Acts 1 (Bible Study) (The Acts of the Risen Jesus)
-
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
-
Daniel 4
Introduction to Acts
The book of Acts was written by Luke, a companion of Paul (Col 4:14). Most scholars believe he wrote the book around 60 A.D., (there is no mention of the AD64 Neronian persecution of Christians in which Paul and Peter were executed). Luke is writing ~30 years after the death of Jesus, for “Theophilus”, who it is assumed was a Roman official (“most excellent”) and an early Christian convert (“what you have been taught”).
The Bible gives us four different descriptions of Jesus’ life, but this is the only factual account of the early church. Luke, was both a historian and a teacher.
He is not writing the history of the early church, but the history of the mission of the early church. He does gives us glimpses of but not a full documentation of the life of the early Christian church. He is primarily interested in showing us the spread of Christianity — how it broke through barriers to change lives, families, cities, and peoples. So Luke records historical events and incidents to teach us about what it means to be Christian people in mission.
Luke claims to be giving a historical account — not a fabricated or fanciful series of stories. Luke also shows us how Jesus prepared the first disciples for mission before he sent them out. The “former book” of Acts 1:1 is Luke’s gospel. To understand their character and purpose, we should read the two introductions together.
‘In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach’ (Acts 1:1)
Read Luke 1:1-4.
How does this help assure us of the historical accuracy of the events of the book of Acts (and the gospel of Luke)?
Luke 1:1-4 claims to be careful historical research. Three factors in the process of how Luke was able to record the events of Jesus’ life (Luke 1:1) and “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1) must be noted: First, there were “eyewitnesses” who carefully guarded and “handed down” (Luke 1:2) the accounts. Here Luke acknowledges his dependence on eyewitnesses (as any historian would).
Second, Luke was not the only one to make an orderly account from this eyewitness material. He says that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things” (Luke 1:1). So by the time Luke was writing, 25-30 years after Jesus’ death, there were already other written records of Jesus’ life.
Third, Luke claims that “I myself carefully investigated everything from the beginning… that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:3-4). Luke is here claiming that he did not rely on one eyewitness (say, the account of one of the apostles), but that he compared all his sources and “carefully investigated” them. This would have been quite possible for Luke, who personally knew many of the apostles and hundreds of other eyewitnesses. He would have been in a position to check the accounts through interviews with many others. Also, as a doctor, he was an educated person. The Greek of the book of Acts is stylish and that of a cultured person of the time.
Luke here tells us his method. He used both historical accounts and eyewitness material, which he carefully compared with one another and investigated with his own personal research. His goal was so that readers would “know the certainty” of the events they had learned about. Luke is then making a very direct claim to painstaking historical accuracy in both his account of Jesus’ life, and of the early church.
This puts the reader in a very interesting bind. It means that we cannot read Luke or Acts and say, “These are legends that grew up about Jesus and the apostles — some of them are true, but many of them are embellished.” Luke’s claim means that we must either assume he is writing accurate history or that he is writing an extremely deliberate set of lies, foisted on the public to promote this religion. Luke’s language is not that of a compiler of stories and myths. He most emphatically denies that he was doing that. He says he wrote nothing down unless it was historically checked and certain. So if the incidents he described never happened, then he is very deliberately lying about them. In that case, we should not believe anything he says at all. But if Luke and Acts were really deliberate lies, written just 30 years after the events, how could Christianity have made such progress when literally thousands of people were still alive who had seen and heard Jesus speak and do miracles? And how do we account for the remarkable accuracy (as we will see as the weeks go by) of Luke’s knowledge of geography and the culture of the towns that he says he visited with Paul. Such knowledge indicates that he really was along on these trips and that he really saw personally many of the things that transpired.
So the introductions of Luke give us a lot of confidence that we can believe what we are reading.
What does Acts 1:1 tell us about Luke’s theme for the Book of Acts? Discuss the contrast of Christianity with other faiths?
The purpose of Acts’ composition is revealed when Luke describes his gospel, his first volume, as “about all that Jesus began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1). If we reflect we will see that, if “Luke” is about what Jesus began to do and teach, then “Acts” is about what Jesus continues to do and teach. Therefore, Luke does not think of “Luke” as about Jesus and “Acts” as about the church. Both books are about Jesus — his ministry on earth, exercised personally, and his ministry from heaven, exercised through his Holy Spirit and his representatives.
Supporting this view is the fact that Luke repeats the Ascension.
The ascension it ends the Gospel (Luke 24:51) and begins the book of Acts. The ascended Christ now continues his ministry in the world through his church.
Another title for Acts would be “The Acts of the Risen, Ascended Christ through His Church”.
“Luke’s first two verses are, therefore, important. They set Christianity apart from all other religions. Others regard their founder as having completed his ministry during his lifetime; Luke says Jesus only began his… after his resurrection, ascension, and gift of the Spirit he continued his work, first and foremost through the the ministry of his chosen apostles and subsequently through the post-apostolic church of every period and place. This then is the kind of Jesus Christ we believe in: he is both the historical Jesus who lived and the contemporary Jesus who lives.” – John Stott, The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today) IVP Press, 1990.
Acts 1:3-8. Why do you think Jesus prepares the apostles’ minds (v.3) before he sends them power (v.4)? What does the apostles’ question reveal about their understanding of the kingdom? How does Jesus correct and inform their understanding?
We are told here that Jesus put the apostles through a period of training and instruction (v.3) before he sent them the power of the Spirit (v.8). It is often forgotten that the intensive training occurred before the power of Pentecost arrived. Many people think that all the church needs is more of the Spirit, but the Bible never pits learning against power, truth against the spirit. Worship is always in spirit and truth (John 4:24). In fact, there is no Spirit power without truth, for the job of the Spirit is to take truths about Jesus and make them vivid, glorious and affecting to our hearts. (“The Spirit of truth… will glorify me by taking of mine and making it known to you.” John 16:13-14). The Spirit gives us power by making the truth of God shine and empower us. (“He may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation… that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope… the power…” Eph.1:17-19. “He may strengthen you with power through his Spirit… that you may have power to grasp…how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.” Eph.3:16-18). We can think of the Spirit as “fire”, but the truth of God’s word as “firewood”. Without both wood and fire, you don’t have a fire!
This principle is particularly obvious in Paul’s statement that the gospel is the power of God (Rom.1:17). It does not just bring the power of God; it is the power of God. The Spirit’s power does not work apart from the truth. It is only as the truth “enlightens” the heart and as it “grasps” us that the Spirit gives us the power and love and confidence for being witnesses. One of the pre- requisites for mission, then, is a deep and rich understanding of the Scripture.
What was this advanced training, done now so the disciples could understand the big picture? We get a glimpse of this advanced training in Luke 24:44-49, and it is tantalizing. First the showed them how all the Bible was really about him - the Law, Prophets, Psalms (Luke 24:44-45).
He “opened their mind to understand the Scripture”. That is amazing. It cannot mean that they simply surveyed the contents of each book and learned all the stories in a mechanical way. It means they learned what every part of the Bible means, how every part points to Christ. Second, Jesus showed them how to preach the gospel out of the Bible (Luke 24:46-49), how to call people to repentance and grace. He showed them how exactly “to be witnesses to these things” so that people find “forgiveness.” He showed them how to present and apply the truth of the Bible. In other words, Jesus gave the disciples the definitive training in Bible, theology, and ministry!
However, one theme of Jesus that Luke mentions here in Acts is that Jesus taught them about “the kingdom of God” (v.3). It was very important for them to understand the nature of the kingdom. This must not have been an easy lesson to grasp. The question in v.6 reveals that the apostles were rather confused about it until the end. John Calvin points out that “there are as many errors in this question as words”! There are at least three mistakes: a) The verb “restore” shows that they think they are still expecting Jesus to bring a political, earthly kingdom, a powerful nation that would stand for righteousness against the unrighteousness of the other nations. b) The noun “Israel” showed they were expecting Christ’s salvation to belong primarily to one race and culture. They were still thinking about how God established his kingdom in the Old Testament — as a distinct culture and nation-state. c) The phrase “at this time” shows that they did not understand that the kingdom was coming in two stages — one at Jesus’ first coming, and the second at Jesus’ second coming.
Acts 1:2-8. Jesus did not go to heaven until he had concluded a specific ministry to his apostles (v2), what things are given to the apostles specifically and what things are given to us also?
a) What is unique about the apostles? The three things that Jesus gives them in this passage are unique.
First, they were “chosen” apostles (v.2). This word means that they were “appointed” to their office. In 1:24 the word is used again when they choose a successor to Judas “Lord… show us which of these two you have chosen”. So an apostle was not an officer elected by the people (as in Acts 6:1-16) or appointed by any human being (as in I Tim.3:1ff.) or self-appointed. Elders, deacons, teachers, even prophets are either elected or appointed (or the person becomes ‘aware’ of a prophetic gift and begins to exercise it — see I Cor.14:37). But the apostolic office is unique. Apostles are directly appointed by Christ — personally, visibly.
Second, Jesus “showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive”. (v.3). Jesus appeared to others after his resurrection, but he appeared far more often to the apostles. They received a massive set of immediate and powerful “proofs” of Jesus’ reality. They clearly had “advantages” that no other Christian has ever had. They were being prepared to face terrible odds and persecutions, and they had to be rock solid in their confidence that Jesus was risen. And so they received this amazing input.
Third, Jesus “gave them instructions through the Holy Spirit” (v.2). For 40 days Jesus gave them instruction. All the teachings we have from Jesus in the gospels was given when the apostles were somewhat clueless to Jesus’ mission! Now he gives them this advanced training — which we discussed above under the last question. We today have no other sources of that 40-Day training material except what we have in the New Testament from the apostles and their followers. That is why the authority of the Bible is unique. The apostolic teachings in the New Testament are based on that amazing, ultimate course of study.
It is important to read Galatians 1 & 2 in light of Acts 1:2-3. Paul was also made an apostle, and in order to make good his right to the title, Paul shows how a) The risen Christ directly appointed him by a visible visit to him, b) he got the same visible proof that Jesus was alive through that visit, and c) the gospel he preached was given directly (instruction) to him from Jesus.
b) The last thing two things that Jesus gave to the apostles are given to those around them.
First, they are given the “Great Commission” to “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (v.8). In light of the first three “unique” gifts (chosen, visible, instructed), we must conclude that the apostles were able to fulfil this commission at a level that the rest of us could not. But it is clear from the rest of the book of Acts that this commission is given to all Christians. See for e.g. Acts 8:4 ”Those who were scattered [all except the apostles, v.2] preached the word wherever they went.” So Jesus Christ makes his church a people-in-mission. The Latin word mission means “sent”. Mission and witness is not an aspect of our existence as the church. We exist to be witnesses.
Second, he promises that they will “be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (v.5). When this baptism of the Spirit did come, we see that it fell not just on the apostles but on every believer (at that time, all 120 Christians v15) This is expected if we look carefully at the Great Commission. All those bearing witness for Christ must first “receive power when the Holy Spirit comes”(v8). So if all Christians are commissioned as witnesses, then all of them would have to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. The reverse is true as well: the fact that the Spirit falls on every Christian in Acts 2 proves that the commission of Acts 1:6-8 was given to all believers.
We should interpret Acts with humility and not use it to bludgeon people with: “this church isn’t Spirit-filled unless we have all the miracles we see in the book of Acts!” This book is a record of the vital, living church. We must measure ourselves by it and seek God’s help to be all he wants the church to be.
Acts 1:9. The angels tell the disciples not to “stand… looking into the sky,” what should the ascension mean to them and us?
In Acts 1:9-11, the apostles saw Jesus’ ascension. The ascension of Christ is so important that it is the only incident in Jesus’ life that Luke repeats — he puts it at the end of his gospel and the beginning of the book of Acts. The angels gently rebuke the apostles — they are not supposed to “stand here looking into the sky” (v.11). What does that mean? Some think that they were trying to discourage the disciples from trying to guess when he was coming back. But their statement “this same Jesus will return” is not concerned with timing at all. Why do they assure the disciples that he is still the “same” and is coming back?
It would have been very natural for the apostles to be immediately in great distress — assuming that they had lost Jesus, that he was now absent from them, and thus they were bereft. But the angels assure them that Jesus, though in one sense gone, is in another sense still with them. On the one hand, he is “taken from you”, yet they stress that he is “the same” — he has not transformed into some other form. He is still personal and human, though glorified. He is still their leader. And therefore, they tell them to stop “standing”, stop being inactive.
We have to link these verses with what we saw in v1-8, Luke’s introduction. Luke considered the book of Acts the continuing ministry of Jesus through his apostles. In v.1, he refers to his gospel volume as being about “all Jesus began to do and teach”. Thus Luke sees the ascension as the way in which Jesus continues to minister, but now from his place in heaven he can do it through all of his people everywhere.
In summary. The apostles were momentarily frozen into inaction by a sense that they had lost Jesus. They are assured that the ascended Jesus is still quite the same — he is still their personal leader and saviour. The ascension means “get busy”! It means we have more confidence and excitement than ever — for now our Lord is “at large” in the universe, working through us until we return.
Jesus told them not to begin their mission until they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (1:4-5). How do they do to prepare for this gift in 1:13-14 and in 1:15-26?
First, they prayed (1:14). The characteristics of this prayer are only shared briefly, but several characteristics are evident in the concise description. a) This was corporate prayer. They did not just pray as individuals, but they came together to “all” pray in a whole group. They prayed with others. b) This was united prayer, which goes beyond the mere fact that it was corporate. “Joined… together” translates one of Luke’s favourite words — homothymadon, which can mean coming to consensus (cf. Acts 15:25). In prayer, they came to deeper unity of thought and mind and heart as they prayed. They came to agreement as they prayed. c) This was prevailing prayer. They prayed “constantly” which means to be very persistent and diligent. It doesn’t tell us how frequently or how long they prayed together — there is no mention of hours. But the impact of the phrase is to convey that they spend vast tracts of time together in prayer.
Preparation of Acts 1:15-26?
They chose new leadership (vv.15-26). Many questions are raised by this passage, and we must not be too distracted by the details and miss the general principle it teaches. But first, here are the two details that we must notice: The first detail is the death of Judas. Peter refers to the death of Judas, and Luke’s aside about the circumstances of Judas’ death seems to contradict what Matthew says about it. Matthew 27:3-5 states that Judas hung himself, but Luke here says that he died through a fall (Acts 1:18-19). Some see this as a contradiction. But it does not need to be read this way. If a man had hung himself and he had not been found quickly, his body would have been quite bloated and decayed and, if cut down, could have fallen and ruptured in a gory mess. That would certainly be reason enough for the name “Field of Blood” to be attached to the place.
The other detail is the manner through which a new apostle is chosen to replace Judas. They drew lots. Many have pointed out that this was before Pentecost, and after the giving of the Spirit to the church there was no record of this kind of decision-making again, even when great decisions are made (cf. Acts 6:1-6; Acts 13: 1-3; Acts 15:6-21). It is important to note Peter’s remark that an apostle is to be chosen by the Lord, not by the disciples (v.24), and so the drawing of lots was a way to let Jesus make the final choice. There have been those who have felt that the choosing of Matthias was illegitimate and that Paul was God’s choice to “complete” the Twelve. But there is no comment in the text that indicates that.
The principles that are often lost in discussion of these two details are very significant: a) First, they prepared for their mission by waiting on God to raise up gifted and godly leaders. This was the other thing, besides prayer, which can be said to be a key for “revival”, for a spiritual empowering for mission. God works through leaders, so they went about seeking those he had appointed. b) Second, they sought them by studying the Scriptures (v.20) with regard to the leadership position, by prayer (v.24), and by group discussion and wisdom (v.23 — proposing two men). This is therefore strong testimony about the importance of raising up leaders for God to use, and the “delicacy” of the process. It takes a balance of hard-nosed study and thinking together with a prayerful dependence on God’s leading.
What is the significance of the multi-lingual tongues in the gospel at Pentecost?
Discussions about speaking in tongues (glossolalia) shoould not distract us from the another fact of this miracle. That of what language (and culture) will he church conduct its worship and organisation? Churches which read this study probably do so in English, so what about those around us for whom English is not their first language? At Pentecost, Jesus’ church could not prefer one language or one culture over another. If the outpouring was in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic the implication be that the gospel was primarily for just one people group. But the Lord on Pentecost shows the world that the gospel is for every tongue, tribe, people, and nation.
The world’s first “worship service” is multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-racial - halalujah.
Pentecost means that the unity of the Spirit transcends all racial, national, and linguistic barriers. For centuries, commentators have noted that Acts 2 is a reversal of the curse of Babel. Acts 2 provides a “Table of the Nations” as does Genesis 10. But in Acts 2, a miracle of blessing brings people together through understanding despite linguistic barriers. While in Genesis 11, a miracle of cursing breaks people apart through division despite original linguistic sameness. In Genesis 11, the people of the earth unite to “make a name for themselves” (v.4), and this leads to the disunity of racial and cultural alienation. In Acts 2, when people unite “to call on the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:21) and the result is racial and cultural healing.
This study of Acts will show that the disciples themselves did not fully understand the implications of tongues given on day one of Pentecost. They continued to erect racial barriers between Christians. What Pentecost means is that the church must work to the greatest degree possible to show unity of Christians across racial barriers. It is a mark of the Spirit-filled church that people get along inside the church who could not get along outside of it.
