The Acts of the Apostles A Commentary by John Stott

Acts 1:1-5 - Introduction

After our general introduction to Luke, and to his purpose in writing, we come now more particularly to the Acts and to his preface. We need to note carefully the way in which Luke understood both the relation between his two volumes and the foundation role exercised by the apostles.

a) Luke's two volumes
Here Luke tells us how he thinks of his two-volume work on the origins of Christianity, which constitutes approximately one quarter of the New Testament. he does not regard volume one as the story of *Jesus Christ* from his birth through his sufferings and death to his triumphal resurrection and ascension, and volume two as the story of *the church of Jesus Christ* from its birth in Jerusalem through its sufferings and persecution to its triumphal conquest of Rome some thirty years later. For the contrasting parallel he draws between his two volumes was not between Christ and his church, but between two stages of the ministry of the same Christ. In his *former book* he has written *about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day that he was taken up to heaven*, since he was 'powerful in word and in deed before God and all the people' (Luke 24:19); in this his second book (he implies) he will write about what Jesus continued to do and to teach after his ascension, especially through the apostles whose sermons and authenticating 'signs and wonders' Luke will faithfully record. Thus Jesus' ministry on earth, exercised personally and publicly, was followed by his ministry from heaven, exercised through his Holy Spirit by his apostles. Moreover, the watershed between the two was the ascension. Not only did in conclude Luke's first book (Luke 24:51) and introduce his second (Acts 1:9), but it terminated Jesus' earthly ministry and inaugurated his heavenly ministry.

What, then, is the correct title for Luke's second volume? Its popular name, especially in the United States, is 'the Book of Acts', and this is justified by the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus in which it is headed simply *Praxeis*, 'Acts'. But this neither tells us whose acts Luke is portraying, nor helps to distinguish his book from the later apocryphal works like the second-century *Acts of John*, *Acts of Paul* and *Acts of Peter*, and the third-century *Acts of Andrew* and *Acts of Thomas*. These were pious romances intended to enhance the reputation of the apostle concerned, especially by legendary miracles, and usually to promote under his patronage some unorthodox tendency.

The traditional title since the second century has been 'The Acts of (the) Apostles', with or without the definite article. And certainly it is apostles who occupy the centre of Luke's stage - first Peter and John (chapters 1-8), then Peter on his own (chapters 10-12), James as chairman of the Jerusalem Council (chapter 15), and especially Paul (chapters 9 and 13-28). Yet this title is too man-centred; it omits the divine power by which the apostles spoke and acted.

Others have proposed the title 'The Acts of the Holy Spirit', for example, Johan Albrecht Bengel in the eighteenth century. He wrote that Luke's second volume 'describes not so much the Acts of the Apostles as the Acts of the Holy Spirit, even as the former treatise contains the Acts of Jesus Christ'. The concept was popularized by Arthur T. Pierson whose commentary (1895) was published with this title:

This book we may, perhaps, venture to call the *Acts of the Holy Spirit*, for from first to last it is the record of his advent and activity. Here he is seen coming and working ... But (sc. only) one true Actor and Agent is here recognised, all other so-called actors or workers being merely his instruments, an agent being one who acts, an instrument being that through which he acts.

Pierson ends his book with the stirring challenge:

Church of Christ! The records of these acts of the Holy Ghost have never reached completeness. This is the one book which has no proper close, because it waits for new chapters to be added so fast and so far as people of God shall reinstate the blessed Spirit in his holy seat of control.

This, to be sure, is a healthy corrective. Throughout Luke's narrative there are references to the promise, gift, outpouring, baptism, fullness, power, witness and guidance of the Holy spirit. It would be impossible to explain the progress of the gospel apart from the work of the Spirit. Nevertheless, if the title 'the Acts of the Apostles' over-emphasizes the human element, 'the Acts of the Holy Spirit' over-emphasizes the divine, since it overlooks the apostles as the chief characters through whom the Spirit worked. it is also inconsistent with Luke's first verse which implies that the acts and words he reports are those of the ascended Christ working through the Holy Spirit who, as Luke knows, is 'the Spirit of Jesus' (Acts 16:7). The most accurate (though cumbersome) title, then, which does justice to Luke's own statement in verses 1 and 2, would be something like 'The Continuing Words and Deeds of Jesus by his Spirit through the Apostles'.

Luke's first two verses are, therefore, extremely significant. it is no exaggeration to say that they set Christianity apart from all other religions. These regard their founder as having completed his ministry during his lifetime; Luke says that Jesus only began his. True, he finished the work of atonement, yet that end was also a beginning. For after his resurrection, ascension and gift of the Spirit he continued his work, first and foremost through the unique foundation ministry of his chosen apostles and subsequently through the post-apostolic church of every period and place. This, then, is the kind of Jesus Christ we believe in: he is both the historical Jesus who lived and the contemporary Jesus who lives. The Jesus of history began his ministry on earth; the Christ of glory has been active through his Spirit ever since, according to his promise to be with his people 'always, to the end of the age' (Matthew 28:20)

The foundation ministry of the Apostles

We have already noted that the ascension was the watershed between the two phases - earthly and heavenly - of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Now we need to note that he was not *taken up to heaven*, until *after* he had given *instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen*. This is clearly emphasized in the Greek sentence, which reads literally: 'until the day when, having instructed his chosen apostles through the Holy Spirit, he was taken up'. Thus, before ending his personal ministry on earth, Jesus deliberately made provision for its continuance, still on earth (through the apostles) but from heaven (through the Holy Spirit). Because the apostles occupied a unique position, they also received a unique equipment. Luke outlines four stages.

(i) Jesus chose them
They were the *apostles he had chosen* (2). Luke has used the same very *eklegomai* in his account of Jesus' calling and choice of the Twelve, 'whom he also designated apostles' (Luke 6:13); cf. John 6:70), and he is about to use it again when two men are proposed to fill the vacancy left by Judas and the believers pray 'Lord... show us which of these two you have chosen' (24). Significantly the same verb is also used later in connection with Paul. The risen Lord describes him to Ananias as 'my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles...' (9:15), and Ananias conveys this message to Paul: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you... You will be his witness...' (22:14-15). it is thus emphasized that all the apostles (the Twelve, Matthias and Paul) were neither self-appointed, nor appointed by any human being, committee, synod or church, but were directly and personally chosen and appointed by Jesus Christ himself.

(ii) Jesus showed himself to them
The other evangelists have indicated that Jesus appointed the twelve 'that they might be with him' and so be uniquely qualified to bear witness to him (Mark 3:14); John 15:27; cf. Acts 22:14-15). The foundation witnesses had to be eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). Judas' successor, Peter said, had to be someone who had been with the Twelve 'the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us' (1:21-22). And in particular he must be 'a witness with us of his resurrection' (1:22, cf. 10:41). So, *after his sufferings*, the risen Lord *showed himself to these men* (3). Luke stresses this. Jesus gave them *many convincing proofs* (*tekmerion* is a 'convincing, decisive proof' - BAGD) *that he was alive*, which continued *over a period of forty days*. During this time *he appeared to them (becoming visible), spoke about the kingdom of God* (so that they heard as well as saw him) and *on one occasion* at least *was eating with them*, which indicated that he was no ghost, but could be touched (10:41; cf. Luke 24:41-43 and John 21:10ff.). He thus presented himself to their senses: their eyes, ears and hands. Such an objective experience of the risen Lord was an indispensable qualification of an apostle, which explains why Paul could be one (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8ff.) and James (1 Cor. 15:7) and why there have been no comparable apostles since and can be none today.

(iii) Jesus commanded or commissioned them
In addition to speaking to them about the kingdom of God (3) and the Holy Spirit (4-5), which we shall consider further in the next chapter, he gave them *certain instructions through the Holy Spirit* (who inspired all his teaching, cf. Luke 4:18). What were these instructions? It is interesting that the Bezan or Western text answers this question by adding 'the apostles whom he had chosen and commanded to preach the gospel'. If this is correct, then the risen Lord's instruction was no other than his great commission, which Luke has already recorded at the end of his gospel in terms of preaching repentance and forgiveness in his name to all nations (Luke 24:27), and which Jesus will soon repeat in terms of being his witnesses to the ends of the earth (1:8). This, then, adds a further feature to the portrait of the apostle. *Apostolos* was an envoy, delegate or ambassador, sent out with a message and carrying the authority of the sender. Thus Jesus chose his apostles, and showed himself to them after the resurrection, as preliminaries to sending them out to preach and teach in his name.

(iv) Jesus promised them the Holy Spirit
In the Upper Room according to John, Jesus had alreacy promised the apostles that the Spirit of truth would both remind them of what he had taught them (John 14:26) and supplement it with what he had not been able to teach them (John 16:12 ff.) Now Jesus commands them to wait in Jerusalem until the promised gift has been received (4). It was his Father's promise (4a, presumably through such Old Testament prophecies as Joel 2:28ff., Isaiah 32:15) and Ezekiel 36:27), his own (since Jesus himself repeated it during his ministry, 4b), and John the Baptist's, who had called the 'gift' or 'promise' a 'baptism' (5). Jesus now echoes John's words and adds that the thrice repeated promise ('the promised Holy Spirit', 2:33) is to be fulfilled *in a few days*. So they must wait. Not till God has fulfilled his promise and they have been 'clothed with power from on high', can they fulfil their commission (Luke 24:49).

Here, then, was the fourfold equipment of the apostles of Christ. Of course in a secondary sense all the disciples of Jesus can claim that he has chosen us, revealed himself to us, commissioned us as his witnesses, and both promised and given us his Spirit. Nevertheless, it is not to these general privileges that Luke is referring here, but to the special qualifications of an apostle - a personal appointment as an apostle by Jesus, an eyewitness experience of the historical Jesus, an authorizing and commissioning by Jesus to speak in his name, and the empowering Spirit of Jesus to inspire their teaching. It was primarily these uniquely qualified men through whom Jesus continued 'to do and to teach', and to whom Luke intends to introduce us in the Acts.

Waiting for Pentecost (Acts 1:6-26)

The major event of the early chapters of Acts took place on the Day of Pentecost, when the now-exalted Lord Jesus performed the last work of his saving career (until his coming again) and 'poured out' the Holy Spirit on his waiting people. His life, death, resurrection and ascension all culminated in this great gift, which the prophets had foretold and which would be recognized as the chief evidence that God's kingdom had been inaugurated. For this conclusion of Christ's work on earth was also a refreshing beginning. Just as the Spirit came on Jesus to equip him for public ministry (Luke 3:21-22; 4:14,18), so now the Spirit was to come upon his people to equip them for theirs. The Holy spirit would not only apply to them the salvation which Jesus had achieved by his death and resurrection but would impel them to proclaim throughout the world the good news of this salvation. Salvation is given to be shared.

Before the Day of Pentecost, however, there was to be a time of waiting, for forty days between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus (1:3), and for ten more between Ascension and Pentecost. Jesus' instructions were quite clear, and Luke repeats them for emphasis, first at the end of his Gospel and then at the beginning of Acts. 'Stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high'. (Luke 24:49). 'Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about' (1:4). During the fifty day waiting period, however, they were not inactive. On the contrary, Luke singles out for comment four important events. First, they received their commission (1:6-8). Secondly, they saw Christ go into heaven (1:9-12). Thirdly, they persevered together in prayer, presumably for the Spirit to come (1:13-14). Fourthly, they replaced Judas with Matthias as the twelfth apostle (1:21-26). Not that we are to think that these are human activities only. For it is Christ who commissioned them, ascended into heaven, promised them the Spirit they prayed for, and chose the new apostle. Dr. Richard Longenecker goes further and sees these four factors as comprising what he calls 'the constitutive elements of Christian mission', namely the mandate to witness, the ascended Lord who directs the mission from heaven, the centrality of the apostles in this task, and the coming of the spirit to empower them. Only when these four elements were in place could the mission begin.

1. They received their commission (1:6-8)
During the forty days in which the risen Lord 'showed himself' to the Apostles, and 'gave many convincing proofs that he was alive'(3), Luke indicates that he taught them. First, he spoke to them 'about the kingdom of God'(3), which had been the burden of his message during the public ministry and indeed (judging from the present participle *legon*, 'speaking') continued to be after his resurrection. Secondly, he told them to wait for the gift or baptism of the Spirit, which had been promised by him, the Father and the Baptist, and which they would now receive 'in a few days'(4-5).

It appears then that Jesus' two main topics of conversation between his resurrection and his ascension were the kingdom of God and the Spirit of God. It seems probable that he related them to each other, for certainly the prophets had often associated them. When God establishes the kingdom of the Messiah, they said, he will pour out his Spirit; this generous effusion and universal enjoyment of the Spirit will be one of the major signs and blessings of his rule; and indeed the Spirit of God will make the rule of God a living and present reality to his people.

So then the question which the apostles put to Jesus when they met together (*Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?*, 6) was not altogether the *non sequitur* it sounds. For if the Spirit was about to come, as he had said, did this imply that the kingdom was about to come too? The mistake they made was to misunderstand both the nature of the kingdom and the relation between the kingdom and the Spirit. Their question must have filled Jesus with dismay. Were they still so lacking in perception? As Calvin commented, 'there are as many errors in this question as words'. The verb, the noun and the adverb of their sentence all betray doctrinal confusion about the kingdom. For the very *restore* shows that they were expecting a political and territorial kingdom; the noun *Israel* that they were expecting a national kingdom; and the adverbial clause *at this time* that they were expecting its immediate establishment. In his reply (7-8) Jesus corrected their mistaken notions of the Kingdom's nature, extent and arrival.

Acts 1:6-26 - 1a) The kingdom of God is spiritual in its character

In the English language, of course, a 'kingdom' is usually a territorial sphere which can be located on a map, like the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, the Hindu kingdom of Nepal, the Buddhist kingdom of Thailand, or the United Kingdom. But the kingdom of God is not a territorial concept. it does not - and cannot - figure on any map. yet this is what the apostles were still envisaging by confusing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of Israel. They were like the members of Israel's righteous remnant whom Luke mentions in his Gospel as 'waiting for the kingdom of God' or 'the consolation of Israel' (Luke 23:51; cf. 2:25, 38), and like the Emmaus couple who 'had hoped that he (Jesus) was the one who was going to redeem Israel' (Luke 24:21), but had become disillusioned because of the cross. The apostles' hope, however, had evidently been rekindled by the resurrection. They were still dreaming of political dominion, of the re-establishment of the monarchy, of Israel's liberation from the colonial yoke of Rome.

In his reply Jesus reverted to the topic of the Holy Spirit. he spoke of the Spirit coming upon them and giving them power to be his witnesses (8). In Charles Williams' notable words, he departed 'scattering promises of power'. It is important to remember that his promise that they would *receive power* was part of his reply to their question about the kingdom. But power is God's kingdom is different from power in human kingdoms. The reference to the Holy Spirit defines its nature. The kingdom of God is his rule set up in the lives of his people by the Holy Spirit. It is spread by witnesses not by soldiers, through a gospel of peace, not a declaration of war, and by the work of the Spirit, not by force of arms, political intrigue or revolutionary violence. At the same time, in rejecting the politicizing of the kingdom, we must beware of the opposite extreme of super-spiritualizing it, as if God's rule operates only in heaven and not on earth. The fact is that, although it must not be identified with any political ideology or programme, it has radical political and social implications. Kingdom values come into collision with secular values. And the citizens of God's kingdom steadfastly deny to Caesar the supreme loyalty for which he hungers, but which they insist on giving to Jesus alone.

b) The kingdom of God is international in its membership
The apostles still cherished narrow, nationalistic aspirations. They asked Jesus if he was about to restore to Israel her national independence, which the Maccabees had regained in the second century BC for a brief intoxicating period, only to lose it again.

In his reply Jesus broadened their horizons. He promised that the Holy Spirit would empower them to be his witnesses. They would begin indeed in Jerusalem, the National capital in which he had been condemned and crucified, and which they were not to leave before the Spirit came. They would continue in the immediate environs of Judea. But then the Christian mission would radiate out from that centre, in accordance with the ancient prophecy that 'the law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem' (Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2), first to despised Samaria, and then far beyond Palestine to the Gentile nations, indeed *to the ends of the earth*. The thesis of Johannes Blauw in his book *The missionary Nature of the Church* is that the Old Testament perspective was one of concern for the nations (God made them, and they will come and bow down to him), but not of mission to the nations (going out to win them). Even the Old Testament vision of the latter days is of a 'pilgrimage of the nations' to Mount Zion: 'all nations will stream to it'. (Isaiah 2:2-3). Only in the New Testament Blauw adds, is a 'centrifugal missionary activity', and 'the great turning point is the Resurrection, after which Jesus receives universal authority and gives his people a universal commission to go and disciple the nations'.

The risen Lord's mandate to mission begins to be fulfilled in the Acts. Indeed, as many commentators have pointed out, Acts 1:8 is a kind of 'Table of contents' for the book. Chapters 1-7 describe events in Jerusalem, chapter 8 mentions the scattering of the disciples 'throughout Judea and Samaria' (8:1), and goes on to record the evangelization of a Samarian City by Philip (8:5-24) and of 'many Samaritan villages' by the apostles Peter and John (8:25), while the conversion of Saul in chapter 9 leads on in the rest of the book to his missionary expeditions, and finally to his journey to Rome. For Christ's kingdom, while not incompatible with patriotism, tolerates no narrow nationalisms. He rules over an international community in which race, nation, rank and sex are no barriers to fellowship. And when his kingdom is consummated at the end, the countless redeemed company will be seen to be drawn 'from every nation, tribe, people and language'.

c) The kingdom of God is gradual in its expansion
The apostles' question included a specific reference to time: 'Lord, are you *at this time* going to restore the kingdom to Israel?' (1:6). Or (NEB) 'is this the time when you are to establish once again the sovereignty to Israel?' This had been the expectation of many during Jesus' public ministry, as Luke makes clear in his Gospel. he records a parable which (he explains) Jesus told 'because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once' (Luke 19:11). So the apostles asked if Jesus would do now after his resurrection what they had hoped he would do in his lifetime; and would he do it immediately?

The Lord's reply was twofold. First, *it is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set but his own authority*(7). 'Times' (*chronoi*) or 'dates' (kairoi*) together make up God's plan, 'the *times* or critical moments of its history and the *seasons* or epochs of its orderly development'. The apostles' question betrayed either curiosity or impatience or both. For the Father himself had fixed the times by his own authority, and the Son has confessed that he did not know the day or hour of his return (*parousia*) (Make 13:32). So they must curb their inquisitiveness and be willing to be left in ignorance. It is not only in relation of the fulfilment of prophecy, but to many other undisclosed truths as well, that Jesus still says to us 'it is not for you to know'. The 'secret things' belong to God, and we should not pry into them; it is the 'revealed' things that belong to us, and with these we should rest content (Deut.29:29).

Secondly, although they were not to know the times or dates, what they should know was that they would receive power so that, between the Spirit's coming and the Son's coming again, they were to be his witnesses in ever-widening circles. In fact, the whole interim period between Pentecost and the Parousia (however long or short) is to be filled with the world-wide mission of the church in the power of the Spirit. Christ's followers were both to announce what he had achieved at his first coming and to summon people to repent and believe in preparation for his second coming. They were to be his witnesses 'to the ends of the earth' (1:8) and 'to the very end of the age' (Matthew 28:20). This was the major theme of Bishop Lesslie Newbigin in his book *The household of God*:

The Church is the pilgrim people of God. It is on the move - hastening to the ends of the earth to beseech all men to be reconciled to God, and hastening to the end of time to meet its Lord who will gather all into one... It cannot be understood rightly except in a perspective which is at once missionary and eschatological.

We have no liberty to stop until both ends have been reached. Indeed the two ends, Jesus taught, would coincide, since only when the gospel of the kingdom has been preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, only then 'will the end come' (Matthew 24:14; cf. Mark 13:10).

So this was the substance of the Lord's teaching (as we know also from the Gospels) during the forty days between the resurrection and the ascension: when the Spirit came in power, the long promised reign of God, which Jesus had himself inaugurated and proclaimed, would begin to spread. It would be spiritual in its character (transforming the lives and values of its citizens), international in its membership (including Gentiles as well as Jews) and gradual in its expansion (beginning at once in Jerusalem, and then growing until it reaches the end of both time and earthly space). This vision and commission must have given clear direction to the disciples' prayers during their ten days of waiting for Pentecost. But before the Spirit could come, the Son must go. This is Luke's next topic.

Next: Acts 1:9-12 - They saw Jesus go into heaven