Introduction to the Book of Acts & Ch. 1

Introductory Remarks
on the Acts of the Apostles

Authorship

The author of the Third Gospel and of Acts—like the other evangelists— never gives his name. From internal evidence in the two books (and especially from Lk 1:1-4) it has been surmised that he was:

• well-educated (his Greek is good),
• not one of the original disciples (“handed down to us by those … who were eyewitnesses”), yet who may have been a participant in some of the events he narrates (“fulfilled among us”),
• one who knows the Jewish scriptures in the Greek version,
• very familiar with political and social conditions in Palestine during the early first century, and
• an admirer of the apostle Paul.

The theory that the Greek vocabulary of Luke and Acts indicates the author is a medical doctor has not been confirmed, although the language is certainly consistent with such a case.

The “we” passages in Acts may offer further clues to his personal experience. It cannot identify him, because there are too many possible candidates among Paul’s co-workers. The counter-claim by skeptics that Luke quotes from another traveler’s diary in these “we” passages has been refuted by J.C. Hawkins (quoted in Witherington, Acts 53), whose study of the unique aspects of the language and style of the “we” passages shows they are peculiar to the language of the Third Gospel and to the rest of Acts.

The Muratorian Canon (lines 34-39, AD 190) is the earliest of several early witnesses attributing these books to Luke “the beloved physician” (Coloss. 4:14; cf. also 2Tim 4:11; Philem 1:24).

If the author of "Luke-Acts" was indeed the person known in Paul's letter as "the beloved physician", we should disabuse ourselves of the image of a man trained in scientific medicine, well-acquainted with anatomy and the functions of the internal organs—i.e., something like a modern physician. Ancient medicine—and in this case Roman medicine, since "Luke" functioned in Greco-Roman society—was more like what a primitive "medicine man" might practice: home remedies, secret formulas, and the like. And since most "physicians" in the Greco-Roman world were slaves or ex-slaves, they had a very low social status and not much trust. For a good short summary of what Roman medicine was like see this article online. If the author of "Luke-Acts" was indeed this "physician", his literary and historical skills were much greater than presumably his "medical" ones were!


Luke as historian.

Hengel (Between Jesus 2) thinks that Luke “wanted to take further the great tradition of biblical [i.e., OT] historiography, or better, to bring it to completion”.

Date

Acts was written after the author’s gospel and—judging from the author’s positive and optimistic view of the Roman government—before the persecutions under Nero (AD 64-65).

Purpose

The Gospel according to Luke is the only book of the Bible with a purpose announced at the outset. The apostle John, who wrote the Fourth Gospel, gives a purpose toward the end of his book: “But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).

It must be assumed that all writings have a purpose, else they would not be written. Paul’s epistles each had one or more purposes. In their cases the primary or initial recipients are easy to identify and had clear immediate and localized needs. In the case of the gospels and Acts no such clearly localized and temporary need called them forth. At least, not in the view of the vast majority of scholars. Some, it is true, wish to “localize” Matthew or John, saying that they were written for the “Matthean church”. But this is an unproven assumption. In the case of Luke the addressee is not a group of Christians, but a single individual, a patron (some think). It seems strange to us today to think of such an important writing being sent to just a single individual. Elsewhere in the Bible we only know of Paul’s letter to Philemon as falling in this category.

Since Luke-Acts was a single work, divided onto two scrolls because of the length of each part, the prologue to the gospel (Lk 1:1-4) was intended (with some exceptions) to apply to both parts. Therefore the statement of purpose in Luke 1:4, namely to communicate the “certainty of the things you have been taught”, applies to Acts as well. It could be objected, that while the events in the life of Jesus and his teachings recorded in the gospels certainly belonged to the catechesis of all new Christians, the events in the history of the earliest churches probably did not—at least not at the time Luke was writing. This would argue that the announced purpose in Luke 1:4 applied almost exclusively to his gospel (part one of the two-part work). If Luke 1:4 does not give us a specific purpose for the writing of Acts, various possible purposes have been suggested from its contents.

Building bridges between the Jewish-Palestinian churches and the Gentile ones of the Diaspora. From Paul’s own letters we learn of the great lengths he went on several occasions to show the love, concern and generosity of the Gentile churches for their Jewish brethren in Jerusalem (the several collections made, the admonitions given in Romans 9-11). There may never have been a serious breach between these two groups of believers, and hence no need to “conciliate”, but Luke nevertheless does go out of his way to tell stories of cooperation. He mentions the gift from the Gentile church in Antioch, but not the one from the Greek and Macedonian churches which we know about from Paul’s own letters.

Encouraging respect within limits for Roman provincial government. Almost a fourth of the text of Acts is devoted to various encounters Paul had with Roman magistrates and officials, and most of these show the Roman officials to be fair-minded and open to Christianity. While we do not believe that Luke falsified the picture, it is clear that he includes so much of this material at the expense of giving more accounts of preaching and journeys, because it suited one of his purposes in writing. His view in this matter is not different from Paul’s own view expressed in his letters. Unlike Peter, Paul does not call Christians “strangers and exiles” (1Pet 2:11), but he does remind them that drawing a clear line of refusal to compromise with paganism, they must still respect Roman law (Rom 13:1-7) and count on the fundamental honesty of magistrates. Both Paul’s and Luke’s attitudes are similar to that of Jesus himself (Mk 12:17).

Mini-purposes. Along with goals for the book as a whole it is possible to detect “mini-purposes” which Luke had for parts of his book. For example, L.T. Johnson (Writings of the NT 223f) suggests a purpose for chs. 1-8, which is to show “God’s fidelity to his promises, so that his readers will know security (Gk asphaleia)”. But asphaleia in Lk 1:4 refers not to the believer’s feeling of security, but to the reliability of what was taught: its “believability”.

Chapter 1

Post-resurrection teaching,
Ascension, replenishing the Apostolate (Matthias)

Jesus’ Post-resurrection Teaching and his Ascension

Luke tells us here that in his previous book, which is the Gospel according to Luke, he recorded what Jesus did and taught prior to his ascension. By these two words ("do" and "teach") he lets us know that his gospel deals both with events (including miracles of healing, etc.) and with the content of Jesus’ teaching. But Luke does not linger long here: his readers are perfectly capable to reading his gospel on their own.

The words “began to do and teach” might imply that in this book (The Acts) he will tell us what the ascended Christ continued to do and teach through the apostles (so e.g. NIV Study Bible note). But we need to be cautious. For some scholars maintain that Luke uses “began to” idiomatically, in a way that does not imply that the action was never completed (cf. Lk 14:9 and possibly also Lk 4:21; 5:21; 13:25; Ac 27:35).

In v. 3 Luke tells us the dual purpose of the 40-day period between Jesus’ resurrection and his ascension. Jesus spent that time doing two things:

• Convincing his disciples that he really had risen from the dead, and
• Teaching them about the Kingdom of God.

Convincing the disciples of his resurrection

We are inclined to think that it only took one or two days for the disciples to be convinced that Jesus was risen from the dead. We remember “doubting” Thomas and his powerful confession in Jn 20:28.

But the human brain and heart is reluctant to believe something so incredible and glorious. Thomas doubted because he only heard Jesus was risen again. But Mat 28:17 implies that even the first appearances of Jesus caused some to believe and worship him, but left others (Gk hoi de) uncertain.

NT Wright, Resurrection of Son 643: “The strongest mark of authenticity in this paragraph is the jarring note: ‘but some doubted' (verse 17)."

It took forty years for the Israelites to be convinced by the revelation of God at Mt. Sinai; so it took forty days for the apostles to be convinced by the revelation of the risen Christ.

It was necessary that they have absolutely no doubt of this central fact, for their entire ministry for the rest of their lives would depend on the truth of Jesus’ resurrection.

Luke uses a strong word (tekmerioi) for the “proofs” Jesus gave them that he was resurrected. It is a philosophers’ word, used by Aristotle (so BDAG). The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a contemporary of St. Paul, rather significantly uses this word in his book The Antiquities of the Jews in a prayer attributed by him to Joshua, but not recorded in the Bible.

According to Josephus, Joshua prayed: “We are have come this far out of any rashness of our own, as though we thought ourselves able to subdue this land with our own weapons, but at the instigation of Moses your servant for this purpose, because you have promised us, by many proofs (Gk dia pollon tekmerion), that you would give us this land as a possession, and that you would make our army always superior in war to our enemies” (Antiq. 5:39).

In Joshua's case the “proofs” were the many miracles God performed in Egypt, at Mt. Sinai and in the desert. What Jesus did during these forty days was intended to have the same effect: to convince his apostles that they would overcome the opposition that awaited them in the world, because he was risen from the dead.

Teaching about the Kingdom

The second activity of this period was teaching the apostles about the Kingdom. Now the Kingdom was the main theme of Jesus’ pre-resurrection teaching as well. To what extent did what he now taught them differ from his earlier teaching?

It is possible, of course, that he spent this time simply reminding them of his earlier teachings, now possible to be seen in a new light after the Cross and Resurrection. Rabbis occasionally did that.

But if he taught them new truths, we have no record in the Bible of what they were. We have to remember that several of the most prolific writers of the New Testament — Paul and Luke — were not present to hear these teachings. But Matthew, Peter (who was Mark's source) and John were able to incorporate the new insights into their subsequent gospels: Matthew, Mark, and John.

Wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit

4-5 After Jesus was raised from the dead, he instructed his disciples to return north to Galilee and await him (Mk 16:7; Mat 28:10; Jn 21). Luke does not mention this Galilean outing. It is not clear how much of the 40-day period prior to Jesus' ascension was spent there in the north. But as the end of that period approached, Luke tells us that they were in Jerusalem with him, two weeks before the Festival of Weeks (our “Pentecost”), and that Jesus instructed them not to depart from Jerusalem after his ascension while they awaited a special gift promised by his Father. Luke has told us of this promise of a special gift earlier, in Lu 24:49.

And John in his gospel records Jesus speaking of this coming gift at great length in the Upper Room on the night of his betrayal (Jn 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:12-13). John specifies that the Son will ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples.

The “promise” of the Father that Jesus has in mind is what was promised long before in the Old Testament book of Joel 2:28-32, which Peter quotes in his speech in Jerusalem on Pentecost (see Acts 2:17).

The temporal sequence (1) ascension, then (2) giving the Spirit accords with the teachings of Jesus in John: As this “hour” approaches Jesus prays, “Now Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made” (Jn 17:5; cf. Jn 7:39; 12:16, 23; 13:31-32). In John’s language “glorify” refers to the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Only when the Son is “glorified” is the Holy Spirit given to the disciples (Jn 7:39; 16:7).

The risen Jesus doesn't specifically command the disciples to remain in Jerusalem after the giving of the Spirit, but it is perhaps implied in the commission of Acts 1:8 that they must begin their world “witness” “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea”.

Attempts have been made (e.g., by Crossan; cf. Skarsaune 147f.) to challenge Luke’s report that the apostles continued to make their headquarters in Jerusalem for the first decades of the church. It is objected that the apostles (with one exception) were Galileans, and that Jerusalem where Jesus was executed was the most dangerous place in the world for them.

These scholars seek to rewrite the NT history by “excavating” the supposed “layers” of the canonical gospels for hints as to an alternative story. But both their methodology and their unproven assumptions are highly questionable.

Furthermore, it is not only Luke who must be “rewritten” in order for this questionable view to be acceptable: it is also Paul, in whose letters there is a clear assumption that the “pillars” of the church (meaning Peter and James) are in Jerusalem, and that the Gentile churches owe monetary and prayer support to the “mother church” there.

Skarsaune (147) well summarizes the motive of these Jerusalem Christians for staying in Jerusalem:

“This stubborn adherence to Jerusalem sprang from [the apostles'] conception of their divine commission: they could not fail Jerusalem without failing God” (italics mine).

4 The command not to depart from Jerusalem was given “while Jesus was staying with them” (Gk sunalizomenos). Here the NIV follows a minority view that the Greek verb means “eating with them”. While there is nothing wrong with mentioning table fellowship, especially since in John 21 Jesus’ eating bread and fish with his disciples provides a setting for both convincing them he was resurrected and teaching them about their upcoming mission, the problem is that such a meaning of this Greek verb is extremely weakly attested (BDAG sub sunalizomai). And it is out of character for Luke, who (unlike John in Jn 21) was certainly not an eyewitness of this event, to have received from those that were present such an incidental and immaterial detail as that they happened to be eating at the time Jesus spoke these words.

There was nothing in the OT end-time prophecies that indicated that the pouring out of the Spirit would take place in Jerusalem. But there were indications that the beginning of the final end-time mission to the nations of the world would begin “from Jerusalem” (Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2 and perhaps Zech 14:8).

The giving of the Spirit and the "End-Time"

5 In view of the command to stay in Jerusalem and the promise that “the promise of the Father”, the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, would be given, it is small wonder that the disciples with their shared Jewish expectations would think that the eschaton (the End-Time) was at hand.

Jesus had been preaching “the kingdom of God is at hand” since the beginning of his ministry. Surely, now it would come. A small matter for one risen from the dead! And when Jesus reminded them of his earlier promises of a baptism greater than John’s, how could they forget his words about “fire” and judgment in connection with this baptism (Mat 3:11-12; Lk 3:16-17)? They had long entertained the expectation of an immediate end (Lk 19:11), and after a brief disillusionment when Jesus was crucified, they were now fanning the flames again.

6 And when they asked him “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” what did they consider to be the major obstacle to that restoration? Undoubtedly the armies of Caesar. A small matter for one who had overcome Rome’s crucifixion and risen from the dead!

Notice too that their question was not that the Jewish people would be restored to their land, which is what Cyrus the Great had done in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. But rather that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. Kingship means independence, self-rule, and indeed because of the Old Testament prophecies, dominance over the Gentile nations. Old Testament prophecies had indicated that this would begin in Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3).

7 It has become fashionable nowadays to insist that Jesus here officially rejected millennialism and established the doctrine that there would be no physical, End-time earthly kingdom, only the Church Age and the eternal state (i.e., “Heaven”).

But Tiede (1986) has shown that the disciples' expectation matched Luke’s own beliefs as shown throughout both his gospel and Acts. Had their expectation been wrong, now was the ideal time for Jesus to scotch it! “Oh no!” he could have said, “There will be no restoration of an earthly kingdom to the Jews. For Israel has rejected me, their Messiah. Now the only ‘kingdom’ that I will bring is a spiritual one in the hearts of the true ‘Israel of God’, Gentile believers.” But alas—he said no such thing. What instead he corrected was their desire to figure out God’s timetable for the future.

The Holy Spirit and the mission of world evangelism

8 The old King James Version (KJV) used the word “power” in both verse 7 and verse 8, as though Jesus was contrasting God’s power to set the time, with the disciples power to witness. But the two Greek words are different. God retains his own “authority” (exousia), but he gives to his witnessing saints “ability” (dunamis) to successfully witness.

Recent translations avoid this confusion in the KJV by using different English words ("authority" vs "power"). By using the Greek word for "but" (de) Luke clearly wants us to see a contrast between the two.

The Holy Spirit “coming upon” them

The Spirit “coming upon” them may not have been news to them: it was known from the Old Testament (Num 5:14, 30; Job 1:19; 4:15; Wis 1:5; Is 32:15), and Jesus had promised “giving” or “sending” the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). John the Baptizer had also predicted: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me … [Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matt 3:11; 12:32).

But Jesus mentions it here to remind them of its proper use: not for determining the time of the Kingdom, but for a powerful witness.

We should be clear in our theological thinking: the Spirit “coming upon” or “falling upon” someone is not the same as receiving the Spirit at the moment of conversion.

The first ("coming upon") is a temporary empowering for remarkable acts: prophesying (OT), speaking in foreign languages unknown to the speaker (Acts 2:1-13; 10:46; 19:6), deeds requiring extraordinary physical strength (Samson), etc. (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1Sam 11:6).

On the other hand the receiving of the Spirit to permanently indwell the new believer is not necessarily detectable in feelings, but assuredly happens the instant a person believes.

True, there are instances in the New Testament (NT) where newly converted persons had the Holy Spirit also "come upon" them (for example, the Samaritan believers in Acts 8:14-17). But this is not the rule, rather the exception. the best book I know of on the Bible’s teaching about the Holy Spirit is John F. Walvoord’s The Holy Spirit (Zondervan Publishers, paperback). I refer you there for references and discussion.

Walvoord and others point out that there are distinct actions of the Holy Spirit that affect believers.

1. First, the Spirit convicts of sin, leading to faith and the new birth. Simultaneously with being born of the Spirit, the new believer is indwelt by the Spirit. Another way of saying this, is that he receives the Spirit, who then seals him until the day of either his home-going to Christ or until the day of Christ’s coming again.

2. Secondly, the Spirit baptizes the church as a whole, done on the Day of Pentecost, and to individuals upon their conversion, uniting individual new believers with the Church Universal. also known as the Body of Christ. Our baptism by the Spirit makes us one with all who at any time in history have entered the Body of Christ (Rom 6:3; 1Cor 1:13; 12:13; Gal 3:27).

3. Finally, the Spirit guides, teaches, enlightens, convicts of sin, and fills believers, to the degree that they allow themselves to be led by Him into lives of obedience and trust. This produces the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22), and those who allow the Spirit to lead them into such lives are said to be “filled with the Spirit” (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 5:3; 9:17; 13:9, 52; Eph 5:18).

Witnesses

In the prophecy of Isa 43:10, 12 the faithful remnant of Israel (Rom 11:1-5) was supposed to be God’s “witnesses”. Here in Acts chapter 1, it is the believing remnant of Israel and Gentile proselytes to Judaism who form the earliest community of “Christians” and are commissioned to disseminate the good news (Isa 52:7; 61:1) of Jesus, God’s "Suffering Servant" (predicted in Isa 52:13-53:12) who brings redemption from sin for both Jew and Gentile, and to the “ends of the earth” (Isa 40:28; 45:22; 52:10).

The point of Jesus’ words in v. 8 is the reality and scope of the new mission. At this time he does not tell them the nature of their message: this will come to them by inspiration at the time the Spirit falls upon them at Pentecost (Acts 2; see also Mat 10:19).

Some ancient writers thought of Ethiopia (ancient "Cush", today's Sudan) as one of the “ends of the earth” (Isa 11:11; 18:1; Zeph 3:10), and Ethiopia certainly figures in the early Christian mission (Ac 8:27). Others considered Tarshish (present day Spain) as the farthest limit (Isa 23:6, 10; 60:9; 66:19; Jonah 1:3), and this was St. Paul’s missionary goal (Rom 15:24, 28).

The Ascension of Jesus

Theologically viewed

We could profitably spend an entire year studying the nature and implications of the Ascension of Jesus. Here we must be brief. Theologically, the ascension completes the cycle begun by the Incarnation ("becoming human") of God the Son. As we confess in the Apostles Creed, God the Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of Mary (as her son Jesus), was crucified at the orders of Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, rose again, ascended into heaven and will come again.

Theologians use the technical term “session” to describe the position and activity of Christ between his Ascension and his Second Coming. Again quoting the Apostles' Creed, Jesus is “seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty”. The idea of Christ’s session is derived in part from verses like Hebrews 1:3; 10:12; Revelation 3:21, but also from the notion that as the victorious Redeemer he sits enthroned at God’s right hand. There he intercedes for us with the Father and through the Holy Spirit also resides in each believer, empowering each to live fruitful Christ-like lives. But it is interesting that Stephen’s vision of the ascended Lord showed him standing (Ac 7:55-56). Some think this was to honor Stephen, the first Christian martyr and welcome him into heaven.

NT references to the glorification-ascension of Jesus

The earliest NT reference to the ascension is the pre-Pauline hymn fragment in Philippians

“And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"
(Philippians 2:8-11),”

and another early Christian creedal hymn quoted by Paul “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory” (1Tim 3:16 NIV), in both of which the affirmation of Jesus' "glorification" immediately follows that of his death without explicitly mentioning the resurrection, which suggests that these statements assume the resurrection is part of the "taking up to glory".

Although it is only Luke who in both his gospel (Lk 24:50-51) and in Acts 1:9-11 describes the event of the ascension, Jesus speaks of it as a certain future event in Jn 3:13; 6:62; 13:1-3; 16:5, 28; 20:17. And Paul refers to it in his letters (Rom 10:6; Eph 4:8, 10; 1Tim 3:16). It is mentioned several times in the Letter to the Hebrews and in 2Peter: (Heb 4:14; 6:19-20; 9:24; 1Pet 3:22).

Description of the ascension

The two Lukan descriptions (Lk 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11) must refer to the same event, and therefore supplement each other. In the gospel Jesus led his Eleven out to Bethany east of Jerusalem and there he blessed them and was “carried up” to heaven.

In Acts Luke locates the event on the Mt. of Olives (Acts 1:12; on the apparent discrepancy see Bauckham Pal. Setting 46) and describes Jesus as being “taken up” (anelemfthe). The same expression is used in the much earlier Christian credo-hymn, the sixfold mystery embedded in 1Tim 3:16. It is also the term the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint or "LXX") uses for Elijah’s ascension into heaven (2Ki 2:9-11; 1Mac 2:58; Sir 48:9, 14). On the similarity to the Elijah story see Witherington, Acts 112 (citing Palmer).

This allusion to Elijah’s ascension is appropriate in a number of ways. The verb in the phrase “and a cloud …-ed him from their sight” can be translated “lifted him up” (cf. Herodotus).

Bearing in mind that in the OT imagery God makes clouds his chariot, and that Elijah was carried up to heaven on a “fiery chariot” (a red cloud?), perhaps the cloud in Acts 1 serves the same purpose.

Jesus, like God in the OT, rides on a cloud (Acts 1:9). One of the most pervasive images of Christ’s return is as one who rides his cloud chariot into battle (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27; Rev 1:7; cf. Dan 7:13).

The OT imagery of God riding the clouds (Ps 68:4) probably owes its origin to the prophetic denunciation of the Canaanite god Baal, who as a rain-bringer god rides on the clouds.

One is reminded, however, of Elijah’s ascension, because on that occasion his pupil Elisha insisted on being there when he was taken by God, and was assured by Elijah that if he saw him go, it would mean that he would have special miraculous powers like his master, and a “double portion” of Elijah’s spirit (i.e., double what Elijah’s other disciples would have) (2Ki 2:9-10).

In Acts 1:4-5 too Jesus promises the Eleven that, if they wait in Jerusalem, he will send upon them the promised Holy Spirit. As a result the apostles enjoyed gifts and miraculous powers that no subsequent generation of Christians had. Like Elisha, they too had a “double portion”!

Again, Elisha was empowered to carry on Elijah’s unfinished work, just as the disciples of Jesus were empowered by the Holy Spirit to continue His unfinished work of evangelization.

One should also not forget, when thinking of how Elisha’s miracles were more spectacular even than Elijah’s, that Jesus promised the disciples that they by the Spirit would do “greater works” than his own (meizona touton John 14:12).

The actual process of ascending, that is, what the disciples saw, was of course only symbolic. We do not know if it is scientifically proper to speak of heaven as a place, or of locating it “up”. These are merely the conventions that God has used to make himself comprehensible by finite human minds. But since those conventions exist, Jesus was seen to rise without flying and to disappear from view.

The text says that “a cloud” hid him from their sight. Now it is of course quite possible that it was a cloudy day, and that the Savior’s visible body passed beyond it and could no longer be seen. But since the scene is replete with symbolic conventions from Israel’s past experience of God, one cannot but wonder if the cloud was to remind the apostles of the pillar of cloud that represented Israel's God in the desert wanderings and even represented his glory descending on the temple of Solomon (1Ki 8:10–11; 2Chr 5:13–14). So symbolically Jesus was assumed in or reunited with the heavenly Triune godhead.

Tabernacle imagery is very important in the doctrine of God’s dwelling among his people, since John says that “The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. ” (John 1:14), and after the Second Coming he describes the situation: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with man. He will tabernacle with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev 21:3).

The angel’s query “Why do you stand there looking…?” (v. 11) has often led readers to consider the disciples’ action improper. But Jesus wanted them to see, in order that they would be eyewitnesses of everything, from the beginning of his ministry through the Ascension. They watched closely, perhaps remembering Elijah’s promise to Elisha (2Ki 2:10; see above).

10 Notice, however, that there must also be an angelic as well as a human witness to such epochal acts of God as the Incarnation (Lk 2:13), the Resurrection (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12) and the Ascension. And as in the case of the angelic watch at the Empty Tomb, there are two, presumably reflecting the Jewish judicial rule that a case can be established only if there are two or more witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15).

11 The second half of v. 11 is an important passage for the doctrine of the Second Coming. But how far should we press the words “in the same way”? Some think the Ascension must have taken place on the Mt. of Olives, and therefore Jesus will return to the Mt. of Olives (see Zech. 14:3, 4). Others think this only means he will come visibly and bodily. If we take John’s Revelation visions literally (perhaps we should not), he will come the second time mounted upon a white horse (Rev. 19:11)!

Community prayer in the Upper Room (Acts 1:12-14)

The upper room was not just a temporary meeting place, but also the lodging place for the Galilean pilgrims, while they were in Jerusalem. F. F. Bruce (73) notes that upper rooms were used for dining and to sublet to poorer people, which of course the disciples were.

Eerdmanns Dictionary of the Bible on “Upper Room”:
“Gk. hyperoon designates the place in Jerusalem where the disciples stayed following the ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:12-14). The use of the definite article (‘the’ upper room) has led to the suggestion that it is identical with the well-known location of the Last Supper (anaégaion). It could also possibly be in the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12).”

Turner (WG 330) refers to this period as a “Spiritless interregnum”: Jesus has departed and the Spirit has not yet been given. It lasted for approximately ten days: from the Ascension (40 days after Passover) until Pentecost/Weeks (50 days after Passover).

The principal activity in this upper room was prayer. Jesus had told them to wait for the “promise of my Father”, which obviously led them to spend much time in prayer.

Those present were the Eleven, Jesus’ mother Mary, other women who had followed Jesus, and “his brothers”. These, who had not believed in him during his ministry, were now believers. The resurrected Jesus made a special appearance to his brother James (1Cor 15:7) to secure his faith, as he did later with Saul/Paul (Acts 9).

The Replacement of Judas by Matthias (Acts 1:15-26)

The clear premise of this story is that there really were literally twelve disciples of Jesus. The infant Church's leadership, which was to have been the Twelve, was now missing one member: Judas who had betrayed his Master and committed suicide.

The days of corporate prayer mentioned by Luke would naturally be accompanied by corporate reading of Scripture, and this—together with the guidance of the Spirit (not yet “given”, but still able to guide)—would have led them to the passage quoted from Psa 69:25 and Psa 109:8, which they understood to refer to Judas’ apostasy. In the ancient lectionaries those two psalms may have been combined, making the apostles’ connection easier to see.

The gathering where Peter “stood up among the brethren” (which sounds like a bigger group than mentioned in the upper room) to announce their findings (v. 15) may have been in a larger room than the mentioned “upper room”, unless its capacity was adequate for 120 men.

Peter obtains God's guidance for this waiting period from his exegesis of the passages from these two Psalms. He summarizes what the other ten apostles knew: that Judas like the rest of them was originally “allotted his share” in the ministry (v. 17). Like the others he went on the first missionary journeys in Galilee. But in fulfillment of OT prophecy he betrayed his Master and died a suicide. For this reason, it was now necessary to have a successor take over his assignment. This too Peter derives from his exegesis of the prophecy in Psalm 109:8 “let another take his place of leadership”.

Luke uses the Greek noun diakonia for both the charitable (Ac 6:1; 11:29; 12:25) and the preaching ministries (Ac 6:4) of the early leadership. According to Luke, Paul too received a diakonia from Jesus (Ac 20:24). Paul himself uses diakonia in the very same way, both of preaching (Rom 11:13) and charitable acts and gifts (Rom 12:7; 15:31).

Acts 1:18-19, given in parentheses in the NIV, are probably Luke’s own editorial comment about Judas’ fate, not a part of Peter’s discourse. Peter's explanation and rationale for action ends in v. 20, where he gives the scriptural prophecy justifying their present undertaking to fill Judas' shoes.

Verses 21-22 contain Peter's recommended action, which has two phases: (1) Choose the best possible candidate or candidates from among the other men who like the Twelve had accompanied Jesus from Jesus' baptism by John to his Ascension, and (2) let God make the final choice between the two men by the drawing of lots accompanied by prayer.

The method used to select his successor - casting lots - was in that day not dishonoring to God. It had been used many times in the OT to secure God's guidance (Achan in Joshua 7:14-18, the Urim and Thummim in 1 Samuel 14:41, and Prov 16:33).

The man chosen was named Matthias, and Luke gives the clear impression that he approves of the procedure the apostles chose and with the man chosen.

Lessons to learn

What can we learn from the example of the Upper Room community? They had a promise of the Spirit and a commission from Jesus for worldwide evangelism. Then he departed and left them alone. They then began to prepare themselves to obey the mission call and to receive the empowerment in its proper time.

We today already have the Spirit, but we also have a mission. How do we prepare ourselves to discharge that mission well? Bible study, corporate prayer and worship, and alertness to ministry opportunities, whether of an oral evangelistic type or a charitable type. Both kinds honor Christ and lead recipients to glorify God.

The fact that Luke nowhere later tells us of any ministry of Matthias does not mean this was a mistake. A few rash individuals have even suggested that the Eleven should have waited for Paul’s conversion, so that he could be the Twelfth!

But rather the fact that Luke finds it necessary to mention this completing of the Twelve for apostolic ministry shows that his interests are broader than just Peter and Paul, on whom his narrative concentrates, and that by allotting more space to these two apostles he is not trying to be “sectarian”. His approach is truly catholic in the best sense of that term.

My Abbreviations of Cited Works

Book of Acts: Pal. Setting = Bauckham, Richard (ed.), Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Bruce = Bruce, Frederick F. The Acts of the Apostles: the Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Ferguson, Backgrounds = Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Gooding = Gooding, David W. True to the Faith: Charting the Course through the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Gospel Folio Press, 1995.

IVP Imag. = Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, (eds.) Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

IVP NBD = Douglas, J. D., N. Hillyer, D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, Alan R. Millard, James I. Packer, and Donald J. Wiseman, (eds.) New Bible Dictionary. 3rd Revised ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

NTPG = Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God). Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1996.

Rackham = Rackham, Richard Belward. The Acts of the Apostles: an Exposition. 5th ed ed. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen, 1910.

Tiede 1986 = David L. Tiede ("The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1," The Harvard Theological Review 79, no. 1/3, Christians among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday [1986]: 278-86

Weinfeld, Normative = Weinfeld, Moshe. Normative And Sectarian Judaism In The Second Temple Period (Library of Second Temple Studies). London: T. & T. Clark Publishers, Ltd, 2005.

WG = Marshall, I. Howard, and David Peterson, (eds.) Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 1998.

With. Acts = Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.