Josh Pratt NT Readings: Acts Dr. Garland Questions and Insights 1:1-2 Luke is making clear that this is the 2nd volume of his works, the first being his gospel. Use of "about all that Jesus began to do and teach" may point to the fact that it doesn't contain specifically everything that was done, but it is mainly about what he did and taught. What is the significance of "by the Holy Spirit" when Jesus gave orders to the apostles? Could we understand this text differently without that addition? o Luke did not write this because the Son of God needed guidance - he is eternal wisdom - but because he was also a man. Luke expressly calls us back to the authority of God just in case anyone should think that Christ taught his disciples using human reasoning. 1 1:3 Adds a focal point to the suffering of Jesus. Why did Luke not give any detail on these "convincing proofs"? o So that we might not doubt the resurrection, Luke says that it was proved by many signs. He does not enumerate these proofs, but only writes that Christ appeared frequently over a period of about six weeks. If he had appeared only once, the disciples might have been somewhat suspicious. By showing himself so many times, he dispelled all possible doubt. 2 Sums up Jesus teaching as "concerning the kingdom of God". 1:4 Why was it important to not leave Jerusalem? o They were told to wait in Jerusalem because of the historical and theological significance of that city in God s dealings with Israel. Jerusalem was especially associated with the promise of God to rule over his people and bless them through the kings of David s line. 3 Is "which you heard from me" referring to his promise of the Holy Spirit? 1:5 Why 2 baptisms? Holy Spirit baptism without water in addition to water baptism? Is this baptism by the Holy Spirit referenced anywhere else in the NT? I don't hear this practice or concept in church. Was this a one-time-only thing? o Later recollection of this promise in connection with the giving of the Spirit to the Gentiles, and a further distinction between John s water baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, Imply that the terminology of baptism in the 1 John Calvin, Acts. Edited by McGrath Alister and Packer J. I. The Crossway Classic Commentaries. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1995), 13. 2 Calvin, Acts, 13. 3 David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009), 107. 1
Spirit relates to a process in which the Spirit progressively passes to new groups. 4 o Interestingly, Calvin claims, Every day Christ baptizes those his Father has chosen. 5 This is an interesting idea that I have not heard before. His insights in this section on verse 5 are insightful. 1:6 They had a high anticipation for a fully restored kingdom on Earth, so it is a good question, as evidenced by Luke's inclusion of it here. And, being placed right at the beginning of Acts, this may be setting up the main point of the rest of the book. o Stott states that the disciples had doctrinal confusion about the kingdom of God and he elaborates with, For the verb restore shows that they were expecting a political and territorial kingdom; the noun Israel that they were expecting a national kingdom; and the adverbial clause at this time that they were expecting its immediate establishment. Stott goes on to explain the kingdom of God under three different headings, The kingdom of God is spiritual in its character, The kingdom of God is international in its membership, and The kingdom of God is gradual in its expansion. 6 1:7 Jesus seems to not answer the question. There has been a "fixing" of a specific time. God's sovereignty is shown here. Jesus doesn't say "yes" or "no" to the question, important for understanding the answer. 1:8 Focuses instead on Holy Spirit and bearing witness globally. Starts in Jerusalem, works outwards. 1:9 1:8 was final departing words. Sometimes parting words can have special significance. Must have been quite a sight. What were they thinking? 1:10 Gazing intently - Who wouldn't be! Why "men" and not angels or something? o Luke calls them men because of their appearance. Although they may have had men s bodies - I will not argue about this - it is certain that they were not men. 7 White clothing evidence of being an angel? 1:11 They "also" said. Did they say other things as well that Luke did not record? They ask a very obvious question. Are they truly surprised? 4 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 108. 5 Calvin, Acts, 15. 6 John R. W. Stott, The Message Of Acts. The Bible Speaks Today. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter- Varsity Press, 1990), 41-45. 7 Calvin, Acts, 19. 2
o Peterson believes that such gazing into heaven was inappropriate because of Jesus instructions and his promise about the spirit. 8 o Calvin would not agree with Peterson, as he states I do not agree with those who think the two men addressed the disciples in a contemptuous way. I think they began like this to make the disciples pay greater attention - men whom the disciples had never seen spoke as though they knew them perfectly well. But the men do seem to find fault with the disciples unfairly, just looking into the sky. 9 How can we know their promise is authoritative? Do they literally mean he will descend from a cloud? 1:12 Weren't they already in Jerusalem? Jesus told them not to leave. 1:13 Clarifying who was in the group. 1:14 Why "one mind"? What does that really mean? How much is "continually"? What sorts of things did they pray? Significance of brothers being there? Didn't they not believe? On prayer, Peterson observes, it is striking that at almost every important turning point in the narrative of God s redemptive action in Acts we find mention of prayer. 10 1:15 120 in the upper room? Who were all the others? o Stott, using Howard Marshall s work, states Professor Howard Marshall suggests that the reason why the number mentioned is that in Jewish law a minimum of 120 Jewish men was required to establish a community with its own council ; so already the disciples were numerous enough to form a new community. 11 Peter, the natural leader of the group? "At this time" is kind of vague? When was it? 1:16 "Had to be" - no other option. Holy Spirit had a role well before Jesus. Judas was the guide. Look up to what David said. o Interestingly, Luke does not provide a quote to back this up. *Beale and Carson suggest that there are two options here: The first is that Peter is referring to a passage that foretold that Judas would betray Jesus, but that it is not actually cited here. Some commentators refer to Ps. 41:9. However, there is no indication of such an allusion here, and there are no verbal contacts; moreover, the specific reference to David as the speaker 8 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 115. 9 Calvin, Acts, 19. 10 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 118. 11 Stott, The Message Of Acts, 52. 3
makes it rather unlikely that Luke would not have included the actual citation. 12 o The second possibility, then, is preferable: Peter is looking forward to the citations that he will make in 1:20 (the gap between vv. 16 and 20 is lessened if vv. 18-19 are treated as a parenthesis inserted by the narrator in Peter s statement). What Peter is saying is that the commands in the psalms have to be carried out by the church so that the Scriptures are fulfilled. 13 1:17 What does "received his share of the ministry" mean? "for" - reason for 1:16? Seems odd. 1:18 When did this happen? Though fulfilling scripture, which "had" to be done, he was considered wicked. Why the gory detail? What does "fall headlong" mean? 1:19 News spread fast and wide. To "all" in Jerusalem. Did all know that it was he that turned Jesus in? What did they think about that if they connected the dots? Did people fear that land? 1:20 Look up references. 1:21 "necessary", "all the time" - Importance of a full eye witness of all of it. Shows that beyond the 12 disciples, others followed all or most of the time. 1:22 Clarifies time of requirement. Focal point on witness is the resurrection. 1:23 Did only 2 qualify? Or if more, how were the 2 chosen? Who is "they"? The apostles or the other people? 1:24 Shows importance on the heart, and God's knowledge of it. Reliance on God to choose the right man. "have" chosen. Choice was already made. 1:25 Distinction between ministry and apostleship. Interesting description of Judas - "his own place". 1:26 Lots - a common practice. Importance of filling the role. 12 needed. 12 I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 529. 13 Marshall, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 529. 4
Text in Context The book of Acts is a continued work from Luke - a second volume in a two-part series. This is made clear in the first verse of the book where Luke refers to his gospel, * This first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. I believe it is important to note here that there will be important teachings in Luke s gospel that will be assumed (already covered), thus not needed to be explained or covered in Acts. Luke s purpose of writing his gospel is explained in Luke 1:1-4 where at the end he states, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. I believe this purpose is unquestionable carried over to the book of Acts. If his purpose had changed, I think he would have made mention of it. brings us to a time approximately six weeks after the death and resurrection of Jesus (and the end of Luke s gospel), where Jesus has been appearing to the disciples and teaching them about the kingdom of God. The first interaction we have is a brief parting conversation between Jesus and the disciples before he ascends into heaven. The focal point here is on the gathering of the disciples as they obey what they ve been commanded by Jesus and wait together in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit. Structure of the Passage 1. Recognition of first account (Luke) 1.1. Timing of account 2. Immediate shift to new account 2.1. Jesus resurrected ministry 2.1.1. Focus on the kingdom of God 2.1.2. Rewording command of the Great Commission 3. Ascension of Jesus 3.1. Conversation with two angels 3.2. Promise of Jesus return 4. Return to Jerusalem 5. Gathering in the Upper Room 5.1. Waiting and Prayer 5.2. Exhortation from Peter 5.2.1. Scripture fulfilled by Judas 5.2.2. Need for replacement 5.2.2.1. Requirements given 5.2.2.2. Lots drawn for replacement 5.2.2.3. Matthias added to the twelve 5
Interpretive Insights Is The Practice of Casting Lots Still Relevant? The practice of casting lots was a way of determining the selection or outcome of something. It is similar, in a sense, to flipping a coin (though a coin is limited to only one of two possible outcomes). The casting of lots shows up 70 times in the Old Testament, and 7 in the New Testament. It is used in different ways at times with some uses being a way to divide things or determine duties, a way to determine who is at fault, or a way to determine the choice of God. As an example, let s take a look at :24-26 where Peter is leading the exhortation and requirements for the replacement of Judas: And they prayed and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. It is clear that Peter s understanding of the drawing of lots here is that it is ultimately a tool to know the decision of God directly for who should take Judas place. Their understanding, due to the how the lots fell, was that God chose Matthias. Is this how God wants us to operate for decisions? What this just a special circumstance? Were the disciples disappointing God by using lots to make the decision? As far as I am aware, the New Testament does not specifically instruct us to use lots. Some people think interpret this to mean we should not use lots because of this. However, the Bible also does not condone the practice either. And if we base what we should do or not do based only on what the New Testament specifically instructs, we will have to severely limit the things we can do (might as well sell your vehicles and stop traveling on airplanes, as the NT does not instruct us to drive or fly!). The example earlier of :24-26 does not mention anything about the practice of lots, other than the fact that Luke included it in his writing as the way they chose Matthias, and Peter s understanding in his prayer that God would use the method to decide. Proverbs even has some positive things to say about lots: The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord. (Prov. 16:33) The cast lot puts an end to strife And decides between the mighty ones. (Prov. 18:18) I currently have three commentaries on Acts. Here is what they say about :24-26 that give some good insights on the topic, as this instance of using lots is the last to be found in the Bible: 6
Peterson provides a helpful interpretation: The fact that they cast lots must be understood in the light of their confidence that the Lord knew the hearts of the candidates and had already made his choice. This was not a democratic election, with people casting votes. It was a traditional way of determining God s will in Judaism. Here, specifically, it was a way of deciding between two equally qualified candidates, given the belief that the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord (Pr. 16:33). Even the fall of the dice is in the hands of the sovereign Lord. In this context, the lot fell to Matthias, and that was taken to be the Lord s choice, so he was added to the eleven apostles. It is important to observe that there are no further examples of such decision making in the NT. As those who were about to enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant, the apostles were using a practice that was sanctioned by God but belonged to the old era. It took place before Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out in a way that signified a new kind of relationship between God and his people. From Luke s later emphasis on the Spirit s role in giving wisdom, guidance, and direction, it would appear that the apostolic example on this occasion is not to be followed by Christians today. Rather, we are to recognize and respond to the mind of the Spirit among the people of God, in ways that will be explored in connection with 5:3, 9; 13:1-2; 15:28; 16:6-10, and other passages. 14 Calvin, in his insights, asks a good question that I m sure many people end up asking when reading this passage in Acts: This is the reason why they cast lots: they wanted it to be known that Matthias was God s choice. The pastors were chosen by the church, but the apostles were called by God. Hence Paul declares that he was an apostle sent not from men nor by man (Gal. 1:1). Since this was a position of such distinction, it was appropriate that the final decision about a replacement for Judas should be left to God. Also, Christ had personally appointed the other apostles, and if Matthias had been chosen only by men, he would not have had the same authority as the others. So the disciples submitted to God those whom they thought to be the best, and God then chose the one he knew to be the most suitable. By the way the lot fell, God declared for Matthias. But was it not very irresponsible of the apostles, and quite out of order, to entrust such an important matter to a lottery? How could they be sure about it? My answer is that the Holy Spirit moved them to act as they did. Although Luke does not actually say this, he implies it because he does not accuse the apostles of irresponsibility but instead dhows that the election was lawful and approved by God. As I said, the Holy Spirit directed everything they did. 15 Stott states the following after describing the qualifications needed for the one who would replace Judas: This is why I cannot agree with Campbell Morgan who (following others) wrote: The election of Matthias was wrong. He was a good man, but the wrong man for this 14 Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 128. 15 Calvin, Acts, 26. 7
position. I am not prepared to omit Paul from the twelve, believing that he was God s man for the filling of the gap. But Luke gives no hint at all that a mistake was made, in spite of the fact that Paul was obviously his hero. Besides, Paul did not have the fuller qualification which Peter laid down. Then they prayed to Jesus as Lord, calling him (literally) everybody s heart-knower, a word Luke later uses of God, and asked him to show them which of the two he had already chosen. Then they drew lots, a method of discerning God s will which was sanctioned in the Old Testament, but which does not appear to have been used after the Spirit had come. 16 My conclusion on this topic, at this time, is that I don t know for certain. I see it used many times in the Bible, Proverbs speaks well of the practice, and there is nothing condoning it. However, it is not a practice we use today, so I wonder why that is. The commentators provide reasonable ideas as to why it is no longer used. But again, there is nothing in the NT suggesting the cessation of the practice. Theological Insights Jesus and the Holy Spirit work together (1:2), which serves to confirm the concept of the trinity in that they are two of the three persons working together. Confirms Jesus ascension (1:2, 9, 11), suffering and death (1:3), and provides a promise that he will come to earth again (1:11). In Luke 4:1-13, Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit for 40 days. I wish there was more insight into what happened in this time (beyond the highlight of the temptation by the devil). But what seems to be the pattern in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is that this forty days served to be the starting point of Jesus ministry on earth before he went out and made disciples. In Acts, Jesus appears to the disciples numerous times in a forty day period, preparing the disciples to go out and make their own disciples. It too serves as a beginning and a time of preparation for ministry. In the wilderness, the angels ministered to Jesus (Matthew 4:11), and in Jerusalem, the Jesus and the Holy Spirit minister to the disciples. 1:6-8 is an interesting dialogue. The question here from the disciples is most likely born out of misunderstanding the purposes of God, and the kingdom of God. However, instead of a reprimand for misunderstanding, Jesus tells them truth. Jesus doesn t give a yes or a no answer here. This could possibly be understood and both yes and no. On one hand, the kingdom of God is in process of being restored, but on the other, it is not going to be fully restored yet. The time for that is not for us to know. More importantly, the Holy Spirit will come, and we are to be witnesses to the whole earth. Peter, in his brief exhortation (1:15-22), shows an understanding of the Holy Spirit s role in the writing of the scriptures. 16 Stott, The Message Of Acts, 58. 8
Peter also sees the importance of knowing Jesus when it comes to being a witness about him. The requirement put forth for replacing Judas was that it must be someone who accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us (1:21-22), and one that witnessed the resurrection. They saw that eyewitness accounts were, at that time, the most important qualifying trait. For those who qualified, it was then up to God s sovereignty and the heart of the man, as we see in Peter s prayer before casting lots in 1:24-25. Illustrating the Text Acts The Second In A Series Luke is very clear in the first sentence of the book of Acts that he is writing a second account to the same person. Acts is meant to be read as a second part, a continuing of the series. Information in the first is going to be essential to the understanding of the second. In the same way, reading The Two Towers (the second book in the Lord of the Rings series) without first reading The Fellowship of the Ring (the first book) would leave the reader missing the entire context and current situation of the second book. The author never intended, nor would recommend, the reader to skip the first book before reading the second. Acts should be read and understood in the same manner. Reading and knowing Luke s gospel is crucial to a proper understanding of Acts. A Time Of Preparation After Jesus resurrection, he appeared to the disciples and taught them about the kingdom of God over a period of forty days. Acts speaks nothing about the disciples being out preaching until after this period. This was an important time of teaching and gaining a new understanding. The transition period due to the significance of Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension was a major shift in the disciples previous understandings and lifestyles. If they were to be witnesses and spread the news to the remotest parts of the earth, they were going to need to properly know and understand Jesus, and his work and role as the risen Lord. The same should apply to Christians. If we want to go out to the world and be witnesses of Jesus, we are going to need to know him, and understand the kingdom that he has inaugurated and now reigns from the right hand of God. We would greatly benefit from regular reading and study of the gospels and Acts to help us know and understand Jesus and the work that he has done and continues to do. 9
Bibliography Calvin, John. Acts. Edited by Alister McGrath and J. I. Packer, The Crossway Classic Commentaries. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1995. Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009. Stott, John R. W. The Message Of Acts. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. 10