About Jesus    Steve Sweetman

Home Page    

This Section - Introduction, Chapter 1 

ch. 1:1-11   ch. 1:12-26

Next Section - Chapter 2

My Commentary On The
Book Of Acts

The following commentary is based on the NIV Bible, 1994 edition.  Chapter titles in this commentary are taken from the NIV chapter titles that make for easy comparison.

Introduction

Luke was the author of the book of Acts.  He  also wrote the Gospel According to Luke.  He was one of Paul’s closest co-workers and friends.  Paul mentions him 3 times in his letters.  In Col. 4:14 Paul calls Luke “a dear friend” and a “doctor”.  In Philemon 24 Paul mentions Luke, along with others in his final greeting to Philemon.   In 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul Tells Timothy to send Mark to him because “only Luke was with him” at the time of writing this letter to Timothy.

In Acts 11 Luke describes a gathering of Christians in Antioch that he was at, which appears to be Luke’s home town.  Christian tradition also says that Luke was a citizen of Antioch. He was not a Jew, but a pagan Greek.  Paul did not lead him to the Lord as he did Timothy and others.  Paul never calls him a “son in the faith”.   It appears that Luke was already a Christian when Paul first visited Antioch with Barnabas. 

A careful reading of Acts will tell you that there were times when Luke was literally a part of the account he tells and then other times when he wasn’t. You can tell this by the personal pronouns that he uses.  Sometimes he says, “we”, while other times he says “they”.   We can call the sections of Acts where Luke speaks in the first person (that is “we”) the  “we sections”.  The first “we section” begins in Acts 11:28.  The next “we section” begins in Acts 16:10.  The last “we section” begins in Acts 20:6 and appears to carry on to the very end.

Luke was in Jerusalem when Paul was arrested, after giving the gift of money to the Jerusalem church at he collected from many of the churches in Asia Minor . When Paul was quickly rushed to Cessarea and put in prison for 2 years, Luke appears to be with him all that time and then accompanied  him to Rome where he was in house arrest for another 2 years. 

It is interesting to note that the Christian church begins in Acts 2 in Jerusalem, the centre for Jewish culture.  On that first day of church history, the church was totally Jewish, both in culture and individual membership.  Jerusalem was the headquarters for the early church.  But by the end of the book of Acts, the church was just as much Gentile as it was Jew, if not more, and the headquarters was no longer in Jerusalem, which was probably the will of the Lord.  I'm not convinced that it is God's will to have a headquarters for His church outside of heaven itself.  Such ecclesiastical systems are more man-made than God-made.  Many people actually believe it was God's will for the Christians to be persecuted in Jerusalem that forced them to relocate.   

When it comes to dating the book of Acts there has been many opinions over the centuries as there are with the dating of most of the New Testament documents.  Yet since Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome, without anything said about his impending trial, the book must have been written around 62 AD.  Paul was beheaded in 66 AD.  His house arrest was somewhere around 60 AD and lasted to 2 years. Surely, if Luke had known the outcome of Paul’s trial he would have written about it.  Thus we have to date the book shortly after his 2 years of house arrest and before his trial and death. This would make the date around 62 AD.

In Acts 1:8 Jesus tells his followers that once the Holy Spirit came into their lives they “would be witnesses”, first in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, then to the ends of the earth.  Thus, this is the story how the transition of the gospel went, from Jerusalem and the Jews, to the ends of the known earth, Rome and beyond, in Gentile territory.

The book of Acts doesn’t tell the whole story of the early church. It centers around Peter at first, and then Paul in the second half.  Acts can be divided into 3 main parts, (1) chapter 1 is introductory, (2) chapters 2 to 12 is the progress of the gospel to the Jews under Peter’s preaching, (3) chapter 13 to the end shows the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles under Paul’s preaching.  

As I have said, Luke does not tell the whole story of the early church, only that part he must have known well.  There were other apostles and preachers across the land that must have made significant inroads in the preaching of the gospel as well. There was James, one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church.  We know a little about him from Luke, but I am sure there is more to know about this man.  What we do have is an account of the spread of the gospel by Peter and then by Paul.  Beyond Acts 13 we know very little about Peter and his ministry.  Tradition has it that he was killed for his faith in Jesus 2 years before Paul was executed.  Peter was killed in Rome in 64 AD.   Paul was killed in Rome in 66 AD.

Jesus Taken Up Into Heaven (ch. 1:1 - 11)

Luke wrote his account to a man named “Theophilus”.  He also wrote his gospel account  to the same man.  In Luke 1:3 Luke says that he “wrote an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”.  This is all we know about this man whose name means “lover of God”.  Some have thought that Theophilus is not a real man but a generic name representing those who love God.  Yet many scholars, if not most, believe that he is a real man. 

Some have suggested that he had something to do with Paul’s trial in Rome and that this account was actually part of Paul’s defense in Rome.  But none of this is known for sure. 

The verse in Luke 1:3 tells us that this man was taught “these things” about Jesus and that Luke wanted to write to him as a confirmation.  Some have said, because of certain verb tenses in Luke 1:3, that Theophilus was not a Christian in the Luke account but became a Christian before Luke wrote Acts.

Another point to note from Luke 1:3 is that Luke calls Theophilus “most excellent”. The use of these words strongly  suggest that this man was a man of influence, either politically or financially.  Such a title was never given to a common person.   

In Acts 1 Luke reminds Theophilus of his former book concerning Jesus and all he did and taught, up to the point of when he was taken up into Heaven. 

Before Jesus actually went home to Heaven Luke says that He “gave instruction through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.” (ch.1:2)  Notice at the very beginning of this book Luke mentions the Holy Spirit in his narrative. Even Jesus needed the power of the Holy Spirit when He taught his followers.  The whole book of Acts might be called "the Acts of the Holy Spirit", since He is so prevalent in Luke's account. 

The words "convincing proofs" are important.  Many skeptics say Christian believe out of blind faith.  That's not really true, although I'm sure many do.  There are many convincing proves concerning, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  Christians should understand that their faith is not blind, and they should know why they believe as they do.  Knowing why we believe is fundamental to the Christian life, but this is sadly lacking among so many Christians these days.

Luke tells Theophilus that after “Jesus’ suffering, He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive”.  Before Jesus returned to His Father He showed himself for 40 days to prove that He had actually risen from the dead.  The resurrection is fundamental to the gospel.  Jesus made sure that His followers knew for sure that He was alive.

During these 40 days Jesus taught His followers things concerning the “ Kingdom of God ”.  Verse 4 says, “on one occasion, while He was eating with them, He gave them this command, ’do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.  For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”.  These words of Jesus are the foundation stone to Luke’s book. 

We need to ask, “what is the gift that Jesus is talking about”?  Many have said that the gift is an experience called “the Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, but this is not the case.  The gift is the Holy Spirit Himself.  The gift is not an experience, or the way in which one receives the Spirit.  Luke records what Peter says about this point.  In Acts 2:38 Peter says, “repent … and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…”   Peter says it very clearly.  The gift that the Father promised was the Holy Spirit.  We should not over emphasize the way in which we receive the Holy Spirit. When we make this over-emphases, we promote an experience (called the baptism in the Spirit) and tend to  forget what really happens,  that is receiving God’s Spirit into our lives. 

I have often heard people ask, “have you received the Baptism”?  This should not be the question.  We should ask, as Paul did in Acts 19:1 – 8, “have you received the Holy Spirit”?  We should not major on how we receive the Spirit, but we should major on the Spirit Himself.  He is the gift from God.  The way in which we get the Holy Spirit is through a baptism of sorts

Jesus said in verse 5 that John baptized with water but in a few days the disciples would be baptized with the Holy Spirit.  Jesus used the word baptized here because when the day came when they received the Spirit, it was like a baptism.  In the same way that one gets drenched with water when being water baptized, so one gets drenched with the Spirit when they receive Him into their lives.  

Concerning the word "baptize"; it is translated from the Greek word "baptizo".   "Baptizo" can mean, immerse, dip, or, to be overwhelmed.  Most Evangelicals believe that water baptism is an immersion into water; the one being baptized literally goes under the water, and there is nothing wrong with that.  I believe that. Yet in the case of the first believers being baptized in the Holy Spirit, they did not go under the Holy Spirit as they would have gone under the water in water baptism.  The account of this in Acts 2 clearly shows that the Holy Spirit was "poured out" on the believers from above.  They did get drenched in the Holy Spirit as I stated earlier, but it was not because they were dipped down into the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit fell on them.  Some say, He was sprinkled on them.  I say all of that to say this is partially why some sprinkle water when it comes to water baptism.  The first believers were overwhelmed with the Holy Spirit, thus the word "baptize" can be used because it can also mean "overwhelmed".  "Baptizo" means more than simply immerse.             

The question should be asked, “when did these disciples actually receive the Holy Spirit”?  I believe that the disciples received the Spirit in Acts 2 when the Spirit was first poured out on God’s people.  Why do I say this?  In John 7:38 and 39 Jesus says, “whoever believes in me … streams of living water will flow within him. By this He meant the Spirit, who those who believed in Him were later to receive.  Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified”.    Jesus clearly says, that at this point the believers did not, or could not receive the Holy Spirit.  They had to wait for some later date, that is, after Jesus was glorified.  We then need to ask, “when was Jesus glorified”?

It is my thinking that Jesus was glorified at His ascension, when He returned to His Father.  I say this because of His prayer in John 17.  If you read His prayer carefully you will note that Jesus’ desire was to be with His Father, the way it was before the beginning of time, and before He came to live within a human body.  He relates this to being glorified.  Thus, when Jesus ascended into Heaven to be with His Father, He was glorified.  Only after that point in time could the Holy Spirit be given to the believers.  This is also confirmed in John 16:7 when Jesus says that unless He goes away, the Counselor, who is the Holy Spirit, cannot come to you. 

Those who know the Bible will immediately remind me of the event in John 20, especially verse 22 .  Jesus appeared to His disciples after the resurrection .  At this gathering He breathed on them and said, “receive the Holy Spirit”.  This was obviously before He ascended into Heaven.  So what happened when Jesus breathed on them?  Did they really receive the Spirit?  I believe not.  This was symbolic, or prophetic of what would happen in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost.  If I am right by saying that Jesus was  glorified at the ascension, then there is no way that these people could have received the Holy Spirit in John 20. 

Those who believe that they received the Spirit in John 20, believe Acts 2 to be a second experience called the Baptism in the Spirit.  It makes no sense to say that the 12 received the Spirit in John 20, especially in light of the fact the there were 10 times the number of people in the upper room in Acts 2.  Acts 2 was definitely not a second experience for them.  Still the fact remains, in John 20, Jesus had not yet been glorified, and therefore the Holy Spirit could not be given until a later date.

The later date came in Acts 2, and as Jesus says here in Acts 1, when you receive the Spirit, it will be like a baptism.  You will know that you receive Him.  You will be totally drenched with the Holy Spirit.  It will be a miraculous event.  And so it was, and so we will see. 

The disciples obeyed Jesus’ words and stayed in Jerusalem , waiting for that day to come, even though they did not really understand what Jesus was telling them.  I say this because of the way they responded to Jesus’ command.  They asked Jesus, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel ”?  Jesus just told them that they would receive the Holy Spirit, the gift the Father had always promised, and they interpreted that as being freed from Roman domination and have the long awaited kingdom they were waiting for.  Jews had been subject to many nations over the years, and at that point they were subject to Rome.  They believed at some point the Messiah would come and free them from foreign domination, so that they would have their own nation.

The reason why the disciples would have asked this question is that part of the Abrahamic Covenant stated that Israel would be a great and powerful nation, and that they'd be a blessing to the whole world.  They were waiting for the day to come when this would be so, and they thought that this day might just be around the corner, but it wasn't.  First would come the spiritual kingdom of God.  Then, at the end of the age the physical kingdom of God would come to earth when Jesus returns.  

This subject was far from a new subject talked about by the disciples.  In Luke 24:21, after Jesus’ death you can see that the disciples were a little down hearted when they said, “ but we had hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel”.  They thought that Jesus at some point would free them from Roman domination in order to set up the Messianic kingdom.  Thus the question asked to Jesus is only a continuation of these ideas.

Yet Jesus was not talking about restoring any kingdom to them at this moment of time.  He was speaking to them of the “ Kingdom of God ”, a spiritual kingdom that they did not yet understand.  This kingdom would come to them when they received the Holy Spirit, for the present day kingdom of God is found only in the Spirit of God.  It is not an earthly kingdom that Jesus’ followers were hoping for.  The earthly kingdom will come, but it will be at the end of this age when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom from the city of Jerusalem.

It is interesting to note Jesus’ response.  He did not say that He would never restore the kingdom to them. He only told them that it was not up to them to know “the times and dates the Father has set by his own authority”.  To me, this answer implies that at some point the kingdom will be restored to Israell as they were hoping, but not right then.  Jesus took it for granted that at some point the kingdom would be restored to Israel and they would be free from other nation’s domination.   When that day would come, was not up to them to know.  Only the Father knew that day.  Yet before that day would come, the Kingdom of God would come to earth in a spiritual sense, with the giving of God’s Spirit to those who believe. 

The question the disciples asked about when the kingdom would be restored to Israel is a natural question for these men to ask.  They have been taught from childhood that God would place Israel back into their land that they would rule over, and rightly so.  The restoration of the land is a theme that goes all through the Old Testament.  It began with the Abrahamic Covenant and has yet to be fulfilled.     

The second part of Jesus’ response to the disciples was this, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria , and to the ends of the earth”. (ch. 1:7)  This is the main point that Jesus wanted His disciples to understand.  He told them that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  They thought this meant restoring Israel to nationhood.  Jesus replied by saying that the restoration of Israel is not for them to know or to be thinking about right now. What they needed to know and understand was that when the Spirit comes on them, they would receive dynamic power.  This power was for one thing.  It was not to make them feel good.  It was not for them to experience a “real high”.  The power would be given to them so that they could be “witnesses”,

The Greek word “martus” is the word that is translated as “witness”.  This is where we get our English word martyr. A witness is one who gives testimony “to what he has seen and heard”.  John says it best in 1 John 1:1 where he says, “that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the word of life”.     

The disciples would not only be witnesses in Jerusalem , but wherever they would end up.  Little did they know that most of them would be driven out of Jerusalem because of persecution. This is the story of Acts, that is, men and women being witnesses to Jesus. This witness begins in Jerusalem and found its way westward, all the way to Rome, and perhaps beyond. 

The gospel was spread by the first generation church to many parts of the known world, but today the gospel has been spread to the very ends of the earth, as Jesus predicted. 

These words appeared to be the last words of Jesus on earth. At least they're the last recorded words of Jesus. “After saying this, He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid Him from their sight”. The men and women who saw this happening were astonished, as you and I would be as well.  They kept gazing wondrously into the sky until “two men in white stood beside them.  ‘Men of Galilee', they said, ’why do you stand here looking into the sky?  This same Jesus who has been taken from you into Heaven will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into Heaven’”. 

Some say the 2 men dressed in white were angels, but the text does not say that.  The text says they were men.  Some might conclude they were angels, and that might well be so.  There are some that say that these were actually two men.  Some even say they were Elijah and Moses.  You might remember that Jesus spoke to both Elijah and Moses when all three were transformed on the mountain before Peter, James and John.  It would not surprise me that these two men were Elijah and Moses, and part of what Jesus talked to them about on the mountain was about His ascension.  We do know that angels often look like men when they appear on earth, but still, we can't be sure these two men were angels.  Hebrews 1:14 calls angels "ministering spirits".  Angels are spirits, so when they do appear on earth, they have to appear in some visible form, if they are to be seen by humans.   Whatever the case,  Jesus had left the earth in dramatic fashion.  I am sure His observers were astonished, if not terrified.  It took two men or angels to bring these people back to their senses by announcing to them the great hope of the church, that is, this same Jesus would return in the clouds, the same way in which He left this earth.   

Do you remember the three men who appeared to Abraham?  One was the pre-incarnate Christ, while the other two were angels.  I'm just wondering if these two angels aren't the same angels. 

The 2 angels said that “this same Jesus”, the Jesus you see ascend, not another Jesus, will return.  This fact is important in our day and age when new age people as well as liberal churchmen say that Jesus will return, but the way in which He will return is in us.  That is to say, the Christ within us all (so they say) will arise and bring peace to the earth.  This is far from Scriptural.  This verse plainly says that the Jesus these people saw go up, will return in the same way He left.  As said in other verses, Jesus will physically return to earth in the sky.  His second coming is not a mystical appearing in people.  It is a real event.    

Upon hearing these words they returned to Jerusalem to do as Jesus told them to do, and that was to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus had lived his earthly life of 33 years.  He had performed his 3 year ministry.  He walked with and taught His followers for 40 days after He rose from a terrible execution, and now He was gone.  But as Jesus once told them, He would not leave them alone.  The Spirit of Truth would come into their lives and replace Him until the day would come for His return.  All that they could do now was to wait. 

Matthias Chosen To Replace Judas (ch. 1:12 - 26)

The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives .  From the base of the mountain to Jerusalem was “a Sabbath day’s journey”, about 2000 steps that an adult man would take, three quarters of a mile.  Yet Jesus did not ascend at the bottom of the hill.  He ascended somewhere up the hill as seen in Luke 24:50, where the road has a branch in it.  One branch went to Bethany.  It was around here, at this point where Jesus ascended, about another 4000 feet from the bottom of the hill. 

While in this period of waiting Luke records one thing that happened.  Was this supposed to happen?  We learn that Judas hung himself after he betrayed Jesus and to fulfill Scripture, the 11 apostles decide to replace Judas using a lottery system.  Was this God’s will, or was this their desire to do something while they waited.  Some have said that this was man’s attempt to do something that only God can do, that is call a man into ministry.  Whether this is the case or not, we really can’t say.  The debate will go on.  This is how it went.

Before Luke records the choosing of another disciple, it says in verse 12 that the apostles left the Mount of Olives and went back to an “upper room” in Jerusalem .  Where this room was, how big it was, and who owned it is not pointed out.  Many times in those days an upper room was simply a tent pitched on top of a house with a flat roof.  Whether this was one such room or not, we don‘t know either.  It says that the apostles, and others were staying in this room.  This might suggest that the room was a fair size if indeed 120 people were living here.  Some suggest that this was only their headquarters, and that not all were actually sleeping here, but that is speculation as well.  The English text suggest that these people, both men and woman were all staying in this upstairs room.

Luke proceeds to list the names of the disciples who were in this room.  Luke also mentions that there were women staying there, which included Jesus’ mother.  He also points out that Jesus’ brothers were also in that upstairs room.  There is no mention of Joseph, Jesus’ human father, or should I say step father.  The Bible does not tell us the fate of Joseph. Most Bible teachers suggest that Joseph was no longer alive at this time.

Concerning the brothers of Jesus, in John 7:1 – 5 we note that Jesus’ brothers were not believers, but it appears that they were here in Acts 1.  It is most probable that the resurrection of Jesus brought a change of heart to these men.

Luke says that all these people “joined constantly in prayer”.  I am not sure that this means that they prayed constantly.  As a matter of fact, we do know that they took time to choose Judas’ replacement.  We can conclude that the focus of their time together was prayer, praying and waiting for the promised gift of the Holy Spirit.

In verse 15 Peter stands up in the midst of the believers, about 120 in all, and speaks to the “brethren” concerning the replacement of Judas as one of the 12.  This is the first place in church history where the term “brethren” is used to represent Christians.  It is not necessary to conclude that all of these 120 people were staying in the upstairs room mentioned above.  It is more likely that the apostles found a room that they could all meet in (possibly in the Temple ).  It is interesting to note that Peter took the lead in the discussion concerning Judas’ replacement, but it appeared to be a joint decision among the brothers.

Concerning Judas, Peter mentions that he was once one of them, and that he took part in the arrest of Jesus, acting as a guide.  Judas pointed Jesus out to those who arrested Him.

In verses 18 and 19 we learn about Judas’ fate after he betrayed Jesus.  Luke says that this was a well known fact throughout Jerusalem that Judas bought a piece of land and killed himself there.  The scene was so bad (Luke says that all of Judas’ intestines spilled out), that people called that field, “the field of blood”.

Peter quotes 2 Psalms that he feels needs to be fulfilled.  They are Psa. 69:25 and 108:9.  Peter obviously had knowledge of Old Testament Scripture.  How he learned of these 2 Scriptures is unknown, but he would have heard these being read in the synagogues. He quotes these two Psalms and relates them to Judas.  The understanding in how to interpret Old Testament Scripture  is a huge subject.  One might ask, “how and why does Peter relate these verses with Judas”?  “On what basis does he form his opinion”?  I can’t answer these questions conclusively.  I can only say that in Peter’s mind, he felt that these verses referred to Judas and that he also felt he needed to bring about their fulfillment. Luke only records this event.  He does not provide his own commentary on it.  That being said, for generations and generations the Jewish rabbis would have interpreted all these Old Testament passages, and Peter would have heard and known much of this. 

In verse 21 Peter says that because of these Scriptures, “it is necessary to choose one of the men who has been with us the whole time”.  The replacement had to have been with Jesus and the disciples from John’s baptism up to and including the ascension. Peter says that this person would “be a witness of the resurrection”.  Once again, it is the resurrection that formed the basis of the apostolic gospel.

In Peter’s mind the qualification of being a true apostle was that he had to have known and seen Jesus, but especially he had to see the risen Lord.  Is this a distinguishing factor for all apostles?  Remember, the word apostle simply means “sent one”.  The 12, now 11, soon to be 12 again, were sent by Jesus to be a witness.  Does this mean that there are no longer apostles for today.  The church has been divided on this point.  Some feel that apostles were only these original 12, plus Paul.  All other so-called apostles could not really be true apostles because they did not see the risen Lord.  And what about Paul?  He did not see the risen Lord, in the same sense that Peter is talking about here.  Yet Paul himself claims that he did see the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, thus being “born out of season”, being born spiritually late. (1 Cor. 15:8)  I don’t presume that I can end this discussion with my words, but I think that we should be able to conclude that if there are modern day apostles, they are somewhat different than the original 12, plus Paul.  Modern day apostles do not form their own gospel, they only repeat what the original 12, plus Paul clearly state as being gospel.  Therefore, all modern day apostles are secondary apostles, when compared to the original apostles.

I use the term "original apostles" because I believe this is what Peter was really doing.  He wanted to  replace one of the original apostles, and to be like the other original apostles, and actually be an original apostle, the replacement had to have been with them from the beginning just like Judas was, the one the new apostle would replace.  

Only 2 men out of the 120 people in attendance at this meeting seemed qualified for the job of replacement apostle.  They were Joseph and Matthias.  Lots were cast after Peter prayed.  What most likely happened, since it was a custom in those days, was that the names of these two men were written down and placed in some kind of container.  The container was shaken so hard that the first name to fall out was the one chosen.  In this cases Matthias was chosen. 

Peter first prays,  “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen …”.  The question should be asked at this point, “why choose a replacement with such a method”?  Obviously Peter trusted that Jesus would determine the outcome, thus Matthias would be Jesus’ choice.  Note that Peter prayed to the “Lord’, that is Jesus. 

Another point to be made here is that Peter and the rest still lived in the Old Testament era.  This was the closing chapter of Old Testament times.  The New Testament era would begin in the next chapter of Acts with the giving of the Holy Spirit.  After that, God’s will was not determined in such ways.  The Holy Spirit Himself spoke to His people, leading and guiding them in the ways that they should go.  We need to see this event as an Old Testament event, something that we thus do not need to copy. 

Next Section - Chapter 2

 

Home Page