night can not be the period after the resurrection, for then he did work. It must, then, be the period of death, while his soul was absent from his body. During this period, he himself asserts, he could do no work, and certainly neither history nor prophesy refer to any work which he then did. It was the Jewish Sabbath among the living, and he observed it with absolute stillness in hades. If he had appeared to his disciples, as angels appear to men, convincing them that he was still alive, and could then have gone to heaven in his mere spiritual nature, who could say there was any necessity for a resurrection of that body in which all his sufferings were endured, and through which all temptations had reached him?

But he could not be. Hades was to him a night of inactivity, as it is to all his disciples, though to neither is it a state of unconsciousness. If it had continued forever, then the further work of redemption, which could only be effected by a mediator in heaven, a Christ on the throne, sending down the Holy Spirit, directing the labors of men and angels, and finally raising the dead to judgment, would have remained undone forever. It was this thought which caused the exultation of the apostles, in view of the recovery of his soul from the inactivity of hades, and its reunion with the uncorrupted and now incorruptible body. “ He was delivered for our offenses,” but “ was raised again for our justification.” His death was the atonement, enabling God to be just in justifying those who believe on Jesus; but his resurrection enabled him to enter heaven with his own blood, securing eternal redemption for us. The resurrection was, therefore, an imperious necessity in his case, and it will be in ours; for not till he comes again will we enter the mansions he is preparing for us, and receive the crown of righteousness which he will give to all them, who love his appearing. Acts 2:29-31. Having exhibited, in the quotation from David, “ the determined purpose, and foreknowledge of God,” in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, the apostle, never overlooking the logical necessities of his argument, next considers the only objection which his hearers would likely to urge against his prophetic proof. In the words quoted, David speaks in the first person, and this might lead some to object, that he was speaking of himself, and not of the Messiah. If, however, it be proved that he did not speak of himself, they would readily admit that he spoke in the name of the Christ. Peter proves this, in these words: (29) “Brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us to this day. (30) Being a prophet, then, and knowing that God had sworn to him, that from the fruit of his loins he would raise up the Christ, according to the flesh, to sit on his throne; (31) foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.” David’s own flesh having seen corruption, as they themselves admitted, and his soul being still in hades, there was no alternative but to admit that he spoke of the Messiah. This brief argument not only refuted the supposed objection, but opened the minds of his hearers, to an entirely new conception of the prophetic throne of David, and of the Messiah, who was to occupy it; showing, that instead of being the ruler of an earthly kingdom, however, glorious, he was to sit upon the throne of the whole universe. Acts 2:32-33. Thus far in his argument, the speaker has proved that the Messiah must rise from the dead to ascend his throne; but he has yet to prove that Jesus was thus raised, and was, therefore, the Messiah of whom David had spoken. He proves the resurrection by the testimony of himself and the eleven other witnesses standing with him: (32) “This Jesus has God raised up, of which we are all witnesses.” Here the twelve unimpeached witnesses testifying to a sensible fact, and presenting their testimony with all the authority belonging to miraculously attested messengers from God. This was sufficient, as to the resurrection. But it must also be proved that after he arose he ascended to heaven and sat down upon his throne. It would be unavailing, for this purpose, to urge the fact that the twelve had seen him ascend; for their eyes had followed him no further than the cloud which received him out of sight. But he presents, in proof, this immersion in the Holy Spirit, which the multitude were witnessing, and which could be effected by no one beneath the throne of God. (33) “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.” What they then saw and heard was both the proof that he who sent it down had ascended the throne of heaven, and the assurance that Peter spoke by divine authority in declaring this fact. Acts 2” 34, 35. One more point established, not so much in proof of the exaltation of Christ, as to show that it also was a subject of prophesy, and this inimitable argument will be complete. (34) “For David has not ascended into the heavens, but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, (35) until I make thy foes thy footstool.” The Pharisees themselves admitted that in this passage David referred to the Messiah, and had been much puzzled by the admission in a memorable conversation with Jesus; but Peter, unwilling to take any thing as granted, which might afterward be made a ground of objection, carefully guards the application, as he had done that of the previous quotation by David, by the remark that David himself had not ascended to heaven; hence, he could not, in these words, be speaking of himself. This admitted, it must be granted that he spoke of the Messiah, for certainly David would call no other his Lord. Acts 2:36. The progressive advances of his argument being now complete, those of them which needed proof being sustained by conclusive evidence, and the remainder consisting in facts well known to his audience, he announces his final conclusion in these bold and confident terms: (36) “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ.“ Acts 2:37. It has already been observed, that up to the moment in which Peter arose to address the audience, although the immersion in the Holy Spirit had occurred, and its effects had been fully witnessed by the people, no change had taken place in their minds in reference to Jesus Christ, neither did they experience any emotion, except confusion and amazement at a phenomenon which they could not comprehend. This fact proves, conclusively, that there was no power in the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, which they witnesses, in itself alone, to produce in them the desired change. All the power which belonged to this event must have come short of the desired effect, but for a medium distinct from itself, through which it reached the minds and hearts of the people. The medium was the words of Peter. He spoke; and when he had announced the conclusion of his argument, Luke says: (37) “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” In this exclamation there is a manifest confession that they believe what Peter has preached to them; and Luke’s declaration that they were pierced to the heart shows that they felt intensely the power of the facts which they now believed.

Since Peter began to speak, therefore, a change has taken place both in their convictions and their feelings. They are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and they are pierced to the heart with anguish at the thought of having murdered him. In the mean time, not a word is said of any influence at work upon them, except that of the words spoken by Peter; hence we conclude that the change in their minds and hearts has been effected through those words. This conclusion was also drawn by Luke himself; for in saying, “ when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and cried out,” he evidently attributes their emotion and their outcry to what they heard, as the cause of both. If Luke had regarded the change effected as one which could be produced only by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, he could not have expressed himself in these words, for his language not only entirely ignores such an influence, but attributes the effect to a different instrumentality. We understand him, therefore, to teach that the whole change thus far effected in these men was produced through the word of truth which they heard from Peter. Let it be observed, however, that what they had heard concerning Christ, they had heard not as the words of the mere man Peter; for, previous to introducing the name of Jesus, he had clearly demonstrated the inspiration of himself and the other apostles. This being established beyond the possibility of rational doubt, from the moment that he began to speak of Jesus they were listening to him as an inspired man. But the Jews had long since learned to ascribe to the words of inspired men all the authority of the Spirit who spoke through them; hence this audience realized that all the power to convince and to move, that the authority of God himself could impart to words, belonged to the words of Peter. If they could believe God, they must believe the oracles of God which find utterance through Peter’s lips. They do believe, and they believe because the words they hear are recognized as the words of God. Faith, then, comes by hearing the word of God; and he who hears the admitted word of God, must believe, or deny that God speaks the truth.

This is true, whether the word is heard from the lips of the inspired men who originally gave it utterance, or is received through other authentic channels. The power by which the word of God produces faith is all derived from the fact that it is the word of God.No words, whether of men or of God, can effect moral changes in the feelings of the hearer, unless they are believed; nor can they when believed, unless they announce truths or facts calculated to produce such change. In the present instance, the facts announced placed the hearers in the awful attitude of the murderers of the Son of God, who was now not only alive again, but seated on the throne of God, with all power in his hands, both on earth and in heaven. The belief of these facts necessarily filled them with the most intense realization of guilt, and the most fearful anticipation of punishment. The former of these emotions is expressed by the words of Luke, “ They were pierced to the heart;” the latter, in their own words, “ Brethren, what shall we do?” They had just heard Peter, in the language of Joel, speak of a possible salvation; and the question, What shall we do? unquestionably means, What shall we do to be saved? Acts 2:38. This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first time, of course, that it was every answered. Whatever may have been the true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous day in the world’s history, the answer given by Peter on this day of Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all subsequent time. It deserves our most profound attention; for it announces the conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the same state of mind with these inquiries. It is expressed as follows: (38) “Then Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, is conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this point, expect as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the conditions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions of pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one. Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable earthly circumstances. The rebel against God’s government, though he lay down his arms and becomes a loyal subject, can have no hope of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned penitent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, unless pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our present remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the light of the passage before us. If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without special reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there were two things for them to do—Repent, and be immersed. If Peter had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory, in this view of the subject, and it would have been the conclusion of the world, that the duty of a sinner, “ pierced to the heart” by a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (verse 21,) and their meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the answer is equally definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be saved, is to repent and be immersed.From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer, taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been Peter’s design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without explanation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for they contain the only commands which he gives. But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable explanations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause, “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” to show that it is under his authority that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father, whose authority alone was recognized in John’s immersion. That we are right in referring to this limiting clause, “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” to the command to be immersed, and not to the command repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, “Repent in the name of Jesus Christ.” Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to be expected as the consequence of obedience. It is “for the remission of sins.” To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends upon both the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be necessary to repeat the words, “ Repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” But, inasmuch as it has suited the purpose of some controversialists to dispute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent representative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor. Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, “ The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer.” Again: “ The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins.” Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: “eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matthew 26:28 Luke 3:3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.” The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument; it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed, some controversialists have felt so great necessity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the clause, “ for the remission of sins” depends largely upon the term repent, and that the connection of thought is this: “ Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ.” It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so; but he has said something entirely different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted. We dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the indorsement of any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it would not be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the columns of denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan tracts. The dependence of the clause, “ for the remission of sins,” upon both the verbs repent and be immersed, being established, it would seem undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to the enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be immersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by many denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the proposition that immersion is for the remission of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause means “on account of” or “because of.” Hence, Peter is understood to command, “ Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed.” But this interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not only to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the case.

It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be otherwise sustained. We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according as its object is past or future. “On account of” some past event may mean because it has taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would, in the same connection, mean in order that it might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase, “ because of.” If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, “on account of the remission of sins” would mean, because their sins had been remitted. But as this is an indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are commanded to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that their sins may be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the passage less perspicuous than it already is. It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed “to (or toward) remission of sins,” we still have remission both beyond repentance and immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it uncertain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to remission of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it. If, with others still— for every effort that ingenuity could suggest has been made to find another meaning for this passage— we render it, Repent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the attempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers. Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the command, “ be immersed for the remission of sins.” If this were true, it would be no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small, has an eternal and immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over the whole clause, “ for the remission of sins,” erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter’s answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection would then read thus: “ Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Remembering now that these parties were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be saved from out sins? the answer must be understood as the answer to that question. But the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore, to repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in order to be saved from their sins.The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still stares you in the face.

The fact is suggestive of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating a record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future controversies which no human being could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be temporarily obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide from his beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may be dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and peace. If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, “ This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins,” eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the attainment of pardon. The careful reader will have observed that in stating the conditions of remission of sins to the multitude, Peter says nothing about the necessity of faith. This omission is not sufficiently accounted for by the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and be immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the terms for the first time, and might fail to perceive this implication. But the fact is, that they did already believe, and it was a result of their faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, What shall we do? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would have been but little less than mockery to command them to believe. It will be observed, throughout the course of apostolic preaching, that they never commanded men to do what they had already done, but took them as they found them, and enjoined upon them only that which they yet lacked of complete obedience. In the case before us, Peter was not laying down a complete formula for the conditions of pardon; but was simply informing the parties before him what they must do in order to the remission of their sins. Being believers already, they must add to their faith repentance and immersion. Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins does not assume that immersion is the only condition of remission, but simply that, it is one among three conditions, and the last of the three. Administered previous to faith and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely worthless, but intensely sinful. The exact meaning of the term repent will be considered below, under iii. 19. After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, “ and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be confounded with the Holy Spirit’s gifts, nor with the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of character, and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter expression means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the expression, “ promise of the Holy Spirit” in verse 33, above, where Peter says, “ having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” The gifts of the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while the gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed. Acts 2:39. Peter does not limit the promise of the Holy Spirit to his present audience; but adds, (39) “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” That we are right in referring the word promise, in this sentence, to the promise of the Holy Spirit just made by Peter, is evident from the fact that this is the only promise made in the immediate context. Some pedobaptist commentators have affected to find in the words, “ The promise is to you and your children,” a show of authority for infant membership in the Church of Christ. But Mr. Barnes, though of that school himself, has the candor to say of this expression, “ It does not refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly to infants. It is a promise, indeed, to parents, that the blessings of salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also to their posterity.” That this is the true conception of the apostle’s meaning is demonstrated by the fact that the promise in question is based upon the conditions of repentance and immersion, with which infants could not possibly comply. The extension of this promise “ to all who are afar off,” is not to be limited to all the Jews who were afar off; but it is properly qualified by the additional words, “ even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” It included, therefore, every individual who should, at any future time, be a subject of the gospel call, and guarantees to us, of the present generation, the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the same terms on which it was offered to Peter’s hearers on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:40. The historian had now concluded his report of Peter’s discourse, but informs us that he has given only an epitome of it. (40) “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” The term testify refers to the argumentative portion of his discourse; and the term exhort to the horatory portion. The latter naturally and logically followed his statement of the conditions of pardon, and the substance of it is compressed by Luke into the words, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” The command to save themselves must sound quite strange in the ears of such modern theorists as affirm that men have no ability to do, or say, or think any thing tending to their own salvation. But this only shows how far they have departed from apostolic speech and thought. Peter had proposed conditions of pardon which they could comply with, and now their salvation depended upon their compliance with these conditions. When they complied with them, they saved themselves.

To be saved from that untoward generation was not, as the conceit of Universalists would have it, to escape the siege of Jerusalem; for the great mass of them escaped that, by dying a natural death before it took place. It was to escape the fate which the mass of that generation were destined to meet in eternity, on account of their sins. We will more fully discuss the exact import of their term saved in this and similar connections under verse 47, below. Acts 2:41. The multitude, who had been so pierced to the heart by Peter’s discourse, as to cry out, “ Brethren, what shall we do?” were happily surprised to find the terms of pardon so easy. (41) “Then they gladly received his word, and were immersed; and the same day there were added about three thousand souls.” The pronoun they identifies the parties immersed with those who had cried out, What shall we do? It shows that they promptly complied with the command which Peter had given them. The word which they gladly received can not be the main part of Peter’s speech, for this had pierced them to the heart; but it is the word of his answer, which gave their feelings great relief by opening to them so easy a method of escape from the doom which they dreaded, and which they so richly deserved. Times without number the objection has been urged, and as often refuted, that three thousand men could not have been immersed in so short a time, and with the inadequate supply of water afforded in Jerusalem. As to the quantity of available water, Dr. J. T. Barclay, in his work entitled “ The City of the Great King,” written during a residence of three years and a half in Jerusalem, as a missionary, shows that Jerusalem was anciently better supplied with water than any other city known to history not permeated by living streams. Even to the present day, though most of the public reservoirs are now dry, such as the supposed pool of Bethesda, 365 feet long by 131 in breadth, and the lower pool of Gihon, 600 long by 260 in breadth, there are still in existence bodies of water, such as the pool of Siloam, and the pool of Hezekiah, affording most ample facilities for immersing any number of persons. As to the want of time for the immersion of so many, any one who will make the mathematical calculation, without which it is folly to offer the objection, will find that there was the greatest abundance of time. Allowing that Peter’s speech commenced at nine o’clock, as he himself states in verse 15, and that the exercises at the temple closed at noon, we have left six hours till sunset. To immerse sixty men in an hour would be very deliberate work for one administrator. But there were twelve administrators, hence, each hour there were not less than seven hundred and twenty persons immersed. At this rate, in less than four and one-fourth hours the whole multitude would be immersed, leaving the sun nearly two hours high when the last candidate emerged from the water. In view of this simple calculation, which a child could make, it is truly astonishing that so many grave critics and preachers should urge this objection. It strikingly illustrates the blinding effects of partisan zeal. Now that the three thousand are added to the Church, we may glance back over the history of the day, and learn upon what preparation they were received to the fellowship of the disciples. To accomplish this, we must first consider their state of mind before Peter spoke to them, and then observe the changes through which they passed. Being Jews, then, they were already believers in the true God, and in the inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures. Luke declares, also, that they were “ devout men.” They were, however, unbelievers in reference to Jesus Christ, and they were guilty of participating in his crucifixion. At the moment that Peter arose to speak, they were full of amazement at witnessing the immersion of the twelve in the Holy Spirit, but their religious character remained unchanged. Peter speaks; and, at the conclusion of his argument, there is an evident change in their convictions.

But they believe now nothing additional to what they did at first, except what Peter has proved to them. He has attempted to prove, however, only two propositions: first, That he and the eleven were inspired; second, That Jesus of Nazareth was now both Lord and Christ. The first, moreover, was established only as a means of proving the second. Several other subordinate facts were also proved for the same purpose, so that the whole speech is properly resolved into an attempt to prove the single proposition with which it concludes, that “ God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” This, then, is what the three thousand believed, and this is all that distinguished their faith when immersed, from what it was before they heard the gospel from Peter’s lips. But another change had occurred within them. Under the influence of their new faith, they were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt. This is the “ godly sorrow” which “ works repentance,” and it prepared them to promptly obey Peter’s command, “ Repent, and be immersed.” They repented, and were immersed. Their conversion, therefore, consisted in believing that Jesus is the Christ, repenting of their sins, and being immersed. This entitled them to membership in the Church, and so it does every human being who does likewise. Acts 2:42. Having been immersed simply upon their faith in Jesus Christ, these young disciples had many subordinate objects of faith to become acquainted with, and many duties yet unknown, in which to be instructed. In giving an account of these matters, Luke is far more brief, adhering strictly to the chief purpose of his narrative, which is to give the process and means of conversion, rather than a history of the edification and instruction of the converted. He closes this section of the history with a brief notice of the order established in the new Church, first describing their order of worship. (42) “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching, and in fellowship, and in breaking the loaf, and in prayers.” The apostles were as yet the only teachers of the Church, and in this work they were executing the second part of their commission, which required them to teach those whom they immersed all things that Jesus had commanded. The same command which made it their duty to teach, made it also the duty of the disciples to learn from them, and to abide by their instruction. This duty the first disciples faithfully complied with, though it has been grievously neglected by their brethren of later ages. For the purpose of being taught by the apostles, they must have assembled together, and this was the occasion for manifesting their fellowship, which term expresses their common participation in religious privileges. It has been urged by some writers, that the term koinonia should here be rendered contribution, instead of fellowship, and that it refers to contributions which were regularly made in the public assemblies, for the poor. That the term is used in this limited sense in at least two places in the New Testament, must be admitted, viz.: in Romans 15:26, “ It hath pleased them of Macedonia to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem;” and in 2 Corinthians 9:13, where Paul says the saints “ glorify God for your liberal contribution to them and to all men.” But such is not, by any means, its common usage. It usually occurs in such connections as the following: “ You were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ.” “ The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.” “ And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” “ We have fellowship with one another.” The radical idea in this term is that of participation in common. We have fellowship with God, because we are made partakers of the divine nature, as we escape the corruption which is in the world through lust. We have fellowship with the Son, because of the common sympathies which his life and sufferings have established between himself and us; and with the Spirit, because we partake of the strengthening and enlightening influences of his teachings, and because he dwells in us. We have fellowship with one another, because of the mutual participation in each other’s affection and good offices. The term is also used in reference to the Lord’s supper. “ The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?” We partake in common of the benefits of his broken body and shed blood, which are symbolized in the cup and the loaf. From the meaning of the term, as thus exemplified, originates its use in the sense of contribution; for in the act of contributing to the necessities of others, we allow them to participate in the blessings which we enjoy. We are not authorized, however, by the rules of criticism, to give it this limited signification, except where the context clearly requires it. Seeing that Christians enjoy fellowship with so many sources of happiness, the term unrestricted must embrace them all. In the present instance the context imposes no limitation upon its meaning, and it would be quite arbitrary to restrict it to the sense of contribution. The use of the article before koinonia can not be pleaded as a ground for such restriction; for it only indicates the notoriety of that which the term designates. Still, the idea of contributing to the wants of poor brethren is involved in the fellowship of Christians, and by the statement that they continued steadfastly in the fellowship, we understand that they continued in the common participation of religious enjoyments, including contributions for the poor. Whether these contributions were made at every meeting or not, we are not informed; but they were certainly made when circumstances required. Together with the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, Luke enumerates “ breaking the loaf and prayers,” as part of the exercises in which the disciples continued. The frequency with which the loaf was broken is not intimated here. It will be discussed under chapter xx. 7. This brief statement shows merely that this institution, according to the Savior’s command, was observed from the very beginning of the Church. The prayers mentioned are those there were offered in public. The number of prayers offered on any occasion, or the order in which the prayers, the instruction, breaking the loaf, and the other acts of fellowship followed each other, is not intimated. Luke’s silence in reference to these particulars may have arisen from the fact that there was no invariable order of exercises; or may have been intended to prevent the order in the Jerusalem Church from being regarded as an authoritative precedent. It shows clearly the intention of the Holy Spirit that the assemblies of the saints should be left to the exercise of their own discretion in matters of this kind, and furnishes a most singular rebuke to the hundreds of party leaders who have since attempted to impose authoritative rituals upon the congregations. If the example of the Church in Jerusalem, in this respect, though its exercises were directed by the whole body of the apostles, was not binding upon other Churches, what body of uninspired men shall have the presumption to bind what God has purposely left free? Acts 2:43. Next to this brief notice of the exercises of the Church, we have a glance at the effect of the scenes just described, upon the surrounding community. (43) “And fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.” This fear was not that which partakes of aversion, for we learn below, (47) that many were daily added to the Church; but it was that silent awe which miracles naturally inspired, mingled with respectful deference to a people of such holiness. Acts 2:44-45. We are next introduced to a striking instance of the fellowship previously mentioned. (44) “Now all who believed were together, and had all things common, (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, as any one had need.” This was not a community of goods, by which all were placed on a pecuniary level; for distribution was made only as any one had need. It was only such liberality to the poor as should characterize the congregations of the Lord in every age and country. Poor brethren must not be allowed to suffer for the necessaries of life, though it require us to divide with them the last loaf in our possession. “ He who has this world’s goods and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?” We will, hereafter, see that the Church in Jerusalem was not the only one which engaged in this species of benevolence. This conduct was in marked contrast with the neglect of the poor which was then common among the Jews, even in violation of their own law, and which was universal among the Gentiles. Nothing of this kind had ever been seen on earth before. We will refer to the subject again, under iv. 32, below. Acts 2:46-47. The further history of the Church, for a short time, is condensed into this brief statement: (46) “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, received their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added those saved every day to the Church.” Whether the disciples continued to offer sacrifices or not— on which question see Com. xxi. 18– 26— that they should “ continue daily with one accord in the temple,” was most natural. The temple had been, to them and their fathers, for many generations, the house of God and the place of prayer. The apostles had been led to its sacred precincts by the Savior himself, and here it was that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. Their most holy associations were connected with it, and it would have been doing great violence to their feelings to require them at once to abandon it. This natural reverence for the place continued till its destruction by Titus; and even to this day, the hill where the temple once stood has a peculiarly sacred place in the hearts of Christians. The “ breaking bread,” klontes arton, mentioned in this sentence, is not the “ breaking of the loaf,” e klasis touartou of verse 42; but refers to common meals of which they partook “ from house to house.” This is evident from the connection: “ breaking bread from house to house, they received their food with gladness and singleness of heart.” It was that breaking of bread in which they “ received their food,” which was not done in partaking of the emblematic loaf.

There is no evidence that the emblematic loaf was ever broken in mere social gatherings. It belongs exclusively to the Lord’s day. By the expression “ singleness of heart” is meant the concentration of their affections and desires upon a single subject. This devotion and concentration of thought could but result, as it did, in giving the disciples “ favor with all the people,” and causing daily additions to the Church. Those added to the Church daily were not “ such as should be saved,” as rendered in the common version, but tous sozomenous, the saved. In what sense they were saved, is a question of some importance. Dr. Hackett says: “ The doctrine is that those who embrace the gospel adopt the infallible means of being saved.” This is, undoubtedly, true doctrine; but it is not what is taught in the passage; for Luke speaks not of those who daily embraced the means of salvation, but of those who were saved. The view expressed by Alexander, that “ men are said to be saved, not only in reference to the final consummation, but to the inception of the saving work,” is a nearer approach to the true conception, but still falls short of it. It is not an inception of the saving work, of which Luke speaks, but the salvation referred to is complete; the parties spoken of being called “ the saved.” Both these learned commentators, by keeping their minds fixed upon a future state as offering the only fulfillment of the word “saved,” have failed to discover the exact sense in which it is here used by the historian.

Primarily, the term save means simply to make safe. In the religious sense, it means to make safe from the consequences of sin. If men had never sinned, they could not be saved, seeing they would be already safe. But having sinned, they are saved when they are made safe from the consequences of their sins. This is done when their sins are forgiven. At the moment a penitent sinner obtains pardon, he is, so far as the past is concerned, completely saved.

It is in this sense that the parties in this case added to the Church are called “the saved.” Paul uses the term in the same sense when he says of God, “ According to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.” The fact that the Lord added the saved, or pardoned, to the Church, justifies two conclusions: first, That men are entitled to membership in the Church the moment they are pardoned; second, That men should join the Church, not as a means of obtaining pardon, but because they have already obtained it. The former conclusion shows that it is unscriptural to admit, as some parties do, that certain persons are pardoned, and yet refuse them Church-fellowship. The latter condemns the practice observed by others, of received persons to membership “ as a means of grace;” i. e., as a means of obtaining pardon.

“ACTS OF THE " Chapter Two IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To carefully consider the events surrounding the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost

2. mine Peter’s first gospel sermon, and the evidence presented in it for the resurrection of Jesus Christ

3. To observe the response to the sermon, and what people were told to do in order to be saved

4. To note the establishment and characteristics of the church in Jerusalem

SUMMARY Ten days after Jesus ascended to heaven, on the Jewish feast day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is poured out as promised. With the sound of a rushing mighty wind, and with tongues of fire appearing above their heads, those filled with the Holy Spirit begin to speak in other tongues (Acts 2:1-4). Devout Jews visiting from other countries are attracted and amazed as they hear wonderful works of God proclaimed in their own languages (Acts 2:5-13).

Peter, standing with the rest of the apostles, explains that what has happened is a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Joe 2:28-32), who foretold that God would pour out His Spirit in the last days (Acts 2:14-21). He then preaches Jesus of Nazareth to the crowd, reminding them of His miracles, their involvement in His death, and proclaiming that God raised Him from the dead. As proof for the resurrection, Peter offers three lines of evidence: 1) the prophecy by David, who foretold of the resurrection (Psalms 16:8-11); 2) the twelve apostles as witnesses; 3) the Spirit’s outpouring itself , indicative of Christ’s exaltation and reception of the promise of the Spirit from the Father. In conclusion, Peter pronounces that God has made Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:22-36).

Cut to the heart, the people ask the apostles what they should do. Peter commands them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit. With many other words he exhorts them to be saved, and about 3000 souls gladly receive his word and are baptized (Acts 2:37-41).

Thus begins the church in Jerusalem, which continues steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers. Signs and wonders are done by the apostles, while the believers display their love and devotion through acts of benevolence and frequent worship. They enjoy the favor of the people, and the Lord adds to the church daily those being saved (Acts 2:42-47).

OUTLINE I. THE OF THE SPIRIT (Acts 2:1-4) A. ON THE DAY OF (Acts 2:1)1. A Jewish holiday, also known as the Feast of Weeks and Feast of Harvest, one of three great annual festivals (cf. Leviticus 23:15-22; Exodus 23:14-18 Exodus 34:22) 2. Fifty days after the Passover Sabbath, i.e., Sunday 3. They, most likely the apostles (cf. Acts 1:11 Acts 1:26 Acts 2:7 Acts 2:14), were gathered in one place

B. WITH AUDIBLE AND VISUAL SIGNS (2-3)1. A sound from heaven a. As of a rushing mighty wind b. Filling the house where they were sitting 2. Divided tongues a. As of fire b. One upon each one of them

C. FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT (Acts 2:4)1. Speaking with other tongues (known languages, cf. Acts 2:8 Acts 2:11) 2. As the Spirit gave them utterance

II. THE OF THE CROWD (Acts 2:5-13) A. AND AMAZED (Acts 2:5-11)1. The crowd made up of devout Jews visiting from other nations 2. The effect of what they heard a. Drew the multitude together b. Confused them, for everyone heard them speaking in their own language c. Amazed and marveled them, for those speaking were Galileans d. Yet were hearing languages of the countries of their birth

1. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia
2. Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia
3. Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, Rome
4. Both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs

3. Hearing in their languages the wonderful works of God

B. TWO (Acts 2:12-13)1. One of serious questioning: “Whatever could this mean?” 2. One of mockery: “They are full of new wine.”

III. THE BY PETER (Acts 2:14-21) A. THEY WERE NOT DRUNK (Acts 2:14-15)1. Standing up with the eleven, Peter addresses the crowd 2. It was too early in the day (“third hour”, i.e., 9 a.m.) for them to be drunk

B. THE OF JOEL’S (Acts 2:16-21)1. The events were those prophesied by Joel (cf. Joe 2:28-32) 2. Which foretold of the outpouring of the Spirit a. In the last days on all flesh b. Leading sons and daughters to prophesy, young men to see visions, and old men to dream dreams c. With signs and wonders in heaven above and earth beneath before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord d. With salvation to those who call upon the name of the Lord

IV. THE SERMON BY PETER (Acts 2:22-36) A. : GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD (Acts 2:22-24)1. Jesus, a man attested to by miracles, signs and wonders a. Done by God in their midst b. Which they themselves knew 2. Jesus, crucified and put to death a. According to the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God b. Which they did by lawless hands (via the Romans) 3. Jesus, whom God raised from the dead a. Having loosed the pains of death b. For it was not possible that He should be held by it

B. : (Acts 2:25-35)1. The testimony of David a. For David prophesied of Jesus (cf. Psalms 16:8-11) b. David could not be speaking of himself

1. For he was dead and buried
2. With his tomb for all to see c. But spoke as a prophet
3. He knew that God had sworn with an oath that one of his descendants would be raised to sit on his throne
4. He therefore spoke of the resurrection of Christ, whose soul was not left in Hades nor did His flesh see corruption

2. The testimony of the apostles a. They were witnesses b. That God raised Jesus
3. The testimony of the Spirit’s outpouring a. Jesus poured forth what they saw and heard

1. Having been exalted to the right hand of God
2. Having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit b. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but prophesied of the Lord (Psalms 110:1)
3. Who would sit at God’s right hand
4. Until His enemies became His footstool (cf. 1 Corinthians 15 : 25-26)

C. : JESUS IS LORD AND CHRIST (Acts 2:36)1. All the house of Israel were to “know assuredly” (i.e., believe with all their hearts) 2. That God made Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Christ

V. THE OF 3000 SOULS (Acts 2:37-41) A. THE OF THE (Acts 2:37)1. They were cut to the heart 2. They said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

B. THE REPLY BY PETER (Acts 2:38-39)1. Two commands a. Repent b. Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ 2. Two promises a. For the remissions of sins b. You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit 3. The extent of the promise a. To them and their children b. To all who afar off, as many as the Lord will call

C. THE RESULTS BY LUKE (Acts 2:40-41)1. After Peter with many other words testified and exhorted them: “Be saved from this perverse generation” 2. Those who gladly receive his word were baptized 3. That day about 3000 were added (cf. Acts 2:47)

VI. THE OF THE CHURCH (Acts 2:42-47) A. THEIR AND (Acts 2:42-43)1. They continued steadfastly in: a. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship b. The breaking of bread and prayers 2. Fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles

B. THEIR CHARITY AND GROWTH (Acts 2:44-47)1. Those who believed were together and had all things in common a. Those with possessions and goods sold them b. Dividing them among all according to their need 2. They continued daily with one accord in the temple 3. Breaking bread from house to house, eating with gladness and simplicity of heart 4. Praising God and having favor with all the people 5. The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4)

• The reaction of the crowd (Acts 2:5-13)
• The explanation by Peter (Acts 2:14-21)
• The sermon by Peter (Acts 2:22-36)
• The conversion of 3000 souls (Acts 2:37-41)
• The beginning of the church (Acts 2:42-47)

2. What day had arrived? Who was gathered in one place? (Acts 2:1)- The Day of Pentecost; “they” (most likely the apostles, cf. Acts 1:26 Acts 2:7 Acts 2:14.)

3. What audible and visible signs were evidence of the Spirit’s outpouring? (Acts 2:2-3)- The sound of a mighty rushing wind filling the house where they were sitting

• Divided tongues, as of fire, one sitting upon each of them

4. What did those filled with Spirit begin to do? (Acts 2:4)- To speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance

5. Who was present in Jerusalem at that time? (Acts 2:5)- Devout Jews from every nation

6. What indicates that the “tongues” were known languages of men? (Acts 2:6 Acts 2:11)- Everyone heard them speak in his own language

• The people said, “We hear them speaking in our own tongues…”

7. What evidence is that those speaking were only the apostles? (Acts 2:7)- Those speaking were Galileans (which was true of the apostles, whereas many disciples were from other regions besides Galilee)

8. What was the reaction of those who heard? (Acts 2:7 Acts 2:12-13)- They were amazed and marveled, they were perplexed, some even mocked

9. How did Peter and the eleven discount the charge that they were drunk? (Acts 2:14-15)- It was only the third hour of the day (9 a.m.)

10. To what does Peter attribute the events of that day? (Acts 2:16)- That which was spoken by the prophet Joel 11) When would the events described by Joel occur? (Acts 2:17)- In the last days

11. Upon whom would the Spirit be poured out? (Acts 2:17-18)- All flesh

• God’s menservants and maidservants

13. What did Joel prophesy would be some of the effects of the Spirit’s outpouring? (Acts 2:17-18)- Sons and daughters shall prophesy (cf. Acts 21:8-9)

• Young men shall see visions and old men shall dream dreams
• God’s menservants and maidservants shall prophesy (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:5)

14. What other events were foretold by Joel? When would they occur? (Acts 2:19-20)- Wonders in heaven and signs in the earth

• The sun turned into darkness, and the moon into blood
• Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord

15. What reassuring promise was made by Joel? (Acts 2:21)- Whoever calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved

16. How was Jesus attested to by God? (Acts 2:22)- By miracles, wonders, and signs which He did through Him

17. Could the audience deny that Jesus did these signs? (Acts 2:22)- No, for they were done in their midst and they were aware of them

18. Though crucified by lawless hands, according to what was Jesus' death? (Acts 2:23)- God’s predetermined purpose and foreknowledge

19. What is the main proposition of Peter’s sermon? (Acts 2:24)- God raised Jesus from the dead

20. What first line of evidence did Peter present to prove his proposition? (Acts 2:25-31)- The prophecy of David concerning the resurrection of the Christ

21. How was Peter able to prove that David did not speak of himself? (Acts 2:29 Acts 2:34)- David was dead and buried, the tomb was still there

• David did not ascend into the heavens

22. What two prophecies of David did Peter reference? (Acts 2:25-29 Acts 2:34-35)- Psalms 16:8-11 Psalms 110:1

23. What second line of evidence did Peter present to prove his proposition? (Acts 2:32)- The apostles were witnesses of the resurrection

24. What third line of evidence did Peter present to prove his proposition? (Acts 2:33-33)- The outpouring of the Spirit, indicative of being exalted to the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit

25. What did Peter want his audience to know assuredly? (Acts 2:36)- That God has made Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Christ

26. How did this impact the audience? What did they ask? (Acts 2:37)- They were cut to the heart; “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

27. What two commands did Peter give them? (Acts 2:38)- Repent and be baptized

28. What two promises did Peter offer them? (Acts 2:38)- Remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit

29. To whom was the promise offered? (Acts 2:39)- To them and their children, and to all who are afar off, as many as God would call

30. What else did Peter say? (Acts 2:40)- With many words he testified, and exhorted them, “Be saved from this perverse generation”

31. What did those who gladly received his word do? How many? (Acts 2:41)- They were baptized; about 3000

32. What did those who were baptized then do? (Acts 2:42)- Continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers

33. Who were doing many wonders and signs? (Acts 2:43)- The apostles

34. What did those who believe do with their possessions? (Acts 2:44-45)- Sold them and shared with one another as anyone had need

35. What did the disciples do during those first days of the early church in Jerusalem? (Acts 2:46-47)- Continued daily in the temple with one accord

• Breaking bread from house to house, eating with gladness and simplicity of heart
• Praising God and having favor with all the people

36. What did the Lord do during those days? (Acts 2:47) - Added to the church daily those who were being saved

Verse 1 This fantastic chapter records the establishment of the church of Jesus Christ upon this earth, the same being the long promised kingdom of God, and the fulfillment of a vast body of Old Testament prophecy. Every line here recorded by Luke reveals truth of the most extensive dimensions. This is not merely the best account of the beginning of this current dispensation of the grace of God, it is the only account, the keystone that ties together the Old Testament and the New Testament; and, regarding such question as how the church began, and of how one becomes a member of it, and of the first emergence of God’s new creation in Christ, this chapter provides a record of what is KNOWN, as contrasted with what is merely GUESSED about these vital considerations. Significantly, this account is brief, so condensed that almost every line of it touches but does not elaborate things which tantalize human curiosity, and concerning which things men will always DESIRE to know more than is revealed. However, concerning things which are within the perimeter of what men NEED to know, this chapter blazes with eternal light. And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. (Acts 2:1) Pentecost … This was one of the three principal feasts of the Jews (2 Chronicles 8:12-13), the others being Passover and Tabernacles. This feast was known by several names: “Firstfruits,” “Harvest Festival,” “Feast of Weeks” (Leviticus 23:15 f), and “Pentecost,” as here. The last two of these names derived from the time it was held, which was fifty days after the first ordinary sabbath after the beginning of Passover, “Pentecost” meaning “fiftieth.” Also, since fifty days were exactly seven weeks, counting the first and last Sundays inclusively, this led to the name “Feast of Weeks.” The historical church devised another name which came about thus: “The habit of dressing in white and seeking baptism on Pentecost gave it the name `Whitsunday,’ by which it is popularly known all over the world."[1]The Passover week, from which Pentecost was reckoned, usually had two sabbaths: (1) the first full day of the feast, called a “high” sabbath (John 19:31), and (2) the ordinary sabbath, the seventh day of the ordinary week. The first of these came on various days of the week, like any day occurring on a fixed day of the month; the second was always a Saturday. The year our Lord suffered (A.D. 30), the high sabbath fell on Friday, both our Lord and the robbers being crucified on Thursday the preceding day; and, to prevent the bodies remaining upon the cross on that high sabbath, the Pharisees requested Pilate to break their legs. Thus there were back-to-back sabbaths during the Passover at which Jesus died, as attested by the Greek text ofMatthew 28:1. It will be seen at once that reckoning Pentecost from Friday would give a Saturday for Pentecost (as sabbatarians have insisted); whereas, reckoning from the ordinary sabbath would give a Sunday. The Sadducees and Karaite Jews counted from the sabbath ordinary; the Pharisees counted from the high sabbath. Thus, depending upon which method of calculating was used, Pentecost fell upon either a Saturday or a Sunday; but there is no way that the Christians could have been persuaded to accept the Pharisees’ method of counting it, neither the judgment of the Pharisees or Sadducees having any weight at all with the followers of Christ. The Karaite Jews, however, accepted the Scriptures literally, insisting that Pentecost be reckoned from the sabbath ordinary of Passover week; and it is certain that Jesus’ followers would have done the same thing. As Barnes declared: The Caraite (the alternate spelling of Karaite) Jews, or those who insisted on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, maintaining that by “the sabbath” here was meant the usual sabbath, the seventh day of the week.[2]Thus it is immaterial whether the Pharisees’ or the Sadducees’ position on this question prevailed in that year 30 A.D.; and all arguments based upon the date of the Jews’ observance of Pentecost that year are irrelevant. The Christians would have allowed the literal, scriptural method, as did the Karaites, counting from the ordinary sabbath, and thus assuring that Pentecost would have been marked by them as falling upon the fiftieth day following the ordinary sabbath. That, of course, was a Sunday. The verse before us carries a strong inference that the Pentecost observed by the followers of Jesus that year did not coincide with the Jewish observance. Was fully come … This is the rendition in the KJV, and there are no valid reasons for changing this in the English Revised Version. The words “fully come” are translated from a word of uncertain meaning; and the incomparable Lightfoot believed that Luke used that word here “to signify that the Christian Pentecost did not coincide with the Jewish, just as Christ’s last meal with the disciples was considered not to have coincided with the Jewish Passover."[3]In many areas, Christian tradition may not be considered as conclusive; but in this matter of what day of the week was Pentecost, the unbroken, unchallenged tradition of more than nineteen centuries, plus the fact that the first day of the week is stressed throughout the New Testament as the fixed day of Christian assemblies, makes it certain that Pentecost fell on a Sunday. Why would the church have clung to their assemblies upon the first day of the week, if indeed the very beginning of the church had been upon a Saturday? We agree with Bruce who said: “Christian tradition is therefore right in fixing the anniversary of the descent of the Spirit upon a Sunday."[4]It should also be noted that the complicated nature of the question in view here is a key factor in the popular and erroneous opinion that Christ was crucified on Friday. Note this: According to Matthew, and Mark and Luke, the passover that year fell on Thursday the 14th of Nisan, hence, Pentecost fell on Saturday.[5]In view of the above, many calculators made the crucifixion to be on Friday with a view to fixing Pentecost on Sunday; but the exegesis here demonstrates that it is not necessary at all to do this. It is true, of course, that the Passover fell on Thursday (after sundown), after Jesus was crucified; and the next day (Friday) was a high sabbath from which the Pharisees would have calculated Pentecost, making it fall on a Saturday. But in their departures from the word of the Lord, the Pharisees were wrong in this, as they were wrong in so many other things. It is very significant, however, that it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who were in charge of the Jewish religious affairs during that crucial time; and they reckoned Pentecost from Sunday after the sabbath ordinary. As Bruce explained: This was the reckoning of the Sadducean party in the first century A.D. In the phrase “the morrow after the sabbath” (Leviticus 23:15), they interpreted the sabbath as the weekly sabbath. While the temple stood, their interpretation would be normative for the public celebration of the festival.[6]Some scholars deny this, insisting that the Pharisees’ calculations were followed; but take it either way: (1) If the count was from the high sabbath (as by the Pharisees), then the Christian Pentecost came a day later (as might be indicated by the words “fully come”); and (2) if the count was from the sabbath ordinary, as alleged by Bruce to have been the method then in vogue, then the Christian Pentecost coincided with it, having been most certainly celebrated on Sunday the first day of the week, no matter what the Jews did. To this student, it seems strongly indicated that Bruce is correct and that the Jewish and Christian Pentecosts coincided, the immense throngs of people mentioned in this chapter apparently proving this. They were all together … Who were the “they”? Scholars disagree radically about this; but the conviction here is that the reference is to the Twelve. They were the only ones to whom Jesus had promised such an outpouring of the Spirit. Furthermore, Peter’s words (Acts 2:32) that “we are all witnesses” of Christ’s resurrection can refer only to the Twelve, because only two disciples were found among the whole one hundred and twenty who were eligible to join them as “witnesses.” What the word “all” surely means in Acts 2:32 must therefore be the meaning here. “We … all,” as used by Peter, identifies the “they … all,” as used here by Luke. Also, “numbered with the eleven apostles,” as it stands at the end of Acts 1, requires “eleven apostles” to be understood as the antecedent of “they” in Acts 2:1. DeWelt said: The fact that the antecedent of any pronoun is found by referring back to the nearest noun (or pronoun) with which it agrees in number etc., clinches the argument of the baptism of only the apostle’s in the Holy Spirit.[7]Russell also restricted the meaning of “they … they … all” in this verse to “the apostles."[8] McGarvey wrote: The persons thus assembled together and filled with the Holy Spirit were not, as many have supposed, the one hundred and twenty disciples mentioned in a parenthesis in the preceding chapter, but the twelve apostles. This is made certain by the grammatical connection between the first verse of this chapter and the last of the preceding.[9]Another consideration is that the apostles had undergone a long preparation for the events of Pentecost, and there is no indication that the entire one hundred and twenty were thus prepared. The implications against understanding “they” in this verse as inclusive of the one hundred and twenty are too formidable to be set aside. In one place … Where was this? Some have supposed it was the upper room, and others have been sure that some area of the Jewish temple, such as Solomon’s Porch, was the place of these events; and still others have understood the action to have taken place in both, beginning in the upper room and moving to the larger area in the temple with the progression of events. It appears most likely that some large area of the temple compound was the place, due to the large numbers of people involved. All that is certain is that it was in Jerusalem. In later Jerusalem, Pentecost was celebrated as the anniversary of the giving of the Law at Sinai (based upon a deduction from Exodus 19:1); and the occasions do have the great factors in common, of the Law having been promulgated at Sinai, and the proclamation of the gospel having begun at Pentecost in Jerusalem. The typical nature of the first event is further seen in the death of three thousand souls through disobedience the day the Law came, and in the contrast of three thousand souls having been saved through obedience at Pentecost. John Wesley has the following comment: At the Pentecost of Sinai in the Old Testament, and the Pentecost of Jerusalem in the New Testament, were the two grand manifestations of God, the legal and the evangelical; the one from the mountain and the other from heaven; the terrible one and the merciful one.[10]The very weightiest reasons appear for God’s choice of this day for the beginning of the church: (1) As Jesus was crucified at a great Jewish festival, it was appropriate that he should have been glorified at another; (2) Pentecost was the next after the Passover; (3) it was the anniversary of the giving of the Law; (4) the firstfruits were offered on Pentecost, and it was proper that the firstfruits of the gospel should come unto God on that occasion; (5) millions of people were in Jerusalem for that occasion; and (6) most importantly of all, perhaps, by its falling upon the first day of the week, it coincided in that particular with the resurrection of Christ, and was thus of major importance in certifying Sunday as the day of the Christian assemblies. [1]; ISBE, p. 2319. [2] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), Acts,. p. 26. [3]; ISBE, p. 2318. [4] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 53. [5]; ISBE, p. 2318. [6] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 53. [7] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 35. [8] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 286. [9] J. W. McGarvey, Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 21. [10] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, n.d.), in loco. Verse 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.The spectacular events here are suggestive of the wonders that attended the giving of the Law (Exodus 19:16 f), such as the loud trumpet, the smoking mountain, the terrible earthquake, the thick cloud, and Jehovah descending upon Sinai in fire. Wind … fire … There was no wind, but the sound of a mighty wind; and no fire, but tongues resembling fire, at Pentecost. Despite this, wind and fire are both typical and suggestive of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is typified by the wind in that: (1) it is gentle; (2) it is powerful; (3) it is invisible (John 3:8); (4) it is the “breath” of life itself. Fire typifies the Holy Spirit in that: (1) it gives light; (2) it provides warmth; (3) it purifies; and (4) it is an emblem of God himself (Hebrews 12:29), and in this latter quality standing for the judgment of God against wickedness. That such elemental forces of nature were manifested both at Sinai and at Pentecost is evidence, according to Lange, that the “kingdom of power and of grace is governed by one God."[11] It is also proof that the God of nature and the God of religious faith are one and the same. Although the tongues so strongly resembled fire, this may not be called a baptism of fire; “for the context in the Gospel (Matthew 3:11 f) suggests that the baptism of fire is the judgment of those who reject the Messiah, the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire."[12]All filled with the Holy Spirit … This has reference to the Twelve apostles only. See under Acts 2:1. Beasley-Murray gave expression to a common misconception regarding this outpouring of God’s Spirit on the Twelve. He said: At Pentecost the Spirit came upon the disciples with no other condition than that of prayer; they are not baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, either prior to or after the event.[13]None of those persons who had been baptized of John’s baptism had any need to be baptized again; and it is a dogmatic certainty that the Twelve had been baptized by John’s baptism (John 4:1-2), because there is no way to believe that the apostles would have been baptizing others with a baptism to which they themselves had not submitted. Moreover, if they had rejected John’s baptism for themselves, it would have been “rejecting the counsel of God” (Luke 7:30); and, had they done that, Jesus would never have named them apostles of the new covenant. For further discussion of this, see under Acts 1:5. On this Pentecost, there were two measures of the Holy Spirit given: (1) the miraculous outpouring previously promised the Twelve, and (2) the gift ordinary which is received by every Christian. The three thousand who were baptized received the second of these following their baptism; and it may be assumed that the one hundred and twenty (who, it may be assumed, were also baptized by John’s baptism) likewise received that same gift. There is utterly no basis for supposing that they too were given that apostolic measure of the Spirit which would have enabled them to raise the dead, speak with inspiration, and be guided “into all truth,” in the manner of the apostles. If they did receive that measure of the Holy Spirit, where is the record of any of them ever doing such things as the apostles did? The new birth has two elements in it, requiring that all who experience it be born “of the water” and “of the Spirit.” All who received God’s Spirit that day, in whatever measure, were “born of water,” in that they were baptized (either with John’s baptism or that commanded on Pentecost), and also “born of the Spirit,” that is, they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, whether in apostolic measure or in the measure called “the earnest of our inheritance,” (Ephesians 1:13). Began to speak with other tongues … Despite the insistence of some that this has reference to ecstatic utterances like those of so-called “tongues” today, such a view is refuted, absolutely, by the fact that men of many nations understood every word in their native languages. Nothing like this was ever seen, either before or after the astounding event before us. As Lange said: The confusion of tongues occasioned the dispersion of men (Genesis 11); the gift of tongues re-united them as one people.[14]The event at Babel, referred to by Lange, was a direct intervention of God in human history; and the same thing, with opposite purpose, is apparent here. The action at Babel was not repeated, nor was this. This baptism of the Spirit was never repeated. It was later extended to believers in Samaria (Acts 8), to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11) … The filling of the Spirit was often repeated, but not the baptism with the Spirit.[15]Wesley noted that: (They) spoke languages of which they had been before entirely ignorant. They did not speak now and then a word of another tongue, or stammer out some broken sentences, but spoke each language as readily, properly, and elegantly as if it had been their mother tongue.[16]If Wesley’s view is correct, and the conviction here is that it is, then it would be logical to understand each one of the Twelve speaking in a different area of the great temple concourse, in each instance speaking in the language of his hearers. There is no way to understand this as a group of twelve men standing closely together and all speaking at once. Later on, Peter did stand up with the eleven; but then there were not many speakers, but only one. Boles’ comment on the “tongues” is: They were not uttering unintelligible sounds, nor using a mere jargon of syllables with no meaning; their sentences were clear and their words distinct, so that every man heard them speaking in his own language.[17]This phenomenon was doubtless the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” De Welt stated that: We can know as a dogmatic certainty that Acts 2:4 is the literal fulfillment of Act 1:5. Jesus had promised (the apostles) the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and here is the fulfillment of his promise.[18][11] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), p. 31. [12] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 387. [13] G. R. Beasley Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 105. [14] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 31. [15] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 388. [16] John Wesley, op. cit., in loco. [17] H. Leo Boles, Acts of Apostles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1941), p. 33. [18] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 36. Verse 5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language.Heard them speaking in his own language … Some have understood the miracle to have been in the hearers, as in Harrison’s comment: This is not the language of religious ecstasy. By a miracle, the language of the apostles was translated by the Holy Spirit into many diverse languages without a human translator. This phenomenon is not the same as the glossolalia, or gift of tongues, in 1 Corinthians 14, which were unintelligible until interpreted.[19]It is certain, however, that the miracle was not in the hearers, but in the speakers. If the miracle is understood as being in the hearers, there would have been no need for a plurality of speakers; yet it is clear that all the apostles were speakers; the people “heard THEM speaking.” Thus the wonder was not in the hearers, but in the speakers. After all, it was THEY who had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. ENDNOTE: [19] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 388. Verse 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans?Thus, there were twelve speakers, the same being the holy apostles who were miraculously empowered to speak the languages represented by the nationalities Luke at once listed. Verse 8 And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our own tongues the mighty works of God. And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this? But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.This list of geographical names shows the diversity of the people to whom the apostles spoke, the provinces and locations mentioned lying in all directions from Jerusalem and representing a cross-section of the languages spoken in the entire Roman empire. As stated above, it is a mistake to suppose all of these languages were spoken “at once” and by a single speaker. Such a supposition would embellish this wonder far beyond the text. As Walker said: It is probable that each of the eleven addressed the multitude in a different language. People would naturally gather around the man using their native language. We may thus imagine eleven congregations assembled within the same large area, all listening to the same sermon, in substance at least, but each in his own language.[20]Root also concurred in this view, saying: It is not necessary to assume that each visitor heard the sermon of Peter in his own tongue; but, in the beginning of the morning’s meeting, the various languages were spoken by the apostles.[21]The wonder of some and the mockery of others sprang from the sensational event of the Twelve apostles (this student believes Matthias participated in this) preaching all at one time to twelve assemblies at various places in the large temple enclosure. The power and eloquence of men who but a short while previously had been fishermen in Galilee was an astounding thing; and the scoffers could think of no better explanation than to charge them with drunkenness, a charge as unreasonable as it was malicious. Peter would dispose of that slander in a brief word a little later. [20] W. R. Walker, Studies in Acts (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, n.d.), p. 17. [21] Orin Root, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 10. Verse 14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day; but this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel.Peter standing up with the eleven … In Acts 1:26, Luke said that Matthias was “numbered with the eleven,” meaning that Matthias was the twelfth man. In the same way, Peter’s standing up “with the eleven,” as here, means that Peter was the twelfth man. Thus the Twelve participated in the events of this day. The sensational speeches made by all of the Twelve earlier were at this point concluded, and the Twelve came together, and Peter, speaking upon behalf of all of them, delivered the inspired sermon which is the feature of this chapter. All were the object of Peter’s sermon, but he addressed, particularly and primarily, “men of Judaea.” It is neither affirmed nor denied that they heard Peter in their native languages. Peter’s taking the lead here was within full harmony with the Lord’s promise that he should have “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19); and, accordingly, Peter flung wide the gates of the kingdom, preaching the first sermon of the gospel age. PETER’S SERMON ON The classical judgment of any public address must take account of: (1) the occasion, (2) the speaker, (3) the subject matter, and (4) the results; and by any or all of these criteria, Peter’s address recorded here must be hailed as the most wonderful ever given. It was the birthday of the New Institution, the official emergence of the kingdom of God among men. That occasion was the precise moment toward which all the prophecies for thousands of years had pointed. The “new creation” was wrought that day. Regarding the speaker, the rugged fisherman of Galilee, the bold outdoorsman with the ready tongue and fiery disposition, the man who shortly before had denied the Christ whom he was then to proclaim, the natural leader of the Twelve, and the type of man who could command the respect of all, - that man was the speaker, and no more effective a person for such a task could be imagined. The subject matter was human salvation and the procurement of it in Jesus Christ the risen Lord. Where was ever a nobler theme? And the results: three thousand souls believed in the Lord, repented of their sins, and were baptized into Christ in a single day! Let men study this speech, and like those who first heard it, they will be amazed and marvel. Concerning this sermon, McGarvey said: Never did mortal lips announce in so brief a space so many facts of import to the hearers. We might challenge the world to find a parallel to it in the speeches of her orators, or the songs of her poets. There is not such a thunderbolt in all the burdens of the prophets of Israel, or among the voices which thunder in the Apocalypse.[22]The postulations of critics who would if they could, erode the authority of this sermon through allegations that Luke, rather than Peter, composed it, are completely frustrated by the evident marks of its genuineness that distinguish every line of it. Dummelow said: The genuineness of this speech is vouched for by the simplicity of its theology, and by its resemblances to 1Peter (e.g. “foreknowledge,” 1 Peter 1:2; “to call upon (God),” 1 Peter 1:17; “rejoicing,” 1 Peter 1:6 1 Peter 1:8 1 Peter 4:13; “the right hand of God,” 1 Peter 3:22; “exalt,” 1 Peter 5:6; “the house” (Israel), 1 Peter 2:5 1 Peter 4:17 etc.[23]These are not drunken … This malicious comment by the mockers deserved little attention, and little it received from Peter. He merely pointed out that the time of day alone was grounds for rejecting such a slander. On a festival like Pentecost, no Jew ever ate or drank anything until after 9:00 A.M. This is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel … Not Joel, but God was the speaker in that prophet’s writings. This is that … identifies the events initiated at Pentecost as fulfilling the prophecy about to be quoted from Joel. [22] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 30. [23] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 821. Verse 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:In the last days … This refers to the Christian dispensation then beginning. The same thought occurs often in the New Testament. Note such passages as Hebrews 1:2,1 Peter 1:20, and 1 John 2:18. The day of Pentecost, therefore, ushered in the “last days”; but the meaning is compound. (1) Those were the last days in the sense of this being the final dispensation of God’s grace to men, the same thought appearing in Mark 12:6. (2) Those were the last days in the sense that Israel’s day of grace was running short. Their long and repeated rebellions against God were soon to culminate and become final in their rejection of Christ. (3) Those were last days in the sense that Jerusalem, the temple, and the Jewish state would be utterly destroyed before that generation died (in 70 A.D.). (4) Those were the last days in the sense that the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-35) and others of a new covenant were fulfilled in the preaching of the gospel. It is a gross error to suppose that the apostles all thought that the end of the world was at hand. Jesus had plainly told them that some of them were to be killed before Jerusalem fell, and that even the fall of the Holy City was but a type of “the end” that would come long, long afterward. See in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 14:9. The passage Peter here quoted from Joel Isaiah 2:28ff. My Spirit upon all flesh … The baptism of the Twelve in the Holy Spirit was the enabling act that would propagate the gospel throughout all times and nations, and it was for the benefit of “all flesh” that this endowment of the apostles was given. As De Welt expressed it, “The pouring forth of the Spirit upon all flesh was accomplished upon the day of Pentecost."[24]The other things mentioned here, such as sons and daughters prophesying, young men seeing visions, and old men dreaming dreams, etc., refer to the gifts of miracles which, through the imposition of the apostles’ hands, would bless and encourage the church during the apostolic period. Again from De Welt, these things can be “understood as the spiritual gifts imparted by the apostles."[25][24] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 42. [25] Ibid. Verse 18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.This is a continuation of the thought in the previous verse. The mention of daughters, handmaidens, and servants shows that in Christ Jesus “there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female” (Galatians 3:28). They shall prophesy … The tremendous weight of prophecy is not fully appreciated in these times, because men simply do not know how amazingly the apostles of Christ foretold future events. Barclay relates how the ancient writer Tatian was led to accept the Scriptures, quoting him as follows: I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending cast of their language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe in one Being.[26]ENDNOTE: [26] William Barclay, Turning to God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), p. 43. Verse 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day.Wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath … Several of the most spectacular wonders ever seen on earth had occurred right there in Jerusalem the day Jesus was crucified only fifty-three days before Peter thus spoke. The very sun’s light failed; and, as it was the full moon, the satellite appeared as blood. Pontius Pilate wrote to the Emperor Tiberius that “The moon, being like blood, did not shine the whole night, and yet she happened to be at the full."[27] Thus the sun and the moon were “wonders in heaven”; and the earthquake, the rending of the veil of the temple, and the resurrection of many of the dead, were signs on the earth beneath. See in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 483-495. Certain commentators, such as Harrison, refer these verses to “the day of Christ’s coming in glory,"[28]apparently overlooking the most spectacular fulfillment of them a little over seven weeks prior to Peter’s message. Despite this, it is not wrong to see in these words a prophecy of the final day also. As Bruce pointed out, “The last days” began with Christ’s first advent and will end with the second advent. They are the days during which the age to come overlaps the present age; hence the assurance with which Peter could quote the words of Joel and declare, “This is that."[29]The blood and fire and vapor of smoke … were spectacularly associated with every great Jewish feast, such as Passover or Pentecost. It is difficult for any modern to envision the sacrifice of a quarter of a million lambs and all of the blood and “vapor of smoke” that inevitably accompanied such an event. These words most certainly fix the occasion of the signs mentioned as occurring upon one of the great Jewish festivals, which of course they did. The awful events prophesied by Joel and here announced by Peter as fulfilled (that is, beginning to be fulfilled) were omens of fearful judgments about to fall upon the chosen people; but in concert with this, Peter also extended the hope of grace and forgiveness, basing his whole sermon on the climactic final sentence concluding the passage from Joel. [27] Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Pilate to Tiberius (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1957), Vol. 3p. 463. [28] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 389. [29] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 68. Verse 21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.This verse was the text of Peter’s address, making it clear that his sermon was primarily concerned with human salvation and the means of its procurement by men. As Boles expressed it: In the midst of these alarming events and wonders and terrible phenomena that foretold awful judgments, opportunity would be given to all who would “call upon the name of the Lord” to be saved.[30]The impending judgment against Israel would bring the total destruction of the Holy City; but all of the Jews who became Christians were spared in that disaster; and as it was a type of the final judgment and overthrow of the world itself, Peter’s message applied not merely to Israel who first heard it but to all men, as stated inActs 2:39. Call upon … The word thus translated denotes far more than merely pronouncing the Lord’s name (Matthew 7:21-22; Luke 6:46). It is used of being declared to be a dedicated person, as to the Lord, Acts 15:17…to invoke, to call upon for oneself (that is, on one’s behalf)…and to call upon by way of adoration, making use of the Name of the Lord, Acts 2:21.[31][30] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 40. [31] W. E. Vine, Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), p. 163. Verse 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know.It is significant, as McGarvey taught, that: “By the three terms, works … wonders … signs, Peter does not mean three classes of actions; but he uses the three terms to describe the same phenomena."[32] All of Christ’s deeds were “mighty works,” for only the power of God in himself could have done them; they were “wonders,” because all who beheld them marveled; and they were “signs” in that, properly viewed, they attested the oneness of Jesus with the Father in heaven. Thus, in a single sentence Peter summarized the countless miracles of the four-year ministry of our Lord. ENDNOTE: [32] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 29. Verse 23 Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.In these verses and the one preceding them, there are four statements, two of which required no proof, the latter being: (1) that God had approved Jesus Christ among them by mighty deeds, and (2) that they had by the hands of lawless men crucified him. Lawless … McGarvey thought this refers to the Romans, that is, men without the law; and, although true that the Romans were so used by the leaders of Israel in crucifying Christ, we believe that much more is intended. Vine pointed out the word here is the same as that describing the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:4), where “The thought is not simply that of doing what is unlawful, but of flagrant defiance of the known will of God."[33] The “lawless men,” therefore, were not merely the Romans, but the religious leaders of Israel who violated every conceivable kind of law in their ruthless determination to accomplish the death of Jesus. How great was the courage of Peter to charge such men publicly, as he did here, and at a time so soon following their dastardly crime. The other two of the four statements required proof, these being: (3) that it was included in the purpose and foreknowledge of God that Jesus should so suffer, and (4) that God had raised him from the dead. Peter at once presented formal, dogmatic and conclusive proof of both of these. That it was God’s purpose and with his permission that Jesus suffered, he proved from the Old Testament (Acts 2:25-28); and that God had indeed raised Jesus from the dead, he would prove by appealing to the witnesses of it, as well as by pointing out the clear prophecy of it. It was not possible that he should be holden of it … The master thesis of the Bible is that God runs a just universe; and if Jesus had remained in the grave, that would have been the end of any such proposition. That is why it was impossible for death to have triumphed over Jesus by retaining his body in the grave. ENDNOTE: [33] W. E. Vine, op. cit., p. 317. Verse 25 For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou madest known unto me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance.These words are from Psalms 16:8 ff. In this Psalm, David spoke in the first person, as if the glorious promises concerned himself; but actually they regarded great David’s greater Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, there having been no fulfillment whatever of these words in the instance of King David himself. It is absolutely certain that this passage from the Old Testament prophesies a resurrection of someone, for it is only by a resurrection that one could descend into the grave (Hades) and not see corruption. The inspired Peter correctly applied it to the resurrection of Christ, an event the Lord had repeatedly, at least four different times, prophesied and elaborated for the Twelve. The proof absolute that this Psalm cannot refer to David was present for all to see right there in Jerusalem in the tomb of David which still enshrined his dust. Verse 29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.Peter here affirmed that not only was David fully aware that the promise in his Psalm was not to be fulfilled in himself, but that he also foresaw the resurrection of the Holy One. The certainty of this lies in the wordsHOLY ONE, there having been utterly no way that David would ever have referred to himself in those words. The memory of Uriah and Bathsheba would never have allowed it. Implicit in Peter’s works is also the fact of David’s realization that his throne was to be occupied by that same Holy One, even Christ, who true enough would be the “fruit of” David’s body, but in only one dimension, that of the flesh. We need not speculate upon the extent of David’s understanding of Christ and his kingdom; but the fact of his being a prophet of God indicates that it was broader and deeper than many suppose. Resurrection of the Christ … The significance of “the Christ” should not be overlooked. Jesus was not A Christ, or A Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth is THE Messiah, THE Christ of God! As Alexander Campbell observed: To maintain this was the main drift of all apostolic preaching and teaching. So important is it, then, that it should stand before all men in the proper attitude. In reading the five historical books of the Christian religion, every intelligent reader must have observed that the issue concerning Jesus of Nazareth is: “Is he, or is he not, the Christ of whom Moses in the law, and all the prophets wrote?"[34]ENDNOTE: [34] Alexander Campbell, Acts of the Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation, 1858), p. 15. Verse 32 This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we are all witnesses.The resurrection: This is the bedrock and cornerstone of the Christian faith, dogmatically affirmed in the five historical books of our holy religion, and the quibbles of sinful men with regard to variations in the records themselves are powerless to cast any shadow over the fact itself. What is needed is honesty in the reading of them. If Liby, Polybius, Dionysius and Tacitus describe the same event with variations, no one denies that the event occurred; and the Gospels should be received the same way, especially in view of the truth that the “variations” in them are so minor as to be negligible. Hunter noted that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection all agree (1) that the tomb was empty and (2) that the resurrection occurred the third day. Regarding the empty tomb, he said: Paul’s tradition implies it. So does the apostolic preaching in Acts. The four evangelists declare it. The silence of the Jews confirms it … In trying to fathom the mystery of the first Easter Day, we should think of something essentially other-worldly, a piece of heavenly reality, invading this world of time and sense and manifesting itself. We are concerned with an unmistakably divine event which yet occurred in this world of ours, on an April day in A.D. 30 while Pontius Pilate was Roman governor of Judea.[35]We are all witnesses …

Peter could not have meant “all” of the one hundred and twenty disciples, but all of the Twelve apostles. The blessed Mary herself, who was one of the one hundred and twenty, was not a witness of the resurrection; nor is there any record that Jesus ever appeared to her. In the certification of so important an event as the resurrection to all times and conditions of men, Jesus trained and qualified a group of men fully equal to the task. They were outdoorsmen, unspoiled by any human sophistication, but still prepared in the most complete and perfect manner to witness and proclaim the resurrection. It is simply incredible that such men as the Twelve could have been led, either intentionally or otherwise, into believing the resurrection of Christ UNLESS IT HAD INDEED occurred. This conscious limitation of the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection was noted by Peter himself who said: Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 10:40-41). The resurrection of Christ as the fulfillment of God’s oath to set a descendant of David upon his throne should be noted. God promised David: And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish his kingdom for ever …. Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever (2 Samuel 7:12-16). I have sworn unto David my servant: Thy seed will I establish for ever, And build up thy throne to all generations (Psalms 89:3-4). Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven (KJV Psalms 89:35-37). It is regrettable that many have envisioned the Davidic throne as something that would be upon earth, despite the fact of the throne in view here being compared to the sun or the moon, neither of which was ever on earth, and especially in view of the plain promise that it would be “in heaven,” that is, the authority (or throne) would be in heaven. The rendition of “heaven” as “sky,” as in the English Revised Version, does not change this meaning. The apostle Peter forever settled this question when he declared here in Acts 2:31 that the resurrection of Christ was the fulfillment of the above promises to David. The Davidic throne was a type of the eternal throne and authority of Jesus Christ. ENDNOTE: [35] Archibald M. Hunter, Introducing New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), p. 57. Verse 33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this which ye see and hear.By the right hand of God … Christ had indeed appeared alive after his death and burial, and the apostles had seen him ascend into heaven. As so often affirmed in Scripture, Jesus was exalted at the right hand of the Majesty on High, and that exaltation was the fulfillment of God’s oath that a descendant of David would sit upon his throne in perpetuity. He hath poured forth this … Despite the fact of his being in heaven, Jesus was still concerned with earth and the men dwelling upon it. He had promised the apostles that “another Comforter” would be given unto them; and here Peter affirmed that the baptism of the apostles in the Holy Spirit, as audibly and visually evidenced by the miraculous demonstration somewhat earlier, had indeed come to pass as Jesus promised. “Christ’s present impartation of the Spirit to the apostles, attended as it was by sensible signs, was a further open vindication of the claim that he was the exalted Messiah."[36] However, before leaving the subject, Peter would offer another proof. ENDNOTE: [36] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 72. Verse 34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.This quotation from Psalms 110:1 indicated: (1) that the Son of David would also be the Lord of David (Matthew 22:43 ff), and (2) that the Son of David would sit on the right hand of God, an idiomatic promise of the ascension into heaven. Peter did not have to prove that David himself had not ascended to heaven, for his grave was still in Jerusalem. In post-apostolic times, Jewish commentators have attempted to deny the Davidic authorship of this Psalm, with a view to softening the argument here; but the Lord Jesus himself left no doubt whatever of it, naming David as the author (Matthew 22:43). Having thus established a number of the most important truths regarding Christianity, especially the power and godhead of Jesus Christ, his resurrection from the dead, ascension into heaven, and sitting down upon the throne of David in heaven, and the fact of Christ’s having poured forth the Holy Spirit in such a divine demonstration as the multitude had witnessed, Peter then announced his conclusion. Verse 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.All the house of Israel … There seems to be good reason to understand these words as being addressed not to the dwellers in all those countries mentioned by Luke (Acts 2:8-12), but to the Jews of the Holy City itself, there being no evidence that the Diaspora had taken any hand in the rejection of Christ. This justifies the conclusion that the “speaking” of all the Twelve in languages they had never learned, earlier that morning, was not in any sense a preview of this sermon. This sermon was the first of the gospel age, quite properly delivered “to the Jew first” as God had ordained; and, therefore, it may be concluded, that those earlier “speakings” were concerned with gathering an audience for Peter’s message, the same purpose being evident in the rushing sound and other divine manifestations of that hour. Verse 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?They were pricked in their heart … is equivalent to saying that these people then and there believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no way that they would have followed on to obey the word if they had not believed. Thus, right here in the gateway of the historical church stands the sure and certain truth that “faith alone” did not save the first Christians; nor can the conclusion be denied that “faith alone” never saved any Christians since then. The terms of the salvation of those believers in Christ were immediately announced by that apostle to whom Jesus had promised that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Matthew 16:13 ff). There was no ambiguity in the announcement. What shall we do …? In the light of Peter’s text, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21), the meaning of this question is “What shall we do to be saved?” It has no other possible interpretation. Verse 38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.As long as this verse remains in the sacred New Testament, the terms of admission into Christ’s kingdom shall continue to be understood as faith (those were already believers), repentance and baptism unto the remission of sins. The cavils and controversies of the post-Reformation period have not altered in the slightest particular what is so evident here. Space does not permit any exhaustive reply to the denials which are alleged against what Peter declared; indeed, no complete answer is possible, because the cleverness and ingenuity of man have been exhausted in the vain efforts to shout baptism out of this verse as a God-imposed precondition of salvation. We shall note only a few. Note the following from Hervey: We have in this short verse the summary of Christian doctrine as regards man and God. Repentance and faith on the part of man; forgiveness of sins, or justification, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, or sanctification, on the part of God![37]Thus, baptism is left out of the things regarding man’s part in the accomplishment of his salvation; and, while it is true that Hervey went on to affirm that all of this is “expressed in the sacrament of baptism,” it cannot be denied that such an exegesis denies what is so categorically affirmed here by inspiration, namely, that a man must repent and be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Spirit. This writer is glad to note a change among modern commentators toward a more scriptural view of the ordinance of baptism, as evidenced by the following: The idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in the New Testament.[38]In the early church it was the universal practice of the church that the new convert was baptized immediately.[39]The rite was first practiced in obedience to a command of the Risen Lord … dates back to the day of Pentecost … was administered “into Christ,” or “in the name of Christ,” signifying that the baptized person passed into his possession. The mode was immersion, and baptism normally coincided with the reception of the Holy Spirit.[40]Baptism is the occasion when the Spirit brings to new life him that believes in the Son of Man … We must ungrudgingly recognize that the New Testament does not permit us to divide between the new life of Christ and the new life of the Spirit in baptism. (We) should bear steadily in view that the difficulties and the misunderstandings that have surrounded this doctrine, through the change of the context in which the churches have set baptism, DO NOT ARISE IN THE NEW (italics mine, JBC). They should not be permitted to affect our interpretation of its evidence.[41]Glimpses of the truth appearing in such comments are a vast improvement over many of the wild allegations of the nineteenth century; and it is devoutly hoped that men will come to accept what is so patently stated in the text before us, namely, that forgiveness of sins and the gift of God’s Spirit are promised AFTER both repentance and baptism (also after faith), obedience of the believer to BOTH requirements being made an absolute precondition of salvation. This text is the grave of the Lutheran heresy of justification by “faith only”; and, since many passages of the New Testament have been laid under tribute by holders of that error in their efforts to refute this text, many passages of the New Testament should be studied in connection with this. In this series of commentaries, extensive teaching on this doctrine will be found as follows: my Commentary on Mark, Mark 16:16; my Commentary on John, John 3:5 John 8:30, and John 12:43; my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:2 Hebrews 9:14; and my Commentary on Romans, Romans 3:22 Romans 3:24, and Romans 10:11, etc. One other common misunderstanding and it concerns this: Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit … Here, as Beasley-Murray pointed out, “The gift of the Spirit will be given in or immediately upon baptism,” whereas “The Samaritans are evangelized by Philip and baptized by him without receiving the Holy Spirit."[42] This, of course, is viewed as a discrepancy by many; but the problem is resolved in the knowledge that at Pentecost those baptized received the gift ordinary of the Spirit, which is the earnest of our inheritance; whereas, a special dispensation of the Spirit “through the laying on of the apostles’ hands” is indicated in the case of the Samaritans. It is a mistake to view the gift of the Spirit as promised to all who were baptized on Pentecost as anything other than the gift ordinary. “There is no indication that the apostles laid hands on these new converts that they might receive the Holy Spirit."[43] As Thomas Scott stated it: There is nothing to lead us to imagine that they received any miraculous gifts of any kind. There can be no doubt that the gift of the Holy Spirit in view here is that which all without exception received … which is bestowed upon all the members of the family of our heavenly Father.[44][37] A. C. Hervey, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, p. 54. [38] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 77. [39] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 50. [40] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 79. [41] G. R. Beasley-Murray, op. cit., pp. 278,279. [42] Ibid., p. 105. [43] Everett J. Harrison, op. cit., p. 392. [44] Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 439. Verse 39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.All that are afar off … certainly includes the Gentiles; but Peter, like many of the prophets of the Old Testament, was here uttering words, under the power of his inspiration, that he himself did not fully understand; for it took a miracle, later on, to convince Peter that the Gentiles should be included as proper recipients of the gospel message. See under Acts 10:14-15, and also 1 Peter 1:12. As a matter of simple fact, the command to believe, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (the Nestle Greek text translates this “with a view to” the remission of sins) and with the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit afterward, - this is a timeless and universal commandment of the Christian gospel, as clear from this verse. None are exempted, or denied, or promised redemption without compliance. Verse 40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.Many other words … Thus Luke was giving a resume of this great sermon, and not a verbatim account of every word of it; and from this, we may be sure that where Peter is quoted, he is quoted accurately. With these words Luke summarized the great message of Pentecost and, significantly, the initiative rested with men, not God. The promised Spirit had come; henceforth forever, until the final judgment, that Spirit would be in the world; the terms of accepting the gospel had been announced, and they would never be changed. Therefore the final word to humanity was: Save yourselves from this crooked generation … As Morgan said: You say that you are waiting for the Spirit? Nothing of the kind … The Spirit is waiting for you. No, we are not waiting for him; how often he is waiting for us![45]Of all the wicked falsehoods ever devised by Satan and received by sinful men, the greatest is this: “There is nothing you can do to be saved!” The existence of this Satanic lie has been continuous throughout the Christian dispensation; but this verse is the total refutation of it. How does one “save himself”? Just as Peter said: “Repent and be baptized.” Even in compliance with the God-given conditions, lacking which no man can be saved, the saved person does not merit, or earn, redemption; but he saves himself in the sense of fulfilling the conditions without which he can never be saved. Note the following: Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee (1 Timothy 4:16). So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). The great teaching of these verses, taken in conjunction with what Peter said, is that man is himself responsible for whether or not he is saved. If he obeys the Lord, he will be saved, not as a matter of merit, but by the grace of God; but if he does not obey, not even the grace of God can reach him and redeem him. Nor is there any implication in those teachings that an absolutely perfect obedience is prerequisite to redemption, because absolutely perfect obedience does not lie within the province of man’s ability. However, the initial obedience, such as Peter commanded on Pentecost, does lie within the area of what man is fully able to do, provided only that he desires to do it; and that is the basis of the conclusion that there can be no waiver of what Peter commanded on Pentecost. It will be bound in heaven. It is simply incredible that most commentators pass over this sentence with no comment: “Save yourselves from this crooked generation”! ENDNOTE: [45] G. Campbell Morgan, The Unfolding Message of the Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey.: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1961), p. 339 . Verse 41 They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.At the giving of the Law, three thousand souls broke the Law and died; on this occasion three thousand souls obeyed the gospel and were saved. Unto them … is usually written in italics to indicate that the words were supplied by the translators. From this some have concluded that these, along with the apostles and the one hundred twenty, were “added,” or aggregated to become the first body of Christians. Verse 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.The apostles’ teaching … As this church did, so should every church do, the apostles’ teaching being the only doctrinal authority in the Christian religion. This is limited, of course, to the teachings of the New Testament. And fellowship … Campbell rendered this “contribution,” stating that: The contribution of money for the wants of the brotherhood, appears to be its import in this passage as in Romans 15:16.[46]In the breaking of bread … Barnes thought that it was impossible to tell whether this has reference to “taking ordinary food, feasts of charity, or the Lord’s Supper”;[47] but Milligan, Boles and Campbell were certain that the reference is to the Lord’s Supper. Campbell supported his conclusion thus: The expression itself may designate an ordinary meal, as in Luke 24:35; but that here would be an unmeaning notice. There can be no doubt that the Eucharist at this period was preceded uniformly by a common repast, as when the ordinance was instituted. Most scholars hold that this was the prevailing usage in the first centuries after Christ; and we have traces of this practice in 1 Corinthians 11:20 ff, and in all probability in Acts 2:46.[48]The bread only being mentioned in this passage is held by the Roman Catholic Church to support their custom of distributing only the bread to their congregations, calling it “communion under one kind.” However, as the scholarly Hackett said: (this mention of the bread alone) “is obviously a case in which the leading act of a transaction gives name to the transaction itself."[49] The figure of speech thus used is synecdoche, and the Protestant world have little complaint against Catholics for missing the synecdoche here in view of the fact that they themselves have missed it so spectacularly in reading salvation by faith as salvation by “faith alone.” The errors are one and the same. And the prayers … Whereas in Judaism, prayers were offered at stated times of the day, the Christians offered prayers at any and all times, and in any and all places. [46] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 18. [47] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 64. [48] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 18. [49] As quoted by Campbell, ibid. Verse 43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.This verse is the proof of the deductions given earlier in this chapter to the effect that only the Twelve were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Here it is clear enough that the one hundred twenty were not able to do the wonders and signs which accompanied the Twelve, indicating most certainly that they, the one hundred twenty, were not included in the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the apostles received. Regarding what these signs were, conjecture is idle; however, it is reported later in Acts that Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:41). The signs here mentioned were of such a powerful and supernatural nature that fear came upon the whole community of Christians, and presumably upon many in Jerusalem besides these. Verse 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all as any man had need.This writer has seen Earl Browder’s greasy little tract in the Library of Congress in which he declared that “We communists are only doing the thing commanded in your Christian Scriptures, and which you do not have the guts to do!” He went on to quote the above verses. Even the Red Dean of Canterbury, only a few years ago, identified communism with this passage; and how about that? All right, HOW ABOUT IT? To begin with, there were certain unique conditions in that New Testament situation that are not matched in modern times anywhere at any time. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the New Testament experiment lasted but a short while, was not undertaken upon the basis of any command of Christ or the apostles, and that there was never any teaching whatever set up with a view for perpetuating what is in view here. Most importantly of all, the experiment failed, human nature proving then, as it ever has, an insurmountable obstacle forbidding the success of any such society. However, we shall waive all the differences just noted, for the sake of an objective contrast between the so-called “Christian communism,” as in Acts, and the organized ungodliness which today would be very pleased to identify itself with the sacred Scriptures. In the book of Acts, the disciples were all in the temple praising God; in communist camps, people are all together blaspheming God, denying Christ, and desecrating every holy thing. In the book of Acts, holy men gave into the treasury of a common fund. The collectivists known as communists rob, plunder, expropriate, and confiscate the goods of all men, doing so by violence and force. See any difference here? Christians, through love, parted their goods unto all men. Communists part all men from their goods. They are enlarging their horizons and are in the process of parting all nations from their goods, South Vietnam being the latest in a long bloody list. Christians enjoyed the fellowship of the saints from house to house. The communists spread terror from house to house, as their dreadful secret police move from house to house at night to plunder, to kill, to deport, to confiscate, and to murder. See any difference? Over the camp of the Christians is raised the banner of the cross of Christ, emblem of the world’s salvation; but over the camp of the communists flies the hammer and sickle, perverted variations of the sword and the club, the red banner of anti-religion, robbery, rape, and revolution. Christians give. Communists take. Christians love. Communists hate. Christians worship. Communists blaspheme. One of these societies is of God. The other is of Satan, of hell, and destruction. See any difference? Another notable difference in the Christian experiment with so-called communism and the collectivist madness of modern times is in the fact that the Christians individually retained the means of production. Dr. Kenneth H. Hunter, an outstanding economist of Washington, D.C., and former professor of economics in American University, said: The so-called communism in Acts, to the extent it might be called that, was a communism of distribution, not of production. The means of production were still owned and retained by the individual. In my opinion, there is no fallacy of modern collectivism that has deceived more people than the glib catch-phrase, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” The fallacy is that in the collectivist society, the individual has absolutely nothing whatever to say either about his ability or his need. All vital decisions are made for him by the Party through the endless inefficiency and red tape of its infinite bureaucracy. So much, then, for the so-called communism of Acts. It bears exactly the same relation to world communism of today that a collection plate bears to a gun in the hands of a robber. Verse 46 And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart.At home … indicates that there had been no abolition of private property, nor the removal of the means of production from the hands of individuals; and, therefore, what we behold in the preceding verses is not “communism” at all, but Christian generosity. There is no reference here to the Lord’s Supper. Verse 47 Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.Favor with all the people … As Plumptre said: The new life of the apostles, in part probably their liberal almsgiving, had revived the early popularity of their Master with the common people. The Sadducean priests were, probably, the only section that looked on them with malignant fear.[50]It is difficult to imagine a more significant chain of events than those related in this chapter, closing as it does, with this reference to a successful, ongoing church, faithful to God and to each other. It all began beautifully enough, but Satan would not long permit the spread of divine truth without opposition; and Luke quickly moved to relate developments which would disperse this happy church. ENDNOTE: [50] E. H. Plumptre, The Acts of Apostles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 15.

SECOND CHAPTER OF ACTS OUTLINEDby I.A. Douthitt Acts 2:1-47 Establishment of the Church in Jerusalem I. FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, Acts 2:1-4.1. Pentecost was on our Sunday. Leviticus 23:15-16. 2. Spirit had been promised, 1:48; Luke 24:49-53. 3. Apostles were waiting for the Spirit so they could begin their work. 4. The spirits of the apostles were baptized in the Spirit, Acts 1:5 Acts 2:5. 5. They now become witnesses for Jesus, Acts 2:18. II. THE EFFECT THIS HAD ON THE , Acts 2:5-13.1. Apostles were speaking in many languages. 2. The many nations were understanding them. 3. They were amazed, marveled, perplexed, confounded, and ask what it meant. 4. Mockers accused the apostles of drunkenness, Acts 2:13. III. PETER’S SERMON, Acts 2:14-40(I) PETER FIRST THE MIRACLE, Acts 2:14-21.

1. Peter denies the charge of drunkenness, Acts 2:15.
2. Peter answers the question of the crowd, Acts 2:16-20.
3. What it means to call on the name of the Lord, Acts 2:21; Acts 2:22:16; Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46.
4. Peter assures them that this is the work of God and not of men.
5. He now has them ready for the things he is going to tell them. (II) JESUS IS AS CHRIST AND LORD, Acts 2:22-36.
6. His resurrection declared, Acts 2:22-24. (1) Jesus was approved of God, Acts 2:22. (2) By mighty works, wonders and signs, Acts 2:22 cf. Hebrews 2:1-4. (3) This is the first public announcement of the risen and glorified Redeemer. (4) This crowd must have reeled and staggered under these heavy blows. (5) Review the charges made, Acts 2:22-24.
7. The resurrection of Christ was predicted by David, Acts 2:25-31. (1) They knew that Jesus had done miracles and that they had crucified him, Acts 2:22. (2) They didn’t know they were fulfilling prophecy and he was risen, Acts 2:25-28. (3) David had spoken of Christ, Acts 2:29-31 cf. Psalms 16:8-10. (4) Things have come just as David had predicted.
8. The twelve testify to the resurrection, Acts 2:32 cf. Acts 1:8.
9. Jesus exalted to the throne of God, Acts 2:33-35. (1) The apostles had seen him ascend, Acts 1:9-11; Luke 24:50-51. (2) Now this coming of the Holy Spirit assures them that he is exalted, Acts 2:33. (3) All knew that David had not been raised, Acts 2:34.
10. Then Jesus is the Christ, 36, and that proves his statement in verse Acts 2:24. (III) THE PEOPLE ARE TO SAVE , Acts 2:37-40.
11. They were affected by the word and not the H. S. Acts 2:37 cf. Romans 10:14-17.
12. They were cut to the heart by the word and now believe they murdered Christ.
13. They realize their guilty condition, Acts 2:37.
14. The Holy Spirit tells them what to do, Acts 2:38.
15. Blessings are promised if they will obey, Acts 2:38.
16. All people are included, Acts 2:39; Matthew 11:28-30 Matthew 28:20; Acts 10:34.
17. They are to save themselves by complying with these conditions, Acts 2:40.
18. Saved from the fate, destiny, end of that wicked generation, Acts 2:40. IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE SERMON AND THE OF THE CHURCH, Acts 2:41-47.
19. 3000 received the word, obeyed and were added, Acts 2:41.
20. Many pools of Jerusalem, upper Gihon Isaiah 316 by 218 feet, lower Gihon Isaiah 3 ^ acres.
21. Baptizing one per minute would take 4 hr. and 10 min. to baptize the 3000.
22. They were all baptized the day they believed.
23. Continued steadfastly, Acts 2:42.
24. All had fear or reverence, Acts 2:43.
25. All were together and liberal, Acts 2:44-45.
26. All were thankful, Acts 2:46.
27. Church grew daily, Acts 2:47; only the saved were added, Mark 16:16.
28. This church was popular, had favor of all, Acts 2:47. V. REVIEW PETER’S SERMON FOR IT IS A MODEL OUTLINE.1. Jesus was approved of God.
29. You people know he was approved too.
30. He was delivered according to the foreknowledge of God.
31. You people crucified him and God raised him up and made him Christ and King.
32. He told the people what to do to be saved.
33. Wonderful results followed such plain preaching.
34. Isn’t it strange that every person there did not obey the gospel that day? VI. SOME THINGS WHICH BEGAN AT .1. The New Covenant, Hebrews 8:8 Hebrews 9:15-17.
35. Preaching of repentance in the name of Christ, Luke 24:49.
36. Baptism in the name of Christ, Acts 2:38.
37. Remission of sins in the name of Christ, Luke 24:49.
38. Gospel of Christ in completeness, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
39. Work of the Holy Spirit thru the apostles, Jno. 16:13.
40. Blood-bought commission, Matthew 28:19-20.
41. The work of the ambassadors of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:20.
42. The additions to the church of the New Testament, Acts 2:41.
43. The reigning of Christ on David’s throne, Acts 2:30.
44. The regeneration spoken of in Matthew 19:28.
45. The reign of the apostles on twelve thrones, Luke 22:30.
46. The fulfillment of the prophecies of Isa 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-3; Joe 2:28-32.
47. Use of the keys of the kingdom of heaven by the apostles, Matthew 16:19 Matthew 18:18.
48. The philanthropic and redemptive work of the church of Christ, Acts 20:28.
49. The kingdom that Christ will deliver up to the father at the end, 1 Corinthians 15:24.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts 21. What day has now finally come? 2. Who are the antecedents of “they” in 1st verse? 3. What is said of their situation now ? 4. Tell what came. 5. From where did it come? 6. How did it come? 7. Unto what was it likened? 8. What filled the house? 9. Find the antecedent of “they” in verse two. 10. And the one for “ them” verse three. 11. What appeared at this time? 12. To what were they likened? 13. Upon how many did they sit? 14. Cite antecedents of “ they” and “ them” verse four. 15. Did the fire fill them? 16. With what did they speak? 17. What enabled them to do this? 18. With what is “ other” contrasted in verse four? 19. What kind of men were in Jerusalem now? 20. From what nations had they come? 21. Why were they there at this time? 22. Were they present when the sound came from heaven? 23. Tell what called them together. 24. And what confounded them? 25. Show the antecedent of “ them” verse six. 26. And that for “ his” verse six. 27. Show that for “ they” verse seven. 28. And of “ these” in seventh verse. 29. Why would being Galileans increase the mystery? 30. Were these the acquired tongues of the visitors? 31. How many tongues were spoken at this time? 32. State the subject matter of the tongues. 33. How did the demonstration affect the audience? 34. State the accusation made against the apostles. 35. What shows this was spoken in irony? 36. Who was the next spokesman? 37. With how many did he stand up? 38. Who would be required to make this number? 39. Name the antecedent of “ his” and “ my” verse 14. 40. Would this indicate the others spoke? 41. To whom did the speaker address himself? 42. Designate antecedent of “ these” verse 15. 43. Why 3rd hour account for their not being drunk? 44. Who was Joel? 45. When was this prophecy to be fulfilled ? 46. In “ last days” of what dispensation? 47. Whom does “ all flesh” include? 48. Did Peter understand this idea at this time? 49. Was all this prophecy fulfilled on this day? 50. When was verse 20 fulfilled? 51. Who shall be saved ? 52. What person was introduced by the speaker ? 53. Of whom had he been approved? 54. By what had he been approved ? 55. Who are antecedents of “ you” verse 22 ? 56. From where had they come? 57. Where had Jesus performed his works ? 58. Then how could it be among these people ? 59. By what was Jesus delivered ? 60. To whom was he delivered ? 61. Then how could “ ye” have crucified him? 62. What had God done for Jesus? 63. Why was it not possible for death to hold him ? 64. Locate the prophecy quoted from David. 65. Whose soul is meant in 27th verse ? 66. Into what hell had it been sent? 67. What was not to see corruption? 68. To what fact did this prophecy refer? 69. What did Peter say of David’ s sepulchre ? 70. How did this fact affect this prophecy ? 71. In what was Jesus related to David ? 72. What place of David’ s was Jesus to occupy ? 73. What must he accomplish in order to do this ? 74. To what fact were the apostles witnesses ? 75. By what had Jesus been exalted? 76. To what place had he been exalted? 77. What had been promised to Jesus? 78. Had this promise been passed on to the apostles 79. What had been shed forth ? 80. By which of their senses did they perceive it ? 81. Who had not ascended into the heavens? 82. But who had ? 83. State the conclusion from these two circumstance 84. Identify the two “ Lords” in verse 34. 85. When will verse 35 be accomplished? 86. State the conclusion of Peter’ s discourse. 87. Why both Lord and Christ? 88. State the effect it had on the hearers. 89. To whom did they address themselves? 90. Why to them, seeing Peter alone spoke? 91. What was their question? 92. From which speaker did they get their answer? 93. What did he tell them first to do ? 94. Why not tell them to believe on Christ? 95. How many of them were commanded? 96. Upon what authority was this command? 97. Into what result would it bring them? 98. What further gift was promised ? 99. To whom was “ the promise” made? 100. Locate this promise in the Old Testament. 101. Who are meant by the ones “ afar off” ? 102. Did Peter understand this at this time? 103. By what means would the Lord God call them? 104. What did Peter exhort them to do? 105. How can a sinner save himself? 106. What class was baptized? 107. How many were added that day? 108. To what degree did they continue? 109. What difference between apostles’ doctrine and teaching? 110. Give the meaning of fellowship. . 111. To what does breaking bread refer? 112. What came upon every one? 113. Did this mean that they were frightened? 114. What was performed by the apostles? 115. Explain expression “ had all things common.” 116. Had this been commanded? 117. On what ground was distribution made? 118. Where did they continually assemble? 119. Why at this place? 120. To what does “ breaking bread” verse 46 refer? 121. How did it all affect the people? 122. Who were added to the church? 123. Who did the adding? 124. Of what institution is this chapter the beginning? 125. What law was put in force here ?

Acts 2:1

1 Pentecost is from PENTE-KOSTE, which Thayer describes as follows: “Properly the fiftieth day after the Passover, the second of the three great Jewish festivals; celebrated at Jerusalem yearly, the seventh week after the Passover, in grateful recognition of the completed harvest.” Being a Greek word, it is not found in the Old Testament, but the feast is referred to in other terms. It is called “feast of harvests” in Exodus 23:16; “new meat offering” in Leviticus 23:16; “feast of weeks” in Deuteronomy 16:10. Fully does not have any original as a separate word, but fully come is from the one Greek word , and one phrase in Thayer’s definition is, “be fulfilled.” After the Passover observance, with the 7-day period of unleavened bread immediately following, the next great event with the Jews was Pentecost. During that space of fifty days, the devoted people of Israel were waiting and looking forward to this feast that was observed for one day only. The phrase fully come, then, merely means that the waiting days were over and the important day at last had come. They is a pronoun that stands for the “apostles,” the last word of the preceding chapter.

These men had two reasons for being in Jerusalem at this time. They were Jews who were loyal toward the institutions of the law, and more important, they had been commanded to tarry in that city while waiting for the Holy Spirit or “power from on high” (Luke 24:49). All with one accord includes Matthias, the apostle newly ordained, which gives us the significant information that the entire group of apostles was of one mind.

Acts 2:2

2 The sound was what filled all the house; not the wind nor the Spirit. The sound came from heaven or the region of the atmosphere, since that is the place where winds originate, being the movements of the air.

Acts 2:3

3 There appeared unto them, the apostles, these tongues, for none but they had been promised the “power from on high” on this occasion. Cloven is from a Greek word that has been translated by such terms as “parted, disparted, distributed, separated,” etc. The significance was that the apostles were to speak in various tongues or languages. That was not only for use on this occasion, but they were expected to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,” and to do that it would be necessary for them to be able to speak several hundred languages. These cloven tongues were like fire, but it does not say they were fire. They sat upon each of the apostles, indicating that each apostle would be able to speak in as many kinds of tongues as occasion required when he got out into the world.

Acts 2:4

4 It was the house that was filled with the sound, but it was they, the apostles, who were filled with the Holy Ghost. This enabled them, each of them, to speak with other tongues. This refutes the theory that the Lord assigned to each apostle the ability to speak with some specific foreign tongue, giving him the task of speaking to some of the foreigners present. That will not do anyway, for there were fifteen or more tongues represented at Jerusalem, but there were only twelve apostles, and hence there would not have been enough speakers to go round on that plan.

Acts 2:5

5 These Jews were dwelling at Jerusalem temporarily only. They had come there to attend the feast of Pentecost as required by the law of Moses.

Acts 2:6

6 When this was noised abroad. I believe the pronoun “this” refers to the circumstance as a whole, not merely to the “sound,” for the text states only that it “filled the house,” not the whole vicinity. But such a performance as happened on that occasion could not but be reported by those nearest the scene, and that would bring the multitude to the place to see “what it was all about” When they got to the place they were con founded, which means they were confused or amazed, to discover that these men could all so speak that each of them in the multitude could understand the speakers, although no two of them spoke the same tongue, whenever they used that of the country where they were born.

Acts 2:7

7 Are not all these which speak Galileans? It is true that Galilee and its people did not have a very exalted place in the estimation of many in the time of Christ and the apostles. However, that was not the reason the multitude made the remark here. It was in reference to the fact that all of these spokesmen were of that group and generally spoke in a tongue peculiar to themselves. (See Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59.) But here they were departing from their own native speech, and using those of the Jews from other, countries all over the world “under heaven.”

Acts 2:8

8 Wherein we were born denotes the language peculiar to the country where they were born and where they had acquired the individual speech.

Acts 2:9-10

0 This paragraph with a part of the next, names the various countries from where these Jews had come to be present at the feast of Pentecost. The number of the different places has been given a variety of counts, ranging from 15 to 17, depending on how technically the distinctions are made. The information as to their location is a matter of simple history or geography, and I do not think that space needs to be used here for that purpose.

Acts 2:11

1 The pronouns we and our refer to the people from the several countries named; them means the apostles. Tongues being plural is significant, and denotes that the apostles were speaking in more than one tongue. All of this was done for the purpose of demonstrating the miraculous power and divine authority being vested in the apostles, and not with the intention of imparting any doctrinal information to the multitude. That was to come later, after the attention or interest had been sufficiently fixed for them to listen thoughtfully. Wonderful works as a phrase comes from the Greek word , and Thayer’s definition is, “magnificent, excellent, splendid, wonderful.” It does not mean “works” as some physical or material deeds, but that God’s ability to enable these apostles to speak in this extraordinary manner was wonderful.

Acts 2:12

2 Doubt is from which Thayer defines, “To be entirely at a loss, to be in perplexity.” Some of the multitude had a respectful attitude toward the situation, but were perplexed over it and honestly wondered what it all meant.

Acts 2:13

3 Mocking means to sneer or make fun, which was done by a different part of the people than the ones who were honestly and respectfully perplexed. New wine is from the one Greek word GLEUKOS, and Thayer defines it, “sweet wine,” and he explains the definition to mean, “The sweet juice pressed from the grape.” I have consulted seven other lexicons, and they all agree with Thayer on the meaning of the word. If that be true, then the question would arise, how could the apostles be drunk on such an article? They could not, but it was an indirect and cowardly way these scoffers took of accusing the apostles of being drunk. And Peter took it to mean that, for in his reply he did not deny the accusation on the ground that new wine would not make anyone drunk; he knew they were insincere in the foolish charge.

Acts 2:14

4 Peter, standing up with the eleven. The apostles all stood up as a token that what Peter was about to say would be the word of all the apostles. They did not all speak at this time, for that would have been disorderly. Besides, the miraculous demonstrations had all been done as far as was necessary for the purpose of evidence. There will not be any further miracle performed except that of inspiration, to enable Peter to preach the Gospel with unerring accuracy and authority. We are not told Just what language he used, but we know it was one that the entire multitude could understand.

Verse 7 tells us the multitude (assembled from 15 or 17 countries), said one to another, etc. This shows they knew some kind of tongue that was common to all of them, else they could not have conversed with each other. Whatever that tongue was, it doubtless was the one the apostle used. Having stood up for a more effective way of addressing that vast throng, Peter urged them to give serious attention to his words.

Acts 2:15

5 These are not drunken. The unkind critics had only accused the apostles of being full of new wine, but Peter knew they were wanting to besmirch them with the charge of drunkenness, and hence he treated their remark from that viewpoint only. The third hour is the same as our 9 A. M. Isaiah 5:11 indicates that it was not the common practice to begin drinking in the early part of the day. Those people who arose early in the morning for that purpose were of a class that the prophet was condemning. Peter meant that it was too early in the day for these apostles to have become drunken, even if they had been using fermented wine, as that is a slow intoxicant anyway. And that would be especially true of these men who had been in the assembled condition all day, due to the sacredness of the occasion.

Acts 2:16

6 The passage to which Peter refers and quotes is in Joe 2:28-32. The pronoun this refers to the entire line of events that was predicted by the prophet, and that had just started with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. Having made the reference to Joel’s prediction, Peter goes ahead and quotes the entire passage, although some of the things will not take place on the day of Pentecost. The things predicted were to begin their fulfillment at that time, and others were to come at the proper time later, which will be explained as the commenting on the verses proceeds.

Acts 2:17-18

8 Last days means the closing days of the Jewish Dispensation. That era was still in force until the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, and Peter then introduced the Gospel of Christ and the church was set up. Upon all flesh indicated that the Gospel was to be given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. That was one of the things that Joel saw in the over-all vision that was to start on this day of Pentecost. But that item did not come until the conversion of Cornelius in chapter 10. Sons and daugh- ters shall prophesy was another item that came later, but it was actually fulfilled according to chapter 21:9.

Acts 2:19-20

0 This paragraph refers to the events recorded in Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44-45. Of course no literal changing into blood and smoke took place, but the conditions were such that the terms were a fitting illustration. Before is used as if it said, “just before,” or “only a short while before.” The darkness that came as Jesus was on the cross came only 50 days before the day of Pentecost. In a period of time spread out over as large a scale as several centuries, a space of 60 days would be virtually the same date for each of the events predicted. The circumstance is mentioned by way of identifying the noted prediction. Such an event as the failing of sunshine in the middle of a day, that happened as Jesus was on the cross, had never occurred before.

And when it did come so short a time before the day on which the Holy Spirit came down, the people would easily associate the two events as parts of the same prediction. Another thing to consider, the time of the Passover (which was also that of the crucifixion) was so near the feast of Pentecost that many pious Jews just “remained over,” hence among those on this great day now at hand, were many who had personally seen that darkening of the sun, which would help to verify the prediction.

Acts 2:21

1 Call is from , and Thayer defines it at this place, “To call upon (on one’s behalf) the name of the Lord, i. e., to invoke, adore, worship, the Lord, i, e., Christ.” It is the same Greek word for “calling” in chapter 22:16, where the context shows that calling on the name of the Lord for salvation means to obey His commands.

Acts 2:22

2 Having quoted in full the prophecy of Joel, Peter proceeded to recite the story of Jesus, describing briefly the outstanding deeds of his life, which he will do through several verses, bringing the narrative down to His death and resurrection, and even to the very hour then at hand. He asserted that men were not asked to receive Christ merely on the claims of God, but that He had testified to his Son’s divinity by enabling him to perform wonders and signs. The apostle further reminded them that they knew about these things, and they never disputed it as we shall find. And the fact that Peter accused this very crowd of guilt in the crucifying of Jesus, verifies my remarks on verses 19, 20. that many of these people had been in Jerusalem at the time when Jesus was on the cross and the sun was darkened for three hours.

Acts 2:23

3 Determinate counsel. It was determined by the Lord God that his Son should die by violence, and it was also foretold through the foreknowledge of God. (See Luke 22:22; Revelation 13:8.) Had it not been the will of God that Jesus should be delivered into the hands of wicked men, they never could have taken and killed him. (See Matthew 26:53-54.) But this determination of God did not excuse the wicked Jews, for their motive was an unrighteous one. Ye have taken was what the Jews did by their perverted Sanhedrin, and by wicked hands means those of the Roman soldiers, because the Jews could not legally put a man to death.

Acts 2:24

4 Loosed the pains of death. Death does not bring any pain afterward to a righteous man. The statement means that God released his Son who had been bound in a death that had been accompanied by pain. Not possible. The impossibility was on the part of the bondage of death, not God, for he determined his Son should rise again.

Acts 2:25

5 David speaketh concern, ing him means that David made a prophecy concerning Christ. (See Psalms 16:8-11.) In this passage David represents Christ as saying the things that are set down in this verse through 28. In these verses all of the pronouns of the first person refer to Christ, while the second and third person pronouns mean God. The present verse expresses the confidence of Christ that God would always be at hand to support and comfort him.

Acts 2:26

6 Christ rejoiced because of a hope he had concerning his fleshly body. He knew that he must die, and that his fleshly body would be without its soul for a time. The usual result of such a separation of soul and body is for the latter to decay. Jesus not only had hope that involved his soul (inner .man), but also one that was favorable for his fleshly body. That twofold hope will be revealed in the next verse.

Acts 2:27

7 When a man dies, his soul (inner man) goes to the unseen or intermediate realm, called Hades in the Greek New Testament, which is rendered “hell” by the King James translators. His body remains on the earth, and after three days it will begin to decompose or see corruption. This fact explains the words of Martha in John 11:39. But this noted passage means that the soul of Jesus was not to remain in hell (Hades) long enough for his body that had been placed in the tomb of Joseph to start decaying. That was why it was neces sary for Jesus to be raised from the dead after three days.

Acts 2:28

8 Hast made known is past tense as to grammatical form, but it is a prediction that God would fully reveal to his Son the ways of life, or plan of salvation through his own blood. This assurance filled Jesus with joy because of the agreeable countenance or face of his Father.

Acts 2:29

9 The listeners might not understand the form of language where one writer would speak as it meaning himself, but was really talking for another. To show them that David was not writing about himself personally, Peter reminded them that he had been dead all these years, because his tomb (still occupied) was yet with them, whereas his prediction concerned a person who was to leave his grave after three days.

Acts 2:30

0 Having explained that David was not writing about himself, Peter thought it well to account for his statements. They showed that he was personally interested in Christ because he was to be his (David’s) own famous descendant. The most significant item was that this descendant was some day to sit upon the throne (of course in a spiritual sense) left vacant by the change in dispensations.

Acts 2:31

1 To do as just predicted. it would be necessary for him to come forth from the grave so that he could establish that throne. “Being a prophet,” it was possible for David to make the prediction of the resurrection.

Acts 2:32

2 We means the apostles who had seen Jesus after his resurrection.

Acts 2:33

3 After all these verses from 16, Peter comes directly again to the purpose of his speech; to explain the meaning of what the multitude had seen and heard. That it was according to a promise that the Holy Ghost was to be shed forth upon the apostles.

Acts 2:34-35

5 Coming back to David, Peter reminds them again that the prophet had not ascended to heaven and was therefore not at God’s right hand. That would explain that another noted prophecy could not have meant him (David), for it says that the Lord (who was Christ) was to sit on the right hand of God, until he (Christ) had become a universal con-querer. This prediction is in Psalms 110:1.

Acts 2:36

6 Peter laid the foundation consisting of prophecy and its fulfillment, citing facts that could not be doubted nor disputed. Upon that foundation he declared that Jesus, the very one they had crucified, had been made by the God of Heaven, both Lord and Christ. The first word means a ruler, and the second denotes one who is anointed. The sentence means that God had anointed his Son to be the ruler of His people.

Acts 2:37

7 Pricked is from KATA-NUSSO which Thayer defines, “To pain the mind sharply, agitate it vehemently.” They were pained because they were convinced they had killed the very One whom God ordained to be the Saviour of the world. That fact also meant to them that some great condemnation was in store for them unless something could be done about it. In their grief and feeling of guilt, the only thing they could say was to ask the apostles what they should do.

Acts 2:38

8 This verse has two distinct parts; command and promise. The command would have to be obeyed at once in order to obtain the desired result, while the promise would be carried out according to the Lord’s own plan, to be observed as we consider the conditions connected therewith. Repent means to turn from a sinful course and choose a righteous one. Be baptized means to be buried in water, the details of which will be discussed at Acts 8:38. For is from EIS, which means In order to, or into, the remission of sins. The gift of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) was the promise, and it meant that the Holy Ghost was to be given, not that it was to give something to anyone, for it is in no place spoken of as a giver. Besides, in Acts 10:44-45, the terms “Holy Ghost” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost” are used in the same sense, proving that the promise that Peter meant in this verse was the Holy Ghost was to be given. The inevitable question that comes up, is what was this gift or when was it to be given? This verse does not answer that question, hence we must look elsewhere for the answer. Acts 19:2 shows that men did not receive this Holy Ghost simultaneously with repentance and baptism, else Paul would not have asked the question he did, for he thought he was talking to people who had been baptized with “Christian baptism.” The information we are seeking may be found in Acts 8:14-17.

The people of Samaria had been baptized just as Peter commanded, yet they had not received the Holy Ghost until the apostles came and laid hands on them. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable, that when Peter made the promise in Acts 2:38, he meant that if they would repent and be baptized, they would be entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost whenever an apostle laid hands on them.

Acts 2:39

9 The promise that is meant may be learned from the companion passage in chapter 3:25, where Peter is speaking on the same subject, but where he calls it “the covenant.” It was first made to Abraham (Genesis 12:3), and concerned both Jews and Gentiles. That is why our present verse says it is to all that are afar off. That same phrase is used in Ephestans 2:17, where the context plainly indicates that it means the Gentiles. The promise was that both Jew and Gentile were to be offered the blessing of salvation through Christ, who was the promised descendant of Abraham.

Acts 2:40

0 To exhort means to insist on doing one’s known duty. Peter had clearly shown the Jews their duty, then it was fitting that he should exhort them to do it Save yourselves means for them to do their part in their salvation by performing the duty mentioned in verse 38. Untoward is from SKOLIOS which is defined, “perverse, wicked.” To save themselves from that wicked generation, means to escape the fate awaiting it, by obeying the commands the apostle had just given.

Acts 2:41

1They that gladly received his word were baptized. This is a very significant statement. Baptism, like all other commandments from the Lord, must be acts of faith in order to benefit one. And when a man has been convinced of the truth, and has been shown his duty as set forth in that truth, he will obey it without hesitation or question. As we proceed in the study of this book, it will frequently be observed that the act of baptism followed the belief of a sinner, and it will be stated in a manner that implies it to be a matter-of-course that if he believes the word he will obey. Unto them is not in the original but is supplied by the translators.

However, the last verse of the chapter furnishes information that people who were saved (by obedience to the Gospel) were added to the church. We do not know how many of the three thousand were baptized on that day, since the text does not deal with that question. But we may properly conclude that ere the day was gone, the “membership” of the newly-founded church had come to be that numerous. And then, as the days passed by, whenever a person obeyed the Gospel, the Lord added him to the church.

Acts 2:42

2 They means the three thousand (and all others daily being saved). Continued steadfastly. Both words come from the Greek word PROS-, which Thayer defines, “to give constant attention to a thing.” That explains how some of the items of the verse could be observed as the Lord expected, even though the nature of them required only that they be done periodically. One such item is the breaking of bread, which we know was to be done only on the first day of the week (chapter 20:7). This verse is a historical statement of the general practice of the early disciples, and not a set form or order of worship for the public assembly. Besides, some of the items are too individual in their character to be restricted to the public assembly.

Apostles’ doctrine means the teaching of the apostles. In all of their religious activities, whether private or public, they were guided by the teaching that the inspired apostles had given and were giving them. Fellowship is from , which is defined in Thayer’s lexicon, “The share which one has in anything, participation.” That would include financial contribution, but does not apply to that item exclusively. And of course all true disciples would make their entire life a matter of prayer, in recognition of the need for divine guidance, and as expressions of their love for and devotion to the Lord.

Acts 2:43

3 This fear was not one of terror, but rather a feeling of profound awe settled upon the vast throng who had seen and heard such great things. They had witnessed the demonstrations that followed the descent of the Holy Spirit. They had also been brought to see the light of divine truth, and made to rejoice in the pardon of their sins. The wonders and signs were done by the apostles, not by the ones who had been baptized that day. This is another proof that they did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost at the time of their bap tism, for if they had they would have been able to perform signs and wonders (chapter 10:45, 46; 19:6).

Acts 2:44

4 Common is from KOINOS, and Thayer defines it at this place with the one word that is used in the text. He then explains it, to mean, “belonging to several.” Robinson defines it, “common, shared alike by all.” This will be more specifically brought out in the next verse.

Acts 2:45

5 Possessions is from KTEMA, and Robinson defines it, “a possession, property, estate,” which agrees with the definition of Thayer. Goods is from a Greek word that has a more general meaning. But since the first word in the passage is shown to apply specifically to real estate, we know the second refers to their personal belongings. Many of these disciples had come from far countries to attend the feast of Pentecost. They had not intended remaining at Jerusalem so long, consequently had not made preparation for such a prolonged stay. In their newfound joy they were loath to leave the community.

This induced the resident disciples to create this common fund by turning all their property into money and placing it in one pool, to be drawn from according to the needs of the various members. It should be remembered that no apostle instructed the disciples to start this movement, but it was purely a voluntary action upon the part of the disciples. The Bible in no place teaches or encourages the practice of communism or socialism. On the contrary, it teaches the principle of individual holding of property, granted and guaranteed by the law of the land, with the result that as long as the world stands there will be men who have titles to property, and those who have not; there will be rich and will also be poor people. (See Genesis 23:17-20; Matthew 26:11; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Galations 2:10; James 2:1-5; James 4:13-14.) This arrangement of the community of goods was not instituted in any city outside of Jerusalem that we know of. It was not a divine system, and finally got some people into serious trouble as we shall see in a later chapter.

Acts 2:46

6 Continuing is from the same word as continued steadfastly in verse 42, and has the same definition in each passage. The continuing was done daily, hence we know the breaking bread was not the Lord’s Supper, for that was done only on the first day of the week (chapter 20:7); it referred to partaking of food for material purposes in this passage. It was a season of general visiting and social happy times together as brothers and sisters in Christ. Did eat their meat means they partook of their food. Singleness of heart means with humbleness and sincerity.

Acts 2:47

Like figure. The only comparison the apostle makes is between the water of the flood and that of baptism. No writer in the New Testament ever refers to the ark as a type of the church. The fact that Peter does specify the one item and call it a figure, but makes no mention of any other comparison shows it was not because he was so far away from the subject. There are too many items that are against the theory. The people are said to have been saved by water, yet that element came after the people entered the ark, while baptism is necessary before people can enter the church.

Again, there were unclean beasts taken into the ark, while only those who are saved or clean are added to the church (Acts 2:47). Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. This statement indicates that baptism is a washing of the whole body. No one would have formed the erroneous idea that baptism was intended as a cleaning bath for the body had the rite been performed by sprinkling, for all would know that such an act would not cleanse anything. The explanation is suggested by the practice in Old Testament times of washing the bodies of animal sacrifices in water. Answer is from and Thayer defines it at this place as folio s: “A demand; earnest seeking, i.e. a craving, an intense desire, to long for something.” That which is desired is a good conscience toward God.

When a sinner is taught that he must be baptized for the remission of sin, and he has the desire to do right, he will not have a good conscience until he obeys this command. The above explanation is inserted to avoid an erroneous idea about baptism, after which the writer resumes the subject of salvation by baptism. The information is added that the salvation is accomplished by the resurrestion of Jesus Christ. Had He not come from the dead it would not have availed anything for a man to be baptized.