Commentary on Acts (Commentary on the New Testament Book #5)

California

Introduction

Dear reader,

Here you have part of a commentary on the whole New Testament, published by Baker Academic both in hardback and as an ebook. The electronic version has been broken into segments for your convenience and affordability, though if you like what you find here you may want to consider the whole at a proportionately lower cost. Whether in whole or in part, the e-version puts my comments at your fingertips on your easily portable Kindle, iPad, smartphone, or similar device.

I’ve written this commentary especially for busy people like you—lay people with jobs and families that take up a lot of time, Bible study leaders, pastors, and all who take the New Testament seriously—that is, people who time-wise and perhaps money-wise can’t afford the luxury of numerous heavyweight, technical commentaries on the individual books making up the section of the Bible we call the New Testament. So technical questions are avoided almost entirely, and the commentary concentrates on what will prove useful for understanding the scriptural text as a basis for your personal life as a Christian, for discussion with others, and for teaching and preaching.

Group discussion, teaching, and preaching all involve speaking aloud, of course, and when the New Testament was written, even private reading was done aloud. Moreover, most authors dictated their material to a writing secretary, and books were ordinarily read aloud to an audience. In this commentary, then, I’ve avoided almost all abbreviations (which don’t come through as such in oral speech) and have freely used contractions that characterize speaking (we’ll, you’re, they’ve, and so on). To indicate emphasis in oral speech, italics also occur fairly often.

You’ll mostly have to make your own practical and devotional applications of the scriptural text. But such applications shouldn’t disregard or violate the meanings intended by the Scripture’s divinely inspired authors and should draw on the richness of those meanings. So I’ve interpreted them in detail. Bold print indicates the text being interpreted. Translations of the original Greek are my own. Because of the interpretations’ close attention to detail, my translations usually, though not always, gravitate to the literal and sometimes produce run-on sentences and other nonstandard, convoluted, and even highly unnatural English. Square brackets enclose intervening clarifications, however, plus words in English that don’t correspond to words in the Greek text but do need supplying to make good sense. (As a language, Greek has a much greater tendency than English does to omit words meant to be supplied mentally.) Seemingly odd word-choices in a translation get justified in the following comments. It needs to be said as well that the very awkwardness of a literal translation often highlights features of the scriptural text obscured, eclipsed, or even contradicted by loose translations and paraphrases.

Literal translation also produces some politically incorrect English. Though brothers often includes sisters, for example, sisters doesn’t include brothers. Similarly, masculine pronouns may include females as well as males, but not vice versa. These pronouns, brothers, and other masculine expressions that on occasion are gender-inclusive correspond to the original, however, and help give a linguistic feel for the male-dominated culture in which the New Testament originated and which its language reflects. Preachers, Bible study leaders, and others should make whatever adjustments they think necessary for contemporary audiences but should not garble the text’s intended meaning.

Out of respect for your abilities so far as English is concerned, I’ve not dumbed down the vocabulary used in translations and interpretations. Like the translations, interpretations are my own. Rather than reading straight through, many of you may consult the interpretation of an individual passage now and then. So I’ve had to engage in a certain amount of repetition. To offset the repetition and keep the material in bounds, I rarely discuss others’ interpretations. But I’ve not neglected to canvass them in my research.

On the theological front, the commentary is unabashedly evangelical, so that my prayers accompany this volume in support of all you who strive for faithfulness to the New Testament as the word of God.

Robert Gundry

Acts

As a sequel to the Gospel of Luke, the book of Acts narrates Jesus’ continuing, irresistible, and appealing work of salvation through the witness of his disciples (compare the introduction to Luke’s Gospel).

AN INTRODUCTION BY WAY OF RECAPITULATION AND ELABORATION

Acts 1:1–26

This introduction to the book of Acts recapitulates subject matter in Luke’s Gospel and elaborates the most recent parts of that subject matter. Luke alludes to his Gospel and its account of Jesus’ activities (1:1–3), rementions Jesus’ command that the apostles stay in Jerusalem till they’re baptized in the Holy Spirit (1:4–5), records again the Great Commission (1:6–8), redescribes Jesus’ ascension (1:9–11), and tells about the replacement of Judas Iscariot during the wait for baptism in the Holy Spirit (1:12–26).

Luke writes in 1:1–3: I produced the former word, Theophilus, concerning all the things which Jesus began both to do and to teach ²till the day that he was taken up [to heaven] after he’d given an order through the Holy Spirit to the apostles, whom he’d selected [compare Luke 1:1–4; 6:13–16; 24:49–51], ³to whom also, after he’d suffered, he presented himself alive with many positive proofs, appearing to them throughout forty days and speaking the things about God’s kingdom/reign. The first word refers to Luke’s Gospel, called a word because he put in writing the oral word of the gospel (see Luke 1:2; Acts 10:36 for two of many examples of word as the oral gospel). In fact, the expression Luke uses could legitimately be translated, "I spoke formerly. He dedicates Acts to Theophilus, as he did the Gospel. We know nothing more about Theophilus. All the things which Jesus began both to do and to teach recalls the overwhelming number of Jesus’ good deeds and good words. Their sheer number recommends the gospel. Both to do and to teach stresses that the deeds backed up his teaching and that the teaching explained the significance of his deeds. The gospel isn’t good news if either is missing. Began both to do and to teach implies that Jesus will continue doing good deeds and teaching good news through the agency of his apostles and other followers (compare 9:34: And Peter said to him, ‘Aeneas, Jesus Christ is healing you’ ). Till the day that he was taken up marks the end of that beginning but notably includes Jesus’ death, resurrection, and postresurrection ministry in the doing and teaching. The order he’d given the apostles was that they should sit [tight] in the city [of Jerusalem] till they were clothed with power from the height (Luke 24:49). This clothing will consist in the Holy Spirit’s coming on them from heaven (Acts 1:4–5, 8; 2:1–4). For now, though, Luke points out that Jesus gave the order through the Holy Spirit." To the very end of Jesus’ earthly lifetime, then, the Holy Spirit was inspiring the deeds and words of Jesus (see also Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38, for example).

Luke’s remarking Jesus’ selection of the apostles underlines their status as witnesses specially authorized by him. In particular, though disciples other than the apostles saw him risen from the dead, the apostles formed the solid core of that witness. For it was to them that he presented himself alive; and despite the fact he’d suffered crucifixion, that presentation included proofs which were many and positive and spread throughout forty days (compare the certainty of the gospel according to Luke 1:4; and contrast the Devil’s testing Jesus forty days according to Luke 4:1–13, for which testing the forty days of proofs offer a kind of compensation). Appearing to them stresses the eyewitness character of the proofs (compare Luke 1:2 again), and the filling of the forty days with speaking the things about God’s kingdom/reign establishes continuity between Jesus’ ministry prior to passion-and-resurrection and his ministry afterwards. For that kingdom/reign had formed the main theme of his earlier deeds and words (Luke 4:43 and so on). Thus there’s continuity not only between the Old Testament and Jesus’ prior ministry. There’s also continuity between that ministry and Jesus’ post-resurrection ministry. And since those ministries are only the beginning of what he did and taught, there’ll be continuity between them and what he’s yet to do and teach through his apostles and other followers. In other words, apostolic Christianity is one with Jesus’ deeds and words and, through them, with the Old Testament.

1:4–5: And while eating with [the apostles], he directed them not to withdraw from Jerusalem [as they’d be tempted to do because of Jesus’ crucifixion there and their Galilean origin] but to await the Father’s promise, "which you’ve heard from me, ⁵because John baptized with water, on the one hand, but you’ll be baptized in the Holy Spirit not after these many days [= in a few days]." While eating with [the apostles] refers back to Luke 24:41–43, 49, where the risen Jesus ate with them to prove the physicality of his resurrection and directed them to sit [tight] in the city [of Jerusalem] because he was going to send the promise of [his] Father on them. Baptism in the Holy Spirit interprets being clothed with power from the height [= heaven] in that promise. According to Luke 3:16, it was John the baptizer who said someone stronger than he would baptize people in the Holy Spirit. Here, Jesus adopts the statement as his own so as to establish continuity between his ministry and John’s under the aegis of God the Father. Christianity has a good pedigree, then. That the fulfillment of the Father’s promise will take place soon makes staying in Jerusalem tolerable. Putting the fulfillment’s temporal proximity negatively ("not after these many days") stresses that the apostles won’t have to wait long. The very awkwardness of this expression adds to the stress.

1:6–8: Therefore [since baptism in the Holy Spirit seemed to signal the messianic kingdom; see Ezekiel 36:22–38, especially verse 27] they, on coming together, were asking him, saying, "Lord, [we’re wondering] whether you’re restoring the rulership to Israel at this time [= the imminent time of baptism in the Holy Spirit that you’ve just talked about (compare Luke 24:21)]." ⁷On the other hand, he told them, "It’s not yours to know times or seasons that the Father has set by his own authority. ⁸Nevertheless, you’ll receive power when the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you’ll be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and as far as the extremity of the earth." As often in Luke’s Gospel, Lord—here as a respectful address—suits Jesus’ dignity as the Son of God. It’s especially suitable in an address to Jesus as the resurrected Son of God. The angel Gabriel had promised to the Virgin Mary a restoration of rulership to Israel through Jesus (Luke 1:26–33). She exulted in that promise (Luke 1:54–55). Filled with the Holy Spirit, Zechariah prophesied such a restoration (Luke 1:67–79), and Jesus himself did too (Luke 22:29–30). So the apostles aren’t to be blamed for asking whether the time for it has come. The use of the present tense in you’re restoring for an event that isn’t yet occurring shows the apostles hopeful of an affirmative answer. Jesus doesn’t deny the restoration. How could he? As just noted, he’d recently predicted it. But he does deny the apostles’ right to know the Father’s timetable and interprets the imminent coming of the Holy Spirit on them as empowerment for witness rather than as a sign or concomitant of Jesus’ restoring rulership to Israel. Set by his own authority implies that the apostles’ hope for a quick restoration doesn’t determine the Father’s timetable. Nevertheless introduces the Holy Spirit’s empowerment of the apostles as a compensation for their inability to know times or seasons. The empowerment has the purpose of enabling them to bear effective witness about Jesus and for him. Their witnessing will consist in testifying to what they’ve seen in his ministry and resurrection and in working miracles to back up their testimony (again see Luke 1:1–4). The starting of this testimony in Jerusalem implies and suits continuity with Judaism, centered in that city. As ever, Luke wants his audience to know that Christianity is no upstart and therefore not a suspect religion. And in all Judea and Samaria probably refers to the whole land of Israel, including its central region of Samaria (see the comments on Luke 1:5), and thus adds to the theme of continuity with Judaism. And Samaria looks forward to the progress of the gospel into the region populated by religious cousins of the Jews (8:1, 4–25; 9:31; 15:3). (Samaritans used the Pentateuch, and still use it, as their Scripture.) And as far as the extremity of the earth projects the universal reach of apostolic witness (see especially Acts 13–28 and compare Luke 24:47–49).

1:9–11: And after he’d said these things, as they were watching he was lifted up; and a cloud hoisted him from their eyes [= out of their sight]. ¹⁰And as they were gazing into the sky while he was traveling [up to heaven], also—behold—two men in white clothes were standing alongside them. ¹¹And they said, "Galilean men, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in this way, [that is,] in the manner that you’ve viewed him traveling into heaven." As they were watching, as they were gazing into the sky, looking into the sky, and you’ve viewed him put a quadruple emphasis on eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus’ ascension. In a backhanded way, from their eyes adds to this emphasis. Throughout, there’s one original word underlying the translations sky and heaven. The apostles were looking into the sky. Jesus was traveling up to heaven. He was lifted up by a cloud’s taking him. Since God spoke out of a cloud at Jesus’ transfiguration (Luke 9:34–35), here a cloud’s taking him provides a divine mode of transport. According to Luke 21:27 it’s this mode of transport that he’ll have when he comes back—hence the two men’s saying he’ll come in this way. The addition of in the manner that you’ve viewed him traveling into heaven ensures the parallel. The two men in white clothes recalls the two men in flashing clothes who announced Jesus’ resurrection at the empty tomb (Luke 24:4–7) and, farther back, the two men—namely, Moses and Elijah—who appeared in glory and were telling about his exodus, which he was going to fulfill in Jerusalem (Luke 9:30–31). The ascension completes the final leg of that exodus. Here the men predict his second coming. Also and behold highlight the prediction, and their standing alongside the apostles makes the prediction unmistakably audible as well as the men’s appearance to them unmistakably visible. Galilean men addresses the apostles in a way that stresses the difference between their place of origin and the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus has told them to await baptism in the Holy Spirit and where they’re then to start bearing witness to what they’ve seen and heard (compare Luke 22:59). Why do you stand looking into the sky? indicates they should now expect a long interval before Jesus’ return and fill that interval with worldwide testimony. He’s not going to return while they’re standing there.

Now Luke starts elaborating what went on after they returned to Jerusalem with great joy (Luke 24:52). 1:12: Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Of an Olive Grove, which is near Jerusalem, [the mountain] situated a Sabbath day’s journey [from Jerusalem]. That would be only three-fifths of a mile distant. For a Jew, traveling any greater distance on a Sabbath was thought to violate the Sabbath by expending enough effort for it to count as work. But Luke offers no indication that the return to Jerusalem occurred on a Sabbath. Indeed, forty days from Easter Sunday rules out the Sabbath (compare 1:3). So the proximity to Jerusalem confirms instead the fulfillment of Jesus’ exodus in Jerusalem (Luke 9:30–31). (Because pilgrims overflowed Jerusalem proper and bivouacked on the Mount of Olives, that mountain was considered part of greater Jerusalem.)

1:13–14: And when they’d entered [Jerusalem proper], they went up into an upstairs room where they were staying, [that is,] both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas [the son] of James. See the comments on Luke 3:14 for the apostolic list. As compared with that list, the present advancement of John to stand next to Peter prepares for their pairing in 3:1, 3–4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14. The resultant Peter and John and James echoes Luke 8:51; 9:28. John and James likewise echoes Luke 9:54. And though Andrew came second as Peter’s brother in Luke 3:14, for lack of distinction elsewhere he comes last in the initial foursome here. For no reason expressed in Luke-Acts, Thomas advances ahead of Bartholomew and Matthew (but see John 11:16; 14:5–7; 20:24–29 for the increasing importance of Thomas). Judas Iscariot has been dropped from the list, of course. ¹⁴With mutual fervor all these were engrossed in the prayer together with women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers. Emphasizing the piety of the apostles and others are their engrossment in the prayer, the fervor of that engrossment, their sharing the fervor, and the unanimity of their fervent engrossment in the prayer. If "the prayer alludes to prayer at an appointed time in Jewish practice, as in 3:1; 10:2–3, emphasis falls on the disciples’ piety as a continuance of Jewish religious piety. Women harks back to the women who’d supported Jesus and the Twelve, followed along with him from Galilee, watched his crucifixion and burial, came to his tomb only to find it empty, and announced Jesus’ resurrection to the apostles (Luke 8:2–3; 23:49, 55–56; 24:1–10, 22–23). The inclusion of Jesus’ mother recalls her piety, displayed in Luke 1–2; and the inclusion of his brothers (half-brothers in view of his virgin birth) along with Mary recalls Jesus’ describing their piety in Luke 8:19–21, particularly in verse 21: My mother and my brothers—these are the ones who are hearing God’s word and doing [it]" (see the comments on that passage for Jesus’ talking about them, not about others as distinct from them; compare 1 Corinthians 9:5). As in his Gospel, then, Luke is highlighting the piety, comradery, and inclusiveness—including gender inclusiveness—of Jesus’ followers. All this to attract converts.

In 1:15–26 Luke continues to elaborate what went on between Jesus’ ascension and the disciples’ baptism in the Holy Spirit. 1:15–17: And during these days Peter, on standing up in the midst of the brothers and sisters, said (and a crowd of about one hundred and twenty names [= persons] was at the same [place]), ¹⁶"Men, brothers, it was necessary for the Scripture to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit foretold through David’s mouth concerning Judas, the one who became a guide for those who took Jesus along [= arrested him (Luke 22:54)], ¹⁷because he [Judas] was numbered among us and obtained by lot [that is, by God’s will] a portion of this service [= apostolic ministry]." Peter’s standing up in the midst . . . implies that the others were sitting down (compare 2:2). The previous mention of women (1:14) favors that brothers be supplemented with sisters. The following notation of about one hundred and twenty persons indicates that brothers and sisters is being used in a religious sense (as in 6:3), not in a biological sense (as in 1:14). The use of names for persons allows for the presence of women as well as men. Luke puts the notation of how many persons were present between said and the quotation of Peter’s words. The awkwardness of this placement calls special attention to what Luke considers a large number, especially given that at the same place refers apparently to the upstairs room of 1:13. Even after the ascension of Jesus to heaven, his popularity packs a room with people, even an upstairs room (compare Luke 5:18–19 and Luke’s emphasis throughout the third Gospel on Jesus’ well-deserved popularity). At the same place also points up the attractive unity of the disciples. But Peter addresses only his co-apostles, all male, whom he’ll ask to participate in choosing a successor for Judas Iscariot. He interprets Judas’s betrayal of Jesus as a guidance to Jesus of those who arrested him, and attributes the results of this betrayal to the divine necessity of fulfilling the Scripture. Thus even the betrayal’s results carry out God’s plan. He’s ever in control. The Holy Spirit foretold the Scripture in the sense that the Scripture records the Spirit’s foretelling. This foretelling passed through David’s mouth onto a scroll of Scripture and dealt with Judas (see 1:20). Attributing the foretelling to the Holy Spirit and making David’s mouth a mere channel puts enormous emphasis on the carrying out of God’s plan. No accidents of history here! But the scripturally necessitated results of Judas’s betrayal of Jesus have yet to be detailed in 1:18–26. Whatever they’ll turn out to be, Peter says the Holy Spirit foretold them because Judas was numbered among the twelve apostles and had obtained a portion of apostolic ministry. "Numbered among us confirms that Peter is addressing only his fellow apostles as originally twelve in number. It was Jesus who numbered Judas among the Twelve by selecting him along with the other apostles (Luke 6:13–16); and since Jesus spent all night in prayer right before selecting them, Judas obtained his portion by God’s will (represented in the phrase by lot"). But here Luke mentions neither God nor Jesus, so that the accent rests solely on Judas’s membership and service in the Twelve as such. What’s to happen now to that membership and service. What have been and will be the outcomes of Judas’s betraying Jesus?

1:18–19: "Therefore this [Judas] procured for himself a field with the reward of injustice; and on becoming prone [= on falling headlong/facedown] he burst open in the middle, and all his guts were spilled out. ¹⁹And it [this outcome] became known to all who are inhabiting Jerusalem, so that in their own language that field was called [= named] ‘Hakeldama’ (this is [= means] ‘Field of Blood’)." Hakeldama is Aramaic, the language of Peter and his audience. So "their own language indicates that Luke is merging his own account of the past outcome into Peter’s remarks so as to provide a basis for subsequent quotations of the Old Testament. According to Luke 22:4–5, the chief priests and officers of the temple guard covenanted to give Judas money for betraying Jesus. Now we learn that they kept their side of the covenant and that Judas used the money to purchase a field. Here Luke calls the money the reward of injustice to remind us that since Jesus was just—that is, righteous (see especially Luke 23:47)—his crucifixion was unjust. In view isn’t the injustice of Judas’s betrayal (Luke doesn’t write his injustice") so much as that of those who paid Judas for the betrayal. But he gets paid another way too by falling headlong, so that his abdomen bursts and his intestines gush out in a pool of blood. His blood then gives the field its name. Whereas Jesus’ shed blood established a beneficial covenant (Luke 22:20), Judas’s blood was shed as the result of a mercenary covenant that proved disastrous for him. The knowledge of this outcome throughout the populace of Jerusalem, plus their naming Judas’s field after his blood, underlines the horror of his betraying Jesus even though the betrayal carried out God’s plan. Divine determination and human responsibility coalesce.

Now Peter quotes the Scripture that he earlier said had to be fulfilled (1:16), and he introduces it as the reason for Judas’s demise. 1:20: "For it’s written in the book of Psalms, ‘His homestead is to become deserted, and no one is to dwell in it [Psalm 69:25],’ and, ‘Another [man] is to take his supervisorship [Psalm 109:8].’ " The Scripture of 1:16 turns out to be two passages from the Psalms. The first one portrays the demise of a wicked person—in this case, Judas Iscariot—in terms of its result: the vacancy of his dwelling place. The second passage portrays the demise of a wicked person like Judas in terms of the need it creates to fill the supervisory role he has vacated. In this case, it’s the supervisory role of an apostle.

1:21–22: Therefore [since Scripture demands that someone replace Judas in apostolic supervisorship] it’s necessary that of the men who came with us during all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out over us, ²²beginning from John’s baptism till the day that he was taken up from us—[it’s necessary that] one of these [men] become a witness with us of his [Jesus’] resurrection." The Scripture is God’s word, so that the necessity is divine because it’s scriptural. With us refers to the apostles just as among us did in 1:17. The men who came with us refers to male disciples who accompanied the apostles. Peter defines all the time as spanning the period from John’s baptism to Jesus’ ascension. Apostleship among the Twelve required eyewitness of the entirety of Jesus’ ministry, beginning with John’s baptizing him (compare Luke 1:2: the eyewitnesses from the beginning). (Since the ascension had to do with Jesus alone, the baptism probably has to with John’s baptizing Jesus in particular rather than people in general.) Between baptism and ascension Jesus entered and exited cities and towns over us, Peter says. He means that Jesus was at their head, exercising leadership over them. As apostles they will supervise other disciples of Jesus, but he first supervised the apostles. Hence the placement of Lord before Jesus. And to the apostles’ supervisorship over other disciples is to be added witness-bearing to nondisciples concerning Jesus’ resurrection. They’re to tell nondisciples that they actually saw him resurrected from the dead. To make this testimony convincingly twelvefold, Judas needs to be replaced.