NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY Volume 2: Acts - Revelation

866 Pages·2011·5.06 MB·English

by  Craig Lightfoot

NEW TESTAMENT
COMMENTARY

Volume 2:
Acts - Revelation

Duncan Heaster

Carelinks Publishing
P.O. Box 152
Menai NSW 2234
AUSTRALIA

Carelinks.net
ACTS
1:1- see on Lk. 1:3.
Reading Luke and Acts through together, it becomes apparent that the author [Luke] saw the acts of
the apostles as a continuation of those of the Lord Jesus. This is why he begins Acts by talking
about his ―former treatise‖ of all that Jesus had begun to do, implying that He had continued His
doings through the doings of the apostles (cp. Heb. 2:3, Jesus ―began‖ to speak the Gospel and we
continue His work). See on Acts 2:6; 2:7; 8:40; Lk. 24:47.
1:2 Acts 1:2 RV says that on the day the Lord was taken up, ―He had given commandments through
the Holy Spirit unto the apostles‖. The day the Lord was taken up, He gave one commandment to
the apostles, related to their possession of the Holy Spirit: to go into all the world with the Gospel.
But why does Luke speak in the plural, ―commandments‖? It could be that here we have one of
many examples of Hebrew idiom being used by the Jewish writers of the New Testament, even
though they wrote in Greek. There is in Hebrew an ‗intensive plural‘, whereby something is put in
the plural (e.g. ―deaths‖ in Is. 53:9) to emphasize the greatness of the one thing (e.g., the death, of
Messiah). Could it not be that here we have something similar? The one great commandment is to
go into all the world with the Gospel. We are the light of this world. We, the candles, were lit so that
we might give light to others. Our duty is not merely to inform others of our doctrinal position, but
to gain, win or catch [as fishermen] our fellow men for Christ.
1:3 A case could be made that Luke‘s account in his Gospel and in the Acts actually emphasizes
how wealthy and middle class people came to the Lord- e.g. Joanna wife of Chuza, Cornelius the
Centurion; Dionysius; Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus. Perhaps a reason for this was that he
dedicated his works to the ―noble‖ [Gk. ‗well born‘, ‗wealthy‘] Theophilus (Acts 1:3). Luke, it
seems to me, was writing to Theophilus because he wanted to convert him. And so he gives other
examples of wealthy people who had also converted. He was urging the middle class to allow the
radical call of Christ to reach to them.
Acts 1:3 says that the Lord showed Himself to be alive to the disciples "by many infallible proofs".
The suggestion is that they simply didn't accept Him as He stood there before Him; they failed to
grasp that He was for real. They gave Him food to eat to check Him out; and He again ate before
them in Galilee on His initiative.
1:6 Consider how that once the Gospel is preached world-wide, then the end will come (Mt. 24:14);
and how the Lord replied to the question: ‗When are you coming back?‘ by telling the questioners to
go and preach the Gospel (Acts 1:6,8), as if the preaching of the word and the timing of the second
coming are related. Likewise in the Olivet prophecy, the Lord gave them some signs of His return
but told them that firstly, i.e. most importantly, the Gospel must be preached to all the world (Mk.
13:10)- implying that it is spreading the Gospel world-wide, not looking for the fulfillment of signs,
that will bring about His return. Surely this would associate the exact timing of the Lord's return- for
which He and the Father are ever eager- with the time when we have satisfactorily spread the
Gospel far enough. When the harvest is ripe, then it is harvested. The Lord has to delay His coming
because of the slowness and immaturity of our development; in these ways we limit Him. And it
isn‘t enough to think that if we merely preach world-wide, therefore the Lord's coming will
automatically be hastened. It is the bringing forth of fruit to His Name that is important to Him.
1:7 When the watchman of Is. 21:11 calls out ―What hour of the night [will it come]?‖ (RVmg.) the
answer is ―Turn ye‖ (RV). This is when it will come- when Israel turn again in repentance. This is
alluded to in Acts 1:7,8; Mk. 13:28-33, where the answer to the question ‗When will Jesus return?‘
is basically: ‗Preach to Israel; lead them to repentance. That‘s when the Lord Jesus will return‘.
The disciples' request to know exactly when the Kingdom would be restored ('When will Ez.21:25-
27 be fulfilled?') was met with a promise that while they would never know the exact date, that was
immaterial as they would possess the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit soon (Acts 1:7,8)- implying
2
that what they would do with them would be a primary fulfilment of the Kingdom prophecies which
they were enquiring about.
1:8- see on Mt. 24:14; Mk. 13:32,33.
The record of the Acts is a continuation of all that Jesus began to do and teach as recorded in the
Gospels (Acts 1:1). The preachers were witnesses of Jesus (Acts 1:8). The logical objection to their
preaching of a risen Jesus of Nazareth was: ‗But He‘s dead! We saw His body! Where is He? Show
Him to us!‘. And their response, as ours, was to say: ‗I am the witness, so is my brother here, and
my sister there. We are the witnesses that He is alive. If you see us, you see Him risen and living
through us‘. In this spirit, we beseech men in Christ‘s stead. Just as the Lord strangely said that His
own witness to Himself was a valid part of His overall witness, so our lives are our own witness to
the credibility of what we are saying.
When we read of how we are to be "witnesses" to all the world, a look under the surface of the text
shows that the Greek word 'martyr' is being used (Acts 1:8). We're all martyrs. Augustine said that
―The cause, not the suffering, makes a genuine martyr.‖ In his play Murder in the Cathedral, T. S.
Eliot defines a martyr as one ―who has become an instrument of God, who has lost his will in the
will of God, not lost it but found it, for he has found freedom in submission to God. The martyr no
longer desires anything for himself, not even the glory of martyrdom‖. We can all enter into the
definition of witness / martyrdom in this sense, insofar as we are 'in' the suffering Christ, even if in
practice we may never be called to take a single blow to our body as the result of our witnessing.
The possession of the Holy Spirit in the first century was possessing "the powers of the world to
come" (Heb.6:5), showing that at that time there was a foretaste of the coming Kingdom. Thus in
answer to the question about whether He would then fully restore the Kingdom of God, our Lord
basically said: 'When, exactly, you can't know. But you will receive Holy Spirit power coming upon
you (Acts 1:8 AVmg.) and will spread the Gospel world-wide from Jerusalem; which is tantamount
to saying that in a limited sense the Kingdom is coming right now, although when it will finally be
fully established is not for you to know'. Further support for this is found in our suggestion
elsewhere that Kingdom prophecies like Is.2 were fulfilled to some degree in the spread of the
Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century.
1:9 ―A cloud received him‖ (Acts 1:9) – surely it was a cloud of Angels not water droplets. But so it
looked to them standing on earth, and the record is written from that perspective.
1:11 The same Jesus who went into Heaven will so come again in like manner (Acts 1:11). The
record three times says the same thing. The ―like manner‖ in which the Lord will return doesn‘t
necessarily refer to the way He gradually ascended up in to the sky, in full view of the gazing
disciples. He was to return in the ―like manner‖ to what they had seen. Yet neither those disciples
nor the majority of the Lord‘s people will literally see Him descending through the clouds at His
return- for they will be dead. But we will ‗see‘ Him at His return ―in like manner‖ as He was when
on earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Jesus who loved little children
and wept over Jerusalem's self-righteous religious leaders, so desirous of their salvation, is the One
who today mediates our prayers and tomorrow will confront us at judgment day.
1:14- see on Acts 2:42; Lk. 2:19.
There are a number of words and phrases which keep cropping up in Acts, especially in the early
chapters, which are kind of hallmarks of that early ecclesia. ―With one accord‖ is one such. We
begin in Acts 1:14: "These all continued with one accord in prayer". Then 2:1: "When the day of
Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place". Now over to v.46:
"Continuing daily with one accord... breaking bread... with... singleness of heart". And on to 4:24:
"They lifted up their voice to God with one accord". Now to 5:12: "They were all with one accord
in Solomon's porch". There is another example in 15:25 too. So it's quite obvious, then, that the fact
the early ecclesia was "with one accord" in those early, heady days is stamped as a hallmark over
3
this record. But this phrase "with one accord" is also used in Acts about the united hatred of the
world against those early brethren and sisters. The Jews ran upon Stephen "with one accord" (7:52),
those of Tyre and Sidon were "with one accord" (12:20), "The Jews made insurrection against Paul
with one accord" in Corinth (18:12), and at Ephesus the mob "rushed with one accord" against Paul
(19:29). The same Greek word is used in all these cases (and it scarcely occurs outside Acts). It's
quite obvious that we are intended to visualise that early ecclesia as being "with one accord". But
we are also supposed to imagine the world around them ―with one accord" being against them. The
difference between them and the world was vast. The world was actively united against them, and
thereby they came to be strongly united with each other.
1:15- see on Acts 3:7.
1:18 The way Judas "burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18) may not
be only a description of a bungled suicide. "Bowels" is elsewhere always used figuratively. One
wonders whether it doesn't also describe how he fell down headlong, as Saul did when he knew his
condemnation, and burst asunder within him, and poured out his heart in desperation, in the very
pathetic little field he had bought for the price of the Son of God. In an utterly terrible figure,
Ezekiel describes the condemnation of Israel as them being a woman trying to pluck off her own
breasts (Ez. 23:34). This was and will be the extent of self-hatred and desperation. She will be
alienated from her lovers of this world, and God's mind will be alienated from her (Ez. 23:17,18,22).
The utter aloneness of the condemned is impossible to plumb.
1:20 What was true of Judas was thus also true of Israel in general; in the same way as the pronouns
used about Judas merge from singular into plural in Ps. 55:13-15 ("a man mine equal... let death
seize upon them"), as also in Ps. 109:3 cp. v.8. Similarly the condemnation of Jewry for crucifying
Christ in Ps. 69:25 ("let their habitation be desolate") is quoted in the singular about Judas in Acts
1:20.
Psalm 109 is a prophecy of Christ‘s betrayal and death (:8 = Acts 1:20). The satans (―adversaries‖)
of the Lord Jesus which the Psalm speaks of (:4,20,29) were the Jews, and the specific ‗Satan‘ of v.
6 was Judas. Psalm 55:13–15 foretells Judas‘ betrayal of Jesus. It speaks of Judas in the singular,
but also talk of his work as being done by a group of people – the Jews, in practice: ―It was you, a
man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together... let death seize
them (plural), and let them go down quickly into hell‖ (cp. Judas‘ end). Likewise the other prophecy
of Judas‘ betrayal also connects him with the Jewish system: ―My own familiar friend, in whom I
trusted, which did eat of my bread (cp. Jesus passing the sop to Judas), has lifted up his heel against
me. But You, O Lord, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them‖ (Ps. 41:9,10).
Thus Judas is being associated with the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus, and therefore he, too, is
called a Devil. Both Judas and the Jews were classic ‗devils‘ due to their surrender to the flesh. This
is further confirmed by a look as Psalm 69. Verse 22 is quoted in Romans 11:9,10 concerning the
Jews: ―Let their table become a snare before them... let their eyes be darkened‖. The passage
continues in Psalm 69:25: ―Let their habitation be desolate; let none dwell in their tents‖. This is
quoted in Acts 1:16,20 as referring specifically to Judas, but the pronouns are changed accordingly:
―This scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake
before concerning Judas... Let his [singular] habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein:
and his bishoprick let another take‖.
Ps. 109:8 is quoted in Acts 1:20 concerning Judas, suggesting that the preceding v.6 reveals Christ's
thoughts about him: "Set Thou a wicked man over him: and let satan stand at his right hand",
implying that Jesus prayed for the Jewish satan to help or co-operate with Judas (which is how the
idiom of standing at the right hand is used in Ps. 109:31). This is tantamount to not praying that
Judas would overcome the advances of the Jews which the Lord would have been aware they were
making. But he could encourage Peter that he had prayed for him to resist these advances (Lk.
22:32). The whole of Ps. 109 is a prayer requesting the punishment of Judas, asking God to confirm
4
him in his supreme apostasy: "Let his prayer become sin" (Ps. 109:7). The last section of the Psalm
(109:22-29) describes Christ's sufferings on the cross in language that has many connections with
Ps.22 and 69; and as with them there is a sudden breakthrough at the end into looking forward to
praising God "among the multitude" (Ps. 109:30), as there is in Ps. 22:22. This may mean that it was
on the cross that the enormity of Judas' sin was fully realized by Christ, although he had previously
recognized it to some degree before the cross (Jn. 19:11; Mt. 26:24).
2:3- see on Acts 2:45.
2:5 It seems that the early brethren chose to understand the Lord‘s universal commission as meaning
going out to preach to Jews of all nations, and they saw the response of Acts 2 as proof of this. And
yet ―all nations‖ is used about the Gentiles in all its other occurrences in Matthew (4:15; 6:32;
10:5,18; 12:18,21; 20:19,25). Such intellectual failure had a moral basis- they subconsciously
couldn‘t hack the idea of converting Gentiles into the Hope of Israel. They allowed themselves to
assume they understood what the Lord meant, to assume they had their interpretation confirmed by
the events of Acts 2… instead of baring themselves to the immense and personal import of the
Lord‘s commission to take Him to literally all.
2:6 The Acts record repeatedly describes the converts as ―the multitude of the disciples‖ (2:6; 4:32;
5:14,16; 6:2,5; 12:1,4; 15:12,30; 17:4; 19:9; 21:22), using the same word to describe the ―multitude
of the disciples‖ who followed the Lord during His ministry (Lk. 5:6; 19:37). There is no doubt that
Luke intends us to see all converts as essentially continuing the witness of those men who walked
around Palestine with the Lord between AD30 and AD33, stumbling and struggling through all their
misunderstandings and pettiness, the ease with which they were distracted from the essential… to be
workers together with Him. See on Acts 1:1.
2:7 Luke describes the ―amazement‖ at the preaching and person of Jesus (Lk. 2:47,48; 4:36; 5:26;
8:56; 24:22), and then uses the same word to describe the ―amazement‖ at the apostles (Acts 2:7,12;
8:13; 9:21; 10:45; 12:16). See on Acts 1:1.
2:12 Men who began doubting and cynical were pricked in their heart, they realised their need, and
were baptized within hours (Acts 2:12,37). The men who marvelled and doubted whether Peter was
anything more than a magic man were within a few hours believing and being baptized (Acts 3:12;
4:4). There is a speed and power and compulsion that pounds away in the narrative.
2:14- see on Acts 10:35,36.
It would have become public news in Jerusalem that the man who nearly killed Malchus had slipped
in to the High Priest‘s yard, and just got out in time before they lynched him. And the fool he had
made of himself would for sure have been exaggerated and gossiped all round. Jerusalem would
have had the small town gossip syndrome, especially at Passover time. Every one of his oaths with
which he had disowned his Lord would have been jokingly spread round in the three days while
Jesus lay dead. But then Peter‘s preaching of the Gospel after the resurrection reached a pinnacle
which probably no other disciple has reached, not even Paul. No one individual made such huge
numbers of converts, purely on the basis of his words of preaching. Nobody else was so persuasive,
could cut hardened men to the heart as he did, and motivate them to be baptized immediately. He
brought men far more highly educated and cultured than himself to openly say from the heart:
―What shall we do?‖, in the sense: ‗Having done what we‘ve done, whatever will become of us?‘.
And of course Peter had been in just that desperate position a month ago. He was just the man to
persuade them. And yet on the other hand, there was no man more unlikely. The rules of social and
spiritual appropriacy demanded that someone who had so publically denied his Lord keep on the
back burner for quite some time. And Peter of all men would have wished it this way.
Peter‘s speech of Acts 2 was made in response to a mocker‘s comment that the speaking in tongues
was a result of alcohol abuse (Acts 2:13,14). We would likely have told those men not to be so
5
blasphemous, or just walked away from them. But Peter responds to them with a speech so powerful
that men turned round and repented and were baptized on the spot.
2:15 drunk- see on 2 Pet. 2:13.
2:16-21 Many attempts to understand prophecy, not least the book of Revelation, have fallen into
problems because of an insistent desire to see everything fulfilling in a chronological progression,
whereas God's prophecies (Isaiah is the classic example) 'jump around' all over the place as far as
chronological fulfillment is concerned. And this principle is not only seen in Bible prophecy. The
historical records in the Old Testament tend to be thematically presented rather than chronologically
(Joshua is a good example of this); and the Gospel records likewise. It especially needs to be
recognized that in line with so much OT prophecy, neither the Olivet prophecy nor its extension in
the Apocalypse can be read as strictly chronological. Thus Lk. 21:8-11 gives a catalogue of signs,
and then v. 12 jumps back to the situation before them: "but before all these things..." (21:27,28;
Mk. 13:10 are other examples). These principles are all brought together in the way Peter interprets
Joel 2. The comments in brackets reflect the interpretation which Peter offers later in his address.
He gives each part of it a fulfillment not in chronological sequence with what has gone before:
"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel [i.e. you are seeing a fulfillment of this prophecy
before your eyes]: I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy [fulfilled by the apostles after Christ's ascension]... and I will shew wonders in heaven
above, and signs in the earth beneath [the miracles of the Lord Jesus during His ministry]... the sun
shall be turned into darkness [the crucifixion], and the moon into blood [also referring to an
unrecorded event at the crucifixion?], before that great and notable day of the Lord come [the
second coming; or the resurrection?]: and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be saved [fulfilled by the crowd accepting baptism on the day of Pentecost]"
(Acts 2:16-21).
2:21- see on Mt. 14:30; Mt. 19:27.
Joel 2:32 seems to prophesy of multitudes calling upon the name of the Lord in the ‗last days‘. The
preliminary fulfillment of this in Acts 2:21 must surely be repeated in the ultimate ‗last days‘. And
it may be that it is multitudes of Diaspora Jews who respond, as it was in Acts 2…
The description of "the remnant" being saved out of Jerusalem and mount Zion, the temple mount,
may mean that they go into the temple area in the last days to seek safety as the Jews did in AD70,
and this is where they are at the moment of the Lord's intervention. Joel 2:32 must have had its
primary fulfilment in the redemption of this remnant, and it therefore has an application to the
salvation of the latter-day Jewish remnant out of Arab-occupied Jerusalem: "Whosoever shall call
on the name of the Lord (i.e. truly pray for deliverance in faith, perhaps through calling upon
themselves the Lord's name through baptism into Christ) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and
in Jerusalem (cp. 2 Kings 19:30,31 for the mention of those two terms) shall be deliverance, as the
Lord hath said (through Isaiah and his prophets), and in the remnant...". This passage is quoted in a
different context in Acts 2:21 and Rom. 10:13, but this does not preclude its application to the
faithful remnant in Jerusalem in the last days. This New Testament usage is regarding how a convert
should eagerly call upon himself the Lord's salvation/deliverance from sin in Christ. This should
therefore be done with the same sense of urgency and desperate intensity as the persecuted remnant
of the last days will do, like their counterparts within Jerusalem in Hezekiah's time.
2:22 Peter appealed to Israel: ―Hear these words...‖, and then went on to quote a prophecy of how
the Lord Jesus would be raised up [i.e. after His resurrection], ―and him shall ye hear‖ Acts 2:22;
3:22,24). The record adds that the crowd received Peter‟s word and were baptized (Acts 2:41),
whereas elsewhere in Acts men and women receive the word of the Lord Jesus. It is simply so, that
when we witness, the words we speak are in effect the words of Jesus. Our words are His. This is
6
how close we are to Him. And this is why our deportment and manner of life, which is the essential
witness, must be in Him. For He is articulated to the world through us.
2:25 With David we should be able to say that we see the Lord [and he meant, according to the New
Testament, the Lord Jesus] ever before our face, so that we will not be moved by anything (Acts
2:25).
2:26 David said that just because "our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding",
therefore he wanted to be as generous as possible in providing for the work of God's house (1
Chron. 29:14-16). So sure is the hope of resurrection that the Lord interpreted God being the God of
Abraham as meaning that to Him, Abraham was living. Death is no barrier to God's continuing
identity with His people. His faith in the resurrection is so sure that He speaks of death as if it is not.
And in our weakness, we seek to look beyond the apparent finality of death likewise. Because
David firmly believed in a resurrection, "my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced; moreover also
my flesh shall tabernacle in hope" (Acts 2:26 RV). His whole life 'tabernacled in hope' because of
what he understood about resurrection. This was and is the power of basics. Yet we can become
almost over-familiar with these wonderful ideas such as resurrection.
2:27- see on Dan. 4:13.
Those who heard the message wanted baptism immediately; they had been convicted by the
preacher of a Christ-centred message, not just intellectually teased (Acts 8:36; 9:18). Lydia, the
Philippian jailer, Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the crowds at Pentecost… were all baptized
immediately. The Lord added daily to the church (2:27; 16:5)- they didn‘t tell candidates for
baptism to wait even until the next Sunday, let alone for a few months ‗to think it over‘. They
understood the first principle: baptism is essential for salvation. Believe or perish. They saw the
absoluteness of the issues involved in the choice to accept or reject the Son of God. ―Beware,
therefore…‖ was their warning to their hearers (Acts 13:40). They made no apologies, they didn‘t
wrap up the message. They taught the need for repentance more than seeking to prove that they
were right and others wrong (although there is a place for this in our witness in the right contexts).
They made it clear that they were out to convert others, not engage in philosophical debate or the
preaching of doubtful interpretations.
2:28- see on Jn. 15:7.
―The Kingdom of God‖ was a title used of Jesus. He ‗was‘ the Kingdom because He lived the
Kingdom life. Who He would be, was who He was in His life. At the prospect of being made ―full
of joy‖ at the resurrection, ―therefore did my heart rejoice‖ (Acts 2:26,28). His joy during His
mortal life was related to the joy He now experiences in His immortal life. And this is just one of
the many continuities between the moral and the immortal Jesus.
2:29- see on Jn. 16:25.
David is one of the major OT types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Ps. 16 are quoted in
Acts 2:25,29 concerning Jesus: ―I have set the Lord always before me... he is at my right hand...
thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption‖. These
are words describing David‘s feelings about his own death and resurrection; and yet so identified
was he with the Messiah, that they are quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But Acts 2:29 also
quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus always before
him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could only have been true in that David
understood all his feelings and present and future experiences [e.g. resurrection, not being suffered
to corrupt eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as a type of the
One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This is the extent of the typology. 1 Chron.
17:17 in Young‘s Literal has David saying: ―Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high‖ [i.e.
Messiah]. David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‗the Christ‘, ‗the
man raised on high‘, and then goes on to speak of the Messiah who is to come on the ―morning
7
without clouds‖, admitting that ―verily my house is not so with God‖ (2 Sam. 23:1-5). This is only
really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself as a type of the future
Messiah. The main reason why there is so much deep personal detail about David is because we
are intended to come to know him as a person, to enter into his mind- so that we can have a clearer
picture of the mind and personality of the Lord Jesus. This is why the thoughts of David, e.g. in
Ps.16:8-11, are quoted as being the very thoughts of Christ (Acts 2:27). So Christ-centred was
David's mind that he "foresaw (not "saw" - disproof of the pre-existence) the Lord (Jesus) always
before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved" (Acts 2:25). David was
obsessed, mentally dominated, by his imagination of Christ, so much so that his imagination of his
future descendant gave him practical strength in the trials of daily life. Small wonder we are bidden
know and enter into David's mind. Likewise the book of Genesis covers about 2000 years of history,
but almost a quarter of the narrative concerns Joseph; surely because we are intended to enter into
Joseph, and thereby into the mind of Christ.
2:30 Acts 2:30-33 says that our Lord's exaltation in Heaven fulfils, albeit primarily, the promise to
David of Christ reigning on his throne. This is confirmed by 2 Sam.7:12 saying that God would "set
up" David's seed to have an eternal Kingdom; and "set up" in the Septuagint is the same word as
"resurrect", as if in some way the promise would be realized after Christ's resurrection.
2:33 John repeatedly records Christ‘s description of the cross as Him being ―lifted up‖ (Jn. 3:14;
8:18; 12:32,34). But Peter uses the very same word to describe Christ‘s exaltation in resurrection
and ascension (Acts 2:33; 5:31). Looking back, Peter saw the cross as a lifting up in glory, as the
basis for the Lord‘s exaltation afterwards. At the time, it seemed the most humiliating thing to
behold. It was anything but exaltation, and Peter would have given his life in the garden to get the
Lord out of it. But now he saw its glory.
2:33-36 An appreciation of the Lord's exaltation will in itself provoke in us repentance and service
(Acts 2:33-36). A vision of the exalted Lord Jesus was what gave Stephen such special inspiration
in his final minutes (Acts 7:56).
2:34 There are some passages which imply the Lord Jesus was somehow conscious during His three
days in the grave. Evidently this was not the case. And yet the resurrection loosed the birth-pangs of
death, Peter said (Acts 2:34). Those three days are likened to labour, in the Lord's case bringing
forth life through death. Yet He was dead and unconscious. But to the Father, He saw things simply
differently. Sometimes God speaks from His timeless perspective, at other times His words are
accommodated to us. Likewise from the Father's perspective, the spirit of Christ went and preached
to the people of Noah's day at the time of His death. Yet this didn't happen in real time in such a
way.
2:36 Peter‘s growth of understanding of Jesus as ‗Christ‘ also grew. He declared Him as this during
His ministry (Jn. 6:69), and also as ‗Lord‘, but he preached Him as having been made Lord and
Christ after the resurrection (Acts 2:36). He saw the Lord‘s status as having changed so much, even
though he used the same words to describe it, and therefore he responded the more fully to Him. He
so often refers to the Name of Christ, which had now been given Him (Acts 4:12 RV)- as if this new
Name and the redemption in it was the motive power for his witness. Jesus had been born a Saviour,
Christ the Lord (Lk. 2:11). But Peter uses each of these titles as if they had been given to the Lord
anew, after His resurrection. And indeed they had been. They were no longer just appropriate
lexical items for Peter to use; they were the epitome of all that the Lord was and had been and ever
would be, all that He stood for and had enabled. And he preached them to men as the basis upon
which salvation and forgiveness was now possible.
2:36-38- see on Acts 5:31.
2:37- see on Acts 2:12.
8
The NT emphasizes the power of the cross, and the horrendous fact that we are really asked to share
in His sufferings (e.g. Acts 9:16; 2 Cor. 1:5; Phil. 1:29; 3:10; 2 Tim. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:1,13; Rev. 2:10).
The Acts record seems to bring out how the Lord's people shared in the Lord's mortal experiences
(e.g. Acts 4:7 = Mt. 21:23,24). The early converts were "pricked" (Acts 2:37), using the same word
as in Jn. 19:34 for the piercing of the Lord's side. Paul speaks of how in his refusing of payment
from Corinth, ―I made myself servant unto all", just as the Lord was on the cross. In accommodating
himself to his audience, ―to the weak became I as weak", just as the Lord was crucified through
weakness. In our preaching and in our ecclesial lives, we articulate elements of the Lord‘s cross in
our attitude to others.
2:38 Rom.5:16 and 6:23 describe salvation as "the gift"- inviting comparison with "the gift" of the
Spirit in Acts 2:38. Indeed Acts 2:39 seems to be quoting Joel 2:32 concerning salvation as if this is
what the gift of the Spirit was. Peter's reference to the promised gift being to those "afar off" alludes
to Is.57:19: "Peace (with God through forgiveness) to him that is far off". Eph.2:8 also describes the
gift as being salvation, saying that "by one Spirit (this gift) we all have access to the Father" (2:18).
This is further validated by the fact that Eph.2:13-17 is also alluding to Is.57:19: "Ye who
sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace... (who) came and
preached peace to you which were far off". Ps.51:12,13 draws a parallel between possessing God's
holy Spirit, and benefiting from His salvation.
2:39- see on Mt. 14:30.
Peter‘s maiden speech on the day of Pentecost was a conscious undoing of his denials, and
consciously motivated by the experience of forgiveness which he knew he had received. Having
been converted, he was now strengthening his Jewish brethren. He went and stood literally a stone‘s
throw from the High Priest‘s house, and stood up and declared to the world his belief that Jesus was
and is Christ. Peter also preached in Solomon‘s Porch, the very place where the Lord had declared
Himself to Israel as their Saviour (Jn. 10:33; Acts 5:12). Peter at the time of his denials had been
"afar off" from the Lord Jesus (Mt. 26:58; Mk. 14:54; Lk. 22:54- all the synoptics emphasize this
point). Peter's denials would've been the talk of the town in Jerusalem. So when in Acts 2:39 he says
that there is a promised blessing for "all" that are far off... I think he's alluding back to himself,
setting himself up as a pattern for all other sinners to find salvation. That's perhaps why he talks of
"all" [those others] who are [also] "far off" [as he had been]. He could've just spoken of "they" or
"those" who are far off. But the use of "all" may suggest he is hinting that the audience follow his
pattern. This, in Peter's context, makes the more sense if we see one of the aspects of the promised
Spirit blessing as that of forgiveness and salvation- as in Acts 3:25,26, the blessing was to be turned
away from sins. See on Acts 3:26; 1 Pet. 2:25; Lk. 5:8.
2:40- see on Lk. 3:5.
God sees the world as actively evil: "this present evil world" (Gal. 1:4), under His condemnation (1
Cor. 11:32); he that is not with the Lord Jesus is seen as actively against Him, not just passively
indifferent (Lk. 11:23). It is absolutely fundamental that our separation from this world is related to
our salvation. The act of baptism is a saving of ourselves not only from our sins, but all from "this
untoward generation" in which we once lived (Acts 2:40).
The essential demarcation 2000 years ago was between the believer and the world, not believer and
believer. Peter even appealed to people to save themselves from the surrounding generation by
being baptized (Acts 2:40).
2:41 Converts are described as being added to the church, and yet also added to Christ; the play on
ideas seems deliberate (Acts 2:41,47 cp. 5:13,14; 11:24).
Luke gives progress reports on the early Christian mission in quantitative terms, as if analyzing the
success of the work and possibly suggesting how it could be done even better (Acts 2:41,47; 4:4;
5:14; 6:1,7; 9:31; 13:43; 14:1; 17:4,12; 18:10; 19:26; 21:20).
9
2:42 They ―continued‖ in the doctrine, [example of] prayer and fellowship of the apostles (Acts
2:42,46; 8:13). The same word is used of how we must ―continue‖ in prayer (Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2),
i.e. follow the example of the early ecclesia in prayerfulness. The disciples had ―continued‖ in
prayer after the Lord‘s ascension (Acts 1:14), and now their converts continued in prayer too. Note
in passing that we continue in the pattern of those who convert us. Thus to start with, Simon
―continued with Philip‖ (Acts 8:13). This means that who we are affects the spiritual quality of
others.
Luke's writings (in his Gospel and in the Acts) give especial attention to meals and table talk.
Societies tended to distinguish themselves by their meal practices. Who was allowed at the table,
who was excluded- these things were fundamental to the self-understanding of persons within
society. So when the Lord Jesus ate with the lowest sinners, and Peter as a Jew ate with Gentiles...
this was radical, counter-cultural behaviour. No wonder the breaking of bread together was such a
witness, and the surrounding world watched it with incredulity (Acts 2:42,46; 4:32-35). Note too
how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes of Gentiles like Lydia and the Philippian jailer
(Acts 16:15,34).
The unity between believers at the breaking of bread is brought out in Acts 2:42, where we read of
the new converts continuing in
the teaching of the apostles,
the fellowship
the breaking of bread
the prayers.
It could be that this is a description of the early order of service at the memorial meetings. They
began with an exhortation by the apostles, then there was ―the fellowship", called the agape in Jude
12, a meal together, and then the breaking of bread itself [following Jewish Passover tradition],
concluded by ―the prayers", which may have included the singing of Psalms. The performance of
this feast was a sign of conversion and membership in the body of Christ. This is how important it
is.

2:44 Some of the Roman leaders initially pushed the idea of Plato, that all land should be state
owned and be given up by individuals to the state. Yet Acts 2:44; 4:32 use language which is
directly taken from Plato‘s Republic: ―All things common… no one called anything his own‖. The
early church was seeking to set up an idealized alternative to the Roman empire!
2:45 The Holy Spirit appeared to the apostles as ―cloven / parted tongues‖ (Acts 2:3), giving to each
man what each needed (Eph. 4:8-13). In response to this, we read that the apostles sold their
possessions and ―parted them [s.w. ―cloven‖] to all men, as every man had need‖ (Acts 2:45).
Likewise Paul speaks of how God gave the Spirit gifts to every member of Christ‘s body, so that
there was no part which ―lacked‖ (1 Cor. 12:24). And he uses the same idea when telling the
Corinthians to give their excess funds to provide grace / gifts for their brethren who ―lacked‖ (2
Cor. 8:15). The simple picture, which even in different circumstances abides for us today, is that
God‘s thoughtful and specific generosity to us, His giving us of unique gifts as we ‗have need‘,
should lead us to materially assisting those likewise who ‗have need‘.
Material giving to the Lord‘s cause was associated with the breaking of bread in the early church
(Acts 2:42-46; 1 Cor. 16:1,2), after the pattern of how every male was not to appear empty before
Yahweh (Heb. ‗to appear for no cause‘) at the Jewish feasts (Dt. 16:16). We cannot celebrate His
grace / giving to us without response. Because Israel had been redeemed from Egypt, they were to
be generous to their brethren, and generally open handed (Lev. 25:37,38). This is why the Acts
record juxtaposes God‘s grace / giving, and the giving of the early believers in response (Acts 4:33
cp. 32,34-37). The bread and wine of the drink offerings were to accompany sacrifice; they were not
the sacrifice itself. And likewise the spirit of sacrifice must be seen in us as those emblems are
10