Acts 4
TFGActs 4:1
#Acts 1:3|
CXLIII. NINTH AND TENTH APPEARANCES OF JESUS. (Jerusalem.) #Lu 24:44-49 Acts 1:3-8 1 Corinthians 15:7|
And speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God. This shows us that Jesus spoke many things at his appearances beside the brief words which are recorded.
(TFG 764)
- As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state briefly the ground of the qualifications for this testimony. He does this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have already quoted a part:
(3) To whom, also, he presented himself alive, after his suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
From the concluding chapters of the former narrative, we learn more particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. These, having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here repeated. We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that the space from the resurrection to the ascension was forty days.
(OCA 11-12)
Acts 4:2
#Acts 1:4,5|
The promise of the Father, which, [said he], ye heard from me. #John 14:16,26 15:26|.
(TFG)
4, 5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes of the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension:
(4) And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me.
The command not to depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by some commentators, for the commandment mentioned above [#Acts 1:2|], as being given on the day he was taken up. But, in truth, as we have already seen, the commission constituted that commandment, while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in reference to the time and place of beginning.
(OCA 12)
Acts 4:3
#Acts 1:5|
But ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. This promised baptism came ten days later, at Pentecost.
(TFG 764)
(5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence.
The “promise of the Father” [#Acts 1:4|] which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which they now learn, is to be fulfilled in by their immersion in the Spirit. On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, #Acts 2:16-18|.
(OCA 12)
Acts 4:4
They. The apostles.
Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? Despite all that they had seen and heard, the apostles were still expecting that Jesus would revive the old Jewish kingdom, and have himself enthroned in Jerusalem as the heir and successor of David.
(TFG 765)
6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the commission by announcing, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me” [#Matthew 28:18|]. It was, probably, this announcement that led to the inquiry which Luke next repeats. Being informed that all authority is now given to him, the disciples expected to see him begin to exercise it in the way they had long anticipated.
(6) Now when they were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
The question, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” indicates two interesting facts: first, that the apostles still misconceived the nature of Christ’s kingdom; second, that the kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some attention at our hands, especially the latter.
Their misconceptions consisted in the expectation that Christ would re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to its ancient glory, under its own personal reign. In his reply, the Savior does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves it as a part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the Holy Spirit.
The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the point of transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements of which were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensation, which is to know no change, either of principles or of ordinances, in the course of time. It is necessary to determine this point in order to know what laws and ordinances of the Bible belong to the present dispensation. All things enjoined subsequent to this period are binding upon us as citizens of the kingdom of Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or granted as a privilege, under former dispensations, is applicable to us, unless it is specifically extended to us. It requires no less divine authority to extend into the kingdom of Christ the institutions of the Jewish kingdom than it did to establish them at first. This proposition is self-evident. To fix, therefore, most definitely this period is a matter of transcendent importance, and must here have all the space that it requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined by positive Scripture statements.
The expression “kingdom of heaven” is used only by Matthew. In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians uniformly say “kingdom of God.” This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we conclude that the “kingdom of heaven” is not heaven, but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (#Matthew 16:28|). The Apostle Paul also speaks of the “kingdom of God’s dear Son” (#Colossians 1:13|), and says “He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet” (#1 Corinthians 15:25|).
Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which he became a king is the time at which “the kingdom of Christ and of God” (#Ephesians 5:5|) began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of Abraham.
But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was made king. “We see Jesus,” says Paul, “who was made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor” (#Hebrews 2:9|). It was after his death, and not during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser.
Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that he was made a king. For Paul says, “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (#Philippians 2:8,11|). It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool” (#Psalms 110:1 Hebrews 1:13|). He “sat down on the right hand of the throne of God” (#Hebrews 12:2|), and the Father said, “Let all the angels of God worship him” (#Hebrews 1:6|). At this word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is “Lord of lord and King of kings” [#1 Timothy 6:15 Revelation 17:14|.] It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, “All authority. in heaven and on earth is given to me” [#Matthew 28:18|].
Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, “This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear” [#Acts 2:32,33|]. “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ” [#Acts 2:36|]. This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on the first Pentecost after his ascension.
We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it” (#Lu 16:16|). Again: “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in” (#Matthew 23:13|). And again: “If I cast our demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to you” (#Matthew 12:28|). It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John’s ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, “Then is the kingdom of God come to you.”
But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand”; ~hggike~, “is near” (#Matthew 3:2 4:17 10:7|). Jesus exclaims, “Among them who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he” (#Matthew 11:11|). Again: “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God” (#Lu 9:27|). And, finally, the question we are now considering, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: “From the days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force” (#Matthew 11:12|). Whatever may be the true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can refer to the kingdom of glory.
Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated by John cannot do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should constantly preach, “The kingdom of heaven is near.” Again: if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed.
On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both parties it could be said, “The kingdom of God is come to you.” It had come to them in the influence of its principles. “From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached,” not as an existing institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are capable, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness.
We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, he was himself “a minister of the circumcision” (#Romans 15:8|), and kept the law till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people for a “better covenant” [#Hebrews 8:6|]. Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he expired on the cross. Then “the vail of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom” [#Matthew 27:51 Mr 15:38|], indicating the end of that dispensation. All the sacrifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way being consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had gone, but through the vail–that is to say, his flesh (#Hebrews 10:20|)–he put an end to the priesthood of Aaron (#Hebrews 7:11,12|), and took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to his cross (#Colossians 2:14|). At the death of Christ, therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the next Pentecost the new kingdom began.
Regarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to consider, briefly, the Savior’s answer to the question which has detained us so long.
(OCA 12-16)
Acts 4:5
#Acts 1:7|
(7) But he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in his own authority.
By the expression “in his own authority,” I suppose Jesus intended to indicate that the times and seasons of God’s purposes are reserved more specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more carefully from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. It is characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts and the succession of events than in definite dates and periods. The apostles were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, as proper preparation for their work did not depend upon a foreknowledge of the time, it was not important to reveal it to them.
(OCA 16)
Acts 4:6
#Acts 1:8|
And ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Jesus enlightens them as to their duty, and not as to the kingdom; Pentecost would make all clear as to the nature of Christ’s rule and dominion.
(TFG 765)
(8) But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.
But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary power: hence Jesus adds, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” The power here promised is not authority, for this he had given them in the commission; but it is that miraculous power to know all the truth, and work miracles in proof of their mission, which he had promised them before his death. He says to them, virtually, It is not for you to know the time at which I will establish my kingdom, but you shall receive power to inaugurate it on earth when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This is an additional proof that the kingdom was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost.
While promising them the requisite power, Jesus takes occasion to mark out their successive fields of labor: first “in Jerusalem,” next, “in all Judaea,” then “in Samaria,” and finally, “to the uttermost part of the earth.” It is not to be imagined that this arrangement of their labors was dictated by partiality for the Jews, or was merely designed to fulfill prophesy. It was rather foretold through the prophets, because there were good reasons why it should be so. One reason, suggested by the commentators generally, for beginning in Jerusalem, was the propriety of first vindicating the claims of Jesus in the same city in which he was condemned. But the controlling reason was doubtless this: the most devout portion of the Jewish people, that portion who had been most influenced by the preparatory preaching of John and of Jesus, were always collected at the great annual festivals, and hence the most successful beginning could there be made. Next to these, the inhabitants of the rural districts of Judaea were best prepared, by the same influences, for the gospel; then the Samaritans, who had seen some of the miracles of Jesus; and, last of all, the Gentiles. Thus the rule of success was made their guide from place to place, and it became the custom of the apostles, even in heathen lands, to preach the gospel “first to the Jew” and “then to the Gentile” [#Romans 2:9,10|]. The result fully justified the rule; for the most signal triumph of the gospel was in Judaea, and the most successful approach to the Gentiles of every region was through the Jewish synagogue.
(OCA 16-17)
Acts 4:7
#Acts 1:9|
CXLIV. THE ASCENSION. (Olivet, between Jerusalem and Bethany.) #Mr 16:19,20 Lu 24:50-53 Acts 1:9-12|
(TFG 766)
- Having completed his brief notice of the last interview between Jesus and the disciples, Luke says,
(9) And when he had spoken these things, while they were beholding, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.
We learn from Luke’s former narrative, that it was while Jesus was in the act of blessing them, with uplifted hands, that he was parted from them and borne aloft into heaven (#Lu 24:50,51|). The cloud which floated above formed a background, to render the outline of the person more distinct while in view, and to suddenly shut him off from view as he entered its bosom. Thus all the circumstances of this most fitting departure were calculated to preclude the suspicion of deception or of optical illusion.
It has been urged by some skeptical writers, that the silence of Matthew and John, in reference to the ascension, who were eye-witnesses of the scene, if it really occurred, while is mentioned only by Luke and Mark, who were not present, is ground of suspicion that the latter derived their information from impure sources. Even Olshausen acknowledges that, at one time, he was disquieted on this point, because he could not account for this peculiar difference in the course of the four historians (a). That the testimony of Mark and Luke, however, is credible, is made apparent to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, by simply inquiring, what became of his body after it was raised? It was certainly raised immortal and incorruptible. There is nothing in his resurrection to distinguish it from that of Lazarus, or the widow’s son of Nain, so that he should be called “the first fruits of them who slept” (#1 Corinthians 15:20|), but the fact that he rose to die no more. But when he was about to leave the earth, there was only this alternative, that his body should return again to the grave, or ascend up into heaven. So far, therefore, is the account of the ascension from being incredible, that even if none of the historians had mentioned it, we would still be constrained to conclude that, at some time, and in some manner, it did take place.
We may further observe, that though Matthew and John do not mention the ascension, the latter reports a conversation with Mary the Magdalene at the sepulcher, in which Jesus clearly intimated that it would take place. He said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” (#John 20:17|). And that his ascension would be visible, he had intimated to the disciples, when he said, “Doth this offend you? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” (#John 6:62|).
But still the question recurs, why should Matthew and John omit an account of this remarkable event, and why should Like and Mark, who were not eye-witnesses, make mention of it? It would be sufficient to answer, For a similar reason, no doubt, to that which led each of these writers to omit some interesting facts which are mentioned by others.
But we may find a still more definite answer by examining the last chapter of each of the four gospels. It will be observed, that John saw fit to close his narrative with the fishing scene which occurred on the shore of Galilee, making no mention at all of the last day’s interview. Of course, it would have required a departure from, this plan to have mentioned the ascension. Matthew brings his narrative to a close with a scene on a mountain in Galilee, whereas the ascension took place from Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem. There was nothing in his closing remarks to suggest mention of the ascension, unless it be his account of the commission; but the commission was really first given to them at that time (#Matthew 28:16-18|), though finally repeated on the day of the ascension (#Mr 16:14-19|). On the other hand, Mark and Luke both chose, for their concluding paragraphs, such a series of events as leads them to speak of the last day’s interview; and as the ascension was the closing event of the day, it would have been most unnatural for them not to mention it. Still further, in the introduction to the book of Acts, the leading events of which are to have constant reference to an ascended and glorified Redeemer, Luke felt still greater necessity for giving a formal account of the ascension.
(a) Hermann Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament (translated for Clarke’s Foreign Theological Library, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1859; revised by A. C. Kendrick, New York: Shelden, 1859), in loco.
(OCA 17-18)
Acts 4:8
#Acts 1:10,11|
Two men. Angels in human form.
(TFG 766)
10, 11. Not only the ascension of Jesus to heaven, but his future coming to judgment, is to be a prominent topic in the coming narrative, hence the introduction here of another fact, which not even Luke had mentioned before.
(10) And while they were gazing into heaven, as he went away, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
These “two men in white apparel” were, undoubtedly, angels in human form. This is the natural conclusion from the words they utter, and is confirmed by the fact that two others who appeared at the sepulcher, and are called “men in shining garments” by Luke (#Lu 24:4|), are called “two angels in white” by John (#John 20:12|). Luke speaks of them according to their appearance; John, according to the reality.
(OCA 18-19)
Acts 4:9
Shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven. Thus the angels add their testimony to the sureness of our Lord’s promise that he will return.
(TFG 766)
(11) who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in the same manner that you have seen him going into heaven.
It should be observed that the angels stated not merely that Jesus would come again, but that he would come in like manner as they had seen him go; that is, visibly and in his glorified humanity. It is a positive announcement of a literal and visible second coming.
(OCA 19)
Acts 4:10
- At the rebuke of the angel, the disciples withdrew their longing gaze from the cloud into which Jesus had entered, and cheered by the promise of his return,
(12) Then they returned into Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet, which was near Jerusalem, distant a Sabbath-day’s journey.
The ascension took place near Bethany (#Lu 24:50|), which was nearly two miles from Jerusalem (#John 11:18|), and on the further side of Mount Olivet. It was the nearer side of the Mount, which was distant a Sabbath-day’s journey, or seven-eighths of a mile. We learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they returned to Jerusalem “with great joy” (#Lu 24:52|). Their sorrow at parting from the Lord was turned into joy at the hope of seeing him again.
(OCA 19)
Acts 4:11
- (13) And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where were abiding Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas brother of James.
This enumeration of the apostles very appropriately finds place here, showing that all of those to whom the commission was given were at their post, ready to begin work, and waiting for the promised power from on high.
(OCA 19)
Acts 4:12
- The manner in which these men spent the time of their waiting, which was an interval of ten days, was such as we would expect.
(14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
The chief scene of this worship was not the upper room where the eleven were abiding, but the temple; for we learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God” (#Lu 24:53|).
The mother of Jesus is here mentioned for the last time in New Testament history. The fact that she still remained with the disciples, instead of returning to Nazareth, indicates that John was faithful to the dying request of Jesus, and continued to treat her as his own mother (#John 19:26,27|). Though the prominence here given to her name shows that she was regarded with great respect by the apostles, the manner in which Luke speaks of her shows that he had not dreamed of the worship which was yet to be offered to her by an idolatrous church.
Whether those here called the “brothers” of Jesus were the sons of Mary, or more distant relatives of Jesus, is not easily determined, from the fact that the Greek word is ambiguous. The Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is dependent upon the solution of this question, but it properly belongs to commentaries on the gospels, and to these the reader is referred for the arguments, pro and con.
(OCA 19-20)
Acts 4:13
15-18. We next have an account of the selection of an apostle to fill the place of Judas. There is no intimation that Jesus had authorized this procedure; on the contrary, it would be presumed that, as he himself had selected the original twelve, he would, in like manner, fill the vacancy, if he intended that it should be filled. Neither had the apostles yet received that power from on high which would enable them to act infallibly in a matter of this kind. From these considerations, it has been supposed by some that the whole procedure was both unauthorized and invalid. But the fact that Matthias was afterward “numbered with the eleven apostles” (#Acts 1:26|), and that the whole body were from that time called “the twelve” (#Acts 6:2|), shows that the transaction was sanctioned by the apostles even after they were fully inspired. This gave it the sanction of inspired authority, whatever may have been its origin. Moreover, Jesus had promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (#Matthew 19:28|), and the fulfillment of this promise required that the number should be filled up. The Apostle Paul was not reckoned among “the twelve.” He distinguishes himself from them in #1 Corinthians 15:5,8|: “He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve,” and “he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”
The particular time within the ten days, at which this selection was made, is not designated.
(15) And in those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together was about one hundred and twenty,)
The parenthetical statement that the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty is not to be understood as including all who then believed on Jesus, but only those who were then and there assembled. Paul states that Jesus was seen, after his resurrection, by “above five hundred brethren at once” (#1 Corinthians 15:6|). The hundred and twenty were, perhaps, all who were then in the city of Jerusalem.
(OCA 20)
Acts 4:14
(16) Brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas, who was guide to them that seized Jesus.
(OCA 20-21)
Acts 4:15
(17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
See TFG “#Acts 1:20|”.
(OCA 20)
Acts 4:16
#Acts 1:18,19|
CXXXII. REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. (In the temple and outside the wall of Jerusalem. Friday morning.) #Matthew 27:3-10 Acts 1:18,19|
Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This parenthesis contains the words of Luke inserted in the midst of a speech made by Simon Peter to explain the meaning of his words. His account of Judas’ death varies in three points from that given by Matthew, but the variations are easily harmonized. 1. Evidently Judas hung until his abdomen was partially decomposed; then his neck giving way, the rope breaking, or something happening which caused his body to fall, it burst open when it struck the ground. 2. Judas is spoken of as purchasing the field, and so he did, for the priests bought it with his money, so that legally it was his purchase. 3. The field was called “The field of blood” for two reasons, and each Evangelist gives one of them.
(TFG 722)
(18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
The statement in reference to the fate of Judas is supposed by most commentators to be part of a parenthesis thrown in by Luke, though some contend that it is part of Peter’s speech (b). If the latter supposition is true, there is no ambiguity in it to the original hearers, for they all well knew that the field referred to was purchased by the Sanhedrim with money which Judas forced upon them, and which was invested in this way because they could find no other suitable use for it (#Matthew 27:3-8|). Knowing this, they could but understand Peter as meaning that Judas had indirectly caused the field to be purchased. But whether the words are Peter’s or Luke’s, it must be admitted that a reader unacquainted with the facts in the case would be misled by them. Luke, however, presumed upon the information of his first readers, and that knowledge of the facts which they possessed has been transmitted to us by Matthew, so that we have as little difficulty as they did in discovering the true meaning of the remark.
As respects the manner of the death of Judas, the common method of reconciling Luke’s account with that of Matthew is undoubtedly correct. We must suppose them both to be true, and combine the separate statements. The whole affair stands thus: “He went out and hanged himself” (#Matthew 27:5|); and, by the breaking of either the limb on which he hung, or the cord, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
(b) Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on Acts (New York, 1856), in loco.
(OCA 20-21)
Acts 4:17
- The next statement,
(19) And it was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood,
is undoubtedly a parenthesis by Luke. Peter was addressing the very people in whose proper tongue the place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course, translate it to them. Hence, we cannot attribute these words to him. But Luke was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done here prove the words to be his.
(OCA 21)
Acts 4:18
- The historian now resumes the report of Peter’s speech, which he had interrupted by the parenthesis [#Acts 1:19|]. In the remarks already quoted, Peter bases the action which he proposes, not upon any commandment of Jesus, but upon a prophesy uttered by David. He also states, as the ground for the application of that prophesy which he is about to make, the fact that Judas had been numbered with them, and had “obtained part of this ministry” [#Acts 1:17|]. He now quotes the prophesy alluded to:
(20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein. His office let another take.
These two passages from the Psalms (#Psalms 69:26 109:8|), when read in their original context, seem to apply to the wicked in general, and there is not the slightest indication that David had Judas in prophetic view when he uttered them. This is an instance, therefore, of the particular application of a general prophetic sentiment. If it be proper that the habitation of a wicked man should become desolate, and that whatever office he held should be given to another, then it was pre-eminently proper that such a crime as that of Judas should be thus punished, and that so important an office as that of Judas should be filled by a worthy successor.
(OCA 21)
Acts 4:19
#Acts 1:21,22|
21, 22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on which Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appointment of an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. The qualifications, therefore, are found necessary to an election, must always be possessed by one who proposes to be a successor to an apostle. He states these qualification in the next sentence:
(21) Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
(OCA 21-22)
Acts 4:20
(22) beginning from the immersion of John till the day he was take up from us, must one be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
There being no other instance in the New Testament of the selection of a successor to an apostle, this is our only scriptural guide upon the subject, and therefore, it is unscriptural for any man to lay claim to the office who has not been a companion of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection. The reason for confining the selection to those who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning, is because such would be the most reliable witnesses to his identity after the resurrection. One less familiar with his person would, certis paribus, be less perfectly guarded against imposition. Peter here, like Paul in #1 Corinthians 15:12-19|, makes the whole value of apostolic testimony depend upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus.
(OCA 22)
Acts 4:21
23-26. (23) Then they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus and Matthias.
It will be observed that the brethren did not themselves select Matthias; but, having first appointed two persons between whom the choice should be made, they prayed the Lord to show which one he had chosen, and then cast lots, understanding that the one upon whom the lot fell was the Lord’s choice. The reason that they did not make the selection themselves was evidently because they thought proper that the Lord, who had chosen Judas, should also choose his successor. If it be inquired why, then, they ventured to confine the Lord’s choice to these two, the most plausible answer is that suggested by Dr. Alexander, that, after careful examination of the parties present, they were the only two who possessed the qualifications named by Peter. Whether the selection of these two was made by the body of disciples, or by the apostles alone, it is unimportant to determine. The case does not, as many have supposed, furnish a precedent on the subject of popular election of church officers; for the selection of the two persons between whom an election was to be made, was not the election itself; and when the election took place, it was made by the Lord, and not by the disciples or the apostles. One of them cast or drew the lots, but the Lord determined on whom the lot should fall.
(OCA 22)
Acts 4:22
(24) And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
The prayer offered by the apostles on this occasion is a model of its kind. They had a single object for which they bowed before the Lord, and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. They do not repeat a single thought, neither do they elaborate one beyond the point perspicuity. The question having reference to the spiritual as well as the historical characteristics of the two individuals, most appropriately do they address the Lord as ~kardiognwsta~, the heart-knower. They do not pray, Show which thou wilt chose, or dost choose, as though there was need of reflection with the Lord before the choice; but, “show which one of these two thou hast chosen.”
(OCA 22-23)
Acts 4:23
(25) to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place.
They describe the office they desire the Lord to fill, as the “ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place.” He had been in a place of which he proved himself unworthy, and they have no hesitation in referring to the fact that he had now gone to his own place. That place is, of course, the place to which hypocrites go after death. Here is a simple address to the Lord, beautifully appropriate to the petition they are about to present; then the petition itself concisely expressed, and the prayer is concluded. So brief a prayer, on any occasion in this voluble age, would scarcely be recognized as a prayer at all, so prone are men to the delusion that they will be heard for their much speaking.
(OCA 23)
Acts 4:24
(26) And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles.
(OCA 22)
Acts 4:26
#Acts 2:1|
II:1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative,
(1) When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour (#Leviticus 23:15-17|). On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, “the feast of weeks” [#Exodus 34:22|]. But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost, which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.
This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required every male Jew of the whole nation to be present (#Exodus 23:14-17|). The condemnation and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now, the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that event. In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred on that day–the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day.
That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was crucified on Friday, he says, “The fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath.” He seems to have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was “preparation day” (#John 19:31|), and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread (#Leviticus 23:5-7|). According to the law, the count began on “the morrow after” this day, which was Sunday (#Leviticus 23:15|). Counting seven full weeks and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning at six o’clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday.
Why Luke uses the expression, “When the day of Pentecost was fully come,” is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.
It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be “all with one accord in one place”; for upon this depends the question whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who will read #Acts 2:1-4| noticing the connection of the pronoun “they,” which occurs in each of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in #Acts 2:1| to be together in one place, are said in #Acts 2:4| to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the statement, “They were all together in one place.” Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to #Acts 1:15| to find the antecedent. But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and second chapters, and take #Acts 1:26| into its connection with #Acts 2:1|, we will find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: “The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had said, on the day of ascension, “You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit” [#Acts 1:5|]. It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception of the design of the event (see TFG “Acts 2:3” and see TFG “Acts 2:4”), to suppose that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty.
(OCA 23-25)
Acts 4:27
#Acts 2:2|
- It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled together:
(2) And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called ~oikoi~, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required more space than any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the apostles had been lodging.
(OCA 25)
Acts 4:28
#Acts 2:3,4|
3, 4. Simultaneous with the sound,
(3) There appeared to them tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them.
This is the immersion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for its occurrence.
There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, “it sat upon each of them,” the singular pronoun it is used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these tongues. We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for some time “continually in the temple, praising and blessing God” (#Lu 24:53|), and “continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication” (#Acts 1:14|), would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all.
We have already said something of the necessity of this event (see TFG “Acts 1:2”); but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted–power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, “You shall receive power (~dunamin~), when the Holy Spirit comes upon you” (#Acts 1:8|). This power they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of apostolic teaching.
(OCA 25, 26)
Acts 4:29
#Acts 2:4|
(4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named, but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate conviction. There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then, of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an indisputable exercise of it.
It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous physical power.
(OCA 26-27)
Acts 4:30
#Acts 2:5|
- The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus.
(5) Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
The native tongues of these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle.
(OCA 27)
Acts 4:31
6-12. (6) And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.
The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene.
(OCA 27)
Acts 4:32
#Acts 2:7|
Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds,
(7) And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans?
(OCA 27)
Acts 4:33
#Acts 2:8|
(8) And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born?
Acts 4:34
#Acts 2:9|
(9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Acts 4:35
(10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes,
Acts 4:36
(11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.
Acts 4:37
Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds,
(12) And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?
(OCA 27)