Deeper Commentary
2:1
And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were
all together in one place- Literally, "was being fulfilled" (RVmg.). The Mosaic feast of Pentecost
was a prophecy looking forward to what was now happening in the Christian
dispensation. In commentary on 11:17, I discuss the possibility that the
disciples were themselves baptized at this time and received the Spirit as
a result of that. The mention of “one place” deepens the impression of
their unity.
2:2
And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like
the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
sitting-
This seems to be intentionally contrasted with the fact they were sitting
in the "upper room" of that house. Perhaps the idea is that the activity
of God with the apostles was to be seen throughout the entire house / body
of believers. Or maybe the allusion is to the glory of God filling the
entire house of Solomon's temple. The body of Christ was now the temple,
and God had accepted it by filling it with His Spirit.
2:3 And
there appeared to them tongues like fire, separating and resting upon each
one of them personally-
The tongues were not fire, but "like fire" because of the reddish colour
of the human tongue. This was a visual reflection of how the gift of
speaking in human languages was being given to each of those present. It
is probably unwise to assume that this fulfils the prediction that the
Lord would baptize with Spirit and fire- because the tongues were not of
literal fire. See on Acts 2:45.
2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and
began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them to speak- The imperfect means
that the Spirit kept on giving them. Throughout the ministry of each one
present, they were given multiple times the ability to speak forth the
Gospel in languages different to their native tongue.
2:5
Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem devout men,
Jews from every nation under heaven-
See on :9.
The Greek means to live
permanently. These were diaspora Jews who had retired to Jerusalem and
would have been living there throughout the Lord's ministry and had
probably encountered John the Baptist and perhaps some had been baptized
by them. The "multitude" (singular in the Greek) of them who were gathered
together (:6) therefore refers to this group of retirees, rather than to
the general public. We can understand why Peter specifically accuses this
group of having responsibility for the crucifixion of the Lord- because
they as the 'elders' in age and authority had allowed it. The later appeal
was to them and to their children [Jews still living in their family homes
in the diaspora], and to all who were afar off- either the Gentiles, or
all Jews in the diaspora, not just the children of the Jerusalem retirees.
2:6 And at this sound the crowds came together-
"At this sound" uses the same word as in Mt. 2:18 of the voice of lamentation being heard widely. AV 'noised abroad" could refer to miraculous amplification of their voices so that the entire city heard.
"The multitude". The
Acts record repeatedly describes the converts as “the multitude of the
disciples” (2:6; 4:32; 5:14,16; 6:2,5; 12:1,4; 15:12,30; 17:4; 19:9;
21:22), using the same word to describe the “multitude of the disciples”
who followed the Lord during His ministry (Lk. 5:6; 19:37). There is no
doubt that Luke intends us to see all converts as essentially continuing
the witness of those men who walked around Palestine with the Lord between
AD30 and AD33, stumbling and struggling through all their
misunderstandings and pettiness, the ease with which they were distracted
from the essential… to be workers together with Him. See on Acts 1:1.
And they were bewildered, because each one was
hearing them speak in his own language- Gk. dialektos, meaning that the language
was heard with perfect local pronunciation; and another evidence that the
gift of speaking in languages ["tongues"] was intelligible human language
and not the mumbo jumbo of Pentecostalism.
2:7
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying:
Look, are not all those who speak Galileans?-
Luke describes the
“amazement” at the preaching and person of Jesus (Lk. 2:47,48; 4:36; 5:26;
8:56; 24:22), and then uses the same word to describe the “amazement” at
the apostles (Acts 2:7,12; 8:13; 9:21; 10:45; 12:16). See on Acts 1:1.
Galileans were noted for their heavy accent and grammatical mistakes. Yet
exactly those people, the least qualified as linguists, were chosen to
perform the greatest linguistic miracle of all time.
2:8 And how is it each of us heard- The miracle was therefore in their hearing
as well as in, or perhaps apart from, the words coming from the mouths of
the speakers-in-tongues.
In his own native language-
Gk. dialektos, see on :6.
2:9
Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers
in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia-
The list of nations here
seems to be designed to go around the compass from Jerusalem, giving the
impression that people from the whole world had heard the Gospel. They
were from "every nation under heaven" (:5). Paul surely alludes to this
when he writes later that "the Gospel was preached to every creature which
is under heaven" (Col. 1:23). I suggest he is referring here to Peter's
work on Pentecost; and in commentary elsewhere, especially on chapter 20,
I will suggest that Paul struggled not to be jealous of Peter's success at
Pentecost. So how he writes in Col. 1:23 is giving full credit to Peter in
a commendable way. The Old Testament predictions that the message of
Messiah would go into all the world was thereby fulfilled, in a sense. But
it didn't involve any missionary activity in the sense of travelling
throughout the world. People from various nations were living permanently
in Jerusalem, and the Gospel being preached to them was counted as the
Gospel having been preached to every creature under heaven. In our day, we
too have a commission to take the Gospel to every nation; but given then
phenomena of international migration, we can witness to the Lord Jesus in
cities like London, New York, Paris, Sydney... and thereby be counted as
having taken the Gospel into the whole world. And in the same spirit, the
Lord surely counts internet witness the same.
2:10 In
Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and
sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes-
The fact proselytes were baptized is evidence that there were Gentiles
baptized before Cornelius. The early believers were however terribly slow
to grasp the simple truth that the Gospel should go to all nations. But
the Lord kept nudging them towards realizing this, and the baptism of
proselytes is an example. We experience the same kinds of nudges towards
grasping those things which ought to be obvious to us if we respect the
Lord’s word.
2:11
Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our
language-
The miracle was also in
the hearing / perception of the listeners, as well as in the nature of the
language proceeding from the mouths of the language speakers.
The mighty works of God-
Only used elsewhere in Lk. 1:49 concerning the mighty things done by God
in His Son.
2:12
And they were all amazed and were perplexed,
saying to each other: What does this mean?- “Perplexed” is Gk. 'doubted'. Contrary to modern
Pentecostal claims, the gift of tongues did not of itself inspire faith in
the hearers; these still doubted, and others passed it off as alcohol
freeing a person up to use talents [languages, in this case] which were
normally dormant.
2:13
But others mocking said:
They are filled with new
wine!- Seeing the miracle was
in their hearing as well as in the mouths of the apostles, this was no
possible reason. But this is the length to which some will go to deny the
Lord's action in human life. A reason, any reason, has to be
given to explain it away.
2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven- Peter stood up along with
the eleven others; thus the record accepts that Mathias had been accepted
and that the entity known as 'the twelve' had been reconstituted. We read
of "the twelve" in Acts 6:2. However we do not read further in Acts after
6:2 of "the twelve" so it would appear they played no official role in the
later development of the church.
Lifted up his voice and addressed them: You men of
Judea and all that dwell in Jerusalem, let this be understood by you, and
listen to my words-
It would have become public news in Jerusalem that the man who nearly
killed Malchus had slipped in to the High Priest’s yard, and just got out
in time before they lynched him. And the fool he had made of himself would
for sure have been exaggerated and gossiped all round. Jerusalem would
have had the small town gossip syndrome, especially at Passover time.
Every one of his oaths with which he had disowned his Lord would have been
jokingly spread around in the three days while Jesus lay dead. But then
Peter’s preaching of the Gospel after the resurrection reached a pinnacle
which probably no other disciple has reached, not even Paul. No one
individual made such huge numbers of converts, purely on the basis of his
words of preaching. Nobody else was so persuasive, could cut
hardened men to the heart as he did, and motivate them to be baptized
immediately. He brought men far more highly educated and cultured than
himself to openly say from the heart: “What shall we do?”, in the sense:
‘Having done what we’ve done, whatever will become of us?’. And of course
Peter had been in just that desperate position a month ago. He was just
the man to persuade them. And yet on the other hand, there was no man more
unlikely. The rules of social and spiritual appropriacy demanded that
someone who had so publicly denied his Lord keep on the back burner for
quite some time. And Peter of all men would have wished it this way. See
on Acts 10:35,36.
2:15 These- See on 2:18 My handmaids.
Are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day- See on 2 Pet. 2:13.
Peter’s speech of Acts 2 was made in response to a mocker’s comment that
the speaking in tongues was a result of alcohol abuse (Acts 2:13,14). We
would likely have told those men not to be so blasphemous, or just walked
away from them. But Peter responds to them with a speech so powerful that
men turned around and repented and were baptized on the spot. Or it could
be that the comment that they sounded drunk was made in jest, and Peter
responds likewise tongue in cheek- for surely he must have known that men
can be found drunk at 9 a.m. Is. 5:11 laments how some in Israel were
drunk in the morning, so the possibility was not so obviously absurd as
Peter might appear, at first blush, to be suggesting. This would then
become an example of answering a food according to his folly.
2:16
But this is the fulfilment of that which has been
spoken through the prophet Joel- Many attempts to understand prophecy, not least the book of Revelation,
have fallen into problems because of an insistent desire to see everything
fulfilling in a linear chronological progression, whereas God's prophecies
(Isaiah is the classic example) 'jump around' all over the place as far as
chronological fulfilment is concerned. And this principle is not only seen
in Bible prophecy. The historical records in the Old Testament tend to be
thematically presented rather than chronologically (Joshua is a good
example of this); and the Gospel records likewise. It especially needs to
be recognized that in line with so much OT prophecy, neither the Olivet
prophecy nor its extension in the Apocalypse can be read as strictly
chronological. Thus Lk. 21:8-11 gives a catalogue of signs, and then v. 12
jumps back to the situation before them: "but before all these things..."
(21:27,28; Mk. 13:10 are other examples). These principles are all brought
together in the way Peter interprets Joel 2. The comments in brackets
reflect the interpretation which Peter offers later in his address. He
gives each part of it a fulfilment not in chronological sequence with what
has gone before: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel [i.e.
you are seeing a fulfilment of this prophecy before your eyes]: I will
pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy [fulfilled by the apostles after Christ's ascension]... and I
will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath [the
miracles of the Lord Jesus during His ministry]... the sun shall be turned
into darkness [the crucifixion], and the moon into blood [also referring
to an unrecorded event at the crucifixion?], before that great and notable
day of the Lord come [the second coming; or the resurrection?]: and it
shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord
shall be saved [fulfilled by the crowd accepting baptism on the day of
Pentecost]" (Acts 2:16-21).
Typical of the NT writers, Peter doesn't quote from the Masoretic [Hebrew]
text, but from the Septuagint, and in Joel 2 there are significant
differences. And yet Peter adds and changes things even from the LXX. The
inspired writers don't quote exactly, and often mix interpretation with
quotation.
2:17
And it shall be in the last days, says God-
The phrase doesn't have
to necessarily refer to the last days before the Lord's second coming. It
could equally refer to the last days of some other period- in this case,
the Mosaic system. But the phrase is of course ambiguous- exactly because
the Lord's second coming could have occurred then, but the various
required preconditions were not met. The LXX also has as the Masoretic
Text: "Afterward". "The last days" would appear to be Peter's inspired
interpretation.
I will pour out 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- A prophecy apparently
about "all" here has a specific fulfilment in a limited group. Other
Biblical references to "all" must likewise be understood; from God's
perspective, the believers are "all things" to Him.
2:18
Yes, and in those days will I pour out My Spirit
on My servants and on My handmaids, and they shall prophesy- In order to see a
fulfilment of this at that time of Pentecost, surely there were female
believers who also began speaking in foreign languages- although that is
not recorded. Often the NT quotes the OT selectively, omitting words and
phrases which were not relevant to the fulfilment. The fact the
"handmaids" and "daughters" (:17) are mentioned would surely mean that
there were women also given the gifts at this time. The fact this is not
specifically recorded is yet another example of how the records are so
abbreviated. The fact women aren't recorded as publicly preaching at this
time is no reason to think they did not. Likewise the fulfilment of the
Joel prophecy meant that there were both old and young men preaching
(:17). The "all" who were "together in one place" (2:1) were those who
received the gifts, all within the house; not just the apostles. However,
2:7 records the impression that "all" who were speaking in foreign
languages were from Galilee. The women / sisters in view were therefore
presumably also from Galilee. Peter "and the eleven" stated that "these
are not drunk" (:15)- rather than 'We are not drunk'. The use of "these"
suggests that there were others apart from 'the twelve' who were preaching
with the Spirit gifts. It was a shameful thing for a Jewish man to talk
publicly to a woman, let alone for her to read the Torah, and for a woman
to publicly preach God's word would have been nothing short of scandalous.
In this we have a challenge to our own sense of inadequacy in witness;
women, Galileans, the illiterate and poorly educated... were those used by
God to make history's greatest and most effective public witness to
Christ.
2:19
And I will show wonders in the heaven above, and
signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapour of smoke- Blood, fire and smoke
columns suggest Mosaic sacrifices, in which the blood had to be poured out
and then the carcass burnt. God's judgments are described as Him having a
sacrifice (Jer. 46:10), and here the AD70 judgment of Jerusalem is surely
in view. This is the language of Mt. 24:5-7 about the same event.
Thomson (Land and the Book, vol. 2, p. 311) suggests the allusion
in this passage is to the whirlwind sandstorms, which are appropriate
figures of Divine judgment: “We have two kinds of sirocco, one accompanied
with vehement wind, which fills the air with dust and fine sand. I have
often seen the whole heavens veiled in gloom with this sort of sandcloud,
through which the sun, shorn of his beams, looked like a globe of dull
smouldering fire. It may have been this phenomenon which suggested that
strong prophetic figure of Joel, quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost.
Wonders in the heaven and in the earth; blood, and fire, and pillars of
smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood. The
pillars of smoke are probably those columns of sand and dust raised high
in the air by local whirlwinds, which often accompany the sirocco. On the
great desert of the Hauran I have seen a score of them marching with great
rapidity over the plain, and they closely resemble ‹pillars of smoke.‘”
2:20
The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon
into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, that great and notable day- Language clearly
relevant to the day of the second coming. The conclusion is quite clear-
that day could have come in the first century, but it didn't. What was
potentially possible didn't happen because Israel didn't repent. And so it
has been delayed until our 'last days'.
2:21
And it shall be that whoever-
It seems that the early
brethren chose to understand the Lord’s universal commission as meaning
going out to preach to Jews of all nations, and they saw the response of
Acts 2 as proof of this. And yet “all nations” is used about the Gentiles
in all its other occurrences in Matthew (4:15; 6:32; 10:5,18; 12:18,21;
20:19,25). Such intellectual failure had a moral basis- they
subconsciously couldn’t hack the idea of converting Gentiles into the Hope
of Israel. They allowed themselves to assume they understood what the Lord
meant, to assume they had their interpretation confirmed by the events of
Acts 2… instead of baring themselves to the immense and personal import of
the Lord’s commission to take Him to literally all. We too can read
Scripture and assume we understand it, and thereby skip over massive
implications for us.
Shall call on the name of the Lord-
Joel 2:32 seems to prophesy of multitudes calling upon the name of the
Lord in the ‘last days’. The preliminary fulfilment of this in Acts 2:21
must surely be repeated in the ultimate ‘last days’. And it may be that it
is multitudes of Diaspora Jews who respond, as it was in Acts 2… The
description of "the remnant" being saved out of Jerusalem and mount Zion,
the temple mount, may mean that they go into the temple area in the last
days to seek safety as the Jews did in AD70, and this is where they are at
the moment of the Lord's intervention. Joel 2:32 must have had its primary
fulfilment in the redemption of this remnant, and it therefore has an
application to the salvation of the latter-day Jewish remnant out of
Arab-occupied Jerusalem: "Whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord (i.e. truly pray for deliverance in faith, perhaps through calling
upon themselves the Lord's name through baptism into Christ) shall be
delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem (cp. 2 Kings 19:30,31
for the mention of those two terms) shall be deliverance, as the
Lord hath said (through Isaiah and his prophets), and in the
remnant...". This passage is quoted in a different context in Acts 2:21
and Rom. 10:13, but this does not preclude its application to the faithful
remnant in Jerusalem in the last days. This New Testament usage is
regarding how a convert should eagerly call upon himself the Lord's
salvation/deliverance from sin in Christ. This should therefore be done
with the same sense of urgency and desperate intensity as the persecuted
remnant of the last days will do, like their counterparts within Jerusalem
in Hezekiah's time.
Shall be saved-
The quotation from Joel has spoken of an outpouring of Spirit gifts,
followed by a time of trouble in the land, and then the coming of the
great day of the Lord. The immediate context of this offer of salvation
was therefore regarding saving from the destruction which was to come upon
Israel and Jerusalem specifically. Peter later appealed for people to
believe in the Lord Jesus in order to save themselves from [the judgment
to come upon] that wicked generation (:40).
When Peter was sinking, he was living out the picture we have of
condemnation at the last day. When we read that he began to “sink” into
the sea of Galilee, this is exactly the image we find in Mt. 18:6, where
the Lord says, in response to the question ‘Who will be the greatest?’,
that he who offends one of the little ones will be drowned [s.w. “sink”]
in the midst of the sea, His audience would have immediately associated
this with the midst of the sea of Galilee, just where the storm had
occurred. Peter seems to have realized that this warning was pertinent to
him, for it is he who then interrupts the Lord to ask how often he should
forgive his brother (Mt. 18:21). Peter sinking into Galilee, giving up
swimming but desperately throwing up his hand to the Lord [you don’t swim
with a hand outstretched], is the position of each person who truly comes
to Christ. This is the extent of our desperation; baptism, conversion to
Him, is most definitely not a painless living out of parental
expectations. Note how they were “tossed” or ‘tormented’ (Gk.) by the
raging waves (Mt. 14:24)- the very same word is used about how the
rejected will be “tormented” in condemnation (Rev. 14:10; 20:10). Peter’s
salvation by the hand of the Lord was representative of us all. As he
drowned there in the lake, he was effectively living out the condemnation
of the last day. But he appealed urgently to the Lord: “Save me!”. Later,
Peter was to use the same words in his preaching, when he appealed to his
nation to “save [themselves]” by calling on the name of the Lord, just as
he had done on the lake (Acts 2:40). He saw that those people were in just
the position which he had been in on the lake.
2:22
You men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of
Nazareth was a man attested to you by God, by mighty works and wonders and
signs which God did through him in the midst of you- The crowd being
addressed were Jews who were permanently living at Jerusalem; the crowd
had all met the Lord Jesus and seen His miracles.
Even as you yourselves know-
These Jerusalem residents had known in their conscience that Jesus was
indeed "attested by God" as Messiah. Like Paul at this time, they were
kicking against the goads.
2:23 Him, being delivered up according to the definite plan and
foreknowledge of God- Perhaps Peter is addressing the sense some of
the Jews had that the Lord's death was according to God's will, and
therefore they were the less guilty.
You by the hand of men outside the Law, did crucify and slay-
Although it was Roman
hands who crucified the Lord, Peter reminds the Jews that God judged it to
have been effectively their hands. Their sin was not mitigated against by
the fact that others had done it, when they planned it.
2:24 Whom
God raised up, having loosened the pangs of death; because it was not
possible that he should be held by it-
Quoting Ps. 18:5 LXX. There are some passages which
imply the Lord Jesus was somehow conscious during His three days in the
grave. Evidently this was not the case. And yet the resurrection loosed
the birth-pangs of death. Those three days are likened to labour, in the
Lord's case bringing forth life through death. Yet He was dead and
unconscious. But to the Father, He saw things simply differently.
Sometimes God speaks from His timeless perspective, at other times His
words are accommodated to us. Likewise from the Father's perspective, the
spirit of Christ went and preached to the people of Noah's day at the time
of His death. Yet this didn't happen in real time in such a way.
2:25 For
David said concerning him-
David is one of the major OT types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David
in Ps. 16 are quoted in Acts 2:25,29 concerning Jesus: “I have set the
Lord always before me... he is at my right hand... thou wilt not leave my
soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption”.
These are words describing David’s feelings about his own death and
resurrection; and yet so identified was he with the Messiah, that they are
quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But Acts 2:29 also quotes these
words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus
always before him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could
only have been true in that David understood all his feelings and present
and future experiences [e.g. resurrection, not being suffered to corrupt
eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as
a type of the One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This
is the extent of the typology. 1 Chron. 17:17 in Young’s Literal has David
saying: “Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high” [i.e. Messiah].
David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‘the
Christ’, ‘the man raised on high’, and then goes on to speak of the
Messiah who is to come on the “morning without clouds”, admitting
that “verily my house is not so with God” (2 Sam. 23:1-5). This is
only really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself
as a type of the future Messiah. The main reason why there is so much deep
personal detail about David is because we are intended to come to know him
as a person, to enter into his mind- so that we can have a clearer picture
of the mind and personality of the Lord Jesus. This is why the thoughts of
David, e.g. in Ps. 16:8-11, are quoted as being the very thoughts of
Christ (Acts 2:27). So Christ-centred was David's mind that he "foresaw
(not "saw" - disproof of the pre-existence) the Lord (Jesus) always before
my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved" (Acts
2:25). David was obsessed, mentally dominated, by his imagination of
Christ, so much so that his imagination of his future descendant gave him
practical strength in the trials of daily life. Small wonder we are bidden
know and enter into David's mind. Likewise the book of Genesis covers
about 2000 years of history, but almost a quarter of the narrative
concerns Joseph; surely because we are intended to enter into Joseph, and
thereby into the mind of Christ.
I saw the Lord always before my face-
With David we should be able to say that we see the
Lord [the Lord Jesus] ever before our face, so that we will not be moved
by anything. However, we could also interpret the quotation as David
solely talking about the future feelings of Jesus; the "Lord" in view
would therefore be the Lord God.
For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved- The Lord Jesus felt God was at his right hand; but
He is now on the Father's right hand. We see here a mutuality between
Father and Son.
2:26
Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue
rejoiced, moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope - Literally, to dwell
in a tent. The idea is that death is merely setting up a tent to pass the
night in, until the day of resurrection dawns. David said that just
because "our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none
abiding", therefore he wanted to be as generous as possible in providing
for the work of God's house (1 Chron. 29:14-16). So sure is the hope of
resurrection that the Lord interpreted God being the God of Abraham as
meaning that to Him, Abraham was living. Death is no barrier to God's
continuing identity with His people. His faith in the resurrection is so
sure that He speaks of death as if it is not. And in our weakness, we seek
to look beyond the apparent finality of death likewise. Because David
firmly believed in a resurrection, "my heart was glad and my tongue
rejoiced; moreover also my flesh shall tabernacle in hope" (Acts 2:26 RV).
His whole life 'tabernacled in hope' because of what he understood about
resurrection. This was and is the power of basics. Yet we can become
almost over-familiar with these wonderful ideas such as resurrection.
2:27 Because You will not leave my soul in the grave, neither will You allow
Your Holy One to see corruption-
The women's devotion to the Lord, coupled with Joseph and Nicodemus going
to such extraordinary lengths to have the Lord speedily buried in a new
tomb, with more spices than were used for the burial of the Caesars,
ensured that the Lord's body did not corrupt after three days. We note
that Martha assumed that after three days, a corpse had usually started to
smell because corruption was so advanced. However, the lack of corruption
of the Lord's corpse was not 'allowed' by God, even if He worked through
the freewill devotions of the Lord's loving followers. Given the Jewish
belief and experience that after three days a corpse has seriously
decayed, perhaps the reason the Lord remained dead for three days in order
to demonstrate that His resurrection was indeed a miracle and not some
quick resuscitation.
2:28
You made known to me the ways of life, you shall
make me full of gladness with Your countenance-
“The Kingdom of God” was
a title used of Jesus. He ‘was’ the Kingdom because He lived the Kingdom
life. Who He would be, was who He was in His life. At the prospect of
being made “full of joy” at the resurrection, “therefore did my heart
rejoice” (Acts 2:26,28). His joy during His mortal life was related to the
joy He now experiences in His immortal life. And this is just one of the
many continuities between the moral and the immortal Jesus.
Acts 2:28 quotes Psalm 16 concerning Christ's resurrection and ascension:
"Thou shalt make me full of joy with Thy countenance". So Christ's
fullness of joy was to see God's face, and He has left us His joy (John
15). This was "the joy set before Him", and it is ours too. This is our
fullness of joy, to see God's face, spiritually in this life, and
physically in the future. After asking us to let His Words abide in us,
Jesus said He had told us that so that our joy might be full (Jn.
15:7,11). So the effect of the Word and of true repentance and turning to
God is the same as seeing God's face- it should bring that same fullness
of joy. Other passages make the same connection between the Word and God's
face shining upon us- e.g. Ps. 119:135 "Make Thy face to shine upon Thy
servant, and teach me Thy statutes".
2:29
Brothers, I may say to you freely about the
patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us
to this day-
The Greek for “freely” means boldly, confidently, openly. This was a
characteristic of Peter's public speaking (Acts 4:13,31), and it is used
frequently in the New Testament of our boldness. We must ask ourselves
whether we experience this; such a characteristic arises from trust that
truly, we have been forgiven and will by grace live eternally. The Lord
recognized the influence of the synagogue upon them when He said that He
spoke to them in parables, and would later speak to them plainly (Jn.
16:25)- when He had earlier spoken to the Jewish world in parables rather
than plainly, because they did not understand (Mk. 4:34). And yet they got
there in the end. He spoke to them in the end "plain words" (parresia),
and this word is the watchword of the disciples' own witness to the world
(Acts 2:29; 4:13,29,31; 28:31). They spoke "plainly" (parresia) to
the world, without parables, because they reflected to the world the
nature of their understanding of their Lord. However, during His ministry,
it would appear that the Lord treated them as if they were still in the
Jewish world. When they asked Him why He spoke to the people in
parables, He replies by explaining why He spoke to them in
parables; and He drives the point home that it is to those “outside” that
He speaks in parables (Mk. 4:11).
2:30
Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God
had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body he would set
one upon his throne-
Some manuscripts add according to the flesh. This expression,
kata sarx, is a very clear statement of the humanity of the Lord Jesus
and His lack of personal pre-existence- seeing He was the fruit of David's
body or, as the Greek literally says, his hip or creative power. Acts
2:30-33 says that our Lord's exaltation in Heaven fulfils, albeit
primarily, the promise to David of Christ reigning on his throne. This is
confirmed by 2 Sam.7:12 saying that God would "set up" David's seed to
have an eternal Kingdom; and "set up" in the Septuagint is the same word
as "resurrect", as if in some way the promise would be realized after
Christ's resurrection.
2:31 He foreseeing this, spoke of
the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left in the grave, nor
did his flesh see corruption-
This may mean that David foresaw and consciously spoke about the death and
resurrection of his great descendant, Messiah. But inspired writers can
also state things whereby they speak of and 'foresee' things which they
themselves do not fully understand (1 Pet. 1:12). Therefore we need not
read these words as having to mean that David personally understood all
the things about the Christ of which he spoke / wrote.
2:32
This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all
witnesses-
The "we" presumably refers to the group of 120 of Acts 1; the "we",
including men and women, who were witnessing with the gift of languages.
2:33
Therefore, being exalted by the right hand of God,
and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has
poured out this which you see and hear-
John repeatedly records Christ’s description of the
cross as Him being “lifted up” (Jn. 3:14; 8:18; 12:32,34). But Peter uses
the very same word to describe Christ’s exaltation in resurrection and
ascension (Acts 2:33; 5:31). Looking back, Peter saw the cross as a
lifting up in glory, as the basis for the Lord’s exaltation afterwards. At
the time, it seemed the most humiliating thing to behold. It was anything
but exaltation, and Peter would have given his life in the garden to get
the Lord out of it. But now he saw its glory.
The Greek for "poured out" is often used about the shedding of the Lord's
blood. It was on account of His sacrifice that the Holy Spirit was shed.
That seems to be the connection. The miraculous dimension of the gifts, in
this case the understanding of languages, was a specific thing at a
specific time. But the power of spiritual regeneration, the spirit / power
of holiness, continues to be poured out in the lives of believers. Paul
speaks as if the outpouring was valid for all, not just those at the day
of Pentecost: "The washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our
Saviour" (Tit. 3:5,6).
An appreciation of the Lord's exaltation will in itself provoke in us
repentance and service (Acts 2:33-36). A vision of the exalted Lord Jesus
was what gave Stephen such special inspiration in his final minutes (Acts
7:56).
2:34 For David did not ascend
into Heaven- But it was Jesus who did; He, as David's 'lord', is
sitting at God's right hand, and so it has to be Him and not David who is
now in Heaven. This statement clearly disproves the idea of the faithful
going to Heaven at death. Peter is tackling Judaism's tendency to think
that whoever Messiah is or was or shall be, he is in any case inferior to
the likes of Moses and David. Peter reasons that the fact David spoke of
his 'lord', i.e. Jesus, being at the right hand of Yahweh therefore meant
that Jesus was in Heaven. For that is where God's throne is.
But he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit on My right hand-
Peter uses Scriptures like Ps. 110 and 118 in exactly the same way as he
heard the Lord use them (Acts 2:34 = Mt. 22:44; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7 =
Mt. 21:42). A list could be compiled for Peter's allusions to the Lord as
I have for Paul's. It may be that Peter's difficult reference to the
spirits in prison (1 Pet. 3:19) is a reference to Is. 61 in the same way
as Christ used it in Lk. 4:18. This point is meaningless without an
appreciation of the extent to which Christ's words featured in the writing
and thought of Peter.
2:35 Until I make
your enemies a footstool
for your feet-
The context is Peter's appeal for those who crucified the Lord to repent.
They were His "enemies"; but once they became a footstool for His feet,
then He would return. Therefore Peter appealed for their repentance,
apparently understanding being 'a footstool for His feet' as meaning they
would put themselves at His feet in obeisance. The Lord's footstool is the
place where His worshippers come (Ps. 99:5; 132:7; Is. 66:1-3). The Father
was willing to "make" His Son's enemies, those responsible for His death,
into His worshippers. But they had to do their part, in repentance and
acceptance of the activity of His Holy Spirit. Heb. 10:13 adds the detail
that the Lord Jesus is eagerly looking for [AV "expecting"] His former
enemies to become His footstool- and then He will return. This is why
witness to Jewish people is so deeply significant in God's program.
2:36
Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for
certain, that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you
crucified-
Peter’s growth of understanding of Jesus as ‘Christ’ grew. He declared Him
as this during His ministry (Jn. 6:69), and also as ‘Lord’, but he
preached Him as having been made Lord and Christ after the
resurrection (Acts 2:36). He saw the Lord’s status as having changed so
much, even though he used the same words to describe it, and therefore he
responded the more fully to Him. He so often refers to the Name of Christ,
which had now been given Him (Acts 4:12 RV)- as if this new Name and the
redemption in it was the motive power for his witness. Jesus had been born
a Saviour, Christ the Lord (Lk. 2:11). But Peter uses each of these titles
as if they had been given to the Lord anew, after His resurrection. And
indeed they had been. They were no longer just appropriate lexical items
for Peter to use; they were the epitome of all that the Lord was and had
been and ever would be, all that He stood for and had enabled. And he
preached them to men as the basis upon which salvation and forgiveness was
now possible. See on Acts 5:31.
2:37- see on Acts 2:12.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart-
The NT emphasizes the
power of the cross, and the horrendous fact that we are really asked to
share in His sufferings (e.g. Acts 9:16; 2 Cor. 1:5; Phil. 1:29; 3:10; 2
Tim. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:1,13; Rev. 2:10). The Acts record seems to bring out
how the Lord's people shared in the Lord's mortal experiences (e.g. Acts
4:7 = Mt. 21:23,24). The early converts were "pricked" (Acts 2:37), using
the same word as in Jn. 19:34 for the piercing of the Lord's side. Paul
speaks of how in his refusing of payment from Corinth, “I made myself
servant unto all", just as the Lord was on the cross. In accommodating
himself to his audience, “to the weak became I as weak", just as the Lord
was crucified through weakness. In our preaching and in our ecclesial
lives, we articulate elements of the Lord’s cross in our attitude to
others.
And said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: Brothers, what shall we
do?- Luke is fond of
using this Greek phrase in recording the response provoked by encounters
with the Lord Jesus and the message about Him (Lk. 3:10,12,14; 6:11;
10:25; 12:17; 16:3,4; 18:18; 19:48; 23:34; Acts 4:16; 9:6; 10:6; 16:30;
22:10). This is therefore a most significant phrase for Luke. His
preaching of the Gospel (for Luke-Acts are missionary documents) was to
provoke this question in us too- what shall we do?
2:38
And Peter said to them: Every one of you should-
This might seem somewhat
redundant, but remember that Peter was faced by a crowd of at least 3000
people. He sensed the tendency towards group action, being baptized
because that was what the crowd was doing. And so he seeks to remind them
that repentance is a very individual response to our own sins and God's
salvation in Christ. And the same caveat needs to be sounded in
communities which [quite rightly] raise their children in the Christian
faith, surrounding them with those of similar background.
Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to the remission of
your sins- This language is
intentionally reminiscent of how Luke earlier described the work of John
the Baptist four years ago, which would have been well known to these
Jerusalem Jews: he preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins" (Lk. 3:3). Perhaps they had been baptized by John- for "all
Jerusalem" were baptized by John. But that was not Christian baptism,
which was only instituted after the Lord's death and resurrection; and
there was no subsequent gift of Holy Spirit made accessible by that
baptism. So maybe the emphasis was upon "in the name of Jesus Christ".
Those baptized by John were baptized into Jesus in Acts 19:1-5.
Repentance is a very complex and personal issue. There is no evidence that
each of those people gave a theological statement of their understanding.
The appeal to “be baptized” is asking us to let something be done to us;
and the ultimate doer of baptism is the Father and Son. Israel’s crossing
of the Red Sea was a prototype of Christian baptism; the people were
baptized into Moses, as we are baptized into Christ (1 Cor. 10:2). “They
were baptized” again suggests they were baptized by someone- God. If the
idea was that they had of their own volition put themselves under water,
the Greek [and English] would be different- something like ‘They baptized
themselves into Moses’.
And you shall receive the gift-
Rom. 5:16 and 6:23 describe salvation as "the gift"- inviting
comparison with "the gift" of the Spirit in Acts 2:38. The only
other time in the NT that we read of 'receiving' 'the gift' is in Rom.
5:17, where believers receive the gift of imputed righteousness and grace,
i.e. salvation. And Acts 2:39 seems to be quoting Joel 2:32 concerning
salvation as if this is what the gift of the Spirit was. Peter's reference
to the promised gift being to those "afar off" alludes to Is. 57:19:
"Peace (with God through forgiveness) to him that is far off". Eph. 2:8
also describes the gift as being salvation, saying that "by one Spirit
(this gift) we all have access to the Father" (2:18). This is further
validated by the fact that Eph. 2:13-17 is also alluding to Is. 57:19: "Ye
who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is
our peace... (who) came and preached peace to you which were far off". Ps.
51:12,13 draws a parallel between possessing God's holy Spirit, and
benefiting from His salvation.
Of the Holy Spirit-
It is hard to interpret the genitive, "of". We can understand that
the gift is the gift of the Spirit. The Spirit is the gift. Ot as
suggested above, we can see salvation and forgiveness as the gift from the
Spirit. The repeated use of definite articles suggests that a clearly defined gift
was in view. The promise of the Holy Spirit as a gift is surely referring
to the promises of the Comforter in John 14-16. These promises contained
the prospect of internal activity in the heart of believers, to the extent
that they would as it were have the Lord Jesus literally present with
them. Whilst the manifestation of the Spirit's presence was initially
through visible phenomenon such as speaking in foreign languages, the
essence of the gift is of internal strengthening to righteousness. And it
is clearly alluded to in the later New Testament. "that you may be
strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man. That Christ
may dwell in your hearts through faith, to the end that you would be
rooted and grounded in love, that you might be able to comprehend with all
the saints what is the width and length and depth and height, and to truly
know and understand the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you
may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to Him that is able to do
immeasurably above all that we ask or think, according to the power that
works in us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all
generations for ever and ever" (Eph. 3:16-21; see too Eph. 1:17-19). "Now
he that establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also
sealed us and gave us the down payment of the Spirit in our hearts" (2
Cor. 1:21,22). "In whom you also believed, having heard the word of the
truth, the gospel of your salvation, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit
of promise" (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). "...So that we might receive the promise of
the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3:14). The idea of Spirit that was
promised naturally connects with the promise of the Comforter, and with
Peter's statement that baptism will receive the promised gift of the
Spirit. These passages are all about the internal work of the Spirit- not
miraculous gifts. The Comforter passages have a similar aspect to them:
"The Father... shall give you another comforter, that he may be with you
for ever [this sounds like something permanent, not only for two
generations]- the Spirit of truth... he abides with you and shall be in
you... I will come to you (Jn. 14:16-18)... But the comforter, the
Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and cause you to remember ['to put in the mind', Gk.] all that I
said to you. Peace I leave with you (Jn. 14:26,27)... the Comforter, the
spirit of truth (Jn. 15:26)... the Comforter... will convict (Jn.
16:7,8)... When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he shall guide you into
all the truth... he shall declare to you the things that are to come. He
shall glorify me; for he shall take what is mine and shall declare it to
you" (Jn. 16:13,14). The Comforter, the Holy Spirit or "spirit of truth"
is therefore associated with internal psychological processes in the mind
of the believer. John's letters allude to the promise of the comforter,
and speak as if it is being experienced by John's readership, both then
and now. This of itself means that the Comforter was not just referring to
miraculous gifts given to the apostles; it has a far wider reference. The
following are John's later commentary on the Comforter passages: "You have
an anointing from the Holy One and you know all these things... the
anointing which you received of him abides in you [cp. Jn. 14:17 "the
Spirit of truth... he abides with you and shall be in you"]... even
as it taught you, so you are to abide in him (1 Jn. 2:2,27)... hereby we
know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave us (1 Jn. 3:24)...
it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth... He
that believes in the Son of God has the witness within himself (1 Jn.
5:6,10)... the Son of God came, and has given us an understanding so that
we truly know him that is true" (1 Jn. 5:20). All this activity of
teaching us, giving us understanding, helping us abide in Christ- this is
the work of the Comforter Spirit. All this desperately needed spiritual
activity is the gift promised to those who are baptized.
2:39
For to you is the promise, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to
him-
Peter’s maiden speech on
the day of Pentecost was a conscious undoing of his denials, and
consciously motivated by the experience of forgiveness which he knew he
had received. Having been converted, he was now strengthening his Jewish
brethren. He went and stood literally a stone’s throw from the High
Priest’s house, and stood up and declared to the world his belief that
Jesus was and is Christ. Peter also preached in Solomon’s Porch, the very
place where the Lord had declared Himself to Israel as their Saviour (Jn.
10:33; Acts 5:12). Peter at the time of his denials had been "afar off"
from the Lord Jesus (Mt. 26:58; Mk. 14:54; Lk. 22:54- all the synoptics
emphasize this point). Peter's denials would've been the talk of the town
in Jerusalem. So when in Acts 2:39 he says that there is a promised
blessing for "all" that are far off... I think he's alluding back to
himself, setting himself up as a pattern for all other sinners to find
salvation. That's perhaps why he talks of "all" [those others] who are
[also] "far off" [as he had been]. He could've just spoken of "they" or
"those" who are far off. But the use of "all" may suggest he is hinting
that the audience follow his pattern. This, in Peter's context, makes the
more sense if we see one of the aspects of the promised Spirit
blessing as that of forgiveness and salvation- as in Acts 3:25,26, the
blessing was to be turned away from sins. See on Acts 3:26; 1 Pet. 2:25;
Lk. 5:8.
As shown on :38 The gift, "afar off" alludes to Is. 57:19: "Peace
(with God through forgiveness) to him that is far off". This is speaking
of Gentiles; Peter was inspired to preach that the ministry of the Spirit
was for the Jerusalem Jews, their children [who lived in the Gentile
world, in the locations from which they had come to spend their retirement
in Jerusalem, i.e. the Jewish diaspora]- and to the Gentiles. But it's
clear from the Cornelius incident that Peter still failed to grasp the
import of the words he was preaching- just like us.
"And to your children" need not mean the promise was only to them and the next generation. The audience were those who had supported the Lord's crucifixion, and they were repentant for this. It was they who had screamed for the Lord's blood to be laid on them and their children. They were the more distressed as they reflected that they had brought the Lord's blood upon their children. And now they were assured that the gift of grace and forgiveness was extended to their children, whom they had effectively cursed. No wonder they accepted this good news with joy, and were baptized with joy (:41 AV). There is a clear allusion to Is. 44:3, “I will pour my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring”.
The promise is that of the Spirit. The Lord had told them that the Spirit was promised and they should wait in Jerusalem until it came (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4). It was promised in the Comforter passages, which concern His internal presence as real as if He were still physically, visibly with them. The fulfillment of the promise was not just to those then present, for Paul alludes here in writing of how we have been sealed with the promised Holy Spirit ( Eph. 1:13). The phrase "the promise" in the NT very often refers to the promise to Abraham, and to forgiveness and salvation. This is the promised gift, but it is in our heart in that the assurance of forgiveness and salvation is connected with the presence of the Lord Jesus in our hearts. To be unsure of our status with God is therefore to lack the Spirit. He is faithful that promised (Heb. 10:23). Those who accepted this promise were joyful, they joyfully received the word and continued praising God (:46,47), breaking bread daily to remember the basis for this great salvation, giving their own possessions away in response to what had been done for them. But the letter to these Hebrews had to remind them to hold form that initial joy and confidence in grace, firm unto the end. James and Peter's letters likewise address the same converts to the same end.
2:40
And with many other words he testified and
encouraged them, saying: Save yourselves from this crooked generation-
"Lord, save me", Peter
had cried when drowning. The words are significant because they are the
words used by Peter in urging others to call upon the same Lord to be
saved. He was such a compelling preacher- persuading 3000 people to be
baptized instantly- exactly because he had called out these very words
himself. It is only by knowing our own desperation that we will be
compelling preachers. No amount of artistry, presentation or wordsmithing
can produce anywhere near the same effect. He encouraged the crowds to
likewise call upon the name of the Lord and be saved (Acts 2:39). He saw
himself then and there, in all his weakness and yet sincere desperation,
as the epitome of us all. But the parallels don’t stop there. Peter had
asked the Lord bid him ‘Come unto me’ (Mt. 14:28). Yet this is the very
language of the Lord to all: ‘Come unto me...’. Yet Peter went further; in
the same way as the Lord stretched forth His hand and saved Peter, so He
stretches forth His hand, Peter observed, to save all who would come to
Him (Mt. 14:31 = Acts 4:30). But Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too
stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (Mt. 14:35
= Acts 5:15,16; Mt. 14:31 = Acts 3:7), bidding them come through the water
of baptism as Jesus had done to him. As Jesus was worshipped after saving
Peter, so men tried to worship Peter (Mt. 14:33 = Acts 3:11). So Peter
went through what we all do- having been saved by Jesus, having come to
Him and having been rescued by the outstretched arm, he responds to this
by doing the same for others. When the Lord “caught” hold of Peter as he
sunk in the waves (Mt. 14:31), a Greek word is used which occurs only once
elsewhere: “He did not take hold [s.w. to catch] of Angels, but of the
seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16). The Hebrew writer was surely alluding to the
Lord’s ‘catching’ of desperate Peter and pulling him to salvation- and saw
in Peter a symbol of all those who will be saved by Christ.
“This crooked generation” is the term
used of how John the
Baptist's mission was to make that "crooked" generation "straight" (Lk.
3:5). His mission failed, although it could have potentially succeeded.
And so that generation were judged. God sees the world as actively evil:
"this present evil world" (Gal. 1:4), under His condemnation (1 Cor.
11:32); he that is not with the Lord Jesus is seen as actively against
Him, not just passively indifferent (Lk. 11:23). It is absolutely
fundamental that our separation from this world is related to our
salvation. The act of baptism is a saving of ourselves not only from our
sins, but also from "this untoward generation" in which we once lived
(Acts 2:40). But let us note that the essential demarcation 2000 years ago
was between the believer and the world, not believer and believer.
John the Baptist's ministry was so that the 'crooked' nation of Israel
should be 'made straight' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah (Lk. 3:5).
God's enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the
same word is used in Acts 2:40 and Phil. 2:15 to describe Israel as still
being a 'crooked' nation. John's preaching, like ours, was potentially
able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of
being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let's remember
the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness
of any kind, tract left lying on a seat... has such huge potential
conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself.
John's mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively 'bring
low' the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel,
and raise the valleys, i.e. inspire the humble with the real possibility
of salvation in Christ (Lk. 3:5). Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring
low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him
(Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 11:7; Phil. 4:12). It's as if he's saying: 'John's
preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me
humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for
men's feet that they might come unto Christ (Mt. 3:3), so did Paul (Heb.
12:13).
2:41 They that received his word were baptized-
AV "gladly received". There was joy because they had been beating themselves up about their perilous position, having brought the Lord's blood upon them and their children. And now they were assured that this was totally removed, through the gracious Spirit gift of forgiveness and sanctification.
Peter appealed to
Israel: “Hear these words...”, and then went on to quote a prophecy of how
the Lord Jesus would be raised up [i.e. after His resurrection], “and him
shall ye hear” Acts 2:22; 3:22,24). The record adds that the crowd
received Peter’s word and were baptized (Acts 2:41), whereas elsewhere in
Acts men and women receive the word of the Lord Jesus. It is simply so,
that when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus.
Our words are His. This is how close we are to Him. And this is why our
deportment and manner of life, which is the essential witness, must be in
Him. For He is articulated to the world through us.
And there were added in that day-
Converts are described as being added to the church, and yet also added
to Christ; the play on ideas seems deliberate (Acts 2:41,47 cp. 5:13,14;
11:24).
About three thousand people-
Luke gives progress reports on the early Christian mission in quantitative
terms, as if analysing the success of the work and possibly suggesting how
it could be done even better (Acts 2:41,47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1,7; 9:31; 13:43;
14:1; 17:4,12; 18:10; 19:26; 21:20). The examples in Acts of preaching the
Gospel and baptizing those who believed it are united in suggesting a very
short period of time, and immediate baptism- the same hour of the night,
in the case of the Philippian jailer, or the very same day, in the case of
thousands on the day of Pentecost. The list is impressive: Acts 2:38-41;
8:12,13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5.
2:42 And they continued earnestly- The same word is used of how
we must “continue” in prayer (Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2), i.e. follow the
example of the early ecclesia in prayerfulness. The disciples had
“continued” in prayer after the Lord’s ascension (Acts 1:14), and now
their converts continued in prayer too. Note in passing that we continue
in the pattern of those who convert us. Thus to start with, Simon
“continued with Philip” (Acts 8:13). This means that who we are
affects the spiritual quality of others. The same word is used several
times in Acts (1:14; 2:42,46; 6:4; 8:13). The great concern of all
missionary enterprises is that the converts will "continue", and Luke is
therefore at pains to record that the converts did indeed "continue",
initially at least.
In the apostles' teaching and fellowship
in the breaking of bread and the prayers- Acts 2:42 speaks of
the experience of koinonia in the breaking of bread, praying
together, and the apostles' teaching about Christ. But these are not the
only aspects of koinonia; and these things are all centred around
the person of Jesus. In summary, koinonia means to share in
and not simply with. At your leisure consider the usage of the word
in this connection in Lk. 5:1; Heb. 2:14; 2 Pet. 1:4; Rom. 11:17; 2 Cor.
6:14; Rev. 18:4; Mt. 23:30. We are “in fellowship” with each other in the
sense that we share in the same reality. So all who wish to share in that
reality [Christ, in the Christian context] are “in fellowship” with each
other. Paul often speaks of koinonia in giving- the sense being of
giving to or participating in a project or entity outside of yourself.
1 Cor. 10:16-20 speaks of how sharing in a feast implies your sharing in
the Lord you are celebrating- the emphasis is vertical rather than
horizontal. The concern is whose feast you are attending or engaging in-
which entity you are fellowshipping, Christ or an idol. With whom you do
this, laterally, isn't in view here.
Phil. 2 exhorts believers to be of “one mind”, but that one mind is later
defined in the chapter as being the mind of Christ on the cross. Again,
the basis of unity between believers is their common share in Christ,
especially in His death- there is never any implication that a theological
statement of position is to be the basis of their unity. If this were the
case, then we would expect to see this specifically stated. Instead, as in
1 Cor. 10, the unity between believers is on account of their individual
participation in the mind and work of Christ.
Acts 2:42 in the AV has strongly influenced the thinking of many who
uphold a closed table, due to reading back into a Bible verse the
impression given by the AV and assuming it therefore supports a
traditional approach to fellowship: “And they continued steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers”. The impression is given by the AV that the duty of baptized
believers is to continue believing the “doctrine” as in the theological
positions of the apostles, and to only fellowship and break bread with
those who believe the same. But on that basis it ought to be impossible to
also pray together with those of different doctrinal persuasions- and that
is not usually insisted upon by closed table theorists. However, the Greek
text of Acts 2:42 is poorly translated by the AV. The didache, or
“doctrine”, refers not to theological propositions but to the act of
teaching by the apostles. The mass of 3000 newly baptized converts were
taught further by the apostles, in line with how the great commission of
Mt. 28:19,20 had commanded the apostles to go and teach the good news of
Christ’s resurrection, baptize people into it, and then teach them
further. We have in this section of Acts 2 the classic obedience to that
commission. Indeed, the mention of people present from “all nations”
encourages us to understand Acts 2 as Luke’s account of how the great
commission was initially obeyed; and his version of it in Lk. 24:47 says
that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name,
beginning at Jerusalem”. There are pointed references in Acts 2 and 3 to
repentance, remission of sins, baptism into the name, and all this
beginning at Jerusalem with the gift of the Holy Spirit to empower the
preachers (cp. Mk. 16:17). Clearly Luke is presenting the fulfilment of
the great commission. The reference to the new converts hearing the
teaching [AV “doctrine”] of the apostles after baptism is the direct
fulfilment of the command of Mt. 28:20 for the apostles to further teach
converts after baptism. Hence the CEV translates Acts 2:42: “They spent
their time learning from the apostles, and they were like family to each
other. They also broke bread and prayed together”.
2:43
And fear came upon everyone; and many wonders and
signs were done through the apostles- The “fear” was perhaps because people now
realized that indeed, Israel had crucified their King. And society as a
whole, each of them, had some responsibility in this. They perceived how
they were faced with the ultimate issues of eternity. Only total
capitulation to God’s way in His Son could lead them to serve God
without fear, as envisaged by
Zacharias, Simeon and others when they first encountered the Divine plan
in His Son.
2:44
And all that believed were together and had all
things common-
3:1 goes on to explain
the summary of Acts 2:42. The new converts continued listening to the
teaching [AV “doctrine”] of the apostles and continued in fellowshipping
with them- not in the technical sense of being “in fellowship” as opposed
to being “out of fellowship”; for this would require us to read into the
text our usage of those terms. They continued “hanging out” with the
apostles, continued in their presence and company, as eager students with
their teachers. The Greek for “fellowship” is koinonia, and the
root word koine occurs in Acts 2:44- they had all things “in
common”. This is how they fellowshipped or common-ed together; they pooled
their possessions and had them in common, or, as the AV will have it, in
“fellowship”. In fact, the idea of koinonia or “fellowship” in the
New Testament is most commonly used about the sharing of
material resources rather than theological agreement (Rom. 12:13
“contribute”, Gal. 6:6 “share all good things”, Phil. 4:15 and throughout
2 Corinthians in the context of appealing for assistance or fellowship for
the poor saints at Jerusalem). Acts 2:46 then speaks of how they attended
the temple together, and broke bread in homes. This is the further
explanation of how the new converts are described in Acts 2:42 as
continuing in the apostles’ teaching [they went to the temple to hear it,
as this was likely the only venue large enough to hold the crowd], and
they continued in breaking of bread- by doing it in homes. For there was
no church building available to do this as a group of 3000. And the nature
of the “breaking of bread” is further defined in Acts 2:46- it involved a
joyful eating together. The breaking of bread was therefore in the form of
a collective meal, continuing the connection established by Jesus between
His open table collective meals, and the “breaking of bread” in memory of
Him. Acts 2:42 speaks of the new converts continuing together in “the
prayers” (ESV and Gk.). Acts 3:1 goes on to define what this meant in
practice- Peter and John went into the temple at the time of prayer. What
they had in common was praying together in the Jewish temple prayers. But
those prayers were attended by many Jews who didn’t believe in Jesus. What
that goes to show is that you can perform a religious act of fellowship
with unbelievers, but enjoy true Christian fellowship with God’s true
people who are amongst them. From the very start, Christianity started
with an “open” attitude to fellowship with the unbelieving Jews. If there
really is some guilt by association principle to be operated in
Christianity, surely we’d expect to see it outlined right at the start.
We can now summarize the above in tabular form:
|
Acts 2:42 |
How it worked out in practice |
|
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine
[teaching] |
Having heard the basic Gospel and having been baptized, they
continued hearing the apostles’ teaching, as the apostles obeyed
the great commission- to preach the basic Gospel, baptize, and
then teach further (Mt. 28:19,20). Acts 2:46 therefore speaks of
how they attended the temple together in order to learn more from
the apostles’ teaching |
|
And fellowship (koinonia) |
Acts 2:44- they had all things “in common”, Gk. koine. |
|
The breaking of bread |
Acts 2:46- this involved a joyful eating together in house groups |
|
“The prayers” (ESV and Gk.). |
Acts 3:1 defines what this meant in practice- Peter and John went
into the temple at the time of prayer. |
The unity between believers at the breaking of bread is brought out in
Acts 2:42, where we read of the new converts continuing in:
the teaching of the apostles,
the fellowship
the breaking of bread
the prayers.
It could be that this is a description of the early order of service at
the memorial meetings. They began with an exhortation by the apostles,
then there was “the fellowship", called the agape in Jude 12, a
meal together, and then the breaking of bread itself [following Jewish
Passover tradition], concluded by “the prayers", which may have included
the singing of Psalms. The performance of this feast was a sign of
conversion and membership in the body of Christ. This is how important it
is.
Some of the Roman leaders initially pushed the idea of Plato, that all
land should be state owned and be given up by individuals to the state.
Yet Acts 2:44; 4:32 use language which is directly taken from Plato’s
Republic: “All things common… no one called anything his own”. The
early church was seeking to set up an idealized alternative to the Roman
empire!
2:45
And they sold their possessions and goods, and
distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had need- The Holy Spirit
appeared to the apostles as “cloven / parted tongues” (Acts 2:3), giving
to each man what each needed (Eph. 4:8-13). In response to this, we read
that the apostles sold their possessions and “distributed [s.w. “cloven”]
to all men, as every man had need” (Acts 2:45). Likewise Paul speaks of
how God gave the Spirit gifts to every member of Christ’s body, so that
there was no part which “lacked” (1 Cor. 12:24). And he uses the same idea
when telling the Corinthians to give their excess funds to provide grace /
gifts for their brethren who “lacked” (2 Cor. 8:15). The simple picture,
which even in different circumstances abides for us today, is that God’s
thoughtful and specific generosity to us, His giving us of unique gifts as
we ‘have need’, should lead us to materially assisting those likewise who
‘have need’.
Material giving to the Lord’s cause was associated with the breaking of
bread in the early church (Acts 2:42-46; 1 Cor. 16:1,2), after the pattern
of how every male was not to appear empty before Yahweh (Heb. ‘to appear
for no cause’) at the Jewish feasts (Dt. 16:16). We cannot celebrate His
grace / giving to us without response. Because Israel had been redeemed
from Egypt, they were to be generous to their brethren, and generally open
handed (Lev. 25:37,38). This is why the Acts record juxtaposes God’s grace
/ giving, and the giving of the early believers in response (Acts 4:33 cp.
32,34-37). The bread and wine of the drink offerings were to accompany
sacrifice; they were not the sacrifice itself. And likewise the spirit of
sacrifice must be seen in us as those emblems are taken. The Laodiceans'
materialism resulted in them not realizing their desperate spiritual need
for the cross (Rev. 3:17,18); Lemuel knew that riches would make him ask
"Who is Yahweh?"; he wouldn't even want to know the Name / character of
the Lord God (Prov. 30:9). The Jews' experience of redemption from Haman
quite naturally resulted in them giving gifts both to each other
and to the poor around them (Es. 9:22). "You shall lend unto many nations"
has often been misread as a prediction of Jewish involvement in financial
institutions and banking (Dt. 28:12). But the context is simply that "The
Lord shall open unto you His good treasure, the heaven to give the
rain of your land... and you shall lend unto many nations". If God
opens His treasure to us, we should open our treasures to others, even
lending with a spirit of generosity, motivated by our experience of His
generosity to us. Because Yahweh had redeemed Israel, they were not
to be petty materialists, cheating others out of a few grams or
centimetres in trading. The wealth and largeness of God’s work for them
should lead them to shun such petty desire for self-betterment.
Distribution as each “had need” may
mean that people weren't
given just because they asked, but according to their need, as judged by
the elders.
2:46
And day by day, continuing earnestly with one
accord in the temple-
The way Jesus forewarned the disciples that the time would come when they
would be cast out of the synagogues (Jn. 16:2) surely implies He assumed
they would maintain synagogue attendance until they were cast out, rather
than removing themselves in obedience to Christ. By remaining as far as
they could, they were the salt of their world; and we see in Paul’s
ministry how his synagogue attendance gave him many opportunities to
witness to the Gospel. The Lord warned His disciples that they would be
scourged in the synagogues (Mt. 10:17). But synagogues could only scourge
those who were members. The Lord foresaw that His preachers would remain
within the synagogue system rather than leave it totally. The fact Paul
was scourged in synagogues (2 Cor. 11:25) shows that in being a Jew to the
Jews, he opted to remain within the synagogue system. This fact shows that
the Lord Jesus didn’t intend His people to formally break with the
synagogue system, even though it was apostate in doctrine and practice.
This indicates that there was absolutely no sense within Him of ‘guilt by
association’ nor a demand for His people to leave apostate systems- they
were to remain there until they were cast out of the synagogues.
Even from within the New Testament we can soon perceive that first century
Judaism was full of both theological and practical errors- the immortal
soul, heaven going, ascending to “Abraham’s bosom” after death, hell fire,
a personal Satan, literal demons, a Kingdom of God based around the
violent resistance of evil and military conquest of the Romans in the
first century; and above all a serious misunderstanding of Jesus and the
whole concept and nature of Israel’s Messiah.
And breaking bread at home-
Luke's writings (in his Gospel and in the Acts) give especial attention to
meals and table talk. Societies tended to distinguish themselves by their
meal practices. Who was allowed at the table, who was excluded- these
things were fundamental to the self-understanding of persons within
society. So when the Lord Jesus ate with the lowest sinners, and Peter as
a Jew ate with Gentiles... this was radical, counter-cultural behaviour.
No wonder the breaking of bread together was such a witness, and the
surrounding world watched it with incredulity (Acts 2:42,46; 4:32-35).
Note too how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes of Gentiles
like Lydia and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:15,34).
Acts 2:42,46,47 speak as if it involved eating a communal meal together.
If we can accept that the original “breaking of bread” was indeed a meal,
it would seem almost axiomatic that access to the “bread and wine” as in
the “emblems” would have been open. For would the early brethren really
have said: “You’re welcome to eat everything on the table except the
unleavened bread”? Or would they really have invited those present to pray
and worship with them before and after the meal, but not while they were
praying for and taking the bread and wine? There is no hint even that this
was the case.
The record of the body of Christ in the New Testament begins with
descriptions of the Lord preaching in houses. The word ‘house’ occurs a
huge number of times in the Gospels, especially in Luke’s record. He seems
to have been very sensitive to the way the Lord entered into homes and did
things there. We can be sure that these homes became house churches after
His resurrection. The establishment of the church began with the believers
gathering in the temple, but breaking bread “from house to house” (Acts
2:46 Gk.). Fellowship in Christ is about this family sense of community.
In practice, the early body of Christ was a fellowship of house churches.
They preached and worshipped both in the temple and “in every house”, i.e.
every house church (Acts 5:42).
Acts 2:46 (NKJV) records how the early brethren broke bread with
“simplicity of heart”; and we likewise, in our memorial meetings and in
our lives, must unswervingly focus upon Him and the colossal import of His
cross.
Almost every major New Testament description of the Lord’s coming and what
He will bring with Him is also given an application to our experience in
this life: the Kingdom of God, eternal life, salvation, justification,
sanctification, perfection, glorification… and of course, judgment. All
these things shall come; but the essence of them is being worked out in
the life of the believer now. All this is brought to our attention
whenever we attend the breaking of bread. That “table” at which we sit is
a picture of the future banquet and table in the coming Kingdom. The
“gladness” which accompanied the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46) is the same
word used about the “rejoicing” at the future marriage supper of the lamb
(Rev. 19:7) and the Lord’s return (1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24).
Throughout Scripture, the opposition between the kingdoms of this world
and the Kingdom of God is highlighted. After the establishment of the
first ecclesia in Jerusalem, the Acts record seems to emphasize the
pointed conflict between the ecclesia and the world. Being "of one accord"
was a hallmark of the early brethren (Acts 1:14; 2:1,46; 4:24; 5:12;
15:25); but the world was in "one accord" in their opposition to that
united ecclesia (Acts 7:57; 12:20; 18:12; 19:29).
They took their food with gladness and singleness of heart- Metalabein
literally means to “receive one’s share in”. In this context we read that
“day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved”.
The repetition of “day by day” suggests a connection between the daily
conversion of unbelievers and the daily breaking of bread meetings. And in
extensive missionary experience I have observed that those who witness a
breaking of bread meeting tend to find themselves drawn into the things of
the Lord Jesus.
2:47 Praising God and having favour with all the people.
And the Lord added to them daily those who were being saved- Those who heard the
message wanted baptism immediately; they had been convicted by the
preacher of a Christ-centred message, not just intellectually teased (Acts
8:36; 9:18). Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the
crowds at Pentecost… were all baptized immediately. The Lord added
daily to the church (2:27; 16:5)- they didn’t tell candidates for
baptism to wait even until the next Sunday, let alone for a few months ‘to
think it over’. They understood the first principle: baptism is essential
for salvation. Believe or perish. They saw the absoluteness of the issues
involved in the choice to accept or reject the Son of God. “Beware,
therefore…” was their warning to their hearers (Acts 13:40). They made no
apologies, they didn’t wrap up the message. They taught the need for
repentance more than seeking to prove that they were right and others
wrong (although there is a place for this in our witness in the right
contexts). They made it clear that they were out to convert others, not
engage in philosophical debate or the preaching of doubtful
interpretations.
Previous
