An introduction to the study of the Acts of the apostles

Front matter

H

I

.i

Preface

This is not a commentary. It does not undertake to explain the meaning of the words inscribed by Luke. It assumes that their meaning is already sufficiently obvious. Taking the book of Acts as it exists, this work attempts to trace out the course of thought, and to account logically for all that Luke has written. The question continually before the author has been, Why was this said ? The facts are plain. What were they intended to teach?

This explanation shows in what sense this book is called an Introduction. It is not concerned with the time or place of the writing of the Acts. It touches no questions outside of Luke's document except as that question is directly related to the historical facts given. The author of the book of Acts wrote with a purpose. That purpose is herein sought

It has not been thought best to cumber these pages with learned notes and references, lest the book prove more difficult than to read the treatise which is here explained. As far as possible, involved sentences have been avoided. Technical terms have been shunned. It has been a study to iv PREFACE

write an exposition of Acts that could be read with profit without consulting other books.

The King James' version is the basis of this Introduction. But this has been constantly compared with many others, the Revised version, Noyes', T. S. Green's (Twofold New Testament), American Bible Union version and with the renderings in the commentaries. All the standard expositors have been consulted. They have been serviceable in ascertaining the meaning of the text; but, with the exception of Baumgarten, they do not specifically keep the course of thought in view.

The original text has been studied with all care, but questions of criticism are not frequently discussed. Only such as materially affect the course of thought are treated at length. But doubtful passages are generally noticed, and what is believed to be the correct reading is indicated.

Grateful acknowledgment is made to Rev. Robert Cameron of Denver, Colorado, who read this book in MS. and made many valuable suggestions.

J. M. Stifler.

Introduction

Jesus Christ is not only the central figure in history, he is its source. Without him the course of events from the first century to the present time cannot be explained. Judea has given the world the men, the literature and the institutions which have made it.

The book of the Acts is a very brief history. It covers only about thirty years. But it is doubted whether any other thirty years in all the world's centuries have seen such marvelous social and religious changes — changes, too, accomplished without war and without any serious shedding of blood. Every hope, every sentiment of patriotism and religion bound the Jew to the law of Moses. That law was never more scrupulously observed than in this very period when it lost its divisive power. It had been a wall between Israel and the Gentiles. The latter lay in the soddenness of their sin, despising the decendants of Abraham, and being themselves heartily despised in turn. Nothing but the power and presence of Jesus can account for the coming together of these two diverse elements on the common level of the church.

When Jesus Christ ascended to heaven he left no church behind. He left no commands for organizing a church. In his instructions there was nothing directly involving the idea of an assemblage of believers from all nationalities, with no common bond but fraternal love, and no ruler but himself. To be sure he twice mentioned a church, but there was nothing but the mention. His hearers could not understand its significance. They were far from understanding much that he taught. Any one of the twelve who might sit down to reflect on his moral obligations after the cloud had received Jesus out of sight, would find that these were just two: first, he must himself be a true, holy man, loyal to Jesus, and, secondly, he must preach the gospel. The heavenly knowledge which Jesus' ministry imparted went far beyond mere duties. That knowledge gave comfort, insight, life, but not the idea of a church. Neither before his ascension nor after it did Jesus teach the disciples to organize a church. Their one public duty was to bear witness to his resurrection. He made the church himself. It is his own creation. And the book before us shows the series of acts by which the church was formed and brought to its perfection. The book of Acts naturally falls into a number of concentric sections like the circles which mark the yearly growth of a tree. Each new one includes all that went before it. These sections mark the successive stages of development in the church from the beginning to the end. A careful tracing out of these is necessary to a proper understanding of the whole.

SECTION I Acts i. 1-26

This first chapter of the Acts is introductory. It shows the condition of things at the moment when the new era is about to dawn. Before Mount Moriah was yet crowned with the first temple, which was to be "exceeding magnifical of fame and of glory throughout all countries," (I Chron. xxii) David said to the youthful Solomon: "Behold, in my trouble I have prepared for the house of the Lord." The material of gold, iron and cedar wood was gathered and ready. But it lay in unorganized mass, and was not yet erected into a house of prayer.

David's son in much trouble had prepared for the spiritual house. By his teaching and his sacrificial death there were now in Jerusalem one hundred and twenty souls meet for the new order of things. Before Luke begins this history, however, he mentions a number of details whose study shows not only the character of the disciples at this time, but also the character and plan of the book itself. It connects itself intimately with the gospel, but it is neither an appendix nor a complement of it. Luke's former treatise needed no such addition, for he declares that it is an account of "all" that has gone before. It is complete in itself, giving an outline of Jesus' history from his birth to his resurrection and ascension. That these last two should be mentioned here again is at first perplexing, but the purpose of their repetition soon discloses itself, as we shall see.

The gospel gives the whole story of Jesus' career on earth, but the earthly manifestation did not end, it only commenced his career. Hence the very first verse of the Acts discloses the object of this second writing: "The former treatise have I made of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." The emphasis is certainly to be placed upon the word began, showing that now we are to trace the further activity of Christ from a point at which the gospel leaves it. He is the principal, the only agent. If the emphasis were on the word Jesus, the view to be taken of the book before us would be quite different. We must then understand that while Jesus undertook a work, his disciples now carry it on. We should have a transfer of agency, and must make them the principal figures in the book and allow Jesus only a secondary place. It might be replied, however, that the book is not called the Acts of Jesus, but the Acts of the Apostles. If he is the directing force in these pages, why this title ? In answer it must be said that one of the oldest manuscripts (Sinaiticus) calls the book simply Acts. Little weight can be attached to this, however, for the mass of testimony is for the longer title. And this longer title must be interpreted by the contents of the book itself. It gives the acts of but a few of the Apostles, and that not as agents but as instruments. With the exception of Peter, no one of the twelve occupies much space in the story, and most of them more at all. Stephen is a more striking character than any of the rest of the original number. Moreover, to have called the book what it really is — the Acts of Christ or of Jesus — would have been inappropriate. Such a title would have befitted any one of the gospels better. The book is the Acts of the Apostles because they were used to carry out the will and the spirit of the enthroned Christ.

The book then is a book of acts. It is a history of striking deeds. It shows how things new in God's guidance of his people were brought to pass and established. We get a decided hint of this, too, in this very first verse. The former treatise was of all that Jesus began to do and to teach. This second book will show what he continues to do and to teach. Like the gospel story, then, it is a book of mighty deeds, as well as of wondrous speech. Jesus was a doer there; he is the same here. And his deeds would seem to have the foremost place. In the disposition to exalt his sayings and to explain the miraculous character of his works, it must not be forgotten that it is his saying that he is to be believed for his works' sake (John x. 25; xiv. 11). The latter have the chief place, and to understand the book before us the eye must be fixed on what Christ is about to accomplish by means of all that is said and done. This first verse is in large measure the key to the book.

The phrase "until the day in which he was received up," marks the terminus of the earlier story, and the exact beginning of the present one. There are other repetitions of the former treatise, but none without significance. We know from the gospel that Jesus had his own chosen disciples, and that he had instructed them. But the mention of this fact here shows for the first time the special aim in their selection and training. All along, Jesus had intended them not only for good men and good preachers, but also as instruments of the new work which he was about to do. Of their sole relation to this work the gospel gave no hint. And that Luke now mentions the resurrection (v. 3) again after detailing it so fully in the gospel — what else can he mean than to set forth that which is to be the specific office of the twelve ? We knew they were to preach. Now we know the theme of their preaching — that he that was dead is alive forevermore.

In commanding them to remain in Jerusalem (v. 4) they are taught that the new activity is to begin there, that it is his will that it should begin there. For, let the reason be what it may for the presence of these Galileans in the holy city just at this time, they would, even without his instruction, have remained until Pentecost. But now they know that they are to tarry for a higher purpose — to realize the Father's promise. Jesus had taught them no little about the Holy Spirit. Now he gives them in the comparison with John's baptism a hint of the exalted character of the new realm which they were about to enter by the Holy Spirit. In this comparison, there is both a likeness and a difference. The likeness is that there was in both cases a baptism, an overwhelming. But the difference was threefold. First, in John's baptism the element was water, now it is to be the Holy Ghost. The entrance into that which is natural was to be followed by an admittance into that which was spiritual. And, strange as it may sound, the baptism was to be into a person. Secondly, in John's baptism the element served once for all. The recipient came out of it and was done with it. But in the baptism about to be administered from heaven the element became a permanent condition, and the recipient remained in it. Lastly, in John's baptism men were placed among the penitents. In the baptism of the Holy Ghost men are brought into vital relations with all that is in the spiritual kingdom, (Eph. i. 3) especially its Head. If in John's baptism there was a breaking with sin, in this of the Holy Ghost there is a union with God in Christ.

The question asked by the disciples after the resurrection — "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" — serves to set forth both the present feelings and thoughts of the disciples, and the deferred but not changed purpose of God in reference to the Jewish nation. Plainly the twelve had no thought above the expectation of their times. During Jesus' ministry they looked for the restoration of the lost supremacy of Israel, and for a deliverance from Rome's domination. The terrible scenes of the crucifixion and the infallible proofs of Jesus' resurrection had not altered the current of their hopes. They were still ignorant of the great aim in Jesus's life. They were living on a very low plane. They looked for nothing but a carnal, worldly kingdom with a carnal, conquering head. If these hopes had been dashed by the crucifixion, they were revived by the resurrection. In Jesus' answer to their query he does not deny the validity of their hope, but declares that the time for its fulfillment is placed in the Father's own right. He thereby intimates that the supremacy which once pertained to Israel as a nation, was not to be restored now. A certain kind of power had belonged to Israel for the maintenance of national leadership in the earth. That power had left them and their national supremacy had long since ended. Now, however, a new body is to be called out with a new kind of supremacy and a new kind of power for its administration. That body should be the channel of grace, and the instrument of witness in the world. The power enabling this body to proclaim the grace, and to bear testimony to the person and work of the Lord, was the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The disciples are not only ignorant, they are weak, but what was the character of their weakness? It could not have been either mental or moral, and to say that it was spiritual does not convey a very definite idea. Their natural abilities were good, and they had an experience of three years of training under a Master who knew how to teach. The use of this word "power" is clearly indicative of the new state of things just at hand. It also suggests the thought that the twelve had not received up to this time that which was necessary to qualify them for their future work. They had already preached the gospel of the Kingdom. They had cast out demons, and the direction for that kind of service had been full and clear. (Matthew x. ) But for the work on which they were about to enter they needed much more than their former training had brought to them. The Holy Spirit coming upon them conferred this additional energy. If they still remained members of the old visible kingdom, it was a kingdom without the power that had once belonged to it in its dominion and government. They were now brought into fellowship with Christ, made members of his body, and partakers of his spiritual power. If he had disappeared from their eyes, he had come by his

Spirit into their hearts. (John xiv. 23.) The truth which had lodged in their understandings through the teachings of Christ became a living force now. They were guided into truth (John xiv. 13), and its essence was love. The Christ who died for the world lived in them. The love which led him to die for the world would lead them to live for the good of the world. He was himself the power which they needed, and in them he would go forth himself to save the world. Instruction alone, even the very best, and with a pupil never so earnest, cannot qualify for the ministry. The twelve had much precious teaching. They were devoted to the Lord as few have been since. They were ready to enter upon the service, but as yet they were unfitted for its duties. They must be endued with power from on high. Before they spoke a word, took a step, or in anyway undertook to carry out the last commission of the Master, they must patiently wait and pray in Jerusalem until this promise became a personal experience.

The ascension is again mentioned, but with some additions. The repetition in this connection shows at once that henceforth Jesus will work from on high. The results of his work will be seen on earth, but their source is in heaven. In the word of the "two men in white apparel," spoken to the disciples gazing into heaven, there is not only the comfort that he will come again, but also a quiet reminder that meanwhile these gazers must begin their work, a work which is to continue until Jesus is again manifested. At once they set about it. If at this point Luke thinks it worth while to inform the reader how far the place of ascension was from Jerusalem, or rather how near, "a Sabbath day's journey," about six furlongs, it must be that he intends to convey the idea that the ascension was virtually from the holy city itself. It was within the sacred precincts. Jerusalem was the center of all that was new.

The historian now leads us to the upper room where the new activity is so soon to come to a focus. The catalogue of the disciples' names is once more given, and some other persons are mentioned, that we may know precisely who had the honor of participating in the advent of the Spirit. It is pleasant to learn that Jesus' own brethren had finally accepted him as the Messiah, and were now among the company, awaiting the promised blessing from heaven. Mary, whose name is not mentioned again in the New Testament, was there with other women. This fact, though given in a word, is not without deep meaning. The daughters of Israel had not shared in John's baptism. They are to have full share in that of the Holy Spirit, so that already we may anticipate Priscilla and the four virgins of Philip's household in their service for the Lord. That all this company was moved to continuous prayer for ten days, shows that the promise of the Spirit had made such an impression upon them as was not felt before. The ascension of Jesus must have moved them profoundly. They are convinced now that the Holy Spirit is coming. And together they prayerfully await the hour.

At some time during this ten days' delay they fill the breach made in the apostolic company by the defection of Judas. It is just at this point that the number of the names is given. This bit of information is very significant. Peter's primacy did not qualify him to appoint Judas' successor. Even the eleven had no such independent authority. The whole number of one hundred and twenty participated equally in this act. But how they came to the conclusion that the vacant apostolic chair must again be occupied, is not so obvious. As Jews the number eleven would be intolerable to them. In their full number they saw a correspondence between the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus himself must have led them to think of such a correspondence (Matt, xix. 28). In reflecting on these things Peter would naturally recall the Scripture which guided them and guided aright. Matthias is scripturally chosen. In Peter's speech we find the death of Judas detailed in a way that appears to conflict with Matthew's account. But do verses eighteen and nineteen belong to Peter's discourse? Are they not interjected here by Luke to justify Peter in what he said and proposed? As to the conflict with Matthew, that must be left to the commentaries. In Peter's declaration that one must be "ordained to be a witness with" them, we learn precisely the apostles' conception of their own office. They had something specifically different from the rest of the one hundred and twenty, and from all others, but that difference did not consist in lordship. While all were to some-extent witnesses to the truth, the twelve were chosen and qualified witnesses of the resurrection. They were instrumentally founders of the church in truth, but not its rulers. And whatever may have been the power of the keys, that power could not transcend this — their own definition of their office — witnesses.

Only two were set forth for the suffrages of the rest, because, no doubt, no more were found with the qualifications named by Peter. This whole chapter is Jewish in its character. This appears nowhere so clearly as in the fact that they cast lots to learn the Lord's will. This is the last time that the use of the lot is found in the Bible, for henceforth the disciples have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

SECTION II Acts ii. i -4.1

In studying the first chapter of the Acts, altogether the most difficult section of the book, we have attempted to account for the presence of each statement. A commentary would go further and justify the presence of every word. By no other means than the former can this or any other book of the Bible be explained. Nothing is said without a purpose, and when that purpose is ascertained the book lies open before us. Its secret is ours.

The advent of the Holy Spirit is second in importance to nothing but the first advent of Christ. God gave his Son that he might also give the "other Comforter." In the section before us Luke means to show not only how impressively the second gift was bestowed, but also what a change it wrought in the hearts and understanding of the twelve. The latter is the main point. Pentecost's day is well on in its course. The disciples are in the upper room in the condition in which the first chapter describes them, without strength and without guidance for anything further. The moment is like that in the history of creation when the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep — like that moment when God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." The created material was delivered from the black pall, and beamed forth in its place in the shining heavens. The disciples were the material fitted by Christ's own hand. The light now dawns on them, it gives them power and guidance, and they find at once the orbit which God intends them to pursue in the spiritual realm.

Is there significance in the day in which the great event occurred? The appropriateness of Jesus' death at the Passover is easily recognized. There must be the same in the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost. To us in this late day this question seems scarce worth answering. But to Jews, who lived and thought in an atmosphere of rites, especially to the devout among them, the day of the Spirit's advent would be instructive. Its fitness would strike them. The paschal and the Pentecostal festivals, as described in the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus, required each an offering to the Lord from the harvest field. These offerings had marked differences. At the Passover there was a sheaf to be presented; at Pentecost, two loaves of bread; the sheaf cut off and offered just as it grew, the loaves prepared. The sheaf was vicarious — "accepted for you;" the loaves were not so. The sheaf was brought before the Lord without a sin offering, the two loaves were accompanied with one. There was no leaven at the Passover; the

Pentecost loaves were baked with leaven. Jesus — the sheaf cut off, presented for the sins of Israel, without leaven, for he was sinless, and without a sin offering since he was that in his own person — was offered to God at the Passover. But the one hundred and twenty — who, like the loaves, were prepared, and like them were not vicarious, but had sin in them, the antitype of the leaven in the loaves — were offered to God at Pentecost. If the wave-loaves needed a sin offering to make them acceptable, so did this company in the upper room need the mediating mercy of Jesus Christ, for they were sinners. In the gift of the Spirit there was involved the divine reception of the believers in new relations, and it is this reception which shows the day of Pentecost the fit one for its accomplish - ment.

The outward marks of the Spirit's presence were three. They were so decided that none could mistake them. They were supernatural. There was the sound of a mighty wind, though there was no wind; there were the tongues of flame, each of the hundred and twenty being crowned with one; there was the speaking in foreign tongues, which so astonished and confounded the crowd of devout Jews assembled from every quarter of the Roman empire. These miraculous tokens had their own meaning. The sound of a wind was indicative of the pervasive, life-giving power of the Spirit. It was not the frightful noise of a hurricane, narrow in its range, and destructive. The fire spoke of the Spirit's purifying energy, and the tongues of the practical intent of his presence. The Spirit made those who received him witnesses to the truth. The audible sound brought the multitude together, but the tongues of flame the crowd apparently did not see. This particular manifestation most likely was not of long duration, and disappeared before the company descended, as we must assume, from the upper room to the court below. But that these Galileans, known no doubt by their dress and general appearance, could speak in man}' different languages, is made certain by the testimony of the men of the many different nations who heard them. The mixed multitude tried to account for the phenomenon, but utterly failed.

The internal marks of the Spirit's presence are as convincing as these miracles. Unlike the latter, they appeal not to the senses, but to the understanding, and are to be discovered in the transformation wrought in the disciples. What courage, what self-possession, what power it must have required in Peter and the rest to stand up before the thousands in Jerusalem in the character of instructors. It was months later, after the disciples had gained experience in public speaking, that they for the first time are compelled to address the great council. Despite this length of experience, the august body is astonished (Acts iv. 13) to see the freedom or "boldness" with which Peter and John can speak. For the council perceived that the men were devoid of training and of humble rank. It was these men who unhesitatingly stand forth this morning in a presence in which even a Wesley or a Spurgeon might tremble. They confidently take the position that belongs only to the accredited religious leaders. To be sure they had had a little experience. Jesus had sent them forth once, (Matt, x), perhaps twice (Luke x), to proclaim the good news. But in this earlier mission, that was at most of but a few weeks' duration, how different the circumstances. Then their Master was alive. Now they are alone. Then their message was a welcome one — "the kingdom was at hand." Now the message was an impeachment of the nation. Then they went abroad in their own home province. Now they are in Jerusalem that has killed their leader as a malefactor. That Peter, who had hitherto shown no little inconstancy, not to say cowardice, could now stand up and speak to this hostile mass — he addressed the hostile part first —is to be accounted for only as he accounted for it, by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Christian eloquence is not a gift of nature, but of grace. Piety is necessary to the best oratory.

But when Peter's address on this morning is studied, we have still more convincing proof of the Spirit's presence. In its adroitness, in the arrangement of the arguments, in its analysis, in its steering clear of Jewish prejudices, in its appeal and effect, it is without a peer among the products of uninspired men. As an example of persuasive argument it has no rival. The more it is studied the more its beauty and power are disclosed. And yet it is the work of a Galilean fisherman, without culture or training, and his maiden effort. The analysis is perfect. He begins with a brief defense and a scriptural explanation of the phenomenon of the tongues (vs. 14-21). His argument for his theme is threefold: first, Jesus is proved to be the Messiah by his works (v. 22) ; secondly, by his resurrection (vs. 23-32), and, thirdly, by the outpouring of the Spirit (vs. 33-35), when the conclusion is reached in verse thirty-six. The analysis can be represented to the eye thus:

, Defense.

I. Introduction -s 2. Explanation

II. Theme — Jesus is the Christ.

f a-Quotation

III. ( 1. Jesus' Works.

Proof < 2. His Resurrection. . . . -< ( 3. The Gift of the Spirit.

from David. b-Exposition

of quotation. c-The disciples are witnesses.