# comment

text:
<h4><em><a href='B:500 20:8'>Joh 20:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then the other disciple also entered, he who had arrived first to the tomb; and he saw and believed</em>- To see and believe is another challenge which comes out of the text to readers and hearers, to do just the same. To see with the eyes of faith, and believe. But John is credited with believing, when he did not yet understand the Biblical basis for the Lord's resurrection (:9), and his immediate return to his own home (:10) is presented as an action of unbelief when we compare this with <em><a href='B:500 16:31-32'>Joh 16:31-32</a></em>, remembering that John rarely repeats phrases in his record unless he intends us to connect them: "Jesus answered them: Do you now believe? Behold, the hour comes, yes, has come, when you shall be scattered, every man to his own home". So John may be saying that his faith was weak, it was momentary. And that would explain the odd phrase used in the Greek; for "believed" has no object as Greek grammar would require. It is not implied&nbsp;<em>what</em>&nbsp;he believed in; although that nuance cannot really come through in English translation.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:9'>Joh 20:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as yet they did not understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :8 and :9, this confirms the impression that John's 'belief' was momentary. However, a more generous interpretation is possible. It could be that John means to demonstrate here that faith in the risen Lord does not necessarily depend upon knowing or understanding the Old Testament texts which require Messiah's resurrection. For that requirement and implication is indeed there, but is hardly apparent to a casual reader or hearer; bearing in mind that most were illiterate and had no easy access to the scrolls. In this case, John would be appealing to Gentiles and illiterate Jews, the mass of first century society- and encouraging them that faith in the risen Christ is possible without any background of Old Testament theology and familiarity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:10'>Joh 20:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So the disciples went away again to their own home</em>- As noted on :8, this is an allusion to <em><a href='B:500 16:31-32'>Joh 16:31-32</a></em>, which says the disciples would do this because they did not really believe. John is appealing for faith in the empty tomb but explaining how his initial faith was momentary, and not based upon a Biblical understanding of the necessity of the Lord's resurrection. By implication he is appealing to his audience to have a faith stronger than his had initially been; and this is a very powerful way to appeal for faith from an audience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:11'>Joh 20:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping. So, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb</em>- Mary “stood without”, and yet the same word is used in a rather negative context elsewhere in the Gospels: <em><a href='B:490 8:20'>Luk 8:20</a></em> Mary and His brethren standing without; <em><a href='B:490 13:25'>Luk 13:25</a></em> the rejected “stand without” with the door closed, seeking for their Lord; <em><a href='B:500 18:16'>Joh 18:16</a></em> Peter stood at the door without. It’s as if she was in the shoes of the rejected. And yet she is graciously accepted in a wonderful way by the risen Lord. And she is our representative. Her weeping likewise could be read negatively; for she ought to have gone to the tomb after three days with full faith and joy in expectation that the Lord had risen as He promised. Hence His question to her as to why she is weeping (:13,15):&nbsp;As noted earlier in this chapter, the Gospels are full of self-criticism of themselves as writers and their fellow disciples, stressing their weakness, and slow struggle towards the faith they now urged men and women to accept.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:12'>Joh 20:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And she saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain</em>- The scene is described in terms which recall the cherubim on either end of the "mercy seat", the blood stained cover of the ark of the covenant which Hebrews sees as so strongly representative of the Lord Jesus. As those cherubim were, it is emphasized, of the same material as the mercy seat (<em><a href='B:20 25:18-19'>Exo 25:18-19</a></em>), so the now invisible Lord was of their nature; hence His association with them as noted on :13.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And they said to her: Woman, why do you weep? She said to them: Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him</em>- This comment on her weeping could be taken as a rebuke; see on :11. The Lord will soon repeat verbatim these Angelic words to Mary: “Woman, why are you weeping?” (<em><a href='B:500 20:13'>Joh 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). Likewise, when He appears to the women in <em><a href='B:470 28:9-10'>Mat 28:9-10</a></em>, He repeats the Angel’s words of <em><a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:7'>Mat 28:7</a></em>. This indicates the unity which He felt with the Angels especially after His resurrection; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:14'>Joh 20:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When she had said this, she turned herself around and saw Jesus standing there; but did not know that it was Jesus</em>- She apparently perceived they were Angels (:12); but her focus on the Lord was so great that she was not impressed with that. All she wanted was Him. The later New Testament frequently tackles the Jewish obsession with Angels, to the point that the Christian Jews were losing their focus upon the Lord Jesus. And here in visual terms John addresses that issue, by presenting Mary as so focused upon the Lord that even meeting two white Angels was of no interest to her compared to her focus upon Him.</p><p>Jewish women were not supposed to talk to men in public. The fact that Mary addresses the man whom she thinks of as “the gardener” shows how her love for Jesus, her search for Him, led her to break out of gender roles. She perceived that through His death, there was now neither male nor female, but a new kind of family (<em><a href='B:500 20:14-15'>Joh 20:14-15</a></em>).</p><p>It is emphasized that Mary Magdalene beheld the cross of Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>)- the same word is used about how she came&nbsp;<em>to see</em>&nbsp;the sepulchre (<em><a href='B:470 28:1'>Mat 28:1</a></em>); and now she&nbsp;<em>saw&nbsp;</em>Jesus standing (<em><a href='B:500 20:14'>Joh 20:14</a></em>). People beheld the spectacle of the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:490 23:48'>Luk 23:48</a></em>) and repented, smiting their breasts in recognition of their sinfulness. She was representative of us all. John’s Gospel is full of references to the crucifixion, and especially the idea of ‘seeing’ / perceiving its’ real meaning. The prologue invites us too to be amongst those who “beheld his glory”. “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (<em><a href='B:500 6:40'>Joh 6:40</a></em>) connects with the idea of looking unto the bronze snake (which represented Christ on the cross) and receiving life. &nbsp;“And he that seeth&nbsp;on the cross seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness” (<em><a href='B:500 12:45-46'>Joh 12:45-46</a></em>). Note again the linkage between seeing and believing; which John 3 applies to belief in the crucified Jesus, as Israel had to believe in the bronze snake on the pole. The light of the world was defined in John 3 as the light of the cross. In seeing / perceiving Christ on the cross, we perceive the essence of God- for the Father was so intensely manifested in the Son. There, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. &nbsp;The emphasis on Mary Magdalene being the one who beheld the cross, the one who perceived the things of the Lord’s death and resurrection, is surely to set her up as our example. For we can look at the cross without perceiving the glory and wonder it all, neither perceiving the urgency of the imperative in the things which were so uniquely crystallized there. She, the one with former 'demons' and a sinful past, and a mere woman, in the eyes of her world, is set up as a pattern for all who shall see the Son in faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Woman, why do you weep?-&nbsp;</em>This could be understood as a rebuke, seeing she ought to have known that after three days the Lord would rise again. See on :11. Note too that the Lord repeats the Angelic words to her, showing His connection with them now by nature; see on :12,13.</p><p><em>Whom do you seek?-&nbsp;</em>This is another of those questions which fly out of the page to challenge every reader or hearer; whom do&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>seek? He was still the same Jesus. The Lord was recognized by the Emmaus disciples in the way that He broke the bread. How He broke a loaf of bread open with His hands&nbsp;<em>after&nbsp;</em>His resurrection reflected the same basic style and mannerism which He had employed&nbsp;<em>before&nbsp;</em>His death. Not only the body language but the Lord's choice of words and expressions was similar both before and after His passion. He uses the question "Who are you looking for?" at the beginning of His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>), just before His death (<em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>) and also now after His resurrection. And the words of the risen Lord as recorded in Revelation are shot through with allusion to the words He used in His mortal life, as also recorded by John. See on <em><a href='B:500 21:5'>Joh 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>. “Whom do you seek?” are words He had used three times in His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:7'>Joh 18:7</a></em>). He used words which she ought to have recognized as a catch phrase of the Lord, and thereby have realized that it was the Lord speaking to her. She did, eventually, make the connection; she lived up to the spiritual potential which the Lord realized in her. She replies by exclaiming: Rabboni When three years earlier the Lord had “<em>turned&nbsp;</em>as He did again to Mary::. and saith::. What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi:::’ (<em><a href='B:500 1:38'>Joh 1:38</a></em>). And now Mary sees the similarity which the Lord has set up, and joyfully realizes the reality of His resurrection through it.</p><p><em>She, supposing him to be the gardener-&nbsp;</em>That God's Son could be a normal working class person actually says a lot about the humility of God Himself. <em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em> has been translated: "My Father is a working man to this day, and I am a working man myself". No less an authority than C:H. Dodd commented: "That the Greek words could bear that meaning is undeniable". I find especially awesome the way Mary mistakes the risen Lord for a lowly gardener- He evidently dressed Himself in the clothes of a working man straight after His resurrection, a far cry from the haloed Christ of high church art.</p><p><em>Said to him: Sir, if you have taken him from here, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away</em>- Mary addresses the gardener as “sir”, but this is the same Geek word&nbsp;<em>kurios</em>&nbsp;as is translated “Lord’ a few verses earlier, when she describes Jesus as “the Lord” (<em><a href='B:500 20:2'>Joh 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>). It seems to me that she half knew that this person standing there was Jesus. She was half expecting it. “They have taken away the Lord” (:2) almost sounds as if she felt Him to be alive and already made Lord and Christ. But the sheer grief of the situation distracted her from seeing that it was really Him. In this kind of thing there is, to me at least, the greatest proof of inspiration. It is all so real and therefore credible. She couldn’t dare believe that her wildest hope of every grieving person was actually coming true. And in this we surely see some echoes of the slowness to believe that we have actually made it which it seems there will be after the judgment seat experience.</p><p>Her desire to remove the Lord's body may appear strange, seeing He had been buried in an expensive new tomb. She was surely not thinking straight anyway, for it would have been hard for a woman to carry the heavily embalmed corpse of a man on her own. Where did she intend taking it? I suggest she had no concrete idea. She wanted&nbsp;<em>Him</em>&nbsp;for herself; the point of the record is that her focus was so completely upon Him. And in that she is our example, and her disorientation and impractical ideas are exactly what we would expect of someone in that mental situation. The verisimilitude of the narrative comes over so strongly.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:16'>Joh 20:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Mary-&nbsp;</em>The Lord's intonation and voice was just the same before and after His resurrection and change of nature. This is a profound reflection of how He is the same today as yesterday and forever.</p><p><em>She turned-&nbsp;</em>She had turned away from the Angels and had looked toward the Lord, but assuming Him to be a gardener, she has turned away again, and is speaking without looking at the one she is addressing. This again presents a realistic picture both of her disorientation, and also of her desire to focus on nothing and nobody apart from her Lord. In this she is set up as our example.</p><p><em>And said to him: Rabboni Which is to say, teacher</em>- This was her instant response; and so we can assume she uses the title for the Lord which she usually used, and which reflects how she related to Him. He had been for her above all her Rabbi, her teacher. And the Jews considered it wrong for a woman to be taught the Law; yet the Lord was for her above all her teacher. This strong perception of Him as teacher explains their terrible concern that He was leaving them, and they would be without a teacher; hence the comfort that the Holy Spirit would empower them not only with a sense of His personal presence, but also would teach them as He had done personally. See on <em><a href='B:500 14:18'>Joh 14:18</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to her: Don’t keep touching me; for I am not right now going to ascend to the Father</em>- She thought that the Lord was about to ascend to the Father, understanding His previous references to 'going to the Father' as referring to an ascension through the sky to Heaven. But the Lord comforts her that she doesn't need to keep grabbing hold of Him to stop that ascension, for He was not planning on doing so immediately at that moment. This intense dislike of the idea of His ascension and desperate desire for His physical presence reflects how she totally hadn't understood His entire teaching about the Comforter in chapters 14-16. It was expedient for them that He went away to the Father, because then they would receive the gift of the Spirit, His abiding presence in their hearts which would be as if He were physically present with them, and even more profound. But the Lord is gentle, and doesn't apparently make that obvious point to her. Despite her serious inattention to His words and inadequacy of understanding on that point, He urges her to go and tell the simple good news of His resurrection to others. This is the essence of the good news, and a person can believe and preach it regardless of whether they correctly understand everything else in the Lord's teaching. Mary is the parade example of encouragement in this.</p><p><em>But go to my brothers and say to them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God</em>- And she obeyed: she “went and announced…” (:18). This is the first time the Lord refers to the believers as His "brothers". He wishes to emphasize His connection with us despite the experience of resurrection and immortalization; and perhaps He felt that a new family relationship had now been forged through the gift of the Spirit working in their hearts, "the spirit of adoption" (<em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>), now enabled by His death.</p><p>Putting this alongside the other gospel records, this is all in the context of the disciples being commanded to take the good news of the risen Lord to all men. Surely Mary is being set up as an example of obedience to that command. She overcame all her inhibitions, the sense of “Who?&nbsp;<em>Me</em>?”, the embarrassment at being a woman teaching or informing men in the first century… and as such is the pattern for all of us, reluctant as we are to bear the good news. “Among the Hebrews women only had limited rights and above all could not act as witnesses”. And yet, the Lord chose Mary to be the witness to His resurrection to His brethren. He turned societal expectations on their head by setting her up as the bearer of the good news to them. Why? Surely to shake all of us from the safety of our societal and human closets; that we, whoever we are, however much we feel inadequate and ‘this is not for me’, are to be the bearers of the Lord’s witness to all men.</p><p>She was not to tell them ‘Jesus is going to ascend…’. She was to use the first person. Why? Surely because in her witness she was to be to them the voice of Jesus. And so it is for us all; we are witnesses in Him, we are Jesus to the eyes both of our brethren and this world. It was so significant that a woman should be chosen to make this witness, for women were not a valid witness in Judaism (Mishnah,&nbsp;<em>Rosh Ha-Shanah</em>&nbsp;1:8). Those who feel an intrinsic inadequacy are made adequate for this work of witness. And Mary's previous mental illness (<em><a href='B:480 16:9'>Mar 16:9</a></em>) and immoral lifestyle likewise seriously dented her credibility on a secular level.</p><p>Perhaps Mary Magdalene alone perceived from Psalms 110? that the Lord must ascend after His resurrection- for surely this was why she kept clinging on to Him after He rose, fearful He would there and then disappear Heavenwards. And therefore the Lord comforted her, that there was no need to cling on to Him so, for He was not just then going to ascend to the Father (<em><a href='B:500 20:17'>Joh 20:17</a></em>). But another reading of this incident is possible, once it is realized that the OT associates clinging to another’s feet with making a request of them (<em><a href='B:120 4:27'>2Ki 4:27</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>Perhaps the Lord called the disciples His “brothers” straight after His resurrection in order to emphasize that He, the resurrected Man and Son of God, was eager to renew His relationships with those He had known in the flesh. It’s as if He didn’t want them to think that somehow, everything had changed. Indeed, He stresses to them that their Father is His Father, and their God is His God. He appears to be alluding here to <em><a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a></em> LXX. Here, Ruth is urged to remain behind in Moab cp. Mary urging Jesus?, but she says she will come with her mother in law, even though she is of a different people, and “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. This allusion would therefore be saying: ‘OK I am of a different people to you now, but that doesn’t essentially affect our&nbsp;<em>relationship</em>; I so love you, I will always stick with you wherever, and my God is your God’:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 3:14'>Mar 3:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Mary Magdalene went and told the disciples: I have seen the Lord And she told them that he had said these things to her</em>-&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>Mary went to tell others “what she had seen and heard” (<em><a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a></em>), and John in one of his many later allusions back to his Gospel uses these very words about all the apostles- “that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you” (<em><a href='B:690 1:1'>1Jn 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:3'>1Jn 1:3</a></em>). He and the other brethren took Mary as their inspiration in the work of witness, as should we.</p><p>Mary is very convinced as to what she had witnessed; she goes and tells the others that she has actually seen the Lord in person, and that He spoke words to her which she was now telling them. By contrast, the other women spoke in more abstract terms of having seen “a vision of Angels” (<em><a href='B:490 24:23'>Luk 24:23</a></em>), rather than saying how they actually met Angels; and likewise the disciples understood the Lord’s appearance to them as them having “seen a spirit” (<em><a href='B:490 24:37'>Luk 24:37</a></em>). But Mary is far more concrete; she was immediately convinced of the actual, personal, bodily resurrection of the Lord. To ‘spiritualize’ is so often really an excuse for lack of faith. And so many, from ivory tower theologians to JWs, have fallen into this error. Faith in the end is about concrete, actual things which defy all the ‘laws’ of our worldviews. And it was this faith which Mary showed. See on <em><a href='B:480 16:9'>Mar 16:9</a></em>.</p><h4>"I have seen the Lord" is consciously alluding to <em><a href='B:500 14:19'>Joh 14:19</a></em> and <em><a href='B:500 16:16'>Joh 16:16</a></em>, where the Lord had prophesied that all the disciples would see Him. It's as if John saw her as the representative of them all. Further evidence of this is found in the way John records the Lord as saying that He calls His sheep by name, and they recognize His voice (<em><a href='B:500 10:5'>Joh 10:5</a></em>)- and by then recording how Mary Magdalene was the one who recognized the Lord’s voice when He called her name (<em><a href='B:500 20:16'>Joh 20:16</a></em>), as if she represents all the Lord’s sheep. A woman rising early and searching for the Man whom she loves, asking the watchmen whether they have seen him, then finding him, seizing him and not letting him go… this is all the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:260 3:1-4'>Son 3:1-4</a></em>, where the bride of Christ is pictured doing these very things. Mary Magdalene is therefore used by John as a symbol for all the believers, or at least for the Jewish Messianic community searching for Jesus. Compare too the Lord’s reassurance of Mary Magdalene with language of <em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em> to the whole community of believers: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name…”:&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:19'>Joh 20:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and for fear of the Jews, the doors were locked where the disciples were; and Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them: Peace to you</em>- The AV better reflects the Greek: "Where the disciples were assembled", or literally, 'synagogued'. The same phrase is used of church gatherings (<em><a href='B:510 20:7'>Act 20:7</a></em>). They were unwelcome in the synagogues and persons of interest to the Jews; and so they by default became their own synagogue. But without a Rabbi / teacher. The Lord's appearance in their midst as it were gave life to their synagogue / church. He fulfilled His promise that where two or three were gathered together for His sake, He would come into their midst. The standing "in their midst" is emphasized in :26. But it is John who will later use the same word in describing how after the Lord had been slain He was represented in Heaven as a freshly slain lamb possessing the Spirit standing "in the midst" of the Heavenly elders (<em><a href='B:730 5:6'>Rev 5:6</a></em>). That was Heaven's reflection of that very humble situation on earth, where the illustrious elders of Heaven were reflected by the frightened, weak disciples in whose midst the Lord stood. But they were to become the elders of the new people of God, with representative Angels before the throne of God, in the court of Heaven. Our weak situations on earth have their far more glorious reflections in the Heavenly throne room.</p><p>The wishing of peace was no mere formality. It was another way of wishing them peace with God through the gift of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:20'>Joh 20:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 24:41'>Luk 24:41</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when he had said this, he showed to them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord</em>- There is no mention of His feet, although crucifixion victims were usually nailed there too. Perhaps this was because in order not to break a bone of Him, the nails had not left major holes there. Their 'gladness' was in partial fulfilment of His word that their sorrow would be turned into joy when they 'saw' Him again, but I have suggested that the joy in view there more fully referred to the joy of His presence through the receipt of the Comforter in their hearts to replace His physical presence. It seems that they saw the Lord, but were not persuaded it was Him until they had seen the marks in side and hands. Mary was persuaded without being shown these. The record is continually emphasizing their weakness and slowness of faith. We also see the depth of their belief in disembodied spirits, a totally unBiblical belief. But such doctrinal failure was no reason for the Lord to break relationship with them, and neither should it be for us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus again said to them: Peace to you. As the Father has sent me, even so send I you</em>- The gift of peace was no passing formality. To be given the Lord's attitude of mind, the peace He had with the Father, was part of the promised gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 14:27'>Joh 14:27</a></em>); and here we go on immediately to read of the Spirit being given (:22). That gift was therefore primarily something internal, mental, psychological, in the heart; for that is where peace exists, especially peace with God of the kind the Lord enjoyed.</p><p>Again we have a Johannine version of the great commission. As the Lord was sent into the world, so are we. This parallel means that His 'sending into the world' cannot be harnessed to support any mistaken notion of personal pre-existence or coming from Heaven to earth at birth; for as He was sent, so are we. The synoptics record the risen Lord sending the disciples to preach Him and His resurrection; just as He was sent forth to testify of Himself. They are promised the strength of the Spirit to make that witness; here they are given "peace" and the gift of the Spirit (:22). And yet the disciples were weak and fearful at this time, hence the repeated assurance of "Peace unto you". We too receive the same commission against a backdrop of feeling so inadequate and lacking of resource to fulfil it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit</em>- The gift of the Spirit was not and is not a once-off phenomenon, given just once in the experience of the believer. The New Testament records the believers being filled with the Spirit on various occasions, and the exhortations to allow ourselves to be filled with the Spirit are proof enough that it is given in an ongoing sense. Paul says that the Corinthians had received the Spirit at baptism, but he urges them to now be spiritual, to receive it and be filled with it again. There is therefore no chronological issue with the fact that Luke places a giving of the Spirit by the risen Lord at a slightly different point in the narrative.</p><p>The breathing of the Lord recalls His breathing His last breath toward the disciples at His death; "breath" and "spirit" are the same idea. The Spirit given is therefore fundamentally the spirit of Lord Jesus, His breathing, His life. Any manifestations of it through miraculous gifts in the first century are incidental to the essential idea- which is that His breathing, His living, the spirit of His mind, is given into ours and becomes ours as it displaces all human thinking and 'spirit' within us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 11:4'>Luk 11:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained</em>- Grammatically, the "any" refers to any type or class, rather than 'any individual'. This encourages us to understand this as John's version of&nbsp;the great commission to take the Gospel to all kinds of people; see on :21,22. "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (<em><a href='B:500 20:21'>Joh 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:23'>Joh 20:23</a></em> NIV). These words have always been problematic for me, especially that last phrase. Can God’s forgiveness really be limited by the forgiveness shown by fallible men? Yet if these words are taken as a record of the great commission to go and preach, and the ellipsis is filled in, things become clearer: ‘I am sending you to preach the Gospel and baptism of forgiveness; if you do this and men respond, then the Gospel you preach really does have the power to bring about forgiveness. But if you don’t fulfil the commission I give you to preach forgiveness, then the sins of your potential hearers will remain unforgiven’. Again, the forgiveness and salvation of others is made to depend upon our preaching of forgiveness. “Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” becomes the equivalent of “he that believeth not shall be damned”. The disciples did not go out into the world and tell some people that they were forgiven and others that they were not. There is no historical account of them doing that at all. Rather we see them going out into the world preaching the good news of forgiveness for any who wished.</p><p>Commentators have noted that the language of retaining here is similar to how the Rabbis spoke, and the basis upon which they either excommunicated or 'received into fellowship'. The Lord is saying that this power is not in their hands, but is in the hands of the preacher of the Gospel. And instead of stipulating who is in and out, they should take the Gospel of God's radical acceptance to the world. This is a powerful challenge to latter day Judaists within Christian churches who think in exactly these categories of receiving into fellowship or putting out of fellowship. That same mentality likewise misses the focus now placed by the Lord on taking the message of fellowship with Him out into the world, and leaving God to decide who finally is 'in' or 'out' on the basis of their acceptance or rejection of His offer.</p><p>The Greek for ‘retain’ strictly means ‘to hold / bind’, and that for ‘remit’ means ‘to loose’. This has evident connection with <em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>, where the keys of the Gospel of the Kingdom (which we all possess) have the power to bind and loose, i:e. to grant or not grant forgiveness. <em><a href='B:500 15:8'>Joh 15:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:16'>Joh 15:16</a></em> also has some reference to the great commission: “…so shall ye be my disciples… that&nbsp;<em>ye should go</em>&nbsp;into all the world and bear fruit, and that your fruit converts? should abide”. The eternal life of the converts is a fruit brought forth by the preacher’s obedience to his Lord’s commission. Likewise through the preaching of John, he turned men’s hearts- the idea of repentance, being brought about by the preacher (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>).<br/>20:24 There's meaning in the fact that Thomas' other name, Didymus, is given (<em><a href='B:500 20:24'>Joh 20:24</a></em>). 'Didymus' means literally 'the double', presumably implying he was a twin. But 'Didymus' is a form of the same Greek word we find in <em><a href='B:470 28:17'>Mat 28:17</a></em>, describing the 'doubt', literally the doubleness, i:e. the double mindedness, which there was in the disciples. Again, the element of doubt and lack of faith is being emphasized.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:24'>Joh 20:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came</em>- His surname 'the twin' could hint at his suffering from the dual nature we all have when it comes to matters of faith; we can believe and yet disbelieve. Perhaps his absence from the group was related to his strongly expressed disbelief.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:25'>Joh 20:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The other disciples told him: We have seen the Lord But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe</em>- When John records Thomas as saying “If I do not see… and put my finger… I will never believe”, he is connecting back to the Lord’s very similar words: “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will never believe” (<em><a href='B:500 4:48'>Joh 4:48</a></em>). It’s as if John is bringing out the weakness of faith in his friend Thomas, the struggle there was to believe, knowing it would elicit a chord in his hearers, thus building a bridge between the hearers and the preacher. And John goes on to record that there is a greater blessing for those who believe, not having seen the Lord, than there is for preachers like himself, who had believed because they had seen and touched the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>). It’s as if John shows the utmost humility before his audience, imputing to them greater faith than he had. And Peter does likewise, alluding here when he says that his readers love the Lord, although they unlike he had never seen Him (<em><a href='B:670 1:8'>1Pe 1:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:26'>Joh 20:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them, and said: Peace to you</em>- For the significance of His 'standing among them' see on :19. They still weren't obedient to their risen Lord- they didn't go immediately into Galilee. They remained at least eight days in Jerusalem, until the Lord Jesus appeared to Thomas there. The fact they met a week later, taking 'an eight days' as a week by the Jewish inclusive method (<em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>), suggests they had already begun meeting regularly together. His special presence during their gatherings may speak of His presence at communal gatherings of His people, although the Comforter presence is ever present in the heart of every individual believer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:27'>Joh 20:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he said to Thomas: Reach here your finger and see my hands, and reach here your hand and put it into my side; and be not faithless but believing</em>- His finger was the appropriate size to enter the nail wounds, and his hand the right side to enter the spear gash in the Lord's side. “Do not persist in your disbelief, but become a believer” (Gk:). And then He pronounces to Thomas: “You have now believed” (<em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>, Syriac text). It’s as if John is challenging his hearers and readers in the same way, and setting up his buddy ‘doubting Thomas’ as their pattern. John makes the point that Thomas didn’t initially believe the ‘preaching’ of the Gospel of the resurrection by the other disciples; just as John anticipated some would not accept his account of the same Gospel on first hearing. And again, "be not faithless but believing" jumps out of the text to challenge each of us, as do so many questions and exclamations in John's Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:28'>Joh 20:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God</em>- Although Thomas’ exaltation “My Lord and my God” may appear an off-the-cuff gasping out of praise, can I suggest there was far more to it than that. I suggest he was alluding to or quoting <em><a href='B:230 35:23'>Psa 35:23</a></em>: “Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, my God and my Lord" . The Lord Jesus had indeed arisen and stirred up in resurrection, and Thomas realized that it was to his judgment. When we look closer at the Psalm, it seems to reveal something of the thoughts of the Lord Jesus. He had desired God to awake to&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;need. And now Thomas shares those same thoughts, through his relationship to Jesus. And this is a very Johannine theme; that the relationship between Father and Son is to be shared by the believers, on account of the way they relate to the risen Lord Jesus. Or perhaps Thomas had <em><a href='B:230 91:2'>Psa 91:2</a></em> in mind: "I will say of the Lord, he is my refuge, my fortress, my God; in him will I trust”. When Thomas addressed Jesus as&nbsp;“My Lord and my God”, he was likely alluding to the way the Emperors Domitian especially, according to Seutonius demanded to be called "&nbsp;<em>Dominus et Deus noster</em>" - Our Lord and our God. Thomas was saying something radical- he was applying to the Lord Jesus the titles which those living in the Roman empire were only to apply to Caesar. And our exaltation of the Lord Jesus should be just as radical in practice:&nbsp; Further, note that Yahweh Elohim is usually translated in the Septuagint '<em>Kyrios, ho theos mou</em>'-&nbsp; Lord, my God”. Am I going too far in thinking that Thomas saw in the risen Jesus the fulfilment of the Yahweh Elohim name? He would thus have been fulfilling the Lord's prophecy in <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>: "When you lift up the Son of man, then you will realize that I Am::.". Finally the disciples were grasping that "All men may honour the Son just as they honour the Father" (<em><a href='B:500 5:23'>Joh 5:23</a></em>). Thomas’ expression of praise was thus blasphemy to both Jews and Romans. A true perception of the exaltation of the Lord Jesus leads us to a unique position which cannot be accepted by any who are not truly of Him:&nbsp;</p><p>Again and again we have to emphasize that we read the Biblical documents at a great distance from the culture in which they were first written. It was quite understandable for a person to carry the name of their superior, without being that superior in person. And so it was and is with the Lord Jesus. To give just one of many possible confirmations of this: "In <em>2<a href='B:190 5:43-46'>Est 5:43-46</a></em>::. God's spokesman, the angel Uriel, is questioned by Ezra as though he were both Creator and Judge which God alone is. Ezra uses the same style of address to Uriel ("My lord, my master") as he uses in direct petition to God. This practice of treating the agent as though he were the principal is of the greatest importance for New Testament Christology i:e. the study of who Christ is". The acclamation of Thomas "My Lord and my God" must be understood within the context of first century usage, whereas Paul says, many people were called Lord and "god" (<em><a href='B:530 8:4-6'>1Co 8:4-6</a></em>). If we're invited by our manager "Come and meet the president", we don't expect to meet the President of the USA. We expect to meet the president of the company. The word "president" can have more than one application, and it would be foolish to assume that in every case it referred to the President of the USA. And it's the same with the words "Lord" and "God" in their first century usage. Hence a Jewish non-Trinitarian like Philo could call Moses "God and king of the whole nation" (<em>Life Of Moses</em>&nbsp;1:158)- and nobody accused him of not being monotheistic Significantly, there is in the New Testament the Greek word&nbsp;<em>latreuo</em>&nbsp;which specifically refers to the worship of God- and this is always 21 times applied to God and not Jesus. The worship of Jesus that is recorded is always to God's glory, and is recorded with the same words especially&nbsp;<em>proskuneo</em>&nbsp;used about the worship of believers (<em><a href='B:730 3:9'>Rev 3:9</a></em>, Daniel (<em><a href='B:340 2:46'>Dan 2:46</a></em> LXX), kings of Israel etc. (<em><a href='B:130 29:20'>1Ch 29:20</a></em> LXX)).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed</em>- We naturally tend to think of ourselves as the referent here. And indeed we are. But the tenses here read strangely if future generations are in view; for then we would need something like 'not seen yet will then believe'. He implies there were others at that time who had not seen but had believed. The Lord knew there were some who had heard His promise of resurrection after three days, and believed it- although they had not seen Him. This means that the disciples were spiritually second class citizens at that point, even amongst the body of believers. Some had not seen and believed He had risen; they had seen, but doubted- despite the great blessing of having the Lord appear to them. This again highlights the point being made throughout all the Gospels; the disciples were weak, even amongst the other believers; and yet they came through in the end, and were used by the Lord to found His church. Peter alludes to this passage when encouraging his converts that they had not seen and yet had believed, using the same words (<em><a href='B:670 1:8'>1Pe 1:8</a></em>). He writes that fully aware that he was one privileged to have seen and yet whose faith was weak, and who literally 'went fishing' in disillusion even after having seen the risen Lord. The phrase 'blessed for having not seen but have believed' is found in the Rabbinic writings concerning proselytes. John continues his theme of a new Israel being developed, suggesting that the new Israel was based around the "twelve" cp. the twelve tribes of Israel, and proselytes would be joined to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:30'>Joh 20:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Many other signs Jesus did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book</em>- The context is of :29 stating that some believed without seeing the risen Lord, whereas the disciples saw Him but doubted. Here that self-critical spirit continues, with John admitting that the Lord not only appeared to them but did many signs in their presence, witnessed by them- making their slowness to believe all the more reprehensible. John concludes by saying that he has written down these signs so that "you", his audience who had not seen but whom he hoped would believe, might be better than him and the disciples- believing in what they had not seen.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>.</p><h4><em>But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name</em>- See on :30. John’s Gospel was written for the specific purpose of bringing others to faith- like most of the New Testament, it is essentially a missionary document. The gospel preached by John is what is transcripted here. We must ask then whether any other theology is actually part of the Gospel message. <em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em> makes it clear that the purpose of John's Gospel was to bring unbelievers to faith in Christ: "This has been written in order that you may hold the faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, holding this faith, you may possess life by His name". C:H. Dodd comments: "The tense of the verbs::. the aorists::. would necessarily have implied that the readers did not so far hold the Christian faith or possess eternal life". The gift of eternal life in John refers to the present receipt of the gift of the Spirit, the life and spirit of live lived by the Lord Jesus, the life we shall eternally live. This is why life is "in his name". There may be reference to baptism into His Name, but the "name" of a person refers to the summation of their character and being. Life is lived in "His name", living, thinking, feeling and acting as He did and does.</h4><p>“That ye might believe” implies John intended his readership to be unbelievers rather than believers in the first instance. <em><a href='B:500 19:35'>Joh 19:35</a></em> implies that the community for whom John was writing had John as the basic source of their knowledge about Jesus, and was highly respected as their spiritual father. 'John' is therefore his inspired write-up of the Gospel he had taught his converts, and therefore it has various specific features highly relevant to them. Acts likewise seems to be written as a preaching document, recording the speeches of basic apologetics which were made to both Jews and Gentiles. The early preachers would have gone around telling the good news about Jesus Christ, and in so doing would have recited time and again His teaching and life story. John seems to suggest that he chose which miracles to record so that "ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name" (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). The implication is that he wrote his Gospel with the intention of it being used as a preaching document.</p><p>The Gospel records are transcripts of the original preaching of the Gospel delivered by e:g. Matthew or John. Thus John wrote down his gospel “<em>that you may believe&nbsp;</em>that Jesus is the Christ, the&nbsp;<em>Son of God</em>, and that by believing you may have&nbsp;<em>lif</em>e in his&nbsp;<em>name</em>” (<em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em>). His first letter was written, it seems, to the converts which his Gospel preaching had made: “I write these things to&nbsp;<em>you who believe</em>&nbsp;in the&nbsp;<em>name&nbsp;</em>of the&nbsp;<em>Son of God</em>&nbsp;so that you may know that you have eternal&nbsp;<em>life</em>” (<em><a href='B:690 5:13'>1Jn 5:13</a></em>). It has even been suggested that John was writing in order to win converts to Christianity from a specific synagogue somewhere in the Diaspora. Another suggestion is that John is aiming at converting Samaritans or at least, a group of Gentiles perhaps associated with a synagogue. For John records how Samaritans came to Jesus, how “the world” includes them and not just Jews (<em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>); how physical descent from Abraham is irrelevant now (<em><a href='B:500 8:33-41'>Joh 8:33-41</a></em>); how the true Israelite is anyone who has been born again (<em><a href='B:500 1:47'>Joh 1:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:3-8'>Joh 3:3-8</a></em>), and John stresses that the true sheep of Jesus for whom he died are not just Jews (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:51-52'>Joh 11:51-52</a></em>). John records Jesus’ explaining that He has already done the sowing, but the reaping of the Samaritans / Gentiles is up to us the reapers (<em><a href='B:500 4:35-38'>Joh 4:35-38</a></em>). The lesson is that we must each preach the Gospel to others in a way that is relevant to them, not compromising the basic message, but articulating it in ways that connect with their needs and situation. The New Testament is simply full of encouragement and example in this.</p><p>But it could also be that John was writing to confirm the faith of those who had heard his preaching of the Gospel and been baptized. For they would have largely been illiterate and would need some way of being reminded of that in which they had believed. It is possible to translate: "That you may continue to believe".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:1'>Joh 21:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias; and he manifested himself in this way</em>- <em><a href='B:470 28:10'>Mat 28:10</a></em> sounds as if the Lord Jesus intended not to reveal Himself to the disciples until they met in Galilee. The fact He did so earlier shows that He changed plans, perhaps out of concern for their very weak faith, or perhaps simply from an overpowering love of them and desire to be with them. <em><a href='B:500 21:1'>Joh 21:1</a></em> stresses that He revealed Himself to them in Galilee&nbsp;<em>again</em>, as if the necessity for this was somehow shameful; and <em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em> notes this was the third time that the disciples as a group saw the risen Lord. Perhaps the degree of their unbelief was unexpected even to the risen Lord.<br/>Perhaps this incident fulfils the Lord's intention to meet them on a mountain in Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 28:16'>Mat 28:16</a></em>); but the planned meeting never happened because instead of going to the prearranged meeting place on a mountain there, they went fishing. Their going fishing might imply that they just returned to their old business. Meeting the risen Christ still didn't have a permanent effect upon them. This follows straight on from the blessing just pronounced upon those even at that time who had not seen but had believed; the disciples saw multiple times but still 'went fishing'; see on <em><a href='B:500 20:29'>Joh 20:29</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There was together Simon Peter and Thomas called Didymus and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee and the sons of Zebedee and another two of his disciples</em>- As noted on :1, the 'going fishing' incident was shameful. The Lord had already appeared to them twice, and they had arranged a meeting on a mountain in Galilee (<em><a href='B:470 28:16'>Mat 28:16</a></em>). But now they just go fishing, as if in disinterest or continued disbelief. Perhaps this is why the group who did this are named and shamed, by themselves, as it were.</p><p>The Gospel writers each conclude their message with some reference to their own incredible slowness to believe the very Gospel which they were now preaching to others. Between them, the preaching of the twelve makes it clear that they saw the risen Lord in Jerusalem, at least twice, were commissioned as preachers of that good news… and yet returned to Galilee in disbelief and resumed their previous occupations. And of course they recall their Lord’s rebuke of them for their slowness and blindness. Truly they were appealing to their hearers on the basis of their own humanity and weakness of faith. They weren’t painting themselves as immaculate, never doubting believers. They were so strongly portraying their humanity, knowing that they were appealing to men and women who were equally human and frail of faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:3'>Joh 21:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 10:28'>Mar 10:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>Simon Peter said to them: I am going fishing. They said to him: We will go with you. They went out and entered into the boat, and that night they caught nothing</em>-</p><p>John perhaps especially brings out their blindness at this time. He describes how they were fishing on the lake, having given up, it seems, their faith in Jesus, despite His appearances to them. Yet John describes that incident in language which evidently alludes to the account in Luke 5 of the Lord’s first call to them by the same lake, whilst they were fishing. Consider the similarities:<br/>- They have fished all night but caught nothing<br/>- The Lord tells them to cast their nets<br/>- They obey and catch many fish<br/>- The effect on the nets is mentioned<br/>- Peter reacts emotionally, and in both records is called ‘Simon Peter’<br/>- The presence of “the sons of Zebedee” is mentioned both times (<em><a href='B:500 21:2'>Joh 21:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:10'>Luk 5:10</a></em>)<br/>- Jesus is called ‘Lord’<br/>- The same Greek words are used for climbing aboard, landing, the nets etc.</p><p>The point being that John is saying: ‘Durrr We were so dumb, not to realize the similarities more quickly&nbsp;<em>Of course it was Jesus</em>&nbsp;But we were so, so pathetically slow to accept it. After the encounter by the lake in Luke 5, Jesus made us fishers of men. But we refused to be, initially. So He had to re-commission us yet again after this second incident’. John uses the verb&nbsp;<em>helkein</em>&nbsp;to describe how they ‘drew’ the nets to land- the same word used elsewhere by him for people being ‘drawn’ to Jesus (<em><a href='B:500 6:44'>Joh 6:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>). He is recognizing that they had had to be re-taught the call to be fishers of men, because they had pushed off to Galilee in disbelief and disobedience to the great commission to go and catch men. Perhaps John records Peter being asked the same question “Lovest thou me?” three times, in order to show how terribly slow they all were to accept the teachings of the Lord which now they were asking others to accept.</p><p>Peter is presented as the leader of the group, and is mentioned first in the list (:2); as if to demonstrate that the one who led them fishing, in disbelief and disobedience to the command to meet in a mountain nearby (<em><a href='B:470 28:16'>Mat 28:16</a></em>), was the very one who became the leader of the early church. Again and again, the weakness of the disciples is emphasized in their own preaching; for the Gospel records are transcripts of their preaching to others. The details of them walking to the shore and getting into the boat are recorded in detail because John wishes us to imagine the shameful incident.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:4'>Joh 21:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach. The disciples did not know that it was Jesus</em>- The record has twice described the Lord as 'standing' among them in His two appearances to them in the locked room in Jerusalem. His form should therefore have been familiar to them. If we enquire why exactly they were so slow to fully believe, despite all the evidence and appearances, there is no immediately apparent answer. It could be that they so deeply believed in ghosts and disembodied spirits that they struggled to believe in His bodily resurrection; in which case we see that false theology and worldviews can militate against a true faith in the Lord Jesus. Or it could be that as John has shown with His references to how the Lord's miracles failed to convert the Jews, literal miracle and 'seeing' are not of themselves abidingly persuasive. John was writing for those who had not seen but had believed; and he is perhaps developing the point that their lack of literally having witnessed the resurrection is no excuse for disbelief. For the disciples literally saw the Lord in several appearances, but failed to be motivated thereby to a lasting faith. They too had been given the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>), but still failed to believe; just as the Corinthians were given the Spirit but were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). The Comforter was to make the Lord even more persuasively present in the hearts of believers than any physical presence; so perhaps John labours the point that physical meeting of Him was only inspirational to faith at the time, just as the miracles had been; lasting faith was from other sources.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:5'>Joh 21:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus called to them: Boys, have you something to eat? They answered him: No-&nbsp;</em>Here we have a rather nice indicator of the Lord’s conscious effort to show His ‘humanity’ even after His resurrection. The risen Lord of heaven and earth calls out to the disciples over the lake, calling them “lads”. The Greek&nbsp;<em>paidion</em>&nbsp;is the plural familiar form of the noun&nbsp;<em>pais</em>, ‘boy’. Raymond Brown comments that the term “has a colloquial touch… as we might say ‘My boys’ or ‘lads’ if calling to a knot of strangers of a lower social class”. Why use this colloquial term straight after His resurrection, something akin to ‘Hey guys’, when this was not His usual way of addressing them? Surely it was to underline to them that things hadn’t changed in one sense, even if they had in others; He was still the same Jesus. Likewise the term for "something to eat" is unusual, and perhaps colloquial for 'Any nice grub'. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. See on <em><a href='B:500 20:15'>Joh 20:15</a></em>.</p><p>The question was to recall His question to them, as to whether they had food to feed the multitude. The implication then was 'No, but You can provide any amount of food'. He was seeking to stir their memories and to recognize Him, as well as through the clear similarities with the earlier fishing incident noted on :3. He knew that provoking them to join the dots and see the picture was going to be far more powerful than a direct appearance to them. And that is so relevant for all today who have not had any appearance to them of the risen Lord, but all the same believe.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:6'>Joh 21:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And he said to them: Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you shall find. There they cast their net; and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fish</em>-&nbsp; The 'drawing in' of the nets here and in :11 implies the drawing in of the Gentiles, from all nations. It is the same word as in <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>: "When I am lifted up from the earth in death, I shall&nbsp;<em>draw&nbsp;</em>all men unto myself". The nets were not torn&nbsp;<em>schizein</em>&nbsp;in that there must be no division amongst true preachers of the Gospel who all teach the same basic Gospel- contrast this with how John frequently mentions the&nbsp;<em>schizein&nbsp;</em>which occurred amongst those who would not fully accept the Lord's message (<em><a href='B:500 7:43'>Joh 7:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:16'>Joh 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:19'>Joh 10:19</a></em>). And likewise we can learn that all human resources will be provided in order to fulfil the great commission, no matter how they are stretched apparently beyond their natural limit. The 153 fish caught in the net may refer to 153 being the total number of species of fish recognized by the Greek zoologists. The Lord's cross will draw all men- i:e. men from all nations- unto Himself through our preaching, through our undivided drawing in of the nets. This means that true believers will be found to have come from every nation; the Gospel must therefore go to them all and make converts. This has only been achieved in recent times, and is a sure sign of the Lord's soon return. It shows however that basic belief in the Gospel is what is required; for no one Protestant denomination has won converts from every single nation.</p><p>The drawing in of nets is used by the Lord elsewhere as a figure for His return and judgment- only when they are all drawn in can the bad fish be cast away. So the conclusion has to be faced: there must be fish caught in the net, i:e. men and women who have responded to the true Gospel, amongst "all men", every species of humanity, before the Lord's return. If we are convicted that we teach the true Gospel, then it follows that there must be true Christian communities amongst "all men" before the Lord returns; and thus His return will be hastened by our establishment of those groups. When the Gospel goes into all the world, then shall the end come.</p><p>The disciples were unable to draw in the catch, representing response from "all nations", on their own. They needed the help of their brethren. The Lord prayed in John 17 that our unity would convert the world, and perhaps this is being again said here in more visual terms.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: It is the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The presentation of John and Peter together by John always seems in the end to Peter's glory. Here again, John is the first to realize, but Peter the first to act.</p><p><em>So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he wrapped his coat about him (for he was naked) and threw himself into the sea</em>- Peter's casting of himself into the sea uses the same word as just used for the casting of the nets in :6. Perhaps Peter perceived that the nets represented them, and they should be out preaching, gathering in men rather than fish; and with characteristic zeal and repentance, he cast himself into the sea as he had just cast the net into the sea. He thereby recognized that he was part of that net that should be catching men, in obedience to the great commission. Peter's wrapping of himself in his outer coat before swimming was at best clumsy. Again we get the impression of someone rather uncoordinated or not thinking through implications. And yet such was the man chosen to lead the early church.</p><p>Peter knew the Lord Jesus had risen, and he had met Him and been “glad” when he saw the Lord, and in some form had joyfully proclaimed the news to the others:&nbsp; The whole flavour of this record would make it seem that this was the first time Peter had met the risen Lord. But it clearly wasn’t. Surely the point is that like us, we can know theoretically that Christ rose; we can be sure of it. But the personal implications in terms of confession of sin and service to that risen Lord can be lost on us, to the point that we&nbsp;<em>don’t really accept</em>&nbsp;that Christ is risen, even if in theory we do know and confess it.</p><p>When Peter realized that it was Jesus standing on the shore, this was at least the third time he had met the risen Lord. But when John says “It is the Lord”, Peter throws himself into the water to rush to Him as if it’s the first time they have met after the denials. Surely it was a higher appreciation of what Christ’s Lordship entailed that suddenly struck him at that moment, and he now rushed eagerly to Him, believing surely in His gracious forgiveness. No wonder in a month or so’s time he was appealing for men to repent and accept forgiveness on the basis that really, Jesus is Lord. The Lordship of Christ convicted Peter (and all men) of both their sinfulness (as they see themselves in the peerless light of His moral majesty) and also of the reality of His forgiveness. “I am a sinful man,&nbsp;<em>O Lord</em>” (<em><a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a></em>) is a case in point. A case could be made to argue that Peter’s use of ‘Master’ tends to be at times when he is weak or doubting (<em><a href='B:490 5:5'>Luk 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:45'>Luk 8:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:21'>Mar 11:21</a></em>); whilst he saw Jesus as a master who simply gives directives to His slaves, there was not such great inspiration to faith. But the utter and surpassing Lordship of Jesus had quite a different message. Peter’s perception of Jesus as ‘Lord’ climaxed when he perceived that “It is the Lord” whilst fishing on Galilee after the resurrection. His sense of the greatness of this more-than-man led him to do something counter instinctive and even absurd- he adds clothes before jumping into the water to swim to Him, in order to be attired as best he could be before Him. It would seem that He was imitating the body language of the Lord when He washed Peter’s feet- he tied a towel around Him s:w. as Peter wrapping his outer garment around him, <em><a href='B:500 13:4-5'>Joh 13:4-5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:8'>Joh 21:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, only about meters from shore), dragging the net full of fishes</em>- The distance given is about 90 meters. For Peter to swim this with his outer garment would have been quite exhausting for him, and he would have arrived before the Lord panting.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:9'>Joh 21:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>So when they reached the shore, they got out of the boat; and saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon and bread</em>- Again by a charcoal fire (s:w. only <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>), the three fold “do you love me?” probed Peter’s three denials, and the threefold commission to “feed my sheep” confirmed his total re-instatement to grace. Fish and bread was exactly what the Lord had miraculously provided in <em><a href='B:500 6:9'>Joh 6:9</a></em>. They were continually being directed back to incidents in the gospels in order to demonstrate to them that the Lord was the same then, after His resurrection, as He had been during His ministry.</p><h4>Anyone who has reflected on any length of ecclesial experience will realize the truth of the fact that so many of our spiritual exercises in preaching and pastoral work are in fact for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;benefit, although we may feel that they are only for the benefit of others. This is especially true of preaching: the disciples laboured so hard to catch all the fish according to the Lord's command, but when they reached land with all the fish, they found the Lord already had fish and prepared them for breakfast. All the labour for the fish was for their benefit: not because the Lord needed fish (cp. converts); He already had his.</h4><p>Even after His resurrection, in His present immortal nature, the Lord thoughtfully cooked breakfast on the beach for His men (John 21; John 9, 12). And this is the Lord who will return to judge us. He knows how to cook fish and unleavened bread. The Lord Jesus was male, and yet in so many ways He combined feminine sensitivity with His almost heroic, classic masculinity, as the King, warrior, brave captain who gave His life for His friends. You see it even after the resurrection- He cooked a meal for the guys as they were out fishing (<em><a href='B:500 21:9'>Joh 21:9</a></em>). From our cultural distance it's not immediately obvious, but in first century Palestinian terms this was so obviously the work of a woman. The men fished, the woman sat on the beach preparing food for the hungry workers when they returned off night shift. But it was a man, a more than man, the exalted and risen Lord of the universe, who chose and delighted to do this very feminine, thoughtful and sensitive action of service. The incident isn't merely an insight into the Lord's humility even after His resurrection. It speaks of how He incorporates in His person both male and female characteristics, as the ideal and perfected humanity, the Man fully and ultimately in the image of God. And there are other examples in His life. He perhaps rejoiced to lead His disciples to the breaking of bread through setting up the sign of a man carrying a pitcher of water- which was evidently women's work. The way the Lord held John to His breast at the last supper is likewise a classic female image.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:10'>Joh 21:10</a></em><em>&nbsp;Jesus said to them: Bring some of the fish which you have now taken</em>- This detail is significant. Breakfast was ready, with His fish and bread on the fire. But He asks them to contribute&nbsp;<em>their</em>&nbsp;fish, so that the breakfast finally enjoyed included both their fish and His; even though 'their' fish had actually been brought to them by the Lord. We think of His teaching of bringing His sheep together with other sheep not of this fold, making one fold. The fishing incident clearly spoke of the great commission, and of how He would work together with them, so that the final harvest was a joint result of their work and His provision. They alone caught nothing, but with His help, they caught 153 fish, the number of species of fish which were understood to exist.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:11'>Joh 21:11</a></em><em>&nbsp;Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken</em>- Again we see the enthusiasm and yet clumsiness of Peter; the Lord had asked for "some of the fish", and Peter drags the entire net full of 153 fish to the Lord. Although 153 is the numerical value of "sons of God", 153 was the number of species of fish which were understood to exist in the sea. This wrong idea was used by the Lord. These men were fishermen, who thought they knew all about fish; and He uses their incorrect science to make His point. With His help, they could bring representatives of all nations into the Gospel net. He would send fish to them; and we need to sense this too rather than preaching in our own strength, praying daily for the Lord to send people to us. The unbroken net speaks of how in the power of the Spirit, we will be provided with the resources, fully stretched as they may be, in order to fulfil His bidding in the great commission.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to them: Come. Break your fast. And none of the disciples did inquire of him: Who are you? Knowing that it was the Lord</em>- This meal looked forward to the Messianic banquet, which will be as a result of our obedience to the great commission with the Lord's direction and blessing. The Lord had to tell the disciples after the resurrection to “Break your fast” (<em><a href='B:500 21:12'>Joh 21:12</a></em> RV). Despite the Lord having appeared to them as recorded in John 20, they were fasting for the dead. No wonder the Lord urged them to break that fast. But the point is made, by John himself, as to how terribly slow they were to believe in His resurrection. As this was the third time He had appeared to them (:14) and they had disobeyed His command to meet them on a mountain in Galilee, instead returning to their fishing, I would have been minded to rebuke them. But there is no word of rebuke from the Lord, but rather a command to fish, and a using of them in His service. There are times when disciplining a person or again rebuking them is futile; treating them as partners and asking them to get involved in the Lord's work is the more effective way of developing their faith. And the Lord uses that method here.</p><p>He typically avoided making direct statements about who He was, notably before Pilate. His whole person and behaviour was Him, He was His word or proclamation made flesh in Himself. He had no need to proclaim His Divine Sonship in so many words; it was evident. And we see this beautifully effected here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:13'>Joh 21:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise</em>- Again this was to recall how He had distributed bread and fish to them in the feeding of the 5000. The implication was that they were to distribute that bread and fish wider; and perhaps they literally did so, seeing they had 153 large fish in their net. Again the Lord is seeking to point out that who He was in His earthly ministry was who He continued to be after resurrection. The process of immortalization will not obliterate personality; who we are now is who we shall eternally be. This points up the eternal importance of development in this life of personality and character, the spirit, spiritual formation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:14'>Joh 21:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This was the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after he had risen from the dead</em>- The synoptics appear to record other appearances, so this must mean that this was the third time recorded in John that Jesus revealed Himself to them all together as a group at one and the same time. The same word for "manifested" is used when John later writes that "the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness::." (<em><a href='B:690 1:2'>1Jn 1:2</a></em>). He has in view the resurrected Lord of life, whom they saw and handled. But the witness they were making to this 'manifestation' included a recognition in the resurrection accounts that they had been so slow to accept that 'manifestation' of life which they now urged others to accept. Again we see a humility in their witness, which would have made them very convincing and approachable as preachers and teachers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:15'>Joh 21:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So when they had broken their fast, Jesus said to Simon: Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yes, Lord. You know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs</em>-</p><p>The Lord Jesus had already met Peter at least twice since His resurrection, but hadn’t raised the obvious issue of Peter’s denials. And now He does it only&nbsp;<em>after</em>&nbsp;He has first eaten with Peter. We must bear in mind that to eat together, especially to take bread and give it to others, implied acceptance and religious fellowship (the scene here is reminiscent of the breaking of bread, the same words for ‘bread’, ‘take’ and ‘give’ are found in <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>). The Lord firstly fellowshipped with Peter and only then moved on to probe the issue of his disloyalty, after having first affirmed His abiding love for Peter. This is a pattern for us in dealing with others' failure. The human tendency is to demand all is resolved between us before we can move on together, but the Lord was wiser than that. He had tried to arrange circumstance to provoke Peter to himself engage with the issue- for the triple questioning, the triple invitation to work for Him, all took place by a fire of coals- just as Peter’s triple denials had. We see clearly portrayed here the gentle, seeking spirit of the Lord.</p><p>“Do you love me?” was a question for Peter’s benefit, not in order to give the Lord information which He didn’t have. His great sensitivity to Peter led Him to foresee the obvious question in Peter’s mind: ‘Has He forgiven me?’. And the Lord is saying that Peter knows the answer insofar as Peter knows how much he loves Jesus, on the principle that whoever loves much has been forgiven much (<em><a href='B:490 7:47'>Luk 7:47</a></em>). The allusion back to that incident in Luke 7 is confirmed by the way that the phrase ‘to love more’ occurs elsewhere only there, in <em><a href='B:490 7:42'>Luk 7:42</a></em>: “Which of them will&nbsp;<em>love</em>&nbsp;him Jesus&nbsp;<em>most</em>&nbsp;s:w. “more””:&nbsp; Jesus had already forgiven Peter; the answer to Peter’s concern about whether he had been forgiven was really ‘Yes you have, if you believe it; and if you believe it, you will love me, and according to how much you love me, you will know how much forgiveness you have received’. In all this, we see the careful sensitivity of the Lord Jesus to His people, foreseeing and feeling our doubts and fears, our questions; and responding to them in a profound way.</p><p>“You know that I love you” was met by the Lord with the comment that Peter must feed His sheep. This wasn’t so much a commandment / commission, as the Lord explaining that Peter’s love for Him personally would be reflected in the degree to which Peter loved the Lord’s sheep. John grasped this clearly, when he underlines throughout his letters that we cannot have love for God without loving our brethren. The Father and Son are to be identified with their people.</p><p>"Do you love me more than these?" is grammatically ambiguous. The reference could be to the nets and ships, or to Peter’s other brethren. On both fronts, Peter needed provoking to self-examination. For he was proud of his profession and too eager to return to Galilee and get back to work; and he had boasted earlier that “Though all men deny you, yet I will not”. There are purposeful ambiguities in some parts of God’s word, not every sentence is intended to have a final ‘right interpretation’ which stands for all time; the ambiguities are to provoke our self-examination.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:16'>Joh 21:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to him, a second time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord. You know that I love you. He said to him: Tend my sheep</em>- In the first two engagements, the Lord asks Peter if he 'loves'&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;Him, and Peter replies that yes, he 'loves'&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;Him. In the third engagement the Lord asks Peter if he really 'loves'&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;Him, and Peter replies that yes, he does&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;Jesus. To argue that&nbsp;<em>phileo&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;are interchangeable is to miss the point here; indeed, this whole exchange would surely show that they are not. And if they are, then we wonder why the two words are used as if there is a difference. Only surface level reading would suggest they are interchangeable. For&nbsp;<em>agape&nbsp;</em>is the otherwise colourless Greek word which has been chosen in John to refer to the Lord's love for us, the new commandment being to love&nbsp;<em>as He loved us</em>. Peter hasn't yet grasped that, and can think only in terms of&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>, the love of human friendship.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:17'>Joh 21:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he asked him a third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you. Jesus said to him: Feed my sheep</em>- As noted on :16, Peter has responded to the question about whether he has&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;for the Lord by saying that he has&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>. The Lord now in the third exchange as it were gives up trying to get Peter to respond to&nbsp;<em>agape</em>&nbsp;with&nbsp;<em>agape</em>, and probes whether he really has the&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>, the love of human friendship, which he professes. The Lord doesn't make any claim as to whether Peter does or doesn't have the&nbsp;<em>phileo</em>&nbsp;he professes; His response is that love for Him will be reflected in love for those in Him, His sheep. This is brought out in John's letters, where love for the Father and Son is only legitimate if we love their spiritual children, the Lord's sheep.</p><p>Peter was full of a simple, pure love for the Lord as he stood before Him. And he wanted to assure the Lord of that. But the Lord's response seems to be that love for Him is not the passion of a moment. It is shown by loving our brethren, His sheep, over a lifetime of service- as Peter went on to do.</p><p>Peter is asked to feed give food to the lambs (:15); then pastor / shepherd the mature sheep (:16); and now to feed give food to the mature sheep (:17). John took this as a command for him and to us all, for he alludes to it in his spiritual care for the young men cp. lambs and the more mature "fathers" in <em><a href='B:690 2:14'>1Jn 2:14</a></em> (Catholics are wrong to assume these words apply only to Peter). The point is that mature sheep still need feeding as they did when they were lambs, although they also need shepherding.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Truly, truly, I say to you: When you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you shall be old, you shall stretch forth your hands, and another shall gird you, and carry you where you do not wish to go</em>- This follows straight on from the command to Peter to show his love for the Lord by how he treated the Lord's flock. The Lord seems to be saying that He knows that Peter does love Him, and that Peter will indeed give his life to caring for the Lord's sheep- and because of this, Peter will finally suffer and die, as the Lord did. This prediction of Peter's future suffering for the sake of his work for the Lord's flock is therefore the Lord's way of saying that yes, He does accept that Peter truly loves Him- because He knows how He will suffer for his love of the Lord's people.</p><p>Consider how the Lord's words to Peter here about girding himself would have offered him tremendous comfort in <em><a href='B:510 12:8'>Act 12:8</a></em>, if he appreciated them; see note there. <em><a href='B:500 21:18-19'>Joh 21:18-19</a></em> could be taken as meaning that Peter was to die the death of crucifixion, which would be the final fulfilment of the charge to “follow me”. <em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em> contains the observation that as he would be led to that place of execution, it would be a death that “you do not wish”. The Lord foresaw that Peter’s unwillingness to accept the cross would surface even then. One of the most well attested extra Biblical traditions about Peter is found in the apocryphal ‘Acts of Peter’. It is that as he was being led to crucifixion, the Lord Jesus appeared to Peter, and Peter asked: ‘<em>Domine, quo vadis</em>?’- ‘Lord / Master, to where are we going?’ (repeating his words of <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>), as if somehow even then, he found the final acceptance of the cross hard. As indeed, it would be.</p><p>In <em><a href='B:500 13:36'>Joh 13:36</a></em>, the Lord had answered the question by telling Peter that then, he wasn’t able to follow Him to death. But he would do so at a later date. And that time had come, although it took a lifetime to reach. This tradition has, to me, the ring of truth about it, from all that we know of Peter’s problem with the cross. And it exactly mirrors our own difficulty in facing up to the stark realities of the life of self-sacrifice and ultimate self-crucifixion to which we are called, the question of&nbsp;<em>Quo Vadis</em>? Only then, at the very end, did he realize that following Christ was a call to follow Him to His cross. And another extra Biblical tradition has a similar likelihood of truth: it is said that when finally Peter was brought to the place of crucifixion, he insisted on being crucified upside down, as he was unworthy to die the same death as his Lord. Another tradition says that because of this unusual angle of crucifixion, the nails fell out and Peter was offered the chance of release, which he refused, and asked to be crucified with his Lord, still upside down.</p><p>If all this is so, he finally learnt the lesson which we likewise struggle for a lifetime to learn: that following Christ means going to His cross with Him, and in the process learning and feeling through and through our unworthiness. And he learnt too that to die with Christ is never forced upon us by the Lord who bought us: in Peter’s final, willing choice of death, as with our day by day denials of the flesh for Christ’s sake, we make the choices purely from our own volition. We alone decide, in the terror, pain and difficulty of a genuine freewill, that thus it must be for us. And for us,&nbsp;<em>Quo Vadis</em>?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now this he spoke, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he said to him: Follow me</em>- After Peter’s ‘conversion’, the Lord told Peter in more detail how he would die. He would be carried, as the Lord was carried to the cross. But his death would "glorify God” (as the Lord’s death also did: <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>). Having said this, the Lord invited Peter: “Follow me” (<em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>). Live the life of cross carrying now, Peter. And they went on walking, with Peter walking behind Jesus. But he couldn’t concentrate on the crucifixion life, and got distracted by his issues with John.</p><p>Significantly, both Luke and John conclude their Gospels with the risen Lord walking along with the disciples, and them ‘following’ Him (<em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>)- just as they had done during His ministry. His invitation to ‘Follow me’ (<em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 21:22'>Joh 21:22</a></em>) is the very language He had used whilst He was still mortal (<em><a href='B:500 1:37'>Joh 1:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:27'>Joh 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:26'>Joh 12:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:18'>Mar 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a></em>). The point being, that although He was now different, in another sense, He still related to them as He did when He was mortal, walking the lanes and streets of first century Palestine. Elsewhere I have pointed out that the fishing incident of John 21 is purposefully framed as a repetition of that recorded in Luke 5 - again, to show the continuity between the Jesus of yesterday and the Jesus of today. It’s as if in no way does He wish us to feel that His Divine Nature and glorified, exalted position somehow separates us from Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:20'>Joh 21:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peter, turning about, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following- he who had leaned back on his breast at the supper and asked: Lord, who is he that betrays you?</em>- Like Lot’s wife, he turned around, away from the Lord, and saw John also following, the one who had leaned on Jesus’ breast at the last supper (is this detail included here to suggest that this was a cause of jealousy for Peter?). And he quizzed the Lord as to His opinion of John. Peter got distracted from his own following, his own commitment to self-crucifixion, by the powerful fascination human beings have in the status of others and the quality of their following. The Lord replied that even if John lived until His return, without ever having to die and follow Him to the literal death which Peter would have to go through, well, so what: “What is that to you? You- follow me”. This was the same message the Lord had taught Peter through the parable of the 1st hour labourer getting distracted by the reward of the 11th hour one. He had that tendency to look on the faults of others (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>), to compare himself with others (<em><a href='B:470 19:21'>Mat 19:21</a></em> cp. 27; <em><a href='B:470 26:33'>Mat 26:33</a></em>).</p><h4>And so, so many tragic times we do the same. We are distracted from the quintessence of our lives, the following, to death, of the Lord, by our jealousy of others and our desire to enter into their spirituality rather than personally following. Remember that it is so often recorded that multitudes followed the Lord wherever He went. But they missed the whole point of following Him- to die the death of the cross, and share His resurrection life. John’s Gospel has a somewhat strange ending, on first sight. The synoptics end as we would almost expect- the Lord ascends, having given His last commission to preach, and the disciples joyfully go forth in the work. But John’s Gospel appears to have been almost truncated. Christ walks away on His own, with Peter following Him, and John walking some way behind Peter. Peter asks what the Lord’s opinion is of John, and is told to ignore that and keeping on following Him. John inserts a warning against possible misunderstanding of this reply- and the Gospel finishes. But when we appreciate that the language of ‘follow me’ is the call to live the life of the cross, to follow the Man from Nazareth to His ultimate end day by day, then this becomes a most impressive closing scene: the Lord Jesus walking away, with His followers following Him, in all their weakness. John’s Gospel was originally the good news preached personally by John, and there is an impressive humility in the way in which he concludes with a scene in which he follows the Lord He has preached, but some way behind Peter. An awareness of our frailty and the regrettable distance with which we personally follow the Lord we preach is something which ought to be stamped on every witness to the Lord. To follow the Lord in cross bearing is indeed the end of the Gospel. And Peter understood this when he wrote that “hereunto were you called i:e. this is the bottom line of life in Christ: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in his steps” (<em><a href='B:670 2:21'>1Pe 2:21</a></em>). Fellowshipping His sufferings and final death is following Him. Little would Peter have realized that when he first heard the call “Follow me”, and responded. And so with us. The meaning of following, the real implication of the cross, is something which can never be apparent at conversion.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:21'>Joh 21:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Peter therefore seeing him, said to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?</em>- There is a fatal fascination with the question of why some weren’t called. But who are we as the clay to argue with the potter’s grace? John’s Gospel closes by addressing this question. Peter was following Jesus, walking behind Him, in response to Jesus’ command to follow Him. But John was also following Jesus, and Peter turned around, turned back from following Jesus just as he lost his focus on Jesus when he was walking on the water towards Jesus::. to notice John was also following. The fate of others, the nature of their following or not of Jesus, is not in this sense directly our concern; our focus must be upon single-mindedly following Jesus as we by grace have been called to do.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:22'>Joh 21:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Jesus said to him: If I will that he remains till I come, what is that to you? You follow me</em>- If Peter had to die the death of the cross, he wondered what John would have to suffer. The Lord's reply is that if John were not called to be a martyr, but lived without tasting death until the Lord's return- what was that to Peter? He ought to still "Follow me". The Lord may be speaking literally, or using hyperbole in order to make Peter realize that absolutely nothing in the path or destiny of another man should distract him from&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;path. And we can well take that lesson; for so many stumble in their following of the Lord, or staying on the path intended, because of obsessions with others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:23'>Joh 21:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This saying therefore went forth among the brothers, that that disciple should not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he should not die, but: If I will that he remains till I come, what is that to you?</em>- We have a window here onto how easily there could arise misunderstandings in an illiterate community, going only on the reported speech of the Lord, passed around by memory and repetition. Hence the need for the Spirit to inspire definitive Gospel records as we have them, correcting such errors which would inevitably arise. We also note John's title for the believers as "the brothers". A new family relationship had been born due to the Lord's resurrection and continued spiritual life amongst them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:24'>Joh 21:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>This is the disciple that testifies of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true</em>- The Gospel of John is the eyewitness account of John- he says that he testifies to all he has written. The "we" presumably refer to the elders of the Johannine community, the converts he had made, who as it were published his Gospel. If so, they would only have know that his witness was true because of the work of the Comforter, the presence of the Spirit of Jesus in their hearts enabling them to discern truth about Him. Alternatively, the "we" would refer to the other disciples, who alone had been with the Lord and John from the beginning of His ministry, and who could testify that John's account was true:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:500 21:25'>Joh 21:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there are many other things which Jesus did, which if each one of them should be written down, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written</em>- The books written parallel the personal witness made of :24. The Lord had done so much in so many lives, that if each person were to write down their account, then "I suppose" the world could not contain the records. "I suppose" reads strangely as it stands; John is hardly one for using throw away terms such as "I guess::.". The Greek literally means 'to make as oneself'. The idea may be that each one in whom the Lord Jesus had done things could write a witness as John had done in his Gospel record; and the world could not contain so many books of witness. But "the world" in John is nearly always the Jewish world; and so often, he alludes back to the prologue. His conclusion of the Gospel is surely a place where he would allude to the prologue. There we read that the Jewish world did not "receive" the testimony or&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of the Lord; and "contain" here can also mean "receive" [s:w. "All men cannot receive this saying", <em><a href='B:470 19:11'>Mat 19:11</a></em>]. So the idea may be that the Jewish world would in no way receive all the testimonies made. This however would be a rather negative way to end. We have detected allusions to the great commission so often in John. Perhaps the idea is that the world, both the Jewish world and the&nbsp;<em>kosmos</em>, could and should be flooded with books of witness from those in whose lives the Lord had done things. For He "did" [s:w. "made"] disciples of men (<em><a href='B:500 4:1'>Joh 4:1</a></em> s:w:), doing or making people whole (<em><a href='B:500 5:15'>Joh 5:15</a></em> s:w:). Their 'books' would be like John's book of witness in his Gospel record; but all slightly different. This, then, would be the taking of the Lord Jesus into all the world, by personal witness of what He had done in human lives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The former account- </em>Gk. <em>protos logos</em>. When John begins his Gospel with the idea of the <em>arche</em> <em>logos</em>, he is perhaps saying the same thing. The <em>logos</em> was the word or account of God's purpose in Jesus. Luke's Gospel was written for the purpose of preaching to Theophilus, who had already been 'catechized', taught by rote, one of the Gospels (probably Mark), but who wanted to have a more detailed and factual account (<em><a href='B:490 1:3-4'>Luk 1:3-4</a></em>). Luke later describes his Gospel as his <em>logos</em>, his 'word' about all Jesus did (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em> Gk:). The Lord seems to have foreseen this when He spoke of how "Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, which this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her" (<em><a href='B:470 26:13'>Mat 26:13</a></em>). There is evident connection with Christ's prophecy of how the Gospel would be preached in all the world (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:15'>Mar 16:15</a></em>). He seems to have seen the 'Gospel' that would be preached as a re-telling of His life and incidents in it, such as the woman's anointing of Him. It is significant that her anointing is mentioned in all four Gospel records. In <em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em> we read that wherever the gospel was to be preached, what she had done would be narrated in memory of her. So ‘preaching the Gospel’ is defined there as a narration of the events and sayings of the Lord Jesus in His ministry.</p><p>Regarding the initial intention of Luke-Acts, see on <em><a href='B:510 21:19'>Act 21:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>I made</em>- This is the same Greek word used in the next clause, concerning all that Jesus began to make or "do". The work or doing of Jesus is continued through the written record of that work- that seems to be the idea.</p><p><em>O Theophilus</em>- 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 (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>). 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. Luke's address to "Most Excellent Theophilus" may be a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. </p><p><em>Concerning all that Jesus began to do and to teach</em>- 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 <em>begun </em>to do, implying that He had continued His doings through the doings of the apostles (cp. <em><a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a></em>, Jesus “began” to speak the Gospel and we continue His work). See on <em><a href='B:510 2:6-7'>Act 2:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:40'>Act 8:40</a></em>. Luke uses the same word translated ‘preach’ in both Luke and the Acts [although the other Gospels use it only once]. In Luke we find the word in <em><a href='B:490 1:19'>Luk 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:10'>Luk 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:22'>Luk 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:1'>Luk 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a></em>; and in Acts, in <em><a href='B:510 5:42'>Act 5:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:25'>Act 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:35'>Act 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:40'>Act 8:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:20'>Act 11:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:32'>Act 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:7'>Act 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:15'>Act 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:21'>Act 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:35'>Act 15:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:18'>Act 17:18</a></em>. Luke clearly saw the early ecclesia as preaching the same message as Jesus and the apostles; they continued what was essentially a shared witness. This means that we too are to see in the Lord and the 12 as they walked around Galilee the basis for our witness; we are continuing their work, with just the same message and range of responses to it. <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> concludes the Gospel with the command to go and preach remission of sins, continuing the work of the Lord Himself, who began His ministry with the proclamation of remission (<em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>). Acts stresses that the believers did just this; they preached remission of sins [s:w:] in Jesus’ Name, whose representatives they were: <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:43'>Act 10:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>Until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandments through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen</em>- 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 <em><a href='B:290 53:9'>Isa 53:9</a></em>) to emphasize the greatness of the one thing (e:g:, <em>the</em> 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. </p>


text:
<p><em>To whom, after his suffering, he also showed by many convincing proofs- </em><em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em> 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.</p><p><em>That he was alive, being seen by them for forty days, and speaking about the kingdom of God- </em>The Greek is literally: 'Speaking about the things concerning the Kingdom of God'. And this is exactly how the content of the Apostolic preaching is described in <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>. Clearly what the Lord taught them became the basis of their teaching to others. They were a continuation of Him on earth, just as our witness should be likewise. It could even be that "the things concerning the Kingdom of God" became a technical term for a body of material which the Apostles taught, having heard it directly from the Lord during those 40 days. </p>


text:
<p><em>And, being assembled together with them, he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem</em>- Rendered by AVmg. and RVmg. "eating together". We can note the association between eating and proof of resurrection; and also the idea of fellowship together. In the first century, to eat together was to fellowship together. It would seem that the command to remain in Jerusalem was given whilst 'eating together', in instruction at the breaking of bread meeting. That meeting continues to be the place where we receive instruction from our Lord, if we approach it in that spirit.</p><p><em>But to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, you heard from me- </em>Presumably referring to the promise of the Comforter made in the Upper Room. </p>


text:
<p><em>For John indeed baptized with water, but soon you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit</em>- The implication is that they had all been baptized by John the Baptist; his work of preparing the way for the Lord succeeded with that small group, even if it failed nationally. The contrast is between <em>with</em> water and <em>in </em>Spirit. I suggest therefore that the baptism in the Spirit refers to something internal and psychological, the gift of the Spirit in human hearts promised as “the comforter” in John 14-16, which in some cases in the first century was manifest by visible external signs. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, when they had come together, they asked him</em>- The imperfect means they kept on asking. </p><p><em>Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?</em>- Once the Gospel is preached world-wide, then the end will come (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>). And so the Lord replied to the question: ‘When are you coming back?’ by telling the questioners to go and preach the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 1:6'>Act 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>), 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 (<em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em>)- implying that it is spreading the Gospel world-wide, not looking for the fulfilment 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.</p><p>The disciples' request to know exactly when the Kingdom would be restored ('When will <em><a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a></em> 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 (<em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em>)- implying that what they would do with them would be a primary fulfilment of the Kingdom prophecies which they were enquiring about:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: It is not for you to know times or seasons</em>- There is clearly a difference between them. <em>Chronos</em>, "times", is at times used to mean 'delay'; and <em>chairos</em>, "seasons", is also translated "opportunity". There would appear to be reference here to the variable nature of the Divine program; there are delays, extensions, and preconditions which must be fulfilled, and therefore opportunities for hastening or realizing the day of the Lord's coming. But by the same token, there is apparently no calendar date set for it.</p><p><em>Which the Father has set within his own authority</em>- Or, power. The Lord made two statements to the disciples which he surely intended to be connected: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth::. it is not for you (the inquisitive eleven standing on Olivet) to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em>). But <em>all</em> the Father's power has been given to His glorified Son, and this therefore includes knowledge of the "times and seasons" of the second coming. In the exalted Lord "are hid all the riches of wisdom and knowledge" (<em><a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a></em>); it is thereby inconceivable that the Father would still keep back some knowledge from the Son. The point of all this is that when the Lord Jesus said that "of that day and that hour knoweth (present tense) no man, no, not the angels::. neither the Son" he was not laying down a general principle for all time. He was speaking of the situation at that time: 'You can't know now, indeed at the moment even I don't know; but these are the signs which will tell the believers when I'll come'. By implication he was saying 'You can't understand them, although I'm giving them to you, but in the future some will understand them, because these signs will accurately pinpoint my return'. This was exactly the spirit of what the Angel told Daniel when he too wished to know when Messiah would come in glory; he was basically told 'It's not for you to understand, but in the last days understanding of these things will be increased among God's people; they will know the time, but you can't'. There are so many connections between the Olivet prophecy and Daniel that perhaps it is legitimate to think that the Lord was alluding to the Angel's refusal to tell Daniel the time of Messiah's coming. That the Lord was primarily referring to the twelve when he spoke of them not knowing "when the time is" (<em><a href='B:480 13:33'>Mar 13:33</a></em>) is confirmed if we appreciate that the Lord Jesus sometimes uses "the time" as a reference to the appointed time for his own death (<em><a href='B:470 26:18'>Mat 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:35'>Mar 14:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:6'>Joh 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:8'>Joh 7:8</a></em>). The disciples were fascinated with the time of his return, and the Lord was giving them the signs. But knowing his death was only days away, inevitably he had in mind "the time" of his passion. And he knew that as they didn't know the time of his return, so they didn't understand the time of his death. Having pointed out that they knew not "the time", in words surely reminiscent of his criticism of Jewry generally for not knowing "the time" of his coming and death (<em><a href='B:470 16:3'>Mat 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:44'>Luk 19:44</a></em>), the Lord went on to tell the story of the man (himself) who left his household (the disciples) and told them to watch, with warnings as to what would happen if they didn't. Every one of those warnings, and some other language in the Olivet prophecy,&nbsp; came true of the disciples in the next few days, in the context of "the time" being the time of Christ's death.</p>


text:
<h4><em>But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the remotest part of the earth- </em>When the watchman of <em><a href='B:290 21:11'>Isa 21:11</a></em> 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 <em><a href='B:510 1:7-8'>Act 1:7-8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:480 13:28-33'>Mar 13:28-33</a></em>, 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’.</h4><p><em>The Gospel</em>&nbsp;was to be preached for a witness to all nations (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>); and yet “<em>you</em>&nbsp;are witnesses:::&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;will be witnesses” (<em><a href='B:490 24:27'>Luk 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). The preacher of the Gospel&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the Gospel; the man is the message, just as the very same word / message was made flesh in the Lord. Israel of old were taught this. They were to keep and do the commandments of God, and&nbsp;<em>this</em>&nbsp;would be the witness of their wisdom and understanding to the nations around them- who would thereby be brought to Israel’s God (<em><a href='B:50 4:6-8'>Deu 4:6-8</a></em>). The imparting of wisdom and understanding therefore didn’t come so much through specific doctrinal exposition, as through living out those principles in daily life. But&nbsp;<em>marturion</em>, “witness”, can simply be a legal term referring to testimony or witness in a prosecution. Perhaps the sense is that judgment will come upon all the world once the Gospel has been witnessed to them; it is their receipt of that information which gives them the knowledge which makes them responsible to Divine judgment. For once this witness has been made, then the end comes.</p><p>The possession of the Holy Spirit in the first century was possessing "the powers of the world to come" (<em><a href='B:650 6:5'>Heb 6:5</a></em>), 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 (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em> 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 Isaiah 2 were fulfilled to some degree in the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem in the first century.</p><p>The record of the Acts is a continuation of all that Jesus <em>began</em> to do and teach as recorded in the Gospels (<em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>). The preachers were witnesses <em>of Jesus</em> (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). 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:&nbsp;</p><p>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 (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>). We're all martyrs. Augustine said that “The cause, not the suffering, makes a genuine martyr”. That needs some reflection and time spent processing that profound observation. In his play <em>Murder in the Cathedral</em>, 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.</p><p>Samaria is perhaps mentioned specifically because of the earlier command not to preach there during the Lord's ministry (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>).</p><p>“To the remotest part of the earth” need not be a reference to the great commission. It could be that this prediction had a specific, one-time fulfilment at Pentecost, where the Gospel was witnessed to Jews from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to Jews from the very ends of the earth / land promised to Abraham. If we understand the "earth" in a literal, global sense, then the Apostles didn't achieve this. They were told that the coming gift of the Holy Spirit would enable them to make this witness, and the most comfortable fit for the fulfilment of this is to simply read on in Acts and learn how the gift of speaking in the languages of the Jewish diaspora was given to them. They indeed achieved the intended witness on the day of Pentecost to Jews from the very areas predicted here in 1:8.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had said these things, as they were watching, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight</em>-<br/> 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. We find this so often in the Bible- the language of creation in Genesis 1 is an example, as are the references to 'demons'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And while they were looking earnestly into heaven as he went, two men stood by them in white clothing</em>- Of the 14 usages of the Greek word here used for “looking earnestly” in the NT, 12 are by Luke. This is what we would expect with Divine inspiration- the personality and word choice of an individual still comes through noticeably in the written word, the writers were not zombified; and yet the overall product also uses words chosen by the Spirit, and is the Spirit's work and infallible.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who also said: You men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven</em>- Why address them in this way? What was significant about them all being Galileans? We note that the Jewish audience of <em><a href='B:510 2:7'>Act 2:7</a></em> remarked likewise- "Look, are not all those who speak Galileans?", and Peter's Galilean accent could not be disguised in the courtyard. The records emphasize that the Lord was also considered a Galilean (<em><a href='B:470 26:69'>Mat 26:69</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:6'>Luk 23:6</a></em>). Yet Galilee was despised. Perhaps the Angels were encouraging those men not to worry about their own inadequacy, lack of culture or erudition. Instead of just gaping at their vanishing Master, with thoughts of ethnic inadequacy arising in them, they were being encouraged to go out and make the witness which the Lord had asked of them. And the Angels were comforting them that their humble origins were full well known to God, and would not hinder them in their work for Him.</p><p><em>Shall return in like manner as you saw him going into heaven</em>- The <em>same </em>Jesus who went into Heaven will <em>so</em> come again <em>in like manner</em>. 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near to Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey</em>- In obedience to the command to remain in Jerusalem until they were given the Spirit (:4). I suggested on <em><a href='B:490 24:50'>Luk 24:50</a></em> that the Lord’s ascension was from Bethany, and that perhaps they had gone out to the nearby mountain to see if they could still see Him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p><em>And when they arrived, they went into the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James</em>- The definite article suggests this was a well-known, specific meeting place. We note how Peter is always placed first in the lists of disciples. He, the most unstable and apparently least qualified for leadership, was the one chosen by the Lord as the leader of the pack. And He works with the same style today.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>.</p><p><em>These all with one accord- </em>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 <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>: "These all continued with <em>one accord</em> in prayer". Then <em><a href='B:510 2:1'>Act 2:1</a></em>: "When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all <em>with one accord</em> in <em>one</em> place":&nbsp; Now over to v:46: "Continuing daily <em>with one accord</em>::. breaking bread::. with::. <em>singleness of heart</em>". And on to <em><a href='B:510 4:24'>Act 4:24</a></em>: "They lifted up their voice to God <em>with one accord</em>". Now to <em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>: "They were all <em>with one accord</em> in Solomon's porch". There is another example in <em><a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a></em> 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 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" (<em><a href='B:510 7:52'>Act 7:52</a></em>), those of Tyre and Sidon were "with one accord" (<em><a href='B:510 12:20'>Act 12:20</a></em>), "The Jews made insurrection against Paul with one accord" in Corinth (<em><a href='B:510 18:12'>Act 18:12</a></em>), and at Ephesus the mob "rushed with one accord" against Paul (<em><a href='B:510 19:29'>Act 19:29</a></em>). 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. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Continued earnestly in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers- </em>Mary is portrayed as somehow separate from the other ministering women. It would have been psychologically impossible, or at best very hard, for the mother of the Lord to hang around with them. The group dynamics would have been impossible. Likewise in <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em> we have “the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus”, as if she is separate from them. She followed Him to Cana, uninvited, and also to Capernaum. Next she is at the cross risking her life, but she isn't among the women who went to the grave. Why not? It was surely natural that she would go there, and that the other women would go with her to comfort her. But she was a loner; either she went alone, as I think I would have tried to, or she just couldn’t face contact with the others and simply hid away. And could it be that Jesus, in recognition of her unique perception of Him, appeared to her first privately, in a rightfully unrecorded meeting? But by <em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>, she was in the upper room, as if His death led her to be more reconciled to her brethren, to seek to get along with them::. although by nature, in her heart and soul, she was a loner, maybe almost reclusive. A struggler to understand. A meditator, a reflector, who just wanted to be alone, one of those who take their energy from themselves rather than from other people. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons) and said</em>- Is that all the Lord's miracles and ministry in Jerusalem had converted? It was from that apparently slender response that Christianity was born. So paucity of response to our message should be no discouragement. The AV is more literally accurate here: "the number of names together were::.". This phrase recalls the description of the numbering of Israel in the OT, especially in Numbers 1, where the phrase "the number of names" occurs many times. Here was a new Israel formed, and being numbered so that they could go forward and inherit the Kingdom. See on 3:7.</p>


text:
<p><em>Brothers</em>- The believers are addressed as "brothers" here and in <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em>; and yet the same phrase is then used about an unbaptized crowd of people who were listening to the Gospel being preached (<em><a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:26'>Act 13:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>). It is also used in addressing those who in no way believed the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 7:2'>Act 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:1'>Act 22:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:5'>Act 23:5</a></em>). We note that Paul was called "brother" by Ananias even before he was baptized (<em><a href='B:510 9:17'>Act 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:13'>Act 22:13</a></em>); and Paul's reasoning in <em><a href='B:530 8:7-13'>1Co 8:7-13</a></em> seems to suggest that he saw "every man" as his "brother", and sought not to put a stumbling block in the way of any and every member of the general public, whom he also calls "brother". This was surely because the early brethren had learnt the lesson taught to Peter; that they were to see all men as potentially cleansed in Christ, seeing that Christ died for all, and individuals are to be invited by us to accept that cleansing- in Peter's case, through extending table fellowship to them. The simple picture is that the early church was not so hung up as we may be today regarding whom they addressed as brother. </p><p><em>It was necessary that the Scripture should be fulfilled- </em>Peter is quoting here from the Lord's recent words in <em><a href='B:490 24:44'>Luk 24:44</a></em>, that the Scriptures must [s:w. 'necessary'] be fulfilled about Him.</p><p><em>Which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David</em>- A classic statement concerning the process of Divine inspiration of the Bible.</p><p><em>Concerning Judas, who was guide to those that took Jesus</em>- The way Judas led the armed men to take or seize Jesus in Gethsemane was etched in Peter's memory; the shock of realizing Judas' betrayal would have been enormous. </p>


text:
<p><em>For he was numbered among us and received his part in this ministry</em>- Alluding to <em><a href='B:290 14:10'>Isa 14:10</a></em> LXX, where the King of Babylon is described as a star which fell from the sky and is met by the kings of the earth, who comment that he was now "numbered with us". The disciples saw Judas as the "guide" or leader of those who killed Jesus (:16), and saw him as having left leadership amongst the Lord's people for a place of leadership amongst the people of His enemies. This helps us better understand how Judas is described as 'satan', the adversary, and how he is presented as personified evil.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:470 27:7'>Mat 27:7</a></em>. The way Judas "burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (<em><a href='B:510 1:18'>Act 1:18</a></em>) may not be only a description of a bungled suicide. "Bowels”&nbsp;is elsewhere <em>always</em> 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 (<em><a href='B:330 23:34'>Eze 23:34</a></em>). 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 (<em><a href='B:330 23:17-18'>Eze 23:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:22'>Eze 23:22</a></em>). The utter aloneness of the condemned is impossible to plumb. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem, so much so that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood</em>- “What will you give me…?” suggests that Judas’ motive was partly financial. And all he could buy with it was a muddy clay field which became worthless, which nobody else wanted to own anyway. The suicide of Judas and the way he had bought or been given a field for his evil work became known to all. It was impossible for the Jews to disguise the fact that what they had done was known by all, and all their plotting had not been blessed but had come to an unpleasant and embarrassing end. They really had no option but to repent and accept the risen Lord; but their pride was too great. “Akeldama” has been linked to the name of the field where the young men of David and Saul died in their own blood when they tried to take the Kingdom immediately in the wrong way (<em><a href='B:100 2:16'>2Sa 2:16</a></em>). We note that the Aramaic “Akeldama” was the “proper tongue” of the Jerusalem dwellers. They would have claimed to be true Hebrews; but in truth they were part Gentile in God’s eyes, hence their true language is called Aramaic. It was the “dwellers at Jerusalem” who later repented and were converted by Peter in chapter 2; their consciences began to be touched by hearing of the tragedy of Judas, and how deeply unblessed was all connected with him.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let his habitation be made desolate and let no one dwell therein, and his office let another take</em> - The condemnation of Jewry for crucifying Christ in <em><a href='B:230 69:25'>Psa 69:25</a></em> ("let <em>their</em> habitation be desolate") is quoted in the singular about Judas in <em><a href='B:510 1:20'>Act 1:20</a></em>. What was true of Judas was also true of Israel in general; in the same way as the pronouns used about Judas merge from singular into plural in <em><a href='B:230 55:13-15'>Psa 55:13-15</a></em> ("a man mine equal::. let death seize upon them"), as also in <em><a href='B:230 109:3'>Psa 109:3</a></em> cp. v:8. </p><p>Psalms 109 is a prophecy of Christ’s betrayal and death (:8 = <em><a href='B:510 1:20'>Act 1:20</a></em>). 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. <em><a href='B:230 55:13-15'>Psa 55:13-15</a></em> 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 <em>them</em> 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” (<em><a href='B:230 41:9-10'>Psa 41:9-10</a></em>). 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 at Psalm 69. Verse 22 is quoted in <em><a href='B:520 11:9-10'>Rom 11:9-10</a></em> concerning the Jews: “Let their table become a snare before them::. let their eyes be darkened”. The passage continues in <em><a href='B:230 69:25'>Psa 69:25</a></em>: “Let <em>their</em> habitation be desolate; let none dwell in <em>their</em> tents”. This is quoted in <em><a href='B:510 1:16'>Act 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:20'>Act 1:20</a></em> 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 <em>his</em> [singular] habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and <em>his</em> bishopric let another take”.</p><h4><em><a href='B:230 109:8'>Psa 109:8</a></em> is quoted in <em><a href='B:510 1:20'>Act 1:20</a></em> concerning Judas, suggesting that the preceding&nbsp;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 <em><a href='B:230 109:31'>Psa 109:31</a></em>). 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 (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>). The whole of Psalms 109 is a prayer requesting the punishment of Judas, asking God to confirm him in his supreme apostasy: "Let his prayer become sin" (<em><a href='B:230 109:7'>Psa 109:7</a></em>). The last section of the Psalm (109:22-29) describes Christ's sufferings on the cross in language that has many connections with Psalms 22, 69; and as with them there is a sudden breakthrough at the end into looking forward to praising God "among the multitude" (<em><a href='B:230 109:30'>Psa 109:30</a></em>), as there is in <em><a href='B:230 22:22'>Psa 22:22</a></em>. 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 (<em><a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:24'>Mat 26:24</a></em>):&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, of the men that have been with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us</em>- Only two men fitted the requirement. But we hear nothing of either of them in the Gospel records. That demonstrates that when we read of "the twelve" experiencing various things, being in the boat with Jesus, the breaking of bread, the feeding miracles etc:, there were at least these two men also present- and probably many others at various points of the ministry, although only these two individuals were consistently present all the time.</p>


text:
<p><em>Beginning from the baptism of John, to the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection</em>- This means that Joseph and Matthias were also present at the last supper; this is one of many reasons for rejecting the idea that the supper was a closed table strictly for the twelve. Without wishing to be unduly critical of the disciples at this point, it is surely so that a witness of the resurrection was all the same a witness, whether or not they were confirmed as such. One is a witness of what they have seen, regardless of whether they are officially appointed as such. This is one of several reasons for having some unease at the path taken here and the drawing of lots, to the point that I feel we cannot reliably also draw lots to decide whom to appoint. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus; and Matthias</em>- The problem with democracy and choices by lot is the selection of the candidates. “Put forward” is the word for “appointed”. They decided on the candidates. Perhaps they were the only two who fitted the criteria of :22; but it seems it was the disciples themselves who chose those parameters for choice. The whole incident seemed unnecessary; we never hear of these brethren again in the record. We do note however that Peter is described as “standing up with the eleven” (2:14), suggesting they stood as a group of twelve and therefore the replacement disciple stood with them at that point.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they prayed, and said: Lord, you who knows the hearts of all men, show us which of these two is the one whom you have chosen</em>- It could be argued that giving God a binary choice like this was as it were forcing His hand, and therefore the result was invalid. And we don't hear any more about Matthias, with the term 'disciple' and 'apostle' being used about a far wider community than the original 'twelve', as if the significance of having been in the 'twelve' was somehow lessened as the ministry of the Spirit developed.</p>


text:
<p><em>To take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place</em>- The contrast is with his "place" in the ministry mentioned at the beginning of the verse. The rejected have their own individual condemnation, because so much of the plain of it will be because of their own personal reflection on "the place" they might have had, compared to "the place" of condemnation and rejection.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they cast lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles- </em>As noted on :21,22 and :23, the whole process here seems somewhat lacking in solid Biblical and procedural support, and would in my judgment be unsafe to use as justification for using lots. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place</em>- Literally, "was being fulfilled" (RVmg:). The Mosaic feast of Pentecost was a prophecy looking forward to what was now happening in the Christian dispensation. In commentary on 11:17, I discuss the possibility that the disciples were themselves baptized at this time and received the Spirit as a result of that. The mention of “one place” deepens the impression of their unity.</p>


text:
<p><em>And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting</em>- This seems to be intentionally contrasted with the fact they were sitting in the "upper room" of that house. Perhaps the idea is that the activity of God with the apostles was to be seen throughout the entire house / body of believers. Or maybe the allusion is to the glory of God filling the entire house of Solomon's temple. The body of Christ was now the temple, and God had accepted it by filling it with His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there appeared to them tongues like fire, separating and resting upon each one of them personally</em>- The tongues were not fire, but "like fire" because of the reddish colour of the human tongue. This was a visual reflection of how the gift of speaking in human languages was being given to each of those present. It is probably unwise to assume that this fulfils the prediction that the Lord would baptize with Spirit and fire- because the tongues were not of literal fire. See on <em><a href='B:510 2:45'>Act 2:45</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them to speak</em>- The imperfect means that the Spirit kept on giving them. Throughout the ministry of each one present, they were given multiple times the ability to speak forth the Gospel in languages different to their native tongue.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem devout men, Jews from every nation under heaven</em></p><p>- see on :9. The Greek means to live permanently. These were diaspora Jews who had retired to Jerusalem and would have been living there throughout the Lord's ministry and had probably encountered John the Baptist and perhaps some had been baptized by them. The "multitude" (singular in the Greek) of them who were gathered together (:6) therefore refers to this group of retirees, rather than to the general public. We can understand why Peter specifically accuses this group of having responsibility for the crucifixion of the Lord- because they as the 'elders' in age and authority had allowed it. The later appeal was to them and to their children [Jews still living in their family homes in the diaspora], and to all who were afar off- either the Gentiles, or all Jews in the diaspora, not just the children of the Jerusalem retirees.</p>


text:
<p><em>And at this sound the crowds came together</em>- "The multitude". 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 (<em><a href='B:490 5:6'>Luk 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:37'>Luk 19:37</a></em>). 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 <em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>. </p><p><em>And they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language</em>- Gk. <em>dialektos</em>, meaning that the language was heard with perfect local pronunciation; and another evidence that the gift of speaking in languages ["tongues"] was intelligible human language and not the mumbo jumbo of Pentecostalism.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying: Look, are not all those who speak Galileans?- </em>Luke describes the “amazement” at the preaching and person of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:47-48'>Luk 2:47-48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:36'>Luk 4:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:26'>Luk 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:56'>Luk 8:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:22'>Luk 24:22</a></em>), and then uses the same word to describe the “amazement” at the apostles (<em><a href='B:510 2:7'>Act 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:13'>Act 8:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:21'>Act 9:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:45'>Act 10:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:16'>Act 12:16</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>. Galileans were noted for their heavy accent and grammatical mistakes. Yet exactly those people, the least qualified as linguists, were chosen to perform the greatest linguistic miracle of all time.</p>


text:
<p><em>And how is it each of us heard- </em>The miracle was therefore in their hearing as well as in, or perhaps apart from, the words coming from the mouths of the speakers-in-tongues. </p><p><em>In his own native language- </em>Gk. <em>dialektos</em>, see on :6.</p>


text:
<p><em>Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia</em>- The list of nations here seems to be designed to go around the compass from Jerusalem, giving the impression that people from the whole world had heard the Gospel. They were from "every nation under heaven" (:5). Paul surely alludes to this when he writes later that "the Gospel was preached to every creature which is under heaven" (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>). I suggest he is referring here to Peter's work on Pentecost; and in commentary elsewhere, especially on chapter 20, I will suggest that Paul struggled not to be jealous of Peter's success at Pentecost. So how he writes in <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em> is giving full credit to Peter in a commendable way. The Old Testament predictions that the message of Messiah would go into all the world was thereby fulfilled, in a sense. But it didn't involve any missionary activity in the sense of travelling throughout the world. People from various nations were living permanently in Jerusalem, and the Gospel being preached to them was counted as the Gospel having been preached to every creature under heaven. In our day, we too have a commission to take the Gospel to every nation; but given then phenomena of international migration, we can witness to the Lord Jesus in cities like London, New York, Paris, Sydney::. and thereby be counted as having taken the Gospel into the whole world. And in the same spirit, the Lord surely counts internet witness the same.</p>


text:
<p><em>In Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes</em>- The fact proselytes were baptized is evidence that there were Gentiles baptized before Cornelius. The early believers were however terribly slow to grasp the simple truth that the Gospel should go to all nations. But the Lord kept nudging them towards realizing this, and the baptism of proselytes is an example. We experience the same kinds of nudges towards grasping those things which ought to be obvious to us if we respect the Lord’s word.</p>


text:
<p><em>Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our language- </em>The miracle was also in the hearing / perception of the listeners, as well as in the nature of the language proceeding from the mouths of the language speakers.</p><p><em>The mighty works of God</em>- Only used elsewhere in <em><a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a></em> concerning the mighty things done by God in His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were all amazed and were perplexed, saying to each other: What does this mean?</em>- “Perplexed” is Gk. 'doubted'. Contrary to modern Pentecostal claims, the gift of tongues did not of itself inspire faith in the hearers; these still doubted, and others passed it off as alcohol freeing a person up to use talents [languages, in this case] which were normally dormant. </p>


text:
<p><em>But others mocking said:</em> <em>They are filled with new wine!</em>- Seeing the miracle was in their hearing as well as in the mouths of the apostles, this was no possible reason. But this is the length to which some will go to deny the Lord's action in human life. <em>A </em>reason, <em>any</em> reason, has to be given to explain it away. </p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter, standing with the eleven</em>- Peter stood up along with the eleven others; thus the record accepts that Mathias had been accepted and that the entity known as 'the twelve' had been reconstituted. We read of "the twelve" in <em><a href='B:510 6:2'>Act 6:2</a></em>. However we do not read further in Acts after 6:2 of "the twelve" so it would appear they played no official role in the later development of the church.</p><p><em>Lifted up his voice and addressed them: You men of Judea and all that dwell in Jerusalem, let this be understood by you, and listen to my words</em>- 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 around 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 <em>so</em> 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 publicly denied his Lord keep on the back burner for quite some time. And Peter of all men would have wished it this way. See on <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>These</em></p><p>- see on 2:18 <em>My handmaids</em>.</p><p><em>Are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:680 2:13'>2Pe 2:13</a></em>. 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 (<em><a href='B:510 2:13-14'>Act 2:13-14</a></em>). We would likely have told those men not to be so blasphemous, or just walked away from them. But Peter responds to them with a speech so powerful that men turned around and repented and were baptized on the spot. Or it could be that the comment that they sounded drunk was made in jest, and Peter responds likewise tongue in cheek- for surely he must have known that men can be found drunk at 9 a:m. <em><a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a></em> laments how some in Israel were drunk in the morning, so the possibility was not so obviously absurd as Peter might appear, at first blush, to be suggesting. This would then become an example of answering a food according to his folly. </p>


text:
<p><em>But this is the fulfilment of that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel</em>- 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 linear chronological progression, whereas God's prophecies (Isaiah is the classic example) 'jump around' all over the place as far as chronological fulfilment 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 <em><a href='B:490 21:8-11'>Luk 21:8-11</a></em> gives a catalogue of signs, and then v. 12 jumps back to the situation before them: "but before all these things::." (<em><a href='B:490 21:27-28'>Luk 21:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a></em> 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 fulfilment 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 fulfilment 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]" (<em><a href='B:510 2:16-21'>Act 2:16-21</a></em>). </p><p>Typical of the NT writers, Peter doesn't quote from the Masoretic [Hebrew] text, but from the Septuagint, and in Joel 2 there are significant differences. And yet Peter adds and changes things even from the LXX. The inspired writers don't quote exactly, and often mix interpretation with quotation. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it shall be in the last days, says God- </em>The phrase doesn't have to necessarily refer to the last days before the Lord's second coming. It could equally refer to the last days of some other period- in this case, the Mosaic system. But the phrase is of course ambiguous- exactly because the Lord's second coming could have occurred then, but the various required preconditions were not met. The LXX also has as the Masoretic Text: "Afterward". "The last days" would appear to be Peter's inspired interpretation. </p><p><em>I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams</em>- A prophecy apparently about "all" here has a specific fulfilment in a limited group. Other Biblical references to "all" must likewise be understood; from God's perspective, the believers are "all things" to Him. </p>


text:
<h4><em>Yes, and in those days will I pour out My Spirit on My servants and on My handmaids, and they shall prophesy</em>- In order to see a fulfilment of this at that time of Pentecost, surely there were female believers who also began speaking in foreign languages- although that is not recorded. Often the NT quotes the OT selectively, omitting words and phrases which were not relevant to the fulfilment. The fact the "handmaids" and "daughters" (:17) are mentioned would surely mean that there were women also given the gifts at this time. The fact this is not specifically recorded is yet another example of how the records are so abbreviated. The fact women aren't recorded as publicly preaching at this time is no reason to think they did not. Likewise the fulfilment of the Joel prophecy meant that there were both old and young men preaching (:17). The "all" who were "together in one place" (2:1) were those who received the gifts, all within the house; not just the apostles. However, 2:7 records the impression that "all" who were speaking in foreign languages were from Galilee. The women / sisters in view were therefore presumably also from Galilee. Peter "and the eleven" stated that "these are not drunk" (:15)- rather than 'We are not drunk'. The use of "these" suggests that there were others apart from 'the twelve' who were preaching with the Spirit gifts. It was a shameful thing for a Jewish man to talk publicly to a woman, let alone for her to read the Torah, and for a woman to publicly preach God's word would have been nothing short of scandalous. In this we have a challenge to our own sense of inadequacy in witness; women, Galileans, the illiterate and poorly educated::. were those used by God to make history's greatest and most effective public witness to Christ. </h4>


text:
<p><em>And I will show wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapour of smoke</em>- Blood, fire and smoke columns suggest Mosaic sacrifices, in which the blood had to be poured out and then the carcass burnt. God's judgments are described as Him having a sacrifice (<em><a href='B:300 46:10'>Jer 46:10</a></em>), and here the AD70 judgment of Jerusalem is surely in view. This is the language of <em><a href='B:470 24:5-7'>Mat 24:5-7</a></em> about the same event. </p><p>Thomson (<em>Land and the Book</em>, vol. 2, p. 311) suggests the allusion in this passage is to the whirlwind sandstorms, which are appropriate figures of Divine judgment: “We have two kinds of sirocco, one accompanied with vehement wind, which fills the air with dust and fine sand. I have often seen the whole heavens veiled in gloom with this sort of sandcloud, through which the sun, shorn of his beams, looked like a globe of dull smouldering fire. It may have been this phenomenon which suggested that strong prophetic figure of Joel, quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost. Wonders in the heaven and in the earth; blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood. The pillars of smoke are probably those columns of sand and dust raised high in the air by local whirlwinds, which often accompany the sirocco. On the great desert of the Hauran I have seen a score of them marching with great rapidity over the plain, and they closely resemble ‹pillars of smoke:‘”</p>


text:
<p><em>The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, that great and notable day</em>- Language clearly relevant to the day of the second coming. The conclusion is quite clear- that day could have come in the first century, but it didn't. What was potentially possible didn't happen because Israel didn't repent. And so it has been delayed until our 'last days'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it shall be that whoever- </em>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. We too can read Scripture and assume we understand it, and thereby skip over massive implications for us.</p><p><em>Shall call on the name of the Lord- </em><em><a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a></em> seems to prophesy of multitudes calling upon the name of the Lord in the ‘last days’. The preliminary fulfilment of this in <em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em> 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:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a></em> 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:&nbsp; "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:&nbsp; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem (cp. <em><a href='B:120 19:30-31'>2Ki 19:30-31</a></em> for the&nbsp; mention of those two terms) shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said (through Isaiah and his prophets), and in the remnant::.":&nbsp;This passage is quoted in a different context in <em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em>, but this does not preclude its application to the faithful remnant in Jerusalem in the last days:&nbsp;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. </p><p><em>Shall be saved</em>- The quotation from Joel has spoken of an outpouring of Spirit gifts, followed by a time of trouble in the land, and then the coming of the great day of the Lord. The immediate context of this offer of salvation was therefore regarding saving from the destruction which was to come upon Israel and Jerusalem specifically. Peter later appealed for people to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to save themselves from [the judgment to come upon] that wicked generation (:40). </p><p>When Peter was sinking, he was living out the picture we have of condemnation at the last day. When we read that he began to “sink” into the sea of Galilee, this is exactly the image we find in <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>, where the Lord says, in response to the question ‘Who will be the greatest?’, that he who offends one of the little ones will be drowned [s:w. “sink”] in the midst of the sea, His audience would have immediately associated this with the midst of the sea of Galilee, just where the storm had occurred. Peter seems to have realized that this warning was pertinent to him, for it is he who then interrupts the Lord to ask how often he should forgive his brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:21'>Mat 18:21</a></em>). Peter sinking into Galilee, giving up swimming but desperately throwing up his hand to the Lord [you don’t swim with a hand outstretched], is the position of each person who truly comes to Christ. This is the extent of our desperation; baptism, conversion to Him, is most definitely not a painless living out of parental expectations. Note how they were “tossed” or ‘tormented’ (Gk:) by the raging waves (<em><a href='B:470 14:24'>Mat 14:24</a></em>)- the very same word is used about how the rejected will be “tormented” in condemnation (<em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a></em>). Peter’s salvation by the hand of the Lord was representative of us all. As he drowned there in the lake, he was effectively living out the condemnation of the last day. But he appealed urgently to the Lord: “Save me!”. Later, Peter was to use the same words in his preaching, when he appealed to his nation to “save [themselves]” by calling on the name of the Lord, just as he had done on the lake (<em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>). He saw that those people were in just the position which he had been in on the lake:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>You men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested to you by God, by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in the midst of you</em>- The crowd being addressed were Jews who were permanently living at Jerusalem; the crowd had all met the Lord Jesus and seen His miracles.</p><p><em>Even as you yourselves know</em>- These Jerusalem residents had known in their conscience that Jesus was indeed "attested by God" as Messiah. Like Paul at this time, they were kicking against the goads.</p>


text:
<p><em>Him, being delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God-</em> Perhaps Peter is addressing the sense some of the Jews had that the Lord's death was according to God's will, and therefore they were the less guilty.</p><p><em>You by the hand of men outside the Law, did crucify and slay- </em>Although it was Roman hands who crucified the Lord, Peter reminds the Jews that God judged it to have been effectively their hands. Their sin was not mitigated against by the fact that others had done it, when they planned it. </p>


text:
<p><em>Whom God raised up, having loosened the pangs of death; because it was not possible that he should be held by it- </em>Quoting <em><a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a></em> LXX. 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. 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>For David said concerning him</em>- David is one of the major OT types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Psalms 16 are quoted in <em><a href='B:510 2:25'>Act 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a></em> 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 <em><a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a></em> also quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord <em>Jesus</em> 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. <em><a href='B:130 17:17'>1Ch 17:17</a></em> 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 <em>is to come</em> on the “morning without clouds”, admitting that “verily <em>my</em> house is not so with God” (<em><a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a></em>). 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 <em><a href='B:230 16:8-11'>Psa 16:8-11</a></em>, are quoted as being the very thoughts of Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:27'>Act 2:27</a></em>). So Christ-centred was David's mind that he "<em>fore</em>saw (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" (<em><a href='B:510 2:25'>Act 2:25</a></em>). 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:&nbsp;</p><p><em>I saw the Lord always before my face- </em>With David we should be able to say that we see the Lord [the Lord Jesus] ever before our face, so that we will not be moved by anything. However, we could also interpret the quotation as David solely talking about the future feelings of Jesus; the "Lord" in view would therefore be the Lord God.</p><p><em>For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved</em>- The Lord Jesus felt God was at his right hand; but He is now on the Father's right hand. We see here a mutuality between Father and Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced, moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope</em> - Literally, to dwell in a tent. The idea is that death is merely setting up a tent to pass the night in, until the day of resurrection dawns. 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 (<em><a href='B:130 29:14-16'>1Ch 29:14-16</a></em>). 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" (<em><a href='B:510 2:26'>Act 2:26</a></em> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Because You will not leave my soul in the grave, neither will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption</em>- The women's devotion to the Lord, coupled with Joseph and Nicodemus going to such extraordinary lengths to have the Lord speedily buried in a new tomb, with more spices than were used for the burial of the Caesars, ensured that the Lord's body did not corrupt after three days. We note that Martha assumed that after three days, a corpse had usually started to smell because corruption was so advanced. However, the lack of corruption of the Lord's corpse was not 'allowed' by God, even if He worked through the freewill devotions of the Lord's loving followers. Given the Jewish belief and experience that after three days a corpse has seriously decayed, perhaps the reason the Lord remained dead for three days in order to demonstrate that His resurrection was indeed a miracle and not some quick resuscitation. </p>


text:
<p><em>You made known to me the ways of life, you shall make me full of gladness with Your countenance- </em>“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” (<em><a href='B:510 2:26'>Act 2:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:28'>Act 2:28</a></em>). 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. </p><p><em><a href='B:510 2:28'>Act 2:28</a></em> quotes Psalms 16 concerning Christ's resurrection and ascension: "Thou shalt make me full of joy with Thy countenance". So Christ's fullness of joy was to see God's face, and He has left us His joy (John 15). This was "the joy set before Him", and it is ours too. This is our fullness of joy, to see God's face, spiritually in this life, and physically in the future. After asking us to let His Words abide in us, Jesus said He had told us that so that our joy might be full (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:11'>Joh 15:11</a></em>). So the effect of the Word and of true repentance and turning to God is the same as seeing God's face- it should bring that same fullness of joy. Other passages make the same connection between the Word and God's face shining upon us- e:g. <em><a href='B:230 119:135'>Psa 119:135</a></em> "Make Thy face to shine upon Thy servant, and teach me Thy statutes". </p>


text:
<p><em>Brothers, I may say to you freely about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day</em>- The Greek for “freely” means boldly, confidently, openly. This was a characteristic of Peter's public speaking (<em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:31'>Act 4:31</a></em>), and it is used frequently in the New Testament of our boldness. We must ask ourselves whether we experience this; such a characteristic arises from trust that truly, we have been forgiven and will by grace live eternally. The Lord recognized the influence of the synagogue upon them when He said that He spoke to them in parables, and would later speak to them plainly (<em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>)- when He had earlier spoken to the Jewish world in parables rather than plainly, because they did not understand (<em><a href='B:480 4:34'>Mar 4:34</a></em>). And yet they got there in the end. He spoke to them in the end "plain words" (<em>parresia</em>), and this word is the watchword of the disciples' own witness to the world (<em><a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:31'>Act 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>). They spoke "plainly" <em>(parresia</em>) to the world, without parables, because they reflected to the world the nature of their understanding of their Lord. However, during His ministry, it would appear that the Lord treated them as if they were still in the Jewish world. When they asked Him why He spoke to <em>the people</em> in parables, He replies by explaining why He spoke <em>to them</em> in parables; and He drives the point home that it is to those “outside” that He speaks in parables (<em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body he would set one upon his throne</em>- Some manuscripts add <em>according to the flesh</em>. This expression, <em>kata sarx</em>, is a very clear statement of the humanity of the Lord Jesus and His lack of personal pre-existence- seeing He was the fruit of David's body or, as the Greek literally says, his hip or creative power. <em><a href='B:510 2:30-33'>Act 2:30-33</a></em> 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 <em><a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a></em> 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. </p>


text:
<p><em>He foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left in the grave, nor did his flesh see corruption</em>- This may mean that David foresaw and consciously spoke about the death and resurrection of his great descendant, Messiah. But inspired writers can also state things whereby they speak of and 'foresee' things which they themselves do not fully understand (<em><a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a></em>). Therefore we need not read these words as having to mean that David personally understood all the things about the Christ of which he spoke / wrote.</p>


text:
<p><em>This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses</em>- The "we" presumably refers to the group of 120 of Acts 1; the "we", including men and women, who were witnessing with the gift of languages.</p>


text:
<h4><em>Therefore, being exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear- </em>John repeatedly records Christ’s description of the cross as Him being “lifted up” (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:18'>Joh 8:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:34'>Joh 12:34</a></em>). But Peter uses the very same word to describe Christ’s exaltation in resurrection and ascension (<em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>). 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. &nbsp;</h4><p>The Greek for "poured out" is often used about the shedding of the Lord's blood. It was on account of His sacrifice that the Holy Spirit was shed. That seems to be the connection. The miraculous dimension of the gifts, in this case the understanding of languages, was a specific thing at a specific time. But the power of spiritual regeneration, the spirit / power of holiness, continues to be poured out in the lives of believers. Paul speaks as if the outpouring was valid for all, not just those at the day of Pentecost: "The washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (<em><a href='B:630 3:5-6'>Tit 3:5-6</a></em>).</p><p>An appreciation of the Lord's exaltation will in itself provoke in us repentance and service (<em><a href='B:510 2:33-36'>Act 2:33-36</a></em>). A vision of the exalted Lord Jesus was what gave Stephen such special inspiration in his final minutes (<em><a href='B:510 7:56'>Act 7:56</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>For</em> <em>David did not ascend into Heaven</em>- But it was Jesus who did; He, as David's 'lord', is sitting at God's right hand, and so it has to be Him and not David who is now in Heaven. This statement clearly disproves the idea of the faithful going to Heaven at death. Peter is tackling Judaism's tendency to think that whoever Messiah is or was or shall be, he is in any case inferior to the likes of Moses and David. Peter reasons that the fact David spoke of his 'lord', i:e. Jesus, being at the right hand of Yahweh therefore meant that Jesus was in Heaven. For that is where God's throne is.</p><p><em>But he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit on My right hand- </em>Peter uses Scriptures like Psalms 110, 118 in exactly the same way as he heard the Lord use them (<em><a href='B:510 2:34'>Act 2:34</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 22:44'>Mat 22:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:7'>1Pe 2:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:42'>Mat 21:42</a></em>). A list could be compiled for Peter's allusions to the Lord as I have for Paul's. It may be that Peter's difficult reference to the spirits in prison (<em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em>) is a reference to Isaiah 61 in the same way as Christ used it in <em><a href='B:490 4:18'>Luk 4:18</a></em>. This point is meaningless without an appreciation of the extent to which Christ's words featured in the writing and thought of Peter.</p>


text:
<p><em>Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet</em>- The context is Peter's appeal for those who crucified the Lord to repent. They were His "enemies"; but once they became a footstool for His feet, then He would return. Therefore Peter appealed for their repentance, apparently understanding being 'a footstool for His feet' as meaning they would put themselves at His feet in obeisance. The Lord's footstool is the place where His worshippers come (<em><a href='B:230 99:5'>Psa 99:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 132:7'>Psa 132:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:1-3'>Isa 66:1-3</a></em>). The Father was willing to "make" His Son's enemies, those responsible for His death, into His worshippers. But they had to do their part, in repentance and acceptance of the activity of His Holy Spirit. <em><a href='B:650 10:13'>Heb 10:13</a></em> adds the detail that the Lord Jesus is eagerly looking for [AV "expecting"] His former enemies to become His footstool- and then He will return. This is why witness to Jewish people is so deeply significant in God's program. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain, that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified</em>- Peter’s growth of understanding of Jesus as ‘Christ’ grew. He declared Him as this during His ministry (<em><a href='B:500 6:69'>Joh 6:69</a></em>), and also as ‘Lord’, but he preached Him as having been <em>made </em>Lord and Christ after the resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>). 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 (<em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em> 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 (<em><a href='B:490 2:11'>Luk 2:11</a></em>). 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. See on <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart- </em>The NT emphasizes the power of the cross, and the horrendous fact that we are really asked to share in His sufferings (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 9:16'>Act 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:5'>2Co 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:29'>Phi 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:10'>Phi 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:3'>2Ti 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:1'>1Pe 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:13'>1Pe 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:10'>Rev 2:10</a></em>). The Acts record seems to bring out how the Lord's people shared in the Lord's mortal experiences (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 4:7'>Act 4:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 21:23-24'>Mat 21:23-24</a></em>). The early converts were "pricked" (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>), using the same word as in <em><a href='B:500 19:34'>Joh 19:34</a></em> 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.</p><p><em>And said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: Brothers, what shall we do?</em>- Luke is fond of using this Greek phrase in recording the response provoked by encounters with the Lord Jesus and the message about Him (<em><a href='B:490 3:10'>Luk 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:12'>Luk 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:14'>Luk 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:11'>Luk 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:25'>Luk 10:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:17'>Luk 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:3-4'>Luk 16:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:18'>Luk 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:48'>Luk 19:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:6'>Act 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:6'>Act 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:30'>Act 16:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:10'>Act 22:10</a></em>). This is therefore a most significant phrase for Luke. His preaching of the Gospel (for Luke-Acts are missionary documents) was to provoke this question in us too- what shall we do?</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said to them: Every one of you should- </em>This might seem somewhat redundant, but remember that Peter was faced by a crowd of at least 3000 people. He sensed the tendency towards group action, being baptized because that was what the crowd was doing. And so he seeks to remind them that repentance is a very individual response to our own sins and God's salvation in Christ. And the same caveat needs to be sounded in communities which [quite rightly] raise their children in the Christian faith, surrounding them with those of similar background.</p><p><em>Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to the remission of your sins</em>- This language is intentionally reminiscent of how Luke earlier described the work of John the Baptist four years ago, which would have been well known to these Jerusalem Jews: he preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (<em><a href='B:490 3:3'>Luk 3:3</a></em>). Perhaps they had been baptized by John- for "all Jerusalem" were baptized by John. But that was not Christian baptism, which was only instituted after the Lord's death and resurrection; and there was no subsequent gift of Holy Spirit made accessible by that baptism. So maybe the emphasis was upon "in the name of Jesus Christ". Those baptized by John were baptized into Jesus in <em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>. </p><p>Repentance is a very complex and personal issue. There is no evidence that each of those people gave a theological statement of their understanding. </p><p>The appeal to “be baptized” is asking us to let something be done to us; and the ultimate doer of baptism is the Father and Son. Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea was a prototype of Christian baptism; the people were baptized into Moses, as we are baptized into Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:2'>1Co 10:2</a></em>). “They were baptized” again suggests they were baptized by someone- God. If the idea was that they had of their own volition put themselves under water, the Greek [and English] would be different- something like ‘They baptized themselves into Moses’. </p><p><em>And you shall receive the gift- </em><em><a href='B:520 5:16'>Rom 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em> describe salvation as "<em>the</em> gift"- inviting comparison with "<em>the </em>gift" of the Spirit in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>. The only other time in the NT that we read of 'receiving' 'the gift' is in <em><a href='B:520 5:17'>Rom 5:17</a></em>, where believers receive the gift of imputed righteousness and grace, i:e. salvation. And <em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em> seems to be quoting <em><a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a></em> 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 <em><a href='B:290 57:19'>Isa 57:19</a></em>: "Peace (with God through forgiveness) to him that is far off". <em><a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a></em> 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 <em><a href='B:560 2:13-17'>Eph 2:13-17</a></em> is also alluding to <em><a href='B:290 57:19'>Isa 57:19</a></em>: "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". <em><a href='B:230 51:12-13'>Psa 51:12-13</a></em> draws a parallel between possessing God's holy Spirit, and benefiting from His salvation. </p><p><em>Of the Holy Spirit- </em>The repeated use of definite articles suggests that a clearly defined gift was in view. The promise of the Holy Spirit as a gift is surely referring to the promises of the Comforter in John 14-16. These promises contained the prospect of internal activity in the heart of believers, to the extent that they would as it were have the Lord Jesus literally present with them. Whilst the manifestation of the Spirit's presence was initially through visible phenomenon such as speaking in foreign languages, the essence of the gift is of internal strengthening to righteousness. And it is clearly alluded to in the later New Testament. "that you may be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, to the end that you would be rooted and grounded in love, that you might be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height, and to truly know and understand the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to Him that is able to do immeasurably above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever" (<em><a href='B:560 3:16-21'>Eph 3:16-21</a></em>; see too <em><a href='B:560 1:17-19'>Eph 1:17-19</a></em>). "Now he that establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the down payment of the Spirit in our hearts" (<em><a href='B:540 1:21-22'>2Co 1:21-22</a></em>). "In whom you also believed, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (<em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>). ":::So that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (<em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em>). The idea of Spirit that was promised naturally connects with the promise of the Comforter, and with Peter's statement that baptism will receive the promised gift of the Spirit. These passages are all about the internal work of the Spirit- not miraculous gifts. The Comforter passages have a similar aspect to them: "The Father::. shall give you another comforter, that he may be with you for ever [this sounds like something permanent, not only for two generations]- the Spirit of truth::. he abides with you and <em>shall be in you</em>::. I will come to you (<em><a href='B:500 14:16-18'>Joh 14:16-18</a></em>)::. But the comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and cause you to remember ['to put in the mind', Gk:] all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you (<em><a href='B:500 14:26-27'>Joh 14:26-27</a></em>)::. the Comforter, the spirit of truth (<em><a href='B:500 15:26'>Joh 15:26</a></em>)::. the Comforter::. will convict (<em><a href='B:500 16:7-8'>Joh 16:7-8</a></em>)::. When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he shall guide you into all the truth::. he shall declare to you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall take what is mine and shall declare it to you" (<em><a href='B:500 16:13-14'>Joh 16:13-14</a></em>). The Comforter, the Holy Spirit or "spirit of truth" is therefore associated with internal psychological processes in the mind of the believer. John's letters allude to the promise of the comforter, and speak as if it is being experienced by John's readership, both then and now. This of itself means that the Comforter was not just referring to miraculous gifts given to the apostles; it has a far wider reference. The following are John's later commentary on the Comforter passages: "You have an anointing from the Holy One and you know all these things::. the anointing which you received of him abides in you [cp. <em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em> "the Spirit of truth::. he abides with you and <em>shall be in you</em>"]::. even as it taught you, so you are to abide in him (<em><a href='B:690 2:2'>1Jn 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:27'>1Jn 2:27</a></em>)::. hereby we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave us (<em><a href='B:690 3:24'>1Jn 3:24</a></em>)::. it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth::. He that believes in the Son of God has the witness within himself (<em><a href='B:690 5:6'>1Jn 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:10'>1Jn 5:10</a></em>)::. the Son of God came, and has given us an understanding so that we truly know him that is true" (<em><a href='B:690 5:20'>1Jn 5:20</a></em>). All this activity of teaching us, giving us understanding, helping us abide in Christ- this is the work of the Comforter Spirit. All this desperately needed spiritual activity is the gift promised to those who are baptized. </p>


text:
<p><em>For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to him- </em>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 (<em><a href='B:500 10:33'>Joh 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>). Peter at the time of his denials had been "afar off" from the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 26:58'>Mat 26:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:54'>Mar 14:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:54'>Luk 22:54</a></em> - all the synoptics emphasize this point). Peter's denials would've been the talk of the town in Jerusalem. So when in <em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em> 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 <em>one </em>of the aspects of the promised Spirit blessing as that of forgiveness and salvation- as in <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>, the blessing was to be turned away from sins. See on <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:8'>Luk 5:8</a></em>. </p><p>As shown on :38 <em>The gift</em>, "afar off" alludes to <em><a href='B:290 57:19'>Isa 57:19</a></em>: "Peace (with God through forgiveness) to him that is far off". This is speaking of Gentiles; Peter was inspired to preach that the ministry of the Spirit was for the Jerusalem Jews, their children [who lived in the Gentile world, in the locations from which they had come to spend their retirement in Jerusalem, i:e. the Jewish diaspora]- and to the Gentiles. But it's clear from the Cornelius incident that Peter still failed to grasp the import of the words he was preaching- just like us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And with many other words he testified and encouraged them, saying: Save yourselves from this crooked generation- </em>"Lord, save me", Peter had cried when drowning. The words are significant because they are the words used by Peter in urging others to call upon the same Lord to be saved. He was such a compelling preacher- persuading 3000 people to be baptized instantly- exactly because he had called out these very words himself. It is only by knowing our own desperation that we will be compelling preachers. No amount of artistry, presentation or wordsmithing can produce anywhere near the same effect. He encouraged the crowds to likewise call upon the name of the Lord and be saved (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>). He saw himself then and there, in all his weakness and yet sincere desperation, as the epitome of us all. But the parallels don’t stop there. Peter had asked the Lord bid him ‘Come unto me’ (<em><a href='B:470 14:28'>Mat 14:28</a></em>). Yet this is the very language of the Lord to all: ‘Come unto me:::’. Yet Peter went further; in the same way as the Lord stretched forth His hand and saved Peter, so He stretches forth His hand, Peter observed, to save all who would come to Him (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). But Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (<em><a href='B:470 14:35'>Mat 14:35</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 5:15-16'>Act 5:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>), bidding them come through the water of baptism as Jesus had done to him. As Jesus was worshipped after saving Peter, so men tried to worship Peter (<em><a href='B:470 14:33'>Mat 14:33</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>). So Peter went through what we all do- having been saved by Jesus, having come to Him and having been rescued by the outstretched arm, he responds to this by doing the same for others. When the Lord “caught” hold of Peter as he sunk in the waves (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>), a Greek word is used which occurs only once elsewhere: “He did not take hold [s:w. to catch] of Angels, but of the seed of Abraham” (<em><a href='B:650 2:16'>Heb 2:16</a></em>). The Hebrew writer was surely alluding to the Lord’s ‘catching’ of desperate Peter and pulling him to salvation- and saw in Peter a symbol of all those who will be saved by Christ.</p><p>“This crooked generation” is the term used of how John the Baptist's mission was to make that "crooked" generation "straight" (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). His mission failed, although it could have potentially succeeded. And so that generation were judged. God sees the world as actively evil: "this present evil world" (<em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>), under His condemnation (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>); he that is not with the Lord Jesus is seen as actively against Him, not just passively indifferent (<em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>). 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 also from "this untoward generation" in which we once lived (<em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>). But let us note that the essential demarcation 2000 years ago was between the believer and the world, not believer and believer. </p><h4>John the Baptist's ministry was so that the 'crooked' nation of Israel should be 'made straight' and ready to accept Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). God's enabling power was present so that this might have happened; but the same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em> and <em><a href='B:570 2:15'>Phi 2:15</a></em> to describe Israel as still being a 'crooked' nation. John's preaching, like ours, was potentially able to bring about the conversion of an entire nation. So instead of being discouraged by the lack of response to our witness, let's remember the enormous potential power which there is behind it. Every word, witness of any kind, tract left lying on a seat::. has such huge potential conversion power lodged within it, a power from God Himself. <br/>John's mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively '<em>bring low' </em>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i:e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:12'>Phi 4:12</a></em>). It's as if he's saying: 'John's preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for men's feet that they might come unto Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>), so did Paul (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</h4>


text:
<p><em>They that received his word were baptized- </em>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” <em><a href='B:510 2:22'>Act 2:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:24'>Act 3:24</a></em>). The record adds that the crowd received Peter’s word and were baptized (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>), 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 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.</p><p><em>And there were added in that day- </em>Converts are described as being added to the church, and yet also added to Christ; the play on ideas seems deliberate (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em> cp. 5:13,14; 11:24).</p><p><em>About three thousand people- </em>Luke gives progress reports on the early Christian mission in quantitative terms, as if analysing the success of the work and possibly suggesting how it could be done even better (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:31'>Act 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:1'>Act 14:1</a></em>; Act. (<em><a href='B:510 14:1'>Act 14:1</a></em>)17:4,12; <em><a href='B:510 18:10'>Act 18:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:20'>Act 21:20</a></em>). The examples in Acts of preaching the Gospel and baptizing those who believed it are united in suggesting a very short period of time, and immediate baptism- the same hour of the night, in the case of the Philippian jailer, or the very same day, in the case of thousands on the day of Pentecost. The list is impressive: <em><a href='B:510 2:38-41'>Act 2:38-41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:12-13'>Act 8:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:36-38'>Act 8:36-38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:5'>Act 19:5</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they continued earnestly</em>- The same word is used of how <em>we </em>must “continue” in prayer (<em><a href='B:520 12:12'>Rom 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:2'>Col 4:2</a></em>), i:e. follow the example of the early ecclesia in prayerfulness. The disciples had “continued” in prayer after the Lord’s ascension (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>), 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” (<em><a href='B:510 8:13'>Act 8:13</a></em>). This means that who <em>we</em> are affects the spiritual quality of others. The same word is used several times in Acts (1:14; <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:4'>Act 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:13'>Act 8:13</a></em>). The great concern of all missionary enterprises is that the converts will "continue", and Luke is therefore at pains to record that the converts did indeed "continue", initially at least.</p><p><em>In the apostles' teaching and</em> <em>fellowship in the breaking of bread and the prayers</em>- <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em> speaks of the experience of <em>koinonia</em> in the breaking of bread, praying together, and the apostles' teaching about Christ. But these are not the only aspects of <em>koinonia</em>; and these things are all centred around the person of Jesus. In summary, <em>koinonia </em>means to share <em>in </em>and not simply <em>with</em>. At your leisure consider the usage of the word in this connection in <em><a href='B:490 5:1'>Luk 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 1:4'>2Pe 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:17'>Rom 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 23:30'>Mat 23:30</a></em>. We are “in fellowship” with each other in the sense that we share in the same reality. So all who wish to share in that reality [Christ, in the Christian context] are “in fellowship” with each other. Paul often speaks of <em>koinonia</em> in giving- the sense being of giving to or participating in a project or entity outside of yourself:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:530 10:16-20'>1Co 10:16-20</a></em> speaks of how sharing in a feast implies your sharing in the Lord you are celebrating- the emphasis is vertical rather than horizontal. The concern is whose feast you are attending or engaging in- which entity you are fellowshipping, Christ or an idol. With whom you do this, laterally, isn't in view here. </p><p>Philippians 2 exhorts believers to be of “one mind”, but that one mind is later defined in the chapter as being the mind of Christ on the cross. Again, the basis of unity between believers is their common share in Christ, especially in His death- there is never any implication that a theological statement of position is to be the basis of their unity. If this were the case, then we would expect to see this specifically stated. Instead, as in 1 Corinthians 10, the unity between believers is on account of their individual participation in the mind and work of Christ. </p><p><em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em> in the AV has strongly influenced the thinking of many who uphold a closed table, due to reading back into a Bible verse the impression given by the AV and assuming it therefore supports a traditional approach to fellowship: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”. The impression is given by the AV that the duty of baptized believers is to continue believing the “doctrine” as in the theological positions of the apostles, and to only fellowship and break bread with those who believe the same. But on that basis it ought to be impossible to also pray together with those of different doctrinal persuasions- and that is not usually insisted upon by closed table theorists. However, the Greek text of <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em> is poorly translated by the AV. The <em>didache</em>, or “doctrine”, refers not to theological propositions but to the act of teaching by the apostles. The mass of 3000 newly baptized converts were taught further by the apostles, in line with how the great commission of <em><a href='B:470 28:19-20'>Mat 28:19-20</a></em> had commanded the apostles to go and teach the good news of Christ’s resurrection, baptize people into it, and then teach them further. We have in this section of Acts 2 the classic obedience to that commission. Indeed, the mention of people present from “all nations” encourages us to understand Acts 2 as Luke’s account of how the great commission was initially obeyed; and his version of it in <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em> says that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem”. There are pointed references in Acts 2, 3 to repentance, remission of sins, baptism into the name, and all this beginning at Jerusalem with the gift of the Holy Spirit to empower the preachers (cp. <em><a href='B:480 16:17'>Mar 16:17</a></em>). Clearly Luke is presenting the fulfilment of the great commission. The reference to the new converts hearing the teaching [AV “doctrine”] of the apostles after baptism is the direct fulfilment of the command of <em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em> for the apostles to further teach converts after baptism. Hence the CEV translates <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>: “They spent their time learning from the apostles, and they were like family to each other. They also broke bread and prayed together”. </p>


text:
<p><em>And fear came upon everyone; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles</em>- The “fear” was perhaps because people now realized that indeed, Israel had crucified their King. And society as a whole, each of them, had some responsibility in this. They perceived how they were faced with the ultimate issues of eternity. Only total capitulation to God’s way in His Son could lead them to serve God <em>without</em> fear, as envisaged by Zacharias, Simeon and others when they first encountered the Divine plan in His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all that believed were together and had all things common- </em>3:1 goes on to explain the summary of <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>. The new converts continued listening to the teaching [AV “doctrine”] of the apostles and continued in fellowshipping with them- not in the technical sense of being “in fellowship” as opposed to being “out of fellowship”; for this would require us to read into the text our usage of those terms. They continued “hanging out” with the apostles, continued in their presence and company, as eager students with their teachers. The Greek for “fellowship” is <em>koinonia</em>, and the root word <em>koine </em>occurs in <em><a href='B:510 2:44'>Act 2:44</a></em> - they had all things “in common”. This is how they fellowshipped or common-ed together; they pooled their possessions and had them in common, or, as the AV will have it, in “fellowship”. In fact, the idea of <em>koinonia </em>or&nbsp;“fellowship” in the New Testament is most commonly used about the sharing of material&nbsp;resources rather than theological agreement (<em><a href='B:520 12:13'>Rom 12:13</a></em> “contribute”, <em><a href='B:550 6:6'>Gal 6:6</a></em> “share all good things”, <em><a href='B:570 4:15'>Phi 4:15</a></em> and throughout 2Corinthians in the context of appealing for assistance or fellowship for the poor saints at Jerusalem). <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> then speaks of how they attended the temple together, and broke bread in homes. This is the further explanation of how the new converts are described in <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em> as continuing in the apostles’ teaching [they went to the temple to hear it, as this was likely the only venue large enough to hold the crowd], and they continued in breaking of bread- by doing it in homes. For there was no church building available to do this as a group of 3000. And the nature of the “breaking of bread” is further defined in <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> - it involved a joyful eating together. The breaking of bread was therefore in the form of a collective meal, continuing the connection established by Jesus between His open table collective meals, and the “breaking of bread” in memory of Him. <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em> speaks of the new converts continuing together in “<em>the</em> prayers” (ESV and Gk:). <em><a href='B:510 3:1'>Act 3:1</a></em> goes on to define what this meant in practice- Peter and John went into the temple at the time of prayer. What they had in common was praying together in the Jewish temple prayers. But those prayers were attended by many Jews who didn’t believe in Jesus. What that goes to show is that you can perform a religious act of fellowship with unbelievers, but enjoy true Christian fellowship with God’s true people who are amongst them. From the very start, Christianity started with an “open” attitude to fellowship with the unbelieving Jews. If there really is some guilt by association principle to be operated in Christianity, surely we’d expect to see it outlined right at the start. </p><p>We can now summarize the above in tabular form:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4><em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em></td><td>How it worked out in practice</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine [teaching]</td><td>Having heard the basic Gospel and having been baptized, they continued hearing the apostles’ teaching, as the apostles obeyed the great commission- to preach the basic Gospel, baptize, and then teach further (<em><a href='B:470 28:19-20'>Mat 28:19-20</a></em>). <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> therefore speaks of how they attended the temple together in order to learn more from the apostles’ teaching</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>And fellowship (<em>koinonia</em>)</td><td><em><a href='B:510 2:44'>Act 2:44</a></em> - they had all things “in common”, Gk. <em>koine</em>.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The breaking of bread</td><td><em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> - this involved a joyful eating together in house groups</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“<em>The</em> prayers” (ESV and Gk:). </td><td><em><a href='B:510 3:1'>Act 3:1</a></em> defines what this meant in practice- Peter and John went into the temple at the time of prayer.</td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>The unity between believers at the breaking of bread is brought out in <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>, where we read of the new converts continuing in:<br/>the teaching of the apostles, <br/>the fellowship<br/>the breaking of bread<br/>the prayers.<br/>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 <em>agape</em> in <em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em>, 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. </h4><p>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 <em><a href='B:510 2:44'>Act 2:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:32'>Act 4:32</a></em> use language which is directly taken from Plato’s <em>Republic</em>: “All things common… no one called anything his own”. The early church was seeking to set up an idealized alternative to the Roman empire! &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And they sold their possessions and goods, and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had need</em>- The Holy Spirit appeared to the apostles as “cloven / parted tongues” (<em><a href='B:510 2:3'>Act 2:3</a></em>), giving to each man what each needed (<em><a href='B:560 4:8-13'>Eph 4:8-13</a></em>). In response to this, we read that the apostles sold their possessions and “distributed [s:w. “cloven”] to all men, as every man had need” (<em><a href='B:510 2:45'>Act 2:45</a></em>). 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” (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>). And he uses the same idea when telling the Corinthians to give their excess funds to provide grace / gifts for their brethren who “lacked” (<em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>). 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’.</p><p>Material giving to the Lord’s cause was associated with the breaking of bread in the early church (<em><a href='B:510 2:42-46'>Act 2:42-46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:1-2'>1Co 16:1-2</a></em>), after the pattern of how every male was not to appear empty before Yahweh (Heb. ‘to appear for no cause’) at the Jewish feasts (<em><a href='B:50 16:16'>Deu 16:16</a></em>). 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 (<em><a href='B:30 25:37-38'>Lev 25:37-38</a></em>). This is why the Acts record juxtaposes God’s grace / giving, and the giving of the early believers in response (<em><a href='B:510 4:33'>Act 4:33</a></em> cp. Acts 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 taken. The Laodiceans' materialism resulted in them not realizing their desperate spiritual need for the cross (<em><a href='B:730 3:17-18'>Rev 3:17-18</a></em>); Lemuel knew that riches would make him ask "Who is Yahweh?"; he wouldn't even want to know the Name /&nbsp;character of the Lord God (<em><a href='B:240 30:9'>Pro 30:9</a></em>). The Jews' experience of redemption from Haman <em>quite naturally</em> resulted in them giving gifts both to each other and to the poor around them (<em><a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a></em>). "You shall lend unto many nations" has often been misread as a prediction of Jewish involvement in financial institutions and banking (<em><a href='B:50 28:12'>Deu 28:12</a></em>). But the context is simply that "The Lord shall open unto you <em>His</em> good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of your land::. and <em>you</em> shall lend unto many nations". If God opens His treasure to us, we should open our treasures to others, even lending with a spirit of generosity, motivated by our experience of His generosity to <em>us</em>. Because Yahweh had redeemed Israel, they were not to be petty materialists, cheating others out of a few grams or centimetres in trading. The wealth and largeness of God’s work for them should lead them to shun such petty desire for self-betterment.</p><p>Distribution as each “had need” may mean that people weren't given just because they asked, but according to their need, as judged by the elders.</p>


text:
<p><em>And day by day, continuing earnestly with one accord in the temple- </em>The way Jesus forewarned the disciples that the time would come when they would be cast out of the synagogues (<em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>) surely implies He assumed they would maintain synagogue attendance until they were cast out, rather than removing themselves in obedience to Christ. By remaining as far as they could, they were the salt of their world; and we see in Paul’s ministry how his synagogue attendance gave him many opportunities to witness to the Gospel. The Lord warned His disciples that they would be scourged in the synagogues (<em><a href='B:470 10:17'>Mat 10:17</a></em>). But synagogues could only scourge those who were members. The Lord foresaw that His preachers would remain within the synagogue system rather than leave it totally. The fact Paul was scourged in synagogues (<em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>) shows that in being a Jew to the Jews, he opted to remain within the synagogue system. This fact shows that the Lord Jesus didn’t intend His people to formally break with the synagogue system, even though it was apostate in doctrine and practice. This indicates that there was absolutely no sense within Him of ‘guilt by association’ nor a demand for His people to leave apostate systems- they were to remain there until they were cast out of the synagogues. </p><p>Even from within the New Testament we can soon perceive that first century Judaism was full of both theological and practical errors- the immortal soul, heaven going, ascending to “Abraham’s bosom” after death, hell fire, a personal Satan, literal demons, a Kingdom of God based around the violent resistance of evil and military conquest of the Romans in the first century; and above all a serious misunderstanding of Jesus and the whole concept and nature of Israel’s Messiah. </p><p><em>And breaking bread at home- </em>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 (<em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:32-35'>Act 4:32-35</a></em>). Note too how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes of Gentiles like Lydia and the Philippian jailer (<em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>).</p><p><em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46-47'>Act 2:46-47</a></em> speak as if it involved eating a communal meal together. If we can accept that the original “breaking of bread” was indeed a meal, it would seem almost axiomatic that access to the “bread and wine” as in the “emblems” would have been open. For would the early brethren really have said: “You’re welcome to eat everything on the table except the unleavened bread”? Or would they really have invited those present to pray and worship with them before and after the meal, but not while they were praying for and taking the bread and wine? There is no hint even that this was the case.</p><p>The record of the body of Christ in the New Testament begins with descriptions of the Lord preaching in houses. The word ‘house’ occurs a huge number of times in the Gospels, especially in Luke’s record. He seems to have been very sensitive to the way the Lord entered into homes and did things there. We can be sure that these homes became house churches after His resurrection. The establishment of the church began with the believers gathering in the temple, but breaking bread “from house to house” (<em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> Gk:). Fellowship in Christ is about this family sense of community. In practice, the early body of Christ was a fellowship of house churches. They preached and worshipped both in the temple and “in every house”, i:e. every house church (<em><a href='B:510 5:42'>Act 5:42</a></em>).<br/><em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> (NKJV) records how the early brethren broke bread with “simplicity of heart”; and we likewise, in our memorial meetings and in our lives, must unswervingly focus upon Him and the colossal import of His cross.</p><p>Almost every major New Testament description of the Lord’s coming and what He will bring with Him is also given an application to our experience in this life: the Kingdom of God, eternal life, salvation, justification, sanctification, perfection, glorification… and of course, judgment. All these things shall come; but the essence of them is being worked out in the life of the believer now. All this is brought to our attention whenever we attend the breaking of bread. That “table” at which we sit is a picture of the future banquet and table in the coming Kingdom. The “gladness” which accompanied the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>) is the same word used about the “rejoicing” at the future marriage supper of the lamb (<em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>) and the Lord’s return (<em><a href='B:670 4:13'>1Pe 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>).<br/>Throughout Scripture, the opposition between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God is highlighted. After the establishment of the first ecclesia in Jerusalem, the Acts record seems to emphasize the pointed conflict between the ecclesia and the world. Being "of one accord" was a hallmark of the early brethren (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:1'>Act 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:24'>Act 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a></em>); but the world was in "one accord" in their opposition to that united ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 7:57'>Act 7:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:20'>Act 12:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:12'>Act 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:29'>Act 19:29</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p><em>They took their food with gladness and singleness of heart</em>- <em>Metalabein </em>literally means to “receive one’s share in”. In this context we read that “day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved”. The repetition of “day by day” suggests a connection between the daily conversion of unbelievers and the daily breaking of bread meetings. And in extensive missionary experience I have observed that those who witness a breaking of bread meeting tend to find themselves drawn into the things of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to them daily those who were being saved</em>- Those who heard the message wanted baptism immediately; they had been convicted by the preacher of a Christ-centred message, not just intellectually teased (<em><a href='B:510 8:36'>Act 8:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>). Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the crowds at Pentecost… were all baptized immediately. The Lord added <em>daily</em> 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 (<em><a href='B:510 13:40'>Act 13:40</a></em>). 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now Peter and John were going into the temple</em></p><p>- see on 2:46.</p><p><em>At the hour of prayer, at the ninth hour</em>- The time of the evening sacrifice. Their presence for this indicates they were fairly serious in their connection with Judaism still.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate, to ask alms of those entering the temple</em>- He had been daily laid there for around forty years (<em><a href='B:510 4:22'>Act 4:22</a></em>). The Lord Jesus surely passed Him by, for He told the Jews that He had taught them daily in the temple; but He didn't heal him. Perhaps his faith hadn't grown to the required level; or maybe the Lord consciously left this work for His followers to do. For Acts is the account of all that the Lord <em>began </em>to do. The man apparently recognized Peter and John; because when he saw them, he asked them for assistance. They were known as Jesus-followers.</p>


text:
<p><em>Seeing Peter and John about to enter the temple, he asked for alms</em>- If he was daily laid at the temple gate, he presumably would have seen the Lord and His disciples many times as they entered the temple- which had been a frequent occurrence. There is no evidence that the man believed. And we note the Lord must have walked by him many times without healing him. His focus was not on simply meeting human need of the moment.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter, looking straight at him (as did John) said: Look at us</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 14:9'>Act 14:9</a></em>. The lame man responded, and the people were amazed at the subsequent miracle. But Peter then tells them: “You men of Israel, why do you marvel at this man? or <em>why do you fasten your eyes on us</em> [i:e:, why do you ‘look on us’], as though by our own power or godliness we had made him to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his Servant Jesus” (<em><a href='B:510 3:12-13'>Act 3:12-13</a></em>). I wonder if Peter was here publicly acknowledging an inappropriate turn of phrase, when he had asked the lame man to ‘Look on <em>us</em>’- and immediately, he humbly and publicly corrected himself, redirecting all glory and all eyes to the Father and Son:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he gave them his attention, expecting to receive something from them</em>- His motivation was material. He is an example of how the Lord through His Spirit at times just comes into a person’s life, taking all the initiative, rather than responding to their apparent seeking for Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter said: Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk!-</em> Peter later alludes to this in a way that means he saw that man as typical of all his converts: "Knowing you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life" (<em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>). Life before conversion for us all was as vain as the man sitting there lamely begging for silver and gold, in a temple structure unable to save him. See on 3:7.</p><p>Peter told the lame man: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk"; but the healing was because of <em>Peter's</em> faith in Christ's Name (<em><a href='B:510 3:6'>Act 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:16'>Act 3:16</a></em>). The Jerusalem Bible makes this apparent: "It is the name of Jesus which, through our faith in it, has brought back the strength of this man". The RV has: "By faith in his name hath his name made this man strong"- as if the power of the name of Jesus is waiting to be activated by human faith.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankle-bones received strength- </em>The word is used of the strengthening of the early converts, also by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 16:5'>Act 16:5</a></em> "So the churches were strengthened in the faith"). Again the idea is that the man was representative of the wider ecclesia; see on 3:6. </p><p>Luke has a favourite Greek word, often translated “forthwith… immediately” (<em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:10'>Act 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:18'>Act 9:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:23'>Act 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:11'>Act 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:26'>Act 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em>). This is quite some emphasis; and Luke uses the very same word a lot in his Gospel, as if to&nbsp;show that the speed and power and achievement of the Lord’s ministry is continued in that of His ministers now (<em><a href='B:490 1:64'>Luk 1:64</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:39'>Luk 4:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:25'>Luk 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:44'>Luk 8:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:47'>Luk 8:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:55'>Luk 8:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 13:13'>Luk 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 18:43'>Luk 18:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:11'>Luk 19:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:60'>Luk 22:60</a></em>). The word is scarcely used outside Luke’s writing, although using different words, Mark also notes the speed and immediacy of the Lord's ministry. And Luke uses many other words to stress the speed and urgency and fast moving nature of the Lord’s work. They are worth highlighting in your Bible; for our ministry is a continuation of that of our early brethren (<em><a href='B:510 9:18-20'>Act 9:18-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:34'>Act 9:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:33'>Act 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:11'>Act 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:10'>Act 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:10'>Act 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:14'>Act 17:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:30'>Act 21:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:32'>Act 21:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:29'>Act 22:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:30'>Act 23:30</a></em>).</p><p>Peter understood what it was to be in Christ. All that he did, all that he preached and taught by word and example, was a witness to the one in whom he lived and had his being. As he reached forth his right hand to lift up the cripple, he was manifesting how the right hand of God had lifted up (in resurrection) and exalted His Son and all those in Him (<em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>). Likewise, he took Tabitha <em>by the hand</em> and then <em>lifted her up</em> and “presented her alive” (<em><a href='B:510 9:41'>Act 9:41</a></em>), just as the Father had done to His Son. When Peter “stood up” after his conversion (<em><a href='B:510 1:15'>Act 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:14'>Act 2:14</a></em>), he was sharing the resurrection experience of his Lord. And now he reflected this in his preaching to others. As God stretched forth His hand to heal through Christ (<em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>), so Peter did (<em><a href='B:510 9:41'>Act 9:41</a></em>). And he includes us all in the scope of this wondrous operation: for as God’s hand exalted Christ, so it will exalt each of us who humble ourselves beneath it (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And leaping up, he stood and began to walk; and he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God</em>- This reads like Dr. Luke's medical observation of the progressive steps of the recovery - leaped up, stood, walked, leaped. But it's also as if we are invited to play Bible television, focused up close on the man. The language is clearly appropriate for the eyewitness account which it is. The result of healing lame people in <em><a href='B:510 3:8'>Act 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:10'>Act 14:10</a></em> was that they <em>leaped </em>(this is emphasized) and walked, praising God. This seems to be couched in the language of <em><a href='B:290 35:5-6'>Isa 35:5-6</a></em> concerning lame people leaping and praising God; a prophecy we normally apply to the future Kingdom.</p><p>“He entered with them into the temple” even though he was likely in a state of ritual uncleanness due to his previous disability. He leaped into the holy place; the joy of conversion naturally overriding all legalistic considerations.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all the people saw him walking and praising God</em>- This is twice emphasized (:8). Luke has used the very same phrase four times in his Gospel, regarding praise of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:13'>Luk 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:20'>Luk 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:37'>Luk 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:53'>Luk 24:53</a></em>). Luke's Gospel was volume 1 compared to his volume 2, the Acts of the Apostles. But he develops the theme that the acts of the apostles are effectively the acts of the risen Lord Jesus (see on <em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>). And so this kind of device is typical of Luke- things he ascribes to the Lord Jesus in his Gospel he applies to the work of the believers in Him in Acts. The man's response, "praising God", was exactly the response of people to the historical Jesus. It was as if through Peter's work, the Lord Jesus was manifested. See on <em><a href='B:510 3:10'>Act 3:10</a></em> <em>Wonder</em> and <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em> <em>The portico called Solomon's</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they recognised him, that it was he that sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him</em>- Some commentators claim that next to this gate was a notice forbidding Gentiles and the unclean to go further. His location for forty years at the entrance to the temple (4:22) perhaps reflects Israel's being kept out of the promised land for the same period. He represented what could have happened to all Israel. The word for "wonder" is only used to describe the wonder at the miracles of the Lord Jesus; and it is used only by Luke (<em><a href='B:490 4:36'>Luk 4:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:9'>Luk 5:9</a></em>). Again, Peter the healer is being presented as the manifestation of the Lord Jesus. The word for "amazed" is likewise used (<em><a href='B:490 5:26'>Luk 5:26</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:510 3:9'>Act 3:9</a></em> <em>Praising God.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>While he clung to Peter and John</em>- So often in this narrative, we see the essence of events of the Gospels now being repeated in the experience of the Lord's followers. In this case, the similarity is with how the healed man of <em><a href='B:490 8:38'>Luk 8:38</a></em> dreaded the idea of being parted from his healer, the Lord Jesus. </p><h4>In the same way as the Lord stretched forth His hand and saved Peter, so He stretches forth His hand, Peter observed, to save all who would come to Him (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). But Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (<em><a href='B:470 14:35'>Mat 14:35</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 5:15-16'>Act 5:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>), bidding them come through the water of baptism as Jesus had done to him. As Jesus in the boat was worshipped after saving Peter, so men tried to worship Peter (<em><a href='B:470 14:33'>Mat 14:33</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>). So Peter went through what we all do- having been saved by Jesus, having come to Him and having been rescued by the outstretched arm, he responds to this by doing the same for others. When the Lord “caught” hold of Peter as he sunk in the waves (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>), a Greek word is used which occurs only once elsewhere: “He did not take hold [s:w. to catch] of Angels, but of the seed of Abraham” (<em><a href='B:650 2:16'>Heb 2:16</a></em>). The Hebrew writer was surely alluding to the Lord’s ‘catching’ of desperate Peter and pulling him to salvation- and saw in Peter a symbol of all those who will be saved by Christ.</h4><p><em>All the people ran together to them in the portico called Solomon's, astounded</em>- There was a crowd mentality here; everyone got involved in a stampede towards Peter. Their mentality and direction was dictated by a group psychology rather than individual faith. The word only occurs later in the New Testament in Peter's letter, where he writes of how Gentiles "think it strange that you do not <em>run with them </em>in the same flood of dissipation" (<em><a href='B:670 4:4'>1Pe 4:4</a></em>). The similarity was that Peter reflected how a crowd can stampede towards the symbols of Jesus, and yet stampede in the way of sin. But it's individual faith that the Lord searches for.</p><p>“The portico called Solomon's”, Gk. 'which <em>is </em>called Solomon's'. This suggests that the Gospel of Luke was written whilst the temple was still standing; otherwise a past tense would have been used. This is one of many reasons for thinking that the Gospels were written early rather than later, certainly pre-AD70. The Gospel records and Acts are the transcripts of histories which were orally distributed to begin with, and then written down under Divine inspiration soon after they began circulating- and not many decades after the events, as the critics wrongly claim. The scene here is reminiscent of that in the Gospels, when a crowd of people gathered around the Lord Jesus in the same porch (<em><a href='B:500 10:23'>Joh 10:23</a></em>). And again, we see Peter and John presented as the manifestations of Jesus on earth, just as we are; repeating in essence the situations encountered by the historical Jesus. See on 3:9 <em>Praising God</em>.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when Peter saw it, he addressed the people: You men of Israel, why do you marvel at this man? Or why fasten you your eyes on us, as though by our own power or reverence towards God we had made him walk?</em>- “Marvel” implies some doubt. The men who marvelled and doubted whether Peter was anything more than a magic man were within a few hours believing and being baptized (<em><a href='B:510 3:12'>Act 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>). We noted on :11 that there was a group psychology operating here, but there is never any attempt to judge the sincerity of motivation in those apparently coming to Jesus. There is a speed and power and compulsion that pounds away in the narrative. The preaching of a God hurt by sin, passionately consumed in the death of His Son, feeling every sin, rejoicing over every repentance and baptism… this was something radically different in the 1st century world, just as it is in ours. And such a God imparted a sense of urgency to those who preached Him and His feelings and ways and being, a need for urgent response, a need to relate to Him, which was simply unknown in other religions. The urgency of man’s position must be more up front in our witness. Christianity went wrong in the 2nd century AD because the church abstracted God and His being into nothingness, to the point that the urgent import of the true doctrines was lost in practice. May this not be the case amongst us.</p><p>Peter is urgent to explain that 'this isn't me- it's Jesus'. See on 3:10 <em>Wonder</em> and 3:9 <em>Praising God</em>. Peter knew that he was standing very close to where he had denied the Lord. And he knew that his audience knew. He felt he was not holy nor ‘reverent’ to God as he should be. Peter repeatedly uses this word, translated "holiness" or "Godliness", in appealing for his converts to develop this very attribute (<em><a href='B:680 1:3'>2Pe 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 1:6-7'>2Pe 1:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:11'>2Pe 3:11</a></em>). And yet he states here that he is not sufficiently 'holy' or 'Godly'. It is this humility and recognition of failure which gave Peter's preaching and pastoral appeals the power they had.</p>


text:
<p><em>The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus</em>- Yet Peter and John did the Lord's work with this man of their own volition. The healing of the man was the glorification of the Lord. His glorification was thereby dependent for its extent upon the efforts of His people in practice. And that principle is true today. Peter understood it well; hence he urges the people not to glorify him, but the Lord Jesus. He holds himself up as an example to his converts in that he alludes to this incident in <em><a href='B:670 2:12'>1Pe 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:11'>1Pe 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:14'>1Pe 4:14</a></em>, where he says that the good works of his converts can glorify God (s:w:). </p><p><em>Whom you delivered up</em>- The word used for the betrayal of Judas. What he did was in essence what all Israel did; he was the epitome of Israel, influenced by the Jewish satan. </p><p><em>And rejected before the presence of Pilate</em>- "Rejected" is the same word translated "denied" and is used repeatedly about the denials of Peter, in the presence of the Lord's trial and at the same time as the Jews rejected or denied their Messiah (<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:72'>Mat 26:72</a></em>). Peter was preaching this message a stone's throw from where he had denied / rejected his Lord. And he knew that they knew what had happened. Peter was therefore appealing to the Jews on the basis that he himself has very publicly done what they had done. </p><p><em>When he had determined to release him</em>- <em>Krino</em> means to judge; he had judged to set Jesus free. This is exactly the situation which Paul found himself in later- he was judged by the Romans and judged that he should be set free, but he chose not to use that in order [as he perceived it anyway at the time] to spread the Gospel to the world [by appealing to a hearing in Rome]. Perhaps these words and form of expression of Peter became programmatic for Paul and led him to the decision he made, consciously seeking to follow his Lord's steps to the cross. I will develop the point later that Paul was very deeply influenced by Peter's words and ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em>But you denied</em>- The point is twice made (:13), just as it is twice recorded that Peter denied the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 26:70'>Mat 26:70</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:72'>Mat 26:72</a></em>) at the same time as they did. See on <em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em> <em>Rejected::.</em></p><p><em>The holy and righteous one, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you</em>- These words are elsewhere used about John the Baptist (<em><a href='B:480 6:20'>Mar 6:20</a></em>), the Lord's forerunner; and also about the believers, who are to be likewise (<em><a href='B:730 22:11'>Rev 22:11</a></em>), rather than simply admiring His holiness from a distance. He and all about Him is to be programmatic for us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And killed the prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses</em>- The blame is clearly placed by God on the Jews and not the Romans. Conspiracy to murder was counted by Him as the murder itself. Gk. 'the author' of life. The contrast is with Israel's desire for a murderer, a taker of life (:14).</p>


text:
<p><em>And b</em>y<em> faith in his name</em>- Gk. <em>the</em> faith, maybe hinting that it was 'the faith' of the Gospel which inculcated faith in the apostles. But whose faith was Peter referring to? The beggar appears to have just been opportunistically begging for money from Peter (<em><a href='B:510 3:3'>Act 3:3</a></em>). It was surely by <em>Peter's</em> faith that the man was healed, and not by his own faith. For Peter didn't invite the beggar to have faith in anything. And Peter explains to the Jews that he had made the man to walk not through his own power (<em><a href='B:510 3:12'>Act 3:12</a></em>). So here again we have an example of a third party being healed as a result of another man's faith (see on <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). </p><p>Trust or faith in God comes from not trusting upon human understanding, but upon the understanding [s:w. meaning, knowledge, wisdom] that is God’s (<em><a href='B:240 3:5'>Pro 3:5</a></em>). In this lies the importance of truth in Biblical interpretation. So understanding, correctly perceiving meaning, true wisdom… are related to having a real faith. The Proverbs go on to plead for correct understanding, because this will be the source of a Godly life of faith in practice. There is therefore a connection between “faith" in the sense of belief, and the fact the essential doctrines of Christianity are called "<em>the</em> faith"; the noun "the Faith" and the verb 'to believe / have faith' are related. This is because a true understanding of the one Faith will inevitably lead to true faith, and therefore works; for faith and works are inseparable. This relationship is brought out in <em><a href='B:510 3:16'>Act 3:16</a></em>: "His name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong::. yea, the faith which is in Him (Christ) hath given him (the healed man) this perfect soundness". </p><p><em>His name has made this man strong, whom you see and know</em>- The same word used about the strengthening of the churches and all believers (<em><a href='B:510 16:5'>Act 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:9'>1Pe 5:9</a></em>). The man is being presented as representative of all converts.</p><p><em>Yes, the faith which is through him, has given him this perfect soundness</em>- The man appears to have been given ideal health throughout his body. Otherwise, he would have been unable to leap, after being forty years in that condition (4:22). Again, the man is set up as symbolic of the total change possible in the believer.</p><p><em>In the presence of you all</em>- Just as Peter and John testified because they were witnesses of the Lord's resurrection, so the audience had also seen a 'standing upright' of a man well known to them; and they also ought to believe and testify. Peter is seeking to share his experience with his audience, building a bridge between him and them, inviting them to share his path- rather than baldly presenting theological truths to them and leaving them to respond as they wished.</p>


text:
<p><em>And now-</em> These are not just redundant words. The sense may be that although they crucified the Lord knowing full well what they were doing, <em>now</em>, by God's grace, that could be counted as having been done in relative ignorance. This is the amazing extent of imputed righteousness.</p><p><em>Brothers</em>- Peter again is bridge building, having made the point that they had denied their Messiah just at the same time and place as he had done (see on <em><a href='B:510 3:14'>Act 3:14</a></em>).</p><p><em>I know that in ignorance you did it, as did also your rulers</em>- It had been generous spirited of the Lord to pray on the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. He may have meant they were relatively ignorant, or it may be that He felt they were so blinded now that the recognition of Him they once had had was now not operating. And Peter, who probably heard with amazement those words from the cross as he beheld the Lord’s sufferings, found the same generous spirit to men whom naturally he would have despised: “In ignorance you did it” (<em><a href='B:510 3:17'>Act 3:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>The generosity of the Father and Son to humanity is awesome- so eager are they for our repentance. God so pleads for Israel to return to Him in Hosea and Isaiah that He almost takes the blame onto Himself, cooing over His people as having been tossed and afflicted- when it was His own judgment of them that caused it. And I think this explains the difficulty of <em><a href='B:510 3:17-19'>Act 3:17-19</a></em>, where Peter appeals to the Jews to repent, because they had murdered the Lord Jesus "in ignorance". The Lord's own parables explained that they did what they did with open eyes- "this is the heir, come let us kill him!”. Yet in God's passionate desire for their repentance, He appears to view their awful sin in the most gracious possible light.</p><p>Paul uses the same word to reason that the Gentiles too had sinned in ignorance, but now must repent because of the Lord's resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>). This is another example of Paul consciously modelling himself and his preaching on Peter. Considering that Peter was an illiterate fisherman, mocked by the Jerusalem intelligentsia as speaking without grammar::. and Paul was the intellectual Jewish rabbi trained in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel::. this indicates so much humility in Paul. Although I will later develop the possibility that Paul actually pretended to Peter to such an unhealthy extent that he failed to focus as he might on his ministry to the Gentiles, and sought rather to emulate Peter's to the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the things which God foretold</em>- It's as if Peter is trying to encourage them not to see their sin as too great to allow them to now come to the Lord Jesus. This is one reason why he appears to overstate their relative "ignorance" in :17. And here too, he seems to be presenting them with another window on their sin- that it was foretold by the prophets and had been necessary in God's plan of salvation, just as in the case of the sin of Joseph's brothers. We too encounter folks who truly feel that their sin presents too big a barrier between God and themselves. It's a fine balance, between preaching to convict people of sin [rather than socializing them into a social club], and on the other hand, encouraging them that that sin is not an insurmountable barrier.</p><p><em>By the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled</em>- It was their spoken words which were inspired; but there is no specific guarantee that the written form and transmission of them was likewise inspired. Their mouths, and not the pens of every scribe who wrote the words, were inspired by God- even though it would be fair to say that the preservation and transmission of their written words was the work of ‘providence’, and the Spirit of God in some way also at work. Because the Bible is the only Divinely inspired book there is, this can lead us to seeing the book as some kind of icon; it is the only ‘thing’ we have in our experience which is directly from God. Realizing, however, that the original autographs alone were inspired can help us see the Bible we read for what it is- the living, albeit translated and passed down, word of God Himself. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore repent and be converted</em>- Not 'repent and convert'. The conversion, grammatically, is performed by another party. The repentance is what enables the process of conversion to be performed upon the repentant person who now wishes to change. Repentance is therefore a mental re-thinking, not a rearrangement of human life to be without sin and failure. The parallel is with Peter's earlier preaching in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>: "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". "Be converted" implies an action upon the heart of the repentant hearer of the Gospel; the parallel in 2:38 is to receive the gift of the Spirit, a holy spirit or mind being developed in the believer. I gave reasons on 2:38 to understand this gift to essentially refer to the internal work of the Lord on repentant hearts- or as Peter here puts it, being converted. The same word translated "converted" is found in the description of John the Baptist's work in <em><a href='B:490 1:17'>Luk 1:17</a></em> as being to turn or convert the hearts of people. This same work is now being done by the risen Lord, through His Spirit. <em><a href='B:510 11:21'>Act 11:21</a></em> speaks of this work of conversion as being done by the Lord's hand, and the Old Testament parallels God's hand with His Spirit; it is His instrumentality, and not man's: "And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and were turned [s:w. 'converted'] to the Lord". Likewise <em><a href='B:510 28:27'>Act 28:27</a></em> parallels conversion with the act of the Lord healing hearts: "Be converted, and I should heal them". Conversion is the healing action of the Lord on human hearts who are open to it, rather than a steel-willed cracking of expositional and theological riddles in the Bible text and vainly attempting to brutally conform one's own life to that text. Conversion is also a matter of the heart in <em><a href='B:540 3:16'>2Co 3:16</a></em>, parallel with the Lord removing a vail which He has placed over the Jewish mind. </p><p>And again, it was Peter, the preacher himself, who had sinned against his Lord and had been "converted" on his repentance, with the result that he was not strengthening the Lord's sheep (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em> "When you are converted::.", s:w:). Truly, Peter's address is shot through with reference to his own failure, repentance and restoration by grace. He reminds his sheep of how they are now “returned” (s:w. ‘converted’) to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a></em>), just as he had been. My point is that the 'conversion' was by another hand than his own steel will.</p><p>In the context of Israel's latter day repentance, we read some admittedly strange words:&nbsp; "(The Jews) have::. not believed, that through your (Gentile believers) mercy, they also may obtain mercy" (<em><a href='B:520 11:31'>Rom 11:31</a></em>). Could this not mean that Israel's reconciliation to God is partly dependent on our "mercy" in preaching the Gospel to them? And now consider Peter's words to Israel: "Repent::. and be converted, that (firstly) your sins may be blotted out::. and (secondly) he shall send Jesus Christ" at the second coming (<em><a href='B:510 3:19-20'>Act 3:19-20</a></em>). Does this not suggest that Christ's eager desire for the second coming is limited by our preaching to Israel? </p><p><em>So that your sins may be blotted out</em>- Applying the language of David's forgiveness for the murder of Uriah to all Israel (<em><a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a></em>). David's forgiveness by grace is often set up as programmatic for the way all believers, and all Israel, can be treated (see <em><a href='B:520 4:1-4'>Rom 4:1-4</a></em>).</p><p><em>So that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord</em>- The second coming is clearly dependent upon Israel's repentance for crucifying the Lord. The seasons / times refer to those of <em><a href='B:510 1:7'>Act 1:7</a></em>, the second coming. This is why the Lord said that there was no such defined 'time' for it, but rather they were to get on with converting Israel. There are preconditions, involving Israel's repentance in response to our preaching to them; but not a calendar date. “Times of refreshing” is the age of the Messianic Kingdom on earth, probably alluding to <em><a href='B:290 28:12'>Isa 28:12</a></em>: "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing::.". </p><p>“From the presence of the Lord” is literally from His face. Luke is connecting with what he recorded in <em><a href='B:490 1:76'>Luk 1:76</a></em>; John the Baptist's ministry was to herald the presence / face of the Lord being revealed. But his ministry failed on a national level; the essence of John's appeal is however to be continued by Christian witness to the Jews in all ages, and when it finally succeeds, the Kingdom age shall come from the presence of the Lord. See on 3:21 <em>The time of the restoration.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And that He may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you, Jesus</em>- “That He may” shows that there is no calendar date set for the Lord’s return; rather is the most significant condition for it that Israel repent. And this ought to be the focus of much of our ministry. </p>


text:
<h4><em>Whom the heaven must receive until the time of the restoration of all things- </em>The reference is again to John the Baptist's ministry, which was intended to restore all things (<em><a href='B:470 17:11'>Mat 17:11</a></em> s:w:). By witnessing to Israel to repent we are continuing the essence of John's ministry and when complete, the restored Kingdom of God shall come on earth. See on 3:19 <em>From the presence of the Lord</em>. The Bible often alludes to popular literature and understandings of the time, in order to deconstruct it. Plato was popular in the first century, and his writings spoke of a final "time of the restoration"; it's as if this social dream was being alluded to, and reinterpreted as being the Kingdom of God on earth. The following reference to how the prophets have been since the beginning of the age may well be a deconstruction of the then fashionable way of quoting the ancient Plato as wisdom, as if he were effectively a prophet. For the Christian, it was the writings of the prophets and not Plato which were to be authoritative; and rather than Plato's 'restoration of all things', there was the hope of God's eternal Kingdom on earth.</h4><p>It was quite possible that the full Messianic Kingdom could have been established in the first century, depending upon how the Jews responded to Christ's Gospel. All things were ready for the feast, representing the Kingdom, and the Jewish guests invited- but their rejection of the offer resulted in a 2,000 year delay while the invitations were pressed home on equally laid back Gentiles (<em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>). Similarly, Peter understood that the Lord must remain in Heaven "until the times of restitution of all things (cp. <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>), which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began"; but he felt, under inspiration, that "all the prophets::. as many as have spoken (note the emphasis; cp. "all His holy prophets"), have likewise foretold of these days" (<em><a href='B:510 3:21'>Act 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:24'>Act 3:24</a></em>), i:e. the days of the first century. </p><p><em>Of which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, that have been since the world began</em>- Luke uses the same sentence in <em><a href='B:490 1:70'>Luk 1:70</a></em>. We have here an example of the language of pre-existence- and yet the prophets did not literally exist at the world's beginning. And neither did the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>Moses indeed said: A prophet like me shall the Lord God</em>- Peter had been reminded of the prophecy of <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em> when he was told to "hear Him" at the transfiguration. But Peter had there fallen down paralyzed with fear; he didn’t really hear the son of God then. Yet here in <em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>, Peter quotes <em><a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a></em> and asks his hearers to obey the passage by hearing Jesus, through his preaching of Him. He was asking his audience to do what he himself hadn’t done. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Raise up for you</em>- This 'raising up' is understood by Peter as referring to the Lord's resurrection (:26 "God, having raised up His servant::."). That hardly seems to be the context of the original Old Testament quotation. But the New Testament often quotes the Old without attention to context; just as Jewish midrash [interpretation] quotes Bible verses out of their context in order to explain other verses. Context is not always the key to Biblical interpretation; the Spirit which inspired the OT also inspired the NT, and therefore OT words and phrases are at times taken hold of in the NT and given a new meaning which is not at all in harmony with the context surrounding the original OT text. However, whether <em>we</em> are justified in doing this is doubtful- for one could then make any text mean whatever we wish by taking it out of context. We are the readers and interpreters of the text and not the inspired authors. This is not to say that sometimes, indeed often, the surrounding context of the original text is irrelevant. Harry Whittaker excelled at demonstrating how a verse from a Psalm was applied to the Lord Jesus in the NT, and then returning to the original Psalm and showing how so much else there was also relevant to the Lord's experiences. But I'm saying that this is not always how the Spirit interprets the OT. </p><p><em>From among your brothers [like unto me]-</em> A clear statement of the Lord's utter humanity, perhaps alluding to how the sacrificial Paschal lamb was to be taken out "from among" the flock.</p><p><em>You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you</em>- An example of where prophecy is not merely prediction, but also a command. Insofar as obedience is a function of human freewill, prophecies like this are therefore open to some element of failure or having their fulfilment reframed by the extent of human obedience. Ezekiel's prophecies of a glorious temple to be built by the returning exiles would be a classic example. The words of the great commission allude to this well-known Messianic prophecy- the preachers were to go "teaching them to observe all things whatever I commanded you" (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). The Lord thereby invited Israel to see Him as the prophet like unto Moses who was to be obeyed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it shall be, that every soul that shall not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people</em>- Those who would not accept Jesus as Messiah were to be “destroyed from among the people”, using a very similar phrase to the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>, where the uncircumcised man was to be “cut off from his people”. <em><a href='B:580 2:11'>Col 2:11</a></em> speaks of circumcision as another type of baptism, in that only the circumcised were in covenant with God: "The uncircumcised::. that soul shall be cut off from his people" (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>). We either “cut off" the flesh, or God will cut us off. The circumcision / baptism allusion was really saying 'Accept Christ or perish'. The language of destruction "from among the people" connects with how the Lord Jesus was also "from among the people" (:22). Exactly because of His humanity, He is our appropriate judge; or as John records it, He has authority to execute judgment exactly because He is the Son of Man (<em><a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Yes, and all the prophets- </em>According to <em><a href='B:510 3:21'>Act 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:24'>Act 3:24</a></em>, <em>all</em> the prophets speak of Israel's latter day repentance and the subsequent return of Messiah. </p><p><em>From Samuel</em>- Samuel was not the first person to act as a prophet, a forth-teller of God's word. Why single him out as the starting point for the ministry of the prophets? Perhaps in reflection of the Jewish saying that Samuel was chief of the prophets. The connection with Moses (:22) may intend us to understand 'The law and the prophets'. Or perhaps because his mother was the first to specifically predict the Messiah in so many words (<em><a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a></em>). But see on 3:25 <em>You are the sons of the prophets</em>.</p><p><em>And those that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days</em>- The reference could be to the "times of the restoration" of :21, which Peter believed to be breaking in upon them with the conversion of some Jews. He was disappointed in his expectation; for the conversions didn't continue, and many of the Jewish Christians fell away. And so the preconditions required for the full restitution of all things weren't met, and it was delayed until our days.</p>


text:
<p><em>You are the sons of the prophets</em>- This phrase refers to the schools of the prophets (<em><a href='B:110 20:35'>1Ki 20:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 2:3'>2Ki 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 4:1'>2Ki 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:22'>2Ki 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 6:1'>2Ki 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a></em>). Samuel was seen in Judaism as the <em>rabban</em> or founder of the schools of the prophets. This would explain the choice of Samuel as the 'first' of the prophets in the preceding verse. The schools of the prophets were seen as for the elite within Judaism. But Peter is saying that now all who believe the prophetic words about Jesus as Lord and Messiah are no less the schools of the prophets; this was what the fledgling churches were to be likened to. Isaiah had spoken of his school of the prophets as he and his sons (<em><a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a></em>), but this is quoted in <em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em> about all in Christ.</p><p><em>And of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham: And in your descendant shall all the families of the earth be blessed</em>- 'Sons of the covenant', <em>b'nai b'rith</em>, was and still is a reference to the elite within Israel, just like "sons of the prophets" referring to the schools of the prophets. So again, the distinction is being collapsed between the masses and the religious specialists. All believers are spoken of later in the New Testament as priests, even the High Priest, and now as the very elitest of the prophets and "sons of the covenant". No longer could believers consider themselves one in a mass of attendees, one in an audience; but instead, each of us is of intense significance in God's prophetic program. But according to <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>, even a Jew could only become a son of the covenant by baptism into Christ. But Peter speaks as if his audience were just this. He is assuming they will agree to believe and be baptized into Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>To you first</em>- Along with the reference to all tribes / families of the earth being blessed as Abraham's seed (:25), the idea is clearly that Gentiles too can participate in this great Jewish salvation which is in the Jewish Messiah. But as is made clear in the Cornelius incident in Acts 10, Peter was far from understanding this at the time. The fact he made this hint here about Gentile salvation, if not a clear statement about it, is proof that he was speaking a Divinely inspired message and not just his own personal understanding. Perhaps this is why it is Peter who later makes the point that the inspired prophets spoke things which they did not themselves fully understand (<em><a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a></em>); he had himself experienced such a thing with regard to the Gentiles.</p><p><em>God, having raised up His servant, sent him- </em>Peter taught that “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him” to preach to the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>). Yet the Lord Jesus personally resurrected and ascended to Heaven, having ‘sent’ His followers into the world. Yet because all in Him are so fully His personal witnesses, representative of Him as He is representative of them, in this way it’s true to say that the Lord Jesus personally was “sent” into the world with the Gospel message after His resurrection. And by all means connect this with Peter’s difficult words in <em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em> - that by the spirit of Christ, Christ ‘went’ after His resurrection to preach to those imprisoned. By our sharing His Spirit, we are Him ‘going’ and preaching. In this sense the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (<em><a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a></em>). And because Peter was alluding to the ‘sending’ of the great commission, he goes on to say that the spiritually imprisoned to whom we preach are saved by the baptism we minister in fulfilment of the great commission, in the same way as the ark saved people in Noah’s day.</p><p>After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was <em>sent </em>to preach blessing and forgiveness to Israel. But after His resurrection, He sent His men to preach this message. His witness became expressed through, and therefore limited by, His preachers. When they wilfully misunderstood His commission as meaning preaching to Jews from all nations, rather than taking the message to the whole planet literally, His work was in that sense hindered and His intention delayed. Remember that the Rabbis taught that salvation was impossible for Gentiles: “For the heathen nations there will be no redemption”, so reads the Targum on <em><a href='B:20 21:30'>Exo 21:30</a></em>. Like us, the early Jewish converts were influenced by their backgrounds and their limited world views. Until the Lord brought experiences to bear which, when responded to, taught them what is now the obvious meaning of His words- that we each have a duty to take the good news of Him to the whole planet. </p><p><em>To bless you</em>- There is strong connection between forgiveness and blessing. Peter was speaking to the unspoken fears of his guilty audience. Forgiveness was possible in Christ.</p><p><em>In turning every one of you away from your sins- </em>The promised blessing was not simply of forgiveness. It was of 'turning away' from sin. This is the equivalent of what Peter preached in Acts 2; he appealed for repentance and baptism, so that the gift of the Holy Spirit [or mind] could be experienced. Here, he appeals for repentance and belief [implying baptism], so that they would know the blessing of being turned away from sin. For what we really need is not simply forgiveness, but the power not to repeat the sin; a new psychology, a new mind, a force higher than ourselves to turn us away from sin. And this is exactly what is promised here. <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em> likewise speaks of how the Lord Jesus would "turn away [s:w:] ungodliness from Jacob" when Israel enter the new covenant; but that new covenant is now made with all who are baptized into Jesus. <em><a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a></em> is quoting from <em><a href='B:290 59:20'>Isa 59:20</a></em>, but the next verse goes on to say that this shall be effected by Yahweh giving the covenant promise of His Spirit upon His people and their children (<em><a href='B:290 59:21'>Isa 59:21</a></em>). The gift of the Spirit is therefore a turning of us away from sin. I noted under 2:39 that the promise of the Spirit "to you and your children" is also alluding to this same passage. Israel in their hearts turned back to Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:26'>Act 7:26</a></em> s:w:); the arena of this 'turning' is within the human mind. And it is exactly there where we need the Lord's operation; and it is this which is included in the gift of the holy spirit or mind which is enabled by commitment to Christ.</p><p>When Peter speaks of how the Lord Jesus will ‘turn away’ sinners from their sins, he is using the very word of how the Lord Jesus told him to “put up again” his sword (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>), thereby turning Peter away from his sin. Peter’s appeal for repentance and conversion was evidently allusive to his own experience of conversion (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:35'>Act 9:35</a></em>). In this he was following the pattern of David, who sung his ‘Maschil’ (teaching) psalms after his forgiveness in order to convert sinners unto Yahweh (<em><a href='B:230 51:13'>Psa 51:13</a></em>). Like Peter, David did so with his sin ever before him, with a broken and contrite heart (<em><a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a></em>). He invited them to seek forgiveness for their denial of their Lord, just as he had done. He dearly wished them to follow his pattern, and know the grace he now did. See on <em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>.</p><p>We must remember that baptism means that we are <em>now</em> the seed of Abraham, and the blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and God's turning us away from our sins is right now being fulfilled in us (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>). Israel were multiplied as the sand on the sea shore (<em><a href='B:100 17:11'>2Sa 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a></em>), they possessed the gates of their enemies (<em><a href='B:50 17:2'>Deu 17:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:6'>Deu 18:6</a></em>)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future seed would also receive the promised blessings in their mortal experience, as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they spoke to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees</em>- The basis of their work was that they were the equivalent of the Levites who kept guard at the gates of the temple, in order to prevent the unclean from entering. They were defining the Jewish Christians and their message of healing as that which was unclean.</p><p><em>Came upon them</em>- This is a common word in Luke-Acts. The Jews had likewise 'come upon' the Lord also in the same temple (<em><a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a></em>). Luke is developing his point that the Lord's experiences and sufferings are repeated in those of believers in Him, especially in their work of representing Him in their witness. That principle applies to this day, and is a bridge between Him there so many centuries ago, and us here today.</p>


text:
<p><em>Being greatly annoyed because they taught the people</em></p><p>- see on 5:21 <em>Taught</em>. Not only are there links between Acts and Luke, as if the preaching of the apostles continues the personal work of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, but often Acts records the preaching work in language lifted from the other Gospel records too (e:g. <em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12-16'>Act 5:12-16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 4:23'>Mat 4:23</a></em>). </p><p><em>And proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead</em>- By being "in Jesus", by baptism into Him, His resurrection becomes ours. And this was their message. The Sadducees who made the arrest denied resurrection, and it was endlessly irritating for them to see the growth of the Christian movement centred around faith in the resurrection both of Christ and ultimately of all believers in Him. The Gospels present the Pharisees as the great opponents of the Lord's work, but some of them converted to His cause. His criticism of them had related to matters of personal conduct, and some clearly accepted this and repented. But the Sadducees were under direct attack regarding a doctrinal matter, and it seems harder to repent of a theological wrong turning than of personal behaviour issues.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they arrested them</em>- Literally, 'they laid hands on them', as in 5:18. Exactly the same phrase is used about the arrest of the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>). Again, the experiences of the Lord's preachers are framed in terms of His experiences, especially at the time of His death. His cross therefore ceases to be something to be gazed at from a distance, but rather is the fullest and most complete reflection of our experiences; in that light, we can begin to attach meaning to event, which is the existential struggle of every human soul. Man's search for meaning comes to no higher moment than in seeing in our experiences those of God's beloved Son.</p><p><em>And jailed them until the next day; for it was now evening</em>- 'Arrested them and jailed them' is repeated in <em><a href='B:510 5:18'>Act 5:18</a></em>. Clearly their experiences now were intended to be learnt from and were consciously repeated again, just as a good teacher repeats lessons for students. This is why there is a sense of deja vu in our lives; it is the same Lord active in teaching us.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>But many of those that heard the word believed</em>- Acceptable decisions to believe can therefore be made having only heard the word preached orally. The very same Greek sentence is to be found in <em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>: "He that hears My word and believes::. has everlasting life". Yet again, the preachers of the Lord Jesus are presented as Jesus personally, preaching as He preached and thus continuing His witness in the world.</p><p><em>And the number of the men came to be about five thousand</em>- In addition to the 3000 earlier baptized at Pentecost.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass that the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem-</em> This is how the Sanhedrin were referred to; they are specifically called the Sanhedrin in :15. Again we see the experience of the apostles being portrayed in terms of that of the Lord Jesus in His final sufferings. Such gatherings together to consider miracle workers were occasionally held, in the spirit of <em><a href='B:50 13:1-5'>Deu 13:1-5</a></em>. The doctrine of the miracle worker was considered. Luke records three other times when the Sanhedrin met to consider the Christian preachers: Peter and the apostles (<em><a href='B:510 5:27'>Act 5:27</a></em>), Stephen (<em><a href='B:510 6:12'>Act 6:12</a></em>), and Paul (<em><a href='B:510 22:30'>Act 22:30</a></em>). Each time they are presented as re-living what they did to the Lord Jesus. God was really knocking on the door of their conscience. This was presumably their first Sanhedrin gathering after the condemnation of the Lord; the places of Joseph and Nicodemus would have been conspicuously empty, and perhaps others too. </p><p>There is evidence that after around AD30, the Sanhedrin stopped meeting in the temple and met in the city of Jerusalem. We note the accuracy of the record. Any uninspired writer would have either omitted such detail, or made some historical or locational blunders. But there are none in Acts and the critics only reveal their intellectual desperation in the false claims they make to the contrary. The gathering together of these people in Jerusalem sounds as if the Psalms 2 prophecy of the Lord's enemies being gathered together against Him was now again coming true- for His preachers were Him. </p>


text:
<h4><em>And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas</em>- Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas. Caiaphas was the high priest, but Annas had been the high priest ten years beforehand and was the power behind Caiaphas. The inspired record recognizes that by calling him the high priest. Another alternative is that the Jews at the time considered that anyone who had been the high priest would always be called "high priest" as a title. </h4><p><em>And John</em>- Perhaps Johanan ben Zaccai; or the 'Jonathan' son of Annas who was briefly High Priest AD36/37. This latter would strengthen the impression given that this was a group of family friends and buddies.</p><p><em>And Alexander</em>- Alexander Lysimachus, who according to Josephus "was one of the richest Jews of his time, who made great presents to the temple, and was highly esteemed by King Agrippa::. He was brother to the famous Philo Judaeus, and father of Alexander Tiberius, who married Bernice, the daughter of Agrippa the elder, and was governor of Judea after Cuspius Fadus".</p><p><em>And as many as were of the family of the high priest-</em> Note the lack of mention of Gamaliel by name. Luke is seeking to present the decision makers as a group of family and friends, "as many as were of the family of the high priest".</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had set them in their midst, they enquired</em>- The apostles surely recalled watching how the Jews had placed a sinful woman in their midst, and then she had been vindicated by the Lord's judgment and wisdom (<em><a href='B:500 8:3'>Joh 8:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:9'>Joh 8:9</a></em> s:w:). </p><p><em>By what power, or in what name, have you done this?</em>- It was inconceivable for them, as it is for many legalistic religious thinkers today, to think that individuals could have an experience with the Lord and on their own initiative serve Him, empowered by Him in their ministry. The religious types expect any religious work to be done in the name or authority of some organization.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: You rulers of the people and elders</em>- The mention of the Holy Spirit is surely to demonstrate how exactly were the Lord's words being fulfilled: "But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and in their synagogues they will scourge you. Yes and before governors and kings you shall be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them, and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not be anxious how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given to you at that time what to speak. For it is not you that speaks, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you" (<em><a href='B:470 10:17-20'>Mat 10:17-20</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>If we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed</em></p><p>- see on 4:5 <em>Their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together</em>. The same word for “good deed” is only in <em><a href='B:610 6:2'>1Ti 6:2</a></em>; all believers are benefitted by the good deed done for us in Christ. Our good deeds are a response to the ultimate good done to us.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>.</p><p><em>Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel-</em> This could mean far more than 'be informed'. It could be an appeal for the Sanhedrin to 'know' Christ. The ambition in preaching shown here is inspirational. Peter's hope was that the Sanhedrin who had recently condemned the Lord to death, and indeed all Israel, would know Christ. We see the same spirit in the Lord's desire to make a witness to the priests (<em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>); and in Paul's attempt at his similar judgment to persuade Agrippa to become a Christian (<em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>). Indeed, this may be one of several examples of where Paul was inspired by Peter to the extent that he even consciously pretended to him, and this even went too far, in that he neglected his own ministry to the Gentiles in order to emulate Peter's to the Jews. Peter took seriously his previously stated belief that when Israel accepted Jesus as Christ, He would return, the Kingdom&nbsp;times of refreshing would come with the sending of the Lord Jesus. And so he realistically dreamt of converting all Israel. We could all do with this spirit of ambition in witness, rather than lamely informing people of our positions, certain nobody will be interested.</p><p><em>That in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him does this man stand here before you healed</em>- He stood before them as if in the witness bo.<X/p>


text:
<p><em>He is the stone that was rejected by you the builders</em>- Gk. 'set at nought'. The same word used by Luke of how the Lord was 'set at nought' by Herod (<em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em>). But Peter says that the Jewish leaders had done this, just as He says that it was their hands, and not so much those of the Roman soldiers, who crucified the Lord. Repeatedly, the Lord's death was blamed on the Jews. Our arrangement of things is counted as having done it. </p><p><em>Which has become the cornerstone</em>- There could be no evidence of this apart from if a temple was now standing upon that stone. And there was such a temple- comprised of a few thousand believers. The existence of the church, the body of Christ, was the witness to Christ which was before the eyes of the Jews in the first century. We, as the body of Christ, likewise are witnesses to the resurrected body of Christ.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>.<br/><em>And in no other is there salvation; for</em>- Gk. <em>the</em> salvation, the Messianic salvation and Kingdom of the Old Testament. This is another form of the word translated "made whole" in :9. His 'salvation' was representative of the salvation of all men.</p><p><em>Neither is there any other name- </em>According to <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>, there is no salvation "in any other name"; this is the name "wherein we must be saved" (RV). And the early chapters of Acts stress this theme of being "<em>in</em> Christ" (<em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:7'>Act 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:9-10'>Act 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em> RV); yet all these things that are possible for those "in Him" require us to be baptized <em>into Him</em>. See on <em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>. <br/>The message they preached had an exclusive nature to it- it was radical preaching: ‘this is the truth, and nothing, nothing else on this earth’. Throughout the Roman empire, there was the concept of <em>religio</em>- the gods were thought to bless the empire if the empire worshipped them, and therefore everyone was expected to participate in the state religion. However, in addition, they were quite free to practice their own religions <em>as well</em>. But here, Christianity was intolerant. They preached that there was <em>no other name</em> apart from Jesus through which we might be saved- a direct and conscious attack upon the ‘religio’ concept. Christ had to be accepted as Lord in baptism, in contradistinction to ‘Caesar is Lord’. A Christian could only serve one of two possible masters. He had to love one and hate the other. The whole idea of “the Kingdom of God” was revolutionary- there was to be no other Kingdom spoken of apart from Caesar’s. But our brethren preached the Gospel of the Kingdom <em>of God</em>. And those who openly accepted these principles were inevitably persecuted- expelled from the trade guilds, not worked with, socially shunned, their children discriminated against.</p><p><em>That is given among men under heaven</em>- This is a persistent but unfortunate translation across many English versions. <em>En anthropos</em> is the same phrase in <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>: "Everyone who shall confess me <em>before men</em>". The giving of the Name among or before men was in the form of the confession or witness made by the preachers who preached in His Name. Luke has earlier used the term about how the Gospel speaks of God's good will "before men" (<em><a href='B:490 2:14'>Luk 2:14</a></em>); but that good news must be placed "before men" by the preachers in order for it to be realized in practice.</p><p><em>Wherein we must be saved</em>- An appeal for baptism "into" Christ for salvation. 'Our' salvation was therefore prefigured in the making whole or saving [s:w:] of the crippled man (:9 s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they realised that they had been with Jesus- </em>The Jews looked at Peter and John “and they took knowledge of them [i:e. recognized them, as the girl had recognized Peter], that they [both!] had been with Jesus”. This is the very language of those who accused Peter of having ‘been with Jesus’. John learnt his lesson, and came out more publicly, at Peter’s side, inspired by his equally repentant friend. It’s an altogether lovely picture, of two men who both failed, one publicly and the other privately, together side by side in their witness, coming out for the Lord. They saw their “boldness”, and realised they had been with Jesus; for the very same Greek word is used in description of the Lord’s “boldness” in witness (<em><a href='B:480 8:32'>Mar 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:26'>Joh 7:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:14'>Joh 11:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:25'>Joh 16:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 16:29'>Joh 16:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:20'>Joh 18:20</a></em>), and on the cross (<em><a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a></em>). Peter was an uneducated fisherman. Who was he to appeal to Jerusalem’s intelligentsia? He was mocked as speaking <em>agrammatos</em>, without correct grammar and basic education even in his own language (<em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>; AV “unlearned”). The way his two letters are so different in written style can only be because he wrote through a scribe (2 Peter is actually in quite sophisticated Greek). So most likely he couldn’t write and could hardly read. So humanly speaking, he was hardly the man for the job of being the front man for the preaching of the new ecclesia. But not only did his Lord think differently, but his own depth of experience of God’s grace and appreciation of the height of the Lord’s exaltation became a motivating power to witness which could not be held in. We all know that the way God prefers to work in the conversion of men is through the personal witness of other believers. We may use adverts, leaflets, lectures etc. in areas where the Gospel has not yet taken root, with quite some success. But once a community of believers has been established, the Lord seems to stop working through these means and witness instead through the personal testimony of His people. We all know this, and yet for the most part would rather distribute 10,000 tracts than swing one conversation around to the Truth, or deliberately raise issues of the Gospel with an unbelieving family member. If we recognize this almost natural reticence which most of us have, it becomes imperative to find what will motivate us to witness as we ought, <em>agrammatos</em> or not. The fact they spoke <em>agrammatos</em>&nbsp;(Gk:), without proper grammar, the fact they weren't humanly speaking the right men for the job::. all this meant nothing to them. The height of the Lord's exaltation and the salvation this enabled just had to be shared with others.</p><p>Peter’s confidence in preaching to the wise of this world in his <em>agrammatos</em> way is continued in the way his letters stress that the only true knowledge is that of Christ (<em><a href='B:680 1:5-6'>2Pe 1:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:18'>2Pe 3:18</a></em>). He was writing in response to the Gnostic heresy that <em>gnosis</em>, knowledge, enlivens the eternal spark within man until a man’s knowledge becomes his ‘immortal soul’. Peter didn’t leave this for the more erudite to combat. Like an illiterate peasant farmer unashamedly challenging atheistic evolution, Peter powerfully made his point.</p><p>The credibility of a person depended not so much on them but upon their status and place in society- thus the witness of women, slaves, children and poor people was discounted. We see it happening in the way that the preaching of Peter and John was dismissed by the elders because they were of low social status (<em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>). And yet these were the <em>very</em> types of people which the Lord Jesus used as His star and key witnesses in the very beginnings of Christianity!</p><p>There was something about Peter and his fellow fishermen which made even the most unsympathetic make a mental note ("took knowledge" AV) that they had been with Jesus of Nazareth. This was the fulfilment of <em><a href='B:500 13:35'>Joh 13:35</a></em>, which using the same root word, teaches that the (Jewish) world would "know" the twelve as the Lord's men <em>if they reflected His love</em>. So there must have been something in the love that somehow shone between those men as they stood there before that court, which in a manner impossible to describe, revealed them as Christ's. This same, difficult-to-describe sense will exude from every one who is the Lord's, in whatever context we are in.</p><p>“Been with Jesus” recalls “You also shall bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning” (<em><a href='B:500 15:27'>Joh 15:27</a></em>). It was exemplified in <em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>, where it was apparent from the nature of the disciples’ preaching that they “had been with Jesus”. To be with the Lord, to have experience of Him, meant that one would witness to Him; such is the true experience of Him that it is axiomatic that it issues in witness. All who have truly known the Lord will witness to Him. And if we don’t::. do we know Him, have we “been with” Him:::?</p>


text:
<p><em>And seeing the man that was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it</em>- The word is only elsewhere used, again by Luke, when recording the Lord's Olivet prophecy about the last days: "I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to <em>contradict</em>" (<em><a href='B:490 21:15'>Luk 21:15</a></em>). The second coming could have been in the first century; but the various preconditions weren't met, and so it was delayed until our last days. But the record here is framed to indicate that in the arraignment of the apostles before the Jews, there was a fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they took advice with one another, saying</em>- How did Luke know the contents of this secret conversation? It could have been by a flash of direct Divine inspiration; and yet God always seems to prefer to work through some human mechanism. Perhaps some members of the Sanhedrin did indeed convert to Christ as Peter had hoped; and shared the account of what had happened with Luke who included it in his record, albeit under inspiration.</p>


text:
<p><em>What shall we do to these men?</em>- It is Luke (and not the other evangelists) who earlier records how the Jewish leadership held such councils and said the same words about the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 6:11'>Luk 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:48'>Luk 19:48</a></em>). Again and again, he is making the point- that in our preaching of the Gospel, we find the situations and experiences of our Lord repeating in our lives. We are thereby in Him, and He in and with us.</p><p><em>For indeed a notable miracle has been done through them</em>- True, legitimate Holy Spirit miracles cannot be denied even by the cynical critics of Christianity. The claims to perform them today sadly and pathetically fail this test; for the claimed miracles can easily be denied and are not admitted as "notable" even by those looking at them with open minds. But this legitimate miracle could not be denied even by the critics, and they even admitted so themselves.</p><p><em>It is obvious to all</em>- The Greek <em>phaneroo</em> is usually used in the sense of 'manifestation'. Paul uses the same words in saying that through his witness in prison, the Gospel had been made manifest to all (<em><a href='B:570 1:13'>Phi 1:13</a></em>). This is one of many examples of where rabbi Paul saw himself as following the steps and leading of illiterate fisherman Peter.</p><p><em>All that dwell in Jerusalem</em>- A specific reference to how 3000 of the 'dwellers in Jerusalem' had been baptized by Peter on Pentecost.</p><p><em>And we cannot deny it</em></p><p>- see on <em>A notable miracle</em>. Miracles of themselves can be seen and recognized but will not inevitably persuade people to believe.</p>


text:
<p><em>But that it spread no further among the people, let us warn them, that from this time forward</em>- The Greek means to threaten. It's the same word used of how Saul / Paul threatened the Christians (<em><a href='B:510 9:1'>Act 9:1</a></em>); seeing he was in Jerusalem at the time, it would seem likely that he played a part in these threats. Presumably the threats were quite scary. The disciples asked the Lord Jesus to "behold" those threats and to give them boldness to not be swayed by them (<em><a href='B:510 4:29'>Act 4:29</a></em>). </p><p><em>They are not to speak to anyone in this name</em>- The Jews later forbad Paul to speak to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). Yet it was Paul, it seems, who had been involved in forbidding these early disciples from speaking the Gospel. What he had done was done to him; not as punishment, but in order to help him grow spiritually himself, and also in relationship with his brethren. Those he had persecuted, and their families, would also notice that he had in fact suffered so much of what he had done to them, and this would in turn have eased their relationship with Paul and acceptance of him as a brother.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they called them, and ordered them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus- </em>This was only really of power and relevance if in fact Peter and John were still considered to be synagogue members. Likewise with Paul's beating with rods, which was a synagogue punishment (<em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>). Clearly the early believers remained within the apostate system of Judaism until they were thrown out of it; they were not required by the Lord to stop attendance in an apostate system as a condition of fellowship with Him. Forbidding them to teach sounds very much like forbidding them to stand up in the synagogue and give their opinion on Scripture- a right which was open to all synagogue members, and one which Paul so often used in order to introduce the Gospel to the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter and John answered and said to them: Whether it is right in the sight of God</em>- Luke has used this phrase earlier when saying that Zacharias and Elisabeth were 'right before God'. We too can focus upon Biblical characters and make them programmatic for our life decisions, wishing to emulate them in the decisions we face. The seven previous New Testament references to the presence / sight of God are all in Luke. </p><p><em>To listen to you rather than to God, you must judge</em>- This is quite rightly the flagship proof text for the Christian refusal to obey Governments in ways which break God's commandments. "To listen" suggests that Peter saw God's word as living and speaking to him in an ongoing sense, just as much as those Jewish leaders were speaking to him. He had made the judgment to listen to God and not men, and he invites them to make a similar judgment.</p><p>In saying this, Peter is showing that he had learnt the lesson of the transfiguration, "hear Him". So he told the Jewish authorities that he had to hear God’s word rather than theirs. </p>


text:
<h4><em>For we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard- </em>The basis of the Lord’s exaltation was the resurrection. When asked why he preached when it was forbidden, Peter didn’t shrug and say ‘Well Jesus told me too so I have to’. His response was: “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard”. It would have been like saying that, say, sneezing or blinking was a sin. These things are involuntary reactions; and likewise, preaching is the involuntary reaction to a real belief in the Lord’s death and resurrection. His preaching was a ‘hearkening unto God’, not so much to the specific commission to preach but rather to the imperative to witness which the Father had placed in the resurrection of His Son. When arrested for preaching a second time, Peter says the same. I’d paraphrase the interview in <em><a href='B:510 5:29-31'>Act 5:29-31</a></em> like this: Q. ‘Why do you keep preaching when it’s forbidden?’. A. ‘Jesus has been raised, and been exalted to be a Prince and Saviour, “for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins”. We have to obey the wonderful imperative which God has placed in these things: to preach this wondrous message to those for whom so much has been made possible’:&nbsp; It’s not that Peter was the most natural one to stand up and make the witness; he spoke <br/><em>agrammatos</em>, but it was somehow evident from his body language that he had “been with Jesus” (<em><a href='B:510 4:13'>Act 4:13</a></em>). In rebuking the false teachers, he likens himself to the dumb ass that spoke in rebuke of Balaam- i:e. he felt compelled to make the witness to God’s word which he did, although naturally, without the imperatives we have discussed, he would be simply a dumb ass. He told the Sanhedrin that to make true Christians agree not to preach was simply an inappropriate suggestion, because "we <em>cannot but</em>&nbsp;speak" out- it was something which went part and parcel with the experience of the risen Lord Jesus. Peter was not just an illiterate fisherman; so many of his words and phrasing indicate a thorough familiarity with the Greek Old Testament. Here, he seems to have <em><a href='B:40 24:13'>Num 24:13</a></em> at the back of his mind; Balaam says that although Balak is forbidding him to speak, he cannot but speak what God has inspired him with, even&nbsp;if it is intensely unpopular with those around him. Of course, the Christian preacher is not inspired as Balaam was, but the principle is the same: it is impossible to keep quiet, because of the very nature of what we believe and who we are. John had the spirit of Peter when he wrote (in one of his many allusions to Peter’s words) that what they had heard and seen, that they declared / witnessed (<em><a href='B:690 1:1'>1Jn 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 1:3'>1Jn 1:3</a></em>), as if hearing and seeing / experiencing Christ inevitably lead to witness. Peter also seems to allude to <em><a href='B:370 3:8'>Amo 3:8</a></em>: "The Lord Yahweh has spoken- who can but speak it forth?". The speaking of Yahweh was in the death and resurrection of His Son, and our hearing of these words puts us all in the same position as the Old Testament prophets. This is something which once heard simply has to be spoken forth. If we have really grasped the Gospel, there is no way we can hide it. We are immediately made a city set on a hill which cannot be hid.</h4><p>“We saw and heard” is a phrase which occurs often in the Gospels. It was not simply a case of repeating words heard. Those words were backed up by experience, what they had seen and known in the Lord Jesus. He was the word of hearing made flesh, made actual and visible. So often, the content of preaching tends to be unbalanced- more on experience ['seeing'] than the word heard, or vice versa.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they, when they had threatened them further, let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people</em>- The same words used of how no cause of death was found in the Lord at His trial (<em><a href='B:510 13:28'>Act 13:28</a></em>). Again, the experiences of the apostles, like our own, were arranged to enable them to enter into the experiences of the Lord. The phrase is only again used about how no cause of death was found in Paul (<em><a href='B:510 23:29'>Act 23:29</a></em>). This is one of many examples of where the ministries of Peter and Paul are framed as being so similar. They were to take encouragement from each other, thereby realizing that the same Heavenly Lord was working through both of them in their parallel ministries to Jews and Gentiles. Paul perceived this in <em><a href='B:550 2:8'>Gal 2:8</a></em>: "For he that worked through Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, worked through me also to the Gentiles". Our lives are also structured in parallel with others, both in the Biblical record and contemporary to our times. This provides the basis for fellowship now; and also makes the Biblical record of past believers a living word to us, preparing us for eternal fellowship with them in God's Kingdom.</p><p><em>For all men glorified God for what was done</em>- Luke uses this term of how the shepherds glorified God after seeing the baby Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:20'>Luk 2:20</a></em>). But "saw and heard" in the previous verse :20 is also used by Luke of how the shepherds "saw and heard". Again Luke is demonstrating that the incidents of the Gospel records repeat in essence in the experiences of those who follow the Lord in later years.</p>


text:
<p><em>For the man was more than forty years old on whom this miracle of healing was done</em>- A strange way to put it, if simply referring to 'the healing'. The healing was a <em>semeion</em>, a sign, of healing. The man was representative of all Israel; hence the mention of his age. For effectively, Israel were 40 years in the wilderness, unable to enter the promised land without Joshua-Jesus. Just as the man was left lame at the entrance to the temple for the same period.</p>


text:
<p><em>And being let go, they came to their friends, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them- </em>The ecclesia was a growing family; the apostles returned ‘to their own’ when they came out of court (<em><a href='B:510 4:23'>Act 4:23</a></em> Gk:). Each baptism was and is a birth into <em>our </em>family. Visiting brethren were <em>gladly</em> received, as one would receive a relative; it was the logical thing to seek out the believers in a town and stay with them (<em><a href='B:510 21:7'>Act 21:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:17'>Act 21:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 27:3'>Act 27:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:14'>Act 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:710 1:5'>3Jn 1:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said- </em>All the believers, hearing what the disciples had been told by the priests and elders, immediately each made the connection with Psalms 2, and all came out with it at once. This is an example of the spontaneous fellowship of the Spirit, based around both God's word and also common experience. Such fellowship experience is not based on documents or agreements. </p><p><em>O Lord, you that made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that are in them</em>- Quoting from <em><a href='B:230 146:6'>Psa 146:6</a></em>. The Psalm goes on to exult that "Yahweh frees the prisoners" (<em><a href='B:230 146:7'>Psa 146:7</a></em>), which is what had just happened in that the apostles had been set free (:21 'Let::. go"). Paul uses the same reference to Yahweh as creator of heaven, earth and sea and all that is in them (<em><a href='B:510 14:15'>Act 14:15</a></em>)- another example of Peter's influence upon Paul. I have suggested elsewhere that Paul imitated Peter partly from respect, partly from perceiving that his ministry was parallel to Peter's; and partly from a desire to pretend to Peter's ministry to the Jews. </p><p>The prayer of <em><a href='B:510 4:24-31'>Act 4:24-31</a></em> speaks of the God who made heaven and earth and the sea and everything in it- a classic Jewish liturgy used in the temple prayers. The point being, such prayers didn’t have to be made in the temple through the Jewish priests. Further, there is extra-Biblical evidence (from Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian) that the third, sixth and ninth hours were the times for prayer amongst the early Christians- but these were the very hours of prayer in the temple! One major obstacle for Jewish minds would have been their perception that prayer and worship were to be carried out in the Jerusalem temple. This would have been a particular barrier for the many Jews in Jerusalem who converted to Christ. Whilst initially it appears the believers did attend the temple services, it is also significant that Acts repeatedly brings out the parallels between prayers and worship performed in the <em>temple</em>, and those performed in the ordinary homes of believers. Some passages about worship in the temple appear to be in parallel with others about such worship in homes. Luke seems to emphasize how important was the home as a place for prayer. Cornelius is presented as praying at home at the ninth hour, which was the hour of temple prayer (<em><a href='B:510 10:3'>Act 10:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:30'>Act 10:30</a></em>). This would have been so hard to accept to the Jewish mind- that your own humble home [hence Luke stresses meetings and prayers <em>in homes</em> so much] was the house of God. It had been so drummed into the Jewish mind that the temple was “the house of prayer” (<em><a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:7'>Isa 60:7</a></em> LXX)- but now they were faced with the wonderful reality that their own home was that house of prayer. Only those brave enough to really reach out for a personal relationship with the God of Heaven would have risen up to this challenging idea. And yet the very height and thrill of the challenge inspired so many to do so.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who by the Holy Spirit</em>- A classic statement of the Divine inspiration of David's Psalms.</p><p><em>And by the mouth of our father David your servant, did say- </em><em><a href='B:230 2:1-2'>Psa 2:1-2</a></em>, a prophecy about opposition to Jesus personally, is here appropriated to those who preach Him, because they are in Him. </p><p><em>Why did the Gentiles rage and the peoples imagine vain things?</em>- It is a theme of the Apostolic preaching in early Acts that the Jews are paralleled with the Gentiles in their responsibility for the Lord's death. This was doubtless to counter the thought that the blame could be put upon the Romans. In order to bring about repentance and conversion, the Jews had to allow themselves to be fully convicted of their individual and national guilt. So often we as small people assume that the guilt for wrong behaviour is somehow on a group level. But we as individuals empower the group decisions, and this was never clearer than in the Lord's death. The Lord makes a similar allusion to Psalms 2 when He assures Paul that He will deliver Paul "from the people [of Israel] and the Gentiles" (<em><a href='B:510 26:17'>Act 26:17</a></em>). This again is encouraging Paul to understand that his mission to the Gentiles was parallel to Peter's to the Jews, and the same deliverance would be given him, and Psalms 2 would be true for Paul as it had been for Peter here in Acts 4, and as it was ultimately for the Lord Himself. Yet it seems Paul didn't totally take the point, because he veered towards pretending to Peter's ministry to the Jews, rather than taking encouragement from it in his own ministry.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ</em>- The disciples understood this to refer to the Lord Jesus (:27) and yet they quote it about their experience before the assembled elders, who were also "gathered together" (:6, s:w:). Thus the early brethren appropriated prophecies of Jesus personally to themselves as they witnessed to Him (also in <em><a href='B:510 13:5'>Act 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:40'>Act 13:40</a></em>). The same Greek words are also used in Luke and Acts about the work of Jesus and those of the apostles later; and also, the same original words are used concerning the deeds of the apostles in the ministry of Jesus, and their deeds in Acts. Thus an impression is given that the ecclesia’s witness after the resurrection was and is a continuation of the witness of the 12 men who walked around Galilee with Jesus. He didn’t come to start a formalised religion; as groups of believers grew, the Holy Spirit guided them to have systems of leadership and organization, but the essence is that we too are personally following the Lamb of God as He walked around Galilee, hearing His words, seeing His ways, and following afar off to Golgotha carrying His cross.</p><p>In arguing that both Jew and Gentile were gathered together against the Lord (God) and His Christ on the cross, Peter thus makes a connection between the Father and Son on the cross. Those who reproached Jesus there reproached the Father (<em><a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a></em>).</p><p>The cross of Christ is the gathering point for His people (see on <em><a href='B:500 12:32'>Joh 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:21'>Joh 17:21</a></em>). But it is also associated with the gathering together of all God's enemies (<em><a href='B:510 4:26'>Act 4:26</a></em>). Even Herod and Pilate were made friends at that time (<em><a href='B:490 23:12'>Luk 23:12</a></em>). The cross divides men into two united camps; they are gathered together by it, either in the Lord's cause, or against Him. The crucifixion was the judgment seat for this world (<em><a href='B:500 12:31'>Joh 12:31</a></em>). Likewise the day of judgment will be a gathering together, either against the Lord (<em><a href='B:730 16:16'>Rev 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:19'>Rev 19:19</a></em>), unto condemnation (<em><a href='B:500 15:6'>Joh 15:6</a></em>); or into the barn of His salvation (<em><a href='B:470 13:30'>Mat 13:30</a></em>). And likewise, in anticipation of the judgment, the breaking of bread is a "gathering together" either to condemnation or salvation (1 Corinthians 11). </p>


text:
<p><em>For truly in this city</em>- Mentioned because Psalms 2 suggests that the gathering together against the Lord would occur in Jerusalem. <em></em></p><p>There were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles- Herod claimed to be Jewish, so perhaps Peter sees in this the fulfilment of Jew and Gentile gathering together to destroy the Lord. We recall that Pilate was unwilling to crucify Him; but all the same, he did it, and Peter very much considers that to be Pilate's guilt. So arguing that we sinned but against our will, making excuses kilometres long, doesn't finally justify us.</p><p><em>And the people of Israel</em>- Peter's appeals were for individuals to repent. But he emphasizes the collective guilt of all Israel. He was seeking to convict individuals of the serious sin of empowering a collective decision, helping them to see that a member of the crowd still shares the guilt of the collective crowd. And on this basis, individuals were indeed convicted of their sin and baptized into the One they had effectively crucified.</p>


text:
<p><em>To do whatever Your hand and Your counsel foreordained to happen- </em>The fact the Lord's death had been in some sense predetermined by God and was according to His will did not in any sense mitigate against personal guilt; see on :27 <em>The people of Israel</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And now Lord, look upon their threats, and- </em>They were surely inspired by the praying of Hezekiah in <em><a href='B:120 19:16'>2Ki 19:16</a></em> using the same words. And these examples ought to specifically fire our prayer life, too. We can discern how their thinking developed; in :25 they perceived the relevance of Psalms 2 to the Lord's trials and to their own. But they then recalled the historical application of Psalms 2 to Hezekiah surrounded by the raging Assyrians within Jerusalem. Meditating upon him, they remembered his prayer- and that too became an inspiration and pattern for their prayer. This is how familiarity with the Bible text works in practice; this is what the mind of the Spirit is about.</p><p><em>Grant</em>- They believed that psychological attitudes such as boldness could be given. It was and is a gift of the spirit / mind. </p><p><em>To your servants- </em>They spoke of themselves as God’s servants in the same breath as they speak of Jesus as being His Servant (<em><a href='B:510 4:29-30'>Act 4:29-30</a></em>). They realized that all that was true of the Servant was true of them too. </p><p><em>To speak Your word with all boldness</em>- This prayer for a spirit / attitude of mind, involving faith, disregard of consequences and confidence, was given- for in :31 we read that "when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit; and they spoke the word of God with boldness". That holy spirit which was given them was surely more a spirit / attitude of mind. And such psychological strengthening of the human spirit is available and experienced today. The shaking of the place, presumably by an earthquake, was to reflect the movement or out surge of power / spirit which was going on. It was a reflection in visible terms of the internal empowering going on within their minds, in response to their sincere prayer.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>While You stretch out Your hand to heal</em>- As the apostles preached (:29), in parallel the Lord would stretch out His hand in doing miracles. The miraculous gifts were to support the preaching of the word by the apostles- a specific thing at a specific time. The stretched out hand of God was a Hebraism speaking of God's covenant with men. The same phrase occurs in the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em> and <em><a href='B:160 9:15'>Neh 9:15</a></em> "the land for which I stretched out My hand to establish you upon it" (see too <em><a href='B:230 55:20'>Psa 55:20</a></em>). As the apostles presented God's outstretched hand through teaching the Gospel, so He Himself would stretch out His hand in appealing to Israel through doing miracles. Yet the majority of the 150 or so times in the LXX we read this phrase about God's hand stretched out, it is His hand stretched out to judge sin. Hence the significance of asking God to stretch out His hand <em>to heal</em>, when Israel deserved His hand stretched out yet again in judgment. The miracles were therefore to be seen as a special sign of God's grace to Israel at this time.</p><p>The stretching out of the Lord's hand to save is clearly allusive to what He had done to Peter as he sunk into the waves on Galilee that night. But now, Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (<em><a href='B:470 14:35'>Mat 14:35</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 5:15-16'>Act 5:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>), bidding them come through the water of baptism as Jesus had done to him. As Jesus was worshipped after saving Peter, so men tried to worship Peter (<em><a href='B:470 14:33'>Mat 14:33</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:11'>Act 3:11</a></em>). So Peter went through what we all do- having been saved by Jesus, having come to Him and having been rescued by the outstretched arm, he responds to this by doing the same for others.</p><p>Peter felt that all the work he did by his own hand was effectively the Lord "stretching forth His hand to heal" (<em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). He realized that&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;hand was now the hand of Jesus, the same hand which had stretched forth [s:w. <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>] to save&nbsp;<em>him</em>&nbsp;on the lake that night. Our experience of salvation simply has to be re-enacted by us towards others. There is great emphasis in the Gospels upon the hands of Jesus- so often stretched out to heal, save and bless; the hands out of which no sheep can be taken, the hands into which all power has been given by the Father, the hands which were nailed through by men in their ignorance and rejection of God's salvation. And those hands are our hands. Think through this again- the Lord “stretched forth his hand” to save Peter (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em>); and this is the very phrase used by Peter in <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>, speaking of how the Lord’s hand is “stretched forth to heal”. Peter saw himself on the lake as typical of all whom the Lord saves. Yet, it was&nbsp;<em>Peter</em>, not the Lord Himself, who stretched forth his hand to do the Lord’s healing work&nbsp;on the lame man (<em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>). Again, Peter is thinking back to the incident on the lake and perceiving that he is now Christ manifest as he had intended to be then. Thus it was the principle of God manifestation which inspired Peter to reach out of his comfort zone so dramatically; and properly appreciated, it can motivate us likewise. &nbsp;</p><h4><em>That signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy servant Jesus</em>- This is strictly speaking a just about legitimate translation of <em>pais</em>, but the word basically means 'a boy'. "Servant" would really be the translation of <em>doulos</em>, and this is the word used about the Lord in the 'servant' passage about Him in <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>. The AV is not far off with "holy child". Their image of Jesus had something in it which reflected that child-likeness about Him which still stuck in their memories. <em><a href='B:500 5:19'>Joh 5:19</a></em> gives a window into the Lord's self-perception here. He says that whatever He sees the Father / abba / daddy do, He does "in like manner". It is the language of a young child mimicking their father. And He speaks of Himself as an adult behaving just like this. There was a child-likeness about Him in this sense. And the disciples seem to have noticed this and perhaps reflect it in this otherwise rather strange title for the Lord.</h4>


text:
<p><em>And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together</em>- Presumably by an earthquake. But they were unharmed. The same scenario is found when Paul was in trouble with the authorities in Philippi. In response to his midnight prayers, the place was shaken by an earthquake (<em><a href='B:510 16:26'>Act 16:26</a></em> s:w:). Paul was hereby confirmed in seeking to emulate Peter's ministry; for now something beyond his conscious imitation occurred, i:e. an earthquake after prayer, which reinforced his understanding of his ministry as being based upon Peter's. His willing taking humble Peter for his example was an essay in humility. See on 4:29 <em>To speak Your word with all boldness</em>.</p><p><em>And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit</em>- The situation is intended to recall that in Acts 2. Here, they are gathered together in one place, presumably that same upper room. They prayed, and were filled with Holy Spirit. I suggested on 4:29 that this was more in the form of internal strengthening. But I think it was also in chapter 2, but there was visible manifestation for emphasis. In this case, the more physical manifestation of the Spirit was in the earthquake. We also observe that being filled with the Holy Spirit was an experience which had to be repeated; they had been filled with it in chapter 2, and were now filled with it again. It gave specific strength at specific times.</p><p><em>And they spoke the word of God with boldness</em></p><p>- see on 4:29 <em>To speak Your word with all boldness</em>. When Paul is recorded as speaking the word with boldness (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>) and praying that he would speak the world boldly as he ought to (<em><a href='B:560 6:20'>Eph 6:20</a></em>), surely he was allowing himself to be inspired by Peter's example and consciously seeking to follow it. This huge respect for Peter by Paul is a powerful essay in humility. For they were from very differing social, cultural and educational backgrounds; in secular terms, Paul the Roman citizen was born far higher than Peter the Galilean fisherman.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:44'>Act 2:44</a></em>.<br/><em>And the full number of those who believed were of one heart- </em>Sitting there in Babylonian captivity, God offered His people a new covenant (<em><a href='B:330 11:19-20'>Eze 11:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 11:25'>Eze 11:25</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 10:16'>Heb 10:16</a></em>); they could have one mind or heart between each other, and a heart of flesh. But Israel would not, and it was only accepted by those who turned to Jesus Christ in accepting the new covenant in Him. Their being of “one heart” after baptism was a direct result of their acceptance of this same new covenant which Judah had rejected. In the hearing of offer of the new covenant, we are essentially in the position of those of the captivity, hearing Ezekiel’s words, and deciding whether or not to remain in cushy Babylon, or make a painful and humanly uncertain aliyah to Zion. &nbsp;</p><p><em>And soul</em>- The phrase only occurs again in <em><a href='B:570 1:27'>Phi 1:27</a></em>, where Paul writes that having "one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel" is an outcome of a way of life appropriate to "the gospel of Christ". Such unity, encompassing now around 5000 people, was a psychological phenomenon. It was only possible on account of joint belief in the Gospel. It is a lack of focus upon that basic Gospel and working together for it which allows all manner of issues to creep in which then cause disunity.</p><p><em>And not one of them said that anything of the things which he possessed was his own</em>- As a result of this, many sold what superfluous things they had. But those who didn't, we later learn, had their possessions and lands stolen during the persecution of the Hebrew believers that soon followed (<em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 10:32-34'>Heb 10:32-34</a></em>). God took back what He had lent them, even before their death. Their realization that they owned nothing was not just a temporary height of enthusiasm; they appreciated a principle which was true before, then and now. That principle applies today just as much as it did then. </p><p>In the early church, “not one of them <em>said</em> that any of the things which he possessed was his own”. I wonder- and maybe I’m clutching at straws and justifying us all- if the emphasis is upon the word “said”. Their <em>attitude</em> was that they didn’t personally possess anything. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we are to buy and sell and deal in this world, as if we didn’t really buy anything or gain a thing, as if it’s all somehow performed by us as in a disconnected dream. See on <em><a href='B:490 14:33'>Luk 14:33</a></em>. This attitude that nothing is personally ours is a great freedom- from worry about what we have, about security, changes of values, and from coveting what we might be able to own.</p>


text:
<p><em>And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all- </em>This is paralleled with "great [s:w:] grace" being with them. <em>Charis</em>, "grace", means a gift, and is often used about the gifts of the Spirit. We may simply be learning that there were great gifts of Holy Spirit power to perform major miracles. But the parallel between "great power" and "great grace" may mean that the disciples appreciated very deeply God's grace given to them, and this gave a convicting power to their witness to it. John the Baptist had the grace of God "upon" him (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em> s:w:) but "John did no miracle". So this passage doesn't have to refer to miraculous support of their testimony. Our experience of grace will likewise give great power to our witness. This is why the most powerful preachers are often those who perceive the most deeply their experience of grace.</p><p>The early brethren had seen and known Jesus,&nbsp;despised, hated, dropping from exhaustion in the boat, slumping dehydrated at a well, covered in blood and spittle, mocked in naked shame. And now they knew that He had risen, that He had been exalted to God's right hand so as to make the salvation of men possible, and surely going to return. They spoke this out, because they knew Him. And yet through the Gospels and with the eye of faith, we know Him too. And this must be the basis for our witness:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For neither were there among them any that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold</em>- The referent is to the great multitude of 5000 believers (:32); not just to the apostles, for the sellers put the money at the feet of the apostles. Whether 5000 people really did sell all their property in a relatively short period of time::. is somewhat doubtful. Surely we are being presented with an idealized picture of the early church, just as inspiration at times presents a positive take on things, e:g. the early Kingdom of Solomon as recorded in 1 Kings.</p><p>“Sold them” is the same word translated "things which he possessed" in :32 is to be found in <em><a href='B:490 12:33'>Luk 12:33</a></em> "Sell that which you have and give alms". This verse was surely hammering in their conscience as they sold their goods. The implication is that they realized the capital quickly. But in the East, especially in the first century, no commercial transaction was done quickly. They would have sold for low prices; reflecting their radical devaluing of possessions. There was no specific command given to them to sell their goods, or at least, the Acts record doesn't record it. Rather was their motivation 'just' one word from the Lord Jesus in Luke's Gospel. This should be the power to us of 'just' one recorded word from the Lord, now staring at us from a page of thin paper or a screen, the radical demands of 'only' one verse::.</p><p>“Brought the proceeds” is Gk. 'carried the value'. As they apparently sold things quickly, payment was likely not only in coinage but in material goods, which they brought to the apostles. </p>


text:
<p><em>And laid them at the apostles' feet-</em> The same words in Greek used about how God would <em>make </em>(s:w. "laid down") His Son's enemies a stool for His feet. Peter has just been preaching this in <em><a href='B:510 2:35'>Act 2:35</a></em>, and I commented there that being at the footstool meant worship and repentance. Peter quotes the passage in an appeal for Israel to repent and come to the stool of the Lord's feet. So it could be that following hard on from this idea being preached, the new converts saw the apostles as the manifestation of the Lord, and brought the symbols of their humanity to His feet. Such giving up of materialism is indeed part of repentance and truly coming on our knees to the Lord.</p><p><em>And distribution was made</em>- The apostles had before them a huge and unexpected pile of precious metals, coins, garments and other items of value. And now they had to distribute them. The word occurs in describing how the Lord gave the loaves to the apostles and they distributed them to the crowds (<em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>). He led them, as He does us, through one experience in His service in order to prepare them for another.</p><p>Time and again, it becomes apparent that the Lord especially designed incidents in His men’s experience which they would learn from, and later be able to put to use when similar experiences occurred after He had ascended. This was essential to the training of the twelve disciples. Thus He made <em>them </em>distribute the food to the multitude (<em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>); yet now, after His ascension, we meet the same Greek word here in <em><a href='B:510 4:35'>Act 4:35</a></em>, describing how they were to distribute welfare to the multitude of the Lord’s followers. </p><p><em>To each</em>- Welfare aid is best given directly to the needy person by the donor, rather than through their representatives.</p><p><em>According to anyone’s need</em>- Not according to what they were asked to give, but in response to need.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (we say Son of exhortation)- </em>An example of the Biblical record going along with the incorrect perceptions of faithful men is to be found in the way the apostles nicknamed Joseph as ‘Barnabas’ “under the impression, apparently, that it meant ‘son of consolation’. On etymological grounds that has proved hard to justify, and the name is now generally recognized to… mean ‘son of Nabu’”. Yet the record ‘goes along’ with their misunderstanding. In addition to this, there is a huge imputation of righteousness to human beings, reflected right through Scripture. God sought them, the essence of their hearts, and was prepared to overlook much ignorance and misunderstanding along the way. Consider how good king Josiah is described as always doing what was right before God, not turning aside to the right nor left- even though it was not until the 18th year of his reign that he even discovered parts of God’s law, which he had been ignorant of until then, because the scroll containing them had been temporarily lost (<em><a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 22:11'>2Ki 22:11</a></em>). </p><p><em>A Levite, a man of Cyprus by race</em>- Levites weren't supposed to own property; so they owned land outside the territory of Israel. He realized that this was just getting around God's intention. But how quickly he managed to sell it is remarkable. Perhaps he sold the title deeds for a knockdown price to someone in Jerusalem. Note that although Barnabas was Jewish, he is identified as "a man of Cyprus by race". This explains why there were devout Jews, Hebrew speakers, living in Jerusalem- who spoke of how they heard the Gospel in their own languages in which they were born.</p>


text:
<p><em>Having a field, sold it; and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet</em>- Perhaps he was motivated by how all Judas could buy for his pieces of silver was a field. He too had a field, held illegally before God. And he wanted to get rid of it quickly. He brought money [cash] for it to the apostles, whereas :34 speaks of others carrying the proceeds of what they sold [as if those proceeds weren't simply cash]. I would conclude from this that he sold the title deeds quickly, for a cheap price, to someone in Jerusalem. Otherwise we are to imagine him sailing to Cyprus, finding a buyer, and then returning- which at the speed business was done in the East, would've taken maybe a year. The field however may not have been in Cyprus.</p>


text:
<p><em>But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession</em>- As others in the community did (the same words are used in <em><a href='B:510 4:34'>Act 4:34</a></em>). Ananias and Sapphira wished to appear like them; for without doubt they would have been praised and commended by all for such selfless giving. </p>


text:
<p><em>And with his wife's knowledge-</em> The initiator of the act and doer of the deed was Ananias; he alone brought the money to the apostles, for his wife was not with him at that time. But Sapphira was likewise punished because the essence of the sin was pride, and she shared in this.</p><p><em>Kept back part of the proceeds, and brought only a part of it- </em>Gk. 'to keep for oneself'. It is translated "petty thieving" in <em><a href='B:630 2:10'>Tit 2:10</a></em>. But who was the theft from? All he had belonged to God. His sin was therefore in assuming that what he had was really his; and anything he gave to God was a gift, and the rest he could legitimately keep as his. But as Peter points out, the money remained 'his' in the sense that God had delegated those funds to him. His sin was therefore not so much in keeping a part for himself, but in giving the impression of greater devotion and sacrifice than was actually the case. This lie, or as the Greek means, 'deception', resulted in his death. It's a sober lesson- not in generosity, but in never giving the impression to our brethren of a greater level of sacrifice than in fact we have made. And we have all likely failed at this point at some time to some extent. </p><p><em>And laid it</em>- This translates <em>tithemi</em>, which is the same word translated "conceived" in :4 "you have <em>conceived</em> this thing in your heart". I suggest the connection is in the way that Ananias and Sapphira imagined how they would lay down the money at the feet of the apostles, with others watching::. the sober nodding in agreement, the kind words of approbation, the tears of gratitude from the poor, the body language of respect from the apostles::. all these things were their motivation. They laid up in their heart that moment of laying down the money at the feet of the apostles. Their sin was not theft or fraud- but pride.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said: Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart</em>- Peter could plead with men, both in and out of the Faith, with a credibility that lay in his ready acceptance of his failures, and his evident acceptance of his Lord’s gracious forgiveness and teaching. Consider how he tells Ananias that Satan has filled his heart (<em><a href='B:510 5:3'>Act 5:3</a></em>), alluding to what everyone full well knew: that Satan had desired to have him too, and in the denials he had pretty well capitulated (<em><a href='B:490 22:31-32'>Luk 22:31-32</a></em>). Peter’s disciplining of Ananias, so soon after his own deference to the pressures of Satan as opposed to those of the Lord, would have been done surely in subdued, saddened and introspective tones.</p><p><em>To lie to the Holy Spirit</em>- Gk. 'to deceive'. See on 5:2 <em>Kept back</em>. </p><p><em>And to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?-</em> To make the generosity look credible, the amount they kept was probably not that great. And yet people betray their Lord and throw away their eternal life for very small sums of money.</p>


text:
<p><em>While it remained, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your power?- </em>When they sold their property, the Holy Spirit’s comment in <em><a href='B:510 5:4'>Act 5:4</a></em> was that the money was “their own” and “under their own power” [Gk. <em>exousia</em>]. They could have chosen to give all or part of that money to God. It was theirs and not God’s, the implication was. This is a startling insight. What wealth we have has been genuinely entrusted to us by the Lord, and in that sense it is indeed ‘ours’, under our power. Yet we are to realize that of course as those under the sphere of God’s rulership / Kingdom, we are under <em>His</em> ‘exousia’. Absolutely <em>all</em> power of <em>exousia</em> in any part of Heaven or earth has now been given to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:2'>Joh 17:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:10'>Col 2:10</a></em>). And yet He has given “authority” or <em>exousia</em> to us His servants, and will judge us on His return as to how we have used this (<em><a href='B:480 13:34'>Mar 13:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:12'>Joh 1:12</a></em>). We need to make this connection- that although He has delegated to us wealth, and placed it under our power or <em>exousia</em>, if we are truly part of His Kingdom, we are to give back the <em>exousia</em> or power / authority over our wealth to Him.</p><p><em>How is it you have conceived this thing in your heart</em>- <em><a href='B:510 5:3'>Act 5:3</a></em> provides an example of the connection between the Devil and our sins. Peter says to Ananias: “Why has Satan filled your heart?”. Then in verse 4 Peter says “Why have you <em>conceived this thing in your heart?</em>”. Conceiving something bad within our heart is the same as Satan filling our heart. If we ourselves conceive something, e:g. a sinful plan, then it begins <em>inside us</em>. Note that when Peter speaks of how Ananias has “conceived this thing in your heart” he’s alluding to the LXX of <em><a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a></em>, where the wicked Haman is described as one “whose heart hath filled him” to abuse God’s people (see RV). Note in passing that the LXX of <em><a href='B:190 7:4'>Est 7:4</a></em> speaks of Haman as <em>ho diabolos</em> [with the definite article] – a mere man is called “the Satan”. It’s been suggested that ‘Satan filling the heart’ was a common phrase used in the first century to excuse human sin; and Peter is deconstructing it by using the phrase and then defining more precisely what it refers to – conceiving sin in our heart, our own heart filling itself with sin. But about "conceived", see on 5:2 <em>Laid it.</em></p><p><em>You have not lied to men, but to God</em>- He had, of course, lied to men. We must read in an ellipsis here: 'You have not [so much] lied to men, but [also] to God'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down</em>- Both Ananias and Sapphira fell down at the apostles’ feet (:10)- exactly the place where they had laid their money. Truly, they perished along with their money. Perhaps Peter reflected on this to the point that he told Simon Magus that his money would perish with him (<em><a href='B:510 8:20'>Act 8:20</a></em>). What God wanted was them- not their appearance of giving money. With reflection I am personally convinced that Peter's words to Simon were indeed a result of reflection upon how Ananias and Sapphira had fallen down at his feet, upon their money [or at least, Ananias did].</p><p><em>And breathed his last; and great fear came upon all that heard it-</em> This apparently spread in the three hours after Ananias died. So we can assume it refers to the Christian community. "Great fear" is a phrase elsewhere used several times in the New Testament for fear of condemnation. If my analysis of the reasons for Ananias' judgment is correct, then this is understandable- because we have all at some times and in some ways sought the approbation of our brethren, and given an appearance of spirituality and self-sacrifice which is beyond where we really stand. Ananias died for this. No wonder an appropriate fear spread amongst the believers, as it does in our hearts too when we think of the holiness of God and totality of His demands upon men. This of course lays the groundwork for a marvelling, grateful acceptance of God's patient grace towards us.</p>


text:
<h4><em>And the young men arose and wrapped him up</em>- Perhaps a technical term referring to a group of young men who did the practical things in the church. Paul refers to a similar group when he writes of "the messengers of the churches" (<em><a href='B:540 8:23'>2Co 8:23</a></em>). </h4><p><em>And they carried him out and buried him</em>- A fairly rare word is used for “carried”, occurring only 7 times in the New Testament, three of them here in this incident (:6,9,10). It cannot surely be insignificant that the word is used again in such close proximity to this incident, in describing the result of it- the sick were "carried out" and placed at Peter's feet (:15 s:w:), so close to him that the shadow cast by his body fell on them. Being carried to the feet of Peter might seem a risky undertaking, given what he had done. But here we behold both the goodness and severity of God. The harder side of God attracts; when His judgments are in the earth, then and thereby shall men come to Him. The judgment of Ananias and Sapphira at the hands of Peter did not drive people away; rather did it bring people closer to Peter and the Lord he represented. This is why "judgment to come" is part of the Gospel message; a vaguely defined message of a fuzzy love and candy for the kids will not of itself be attractive to people. There is another side to life, to God and to His Son; and every human being subconsciously knows that. And directly engaging with it, and finding that through all that, God is love::. is what makes the Gospel so compelling, and what reached to the very soul of even Felix and almost persuaded Agrippa to be a Christian (<em><a href='B:510 24:25'>Act 24:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And it was about the space of three hours after when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in</em>- But in the three hours after her husband died, the news spread around (:5). We wonder therefore where exactly Sapphira had been. As she approached Peter, nobody apparently told her 'By the way, your husband just got slain by Peter because he lied about the money'. Indeed, it would appear from :6 that Ananias was buried immediately, for Peter tells her "Behold, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door; and they shall carry you out" (:9). Perhaps she went to Peter privately. But it's a good question for eager, imaginative Bible students: 'Where was Sapphira in the three hours after Ananias died?'. </p>


text:
<p><em>And</em> <em>Peter said to her</em>- Gk. 'Peter answered and said to her'. What he said to her was therefore a response. But there is no record of what she said. Perhaps she said nothing; but came in to the apostles giving the impression she had generously given to the Lord, seeking their approbation. </p><p><em>Tell me whether</em>- We can only speculate as to the tone in Peter's voice. Was it the even tone of the prosecutor asking a question which he knew would decide the fate of the accused? Or was there in his tone some hint of pleading for her repentance, as if to say 'Did you <em>really</em> sell the land for that much?'. The question itself should have made Sapphira guess that something was up, and that they had been busted. In that split second, she had the choice between life and death; and it was her pride which made her choose death by lying.</p><p><em>You sold the land</em>- You plural. Although Ananias sold it, it was counted as if she had too.</p><p><em>For so much. And she said: Yes, for so much</em>- Pointing to the coins at his feet.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter said to her: How is it you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?</em>- I have suggested that pride was the key motive for the sin. But Peter's comment suggests another factor. Perhaps they doubted whether Peter truly had the Spirit, and so they had decided to test this. However, it could be that here we have a case of sin being described in terms of what it really is, even though how the sin is now described would be denied by the sinner. He wanted to show her what their pride and lying really amounted to- a putting of God's Spirit to the test. The language of testing God is replete with reference to Israel's failure in this. They tested God in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:18'>Psa 78:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:41'>Psa 78:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:56'>Psa 78:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:14'>Psa 106:14</a></em>); and this led to their exclusion from the promised land. In essence, Ananias and Sapphira had repeated Israel's sin. Despite all the evidence both to them and to Israel in the wilderness, that God's Spirit was indeed possessed by the leaders of His people- still they wanted to test whether it really was. But of course it all depends on motive- Gideon tested the Spirit, twice; Paul went against Spirit guidance in continuing his journey to Jerusalem. The same words are also used about how he tested going into Mysia, but the Spirit didn't allow him to (<em><a href='B:510 16:7'>Act 16:7</a></em>). But what they did appears to have been a conscious, sceptical testing of whether the Lord was really amongst them or not.</p><p><em>Behold, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door; and they shall carry you out</em>- This suggests that Peter suspected she would be impenitent. The young brothers were waiting in expectation of dealing with her corpse; or perhaps "the feet" suggests Peter had heard their footsteps returning from having buried Ananias. We also sense that she was alone with Peter, without the presence of others- as if to try to make the temptation to pride and maintenance of face and image somewhat less. She could have quietly confessed to Peter; but her pride was strong, unto death. We note how in the early church, there was the power of the Spirit to smite with sickness, and also to heal from it; and here we see there was even the power to slay with death. </p>


text:
<p><em>And she fell down immediately at his feet and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her next to her husband- </em>“At his feet”, where the money had been placed. See on 5:5 <em>Fell down</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things</em></p><p>- see on 5:5. The phrase “great fear” is nearly always used in a negative context by Luke, and usually with a commandment not to fear following it. Luke records how the message of the Lord Jesus was to empower God’s people to serve Him “without fear” (<em><a href='B:490 1:74'>Luk 1:74</a></em>); and John writes that such fear should be “cast out” in the experience of those who have the Spirit (<em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em>). We conclude therefore that this is a hint at weakness in the church. </p>


text:
<p><em>And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders done among the people</em>- It could be that they literally used their hands to do miracles, in obedience to the comment on the great commission, that they would lay their hands on the sick (<em><a href='B:480 16:18'>Mar 16:18</a></em>). But the phrase can equally mean 'by the instrumentality of:::', as if to emphasize it was the Lord using them, rather than them doing anything of their own power.</p><p><em>And they were all gathering together in Solomon's porch</em>- The point of mentioning this might be because the miracles were done there, at their public meetings. This public nature of these dramatic healing miracles is a far cry from the claims of healed headaches in backstreet church halls made by Pentecostalism. But why the specific mention of "Solomon's porch"? Perhaps because it was Stephen who would later point out that it was Solomon who built the temple, although that was not God's ideal intention; His desire was to dwell in the hearts of His people, not in buildings made with human hands. Solomon's porch was supposed to be the only original part of Solomon's temple which had survived. The porch was not large enough for the whole church, so the "they" who gathered there presumably refers to the apostles. However, Solomon's porch was open to Gentiles and the unclean too- and that was most likely the reason why they gathered there. The Lord was slowly working on Peter's conscience regarding including the Gentiles and the unclean; for Peter would have noticed how such folks were listening to his preaching there. The Lord likewise prods us through meetings and situations, and then makes His direct appeal to us, as happened with Peter in the matter of Cornelius.</p>


text:
<p><em>None of the rest dared join them, although the people held them in high esteem</em>- Who is this group of people? They are put in contrast with "the people", who respected the apostles and many of whom now believed (:14). Luke has spoken of such a group in describing how the women told the news of the Lord's resurrection "to the eleven and to all the rest" (<em><a href='B:490 24:9'>Luk 24:9</a></em> s:w:; also in <em><a href='B:480 16:13'>Mar 16:13</a></em> "They went and told it unto the rest, neither did they believe it"). Just recently in Acts, Luke has spoken of "the rest of the apostles" (<em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>). I suggest this may be a technical term for the inner circle of believers who had followed the Lord before His death. Paul speaks of "the rest" as if they were a group which did not include Peter: "The rest of the apostles, the brethren of the Lord and Cephas" (<em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>). It could be that this group were scared by what had happened because they realized that they too had in some senses not been totally honest before the Spirit of God in whatever way; just as any sincere believer will read the account of Ananias and Sapphira and likewise have a sense of fear. This group are painted in distinction from the crowds generally, who respected Peter even more and increasingly believed, as we read in the next verse. This is an essay in the humanity and weakness of the Lord's followers at the time. </p><p>Another possibility is raised by considering the meaning of 'join them'. The implication could be that Ananias and Sapphira were part of a group who wished to attain to the inner circle of leading apostles. But with their death, the rest of those like Ananias and Sapphira no longer pretended to joining with the leading apostles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And many more believers-</em> The harder side of the Father and the Lord Jesus actually serves as an attraction to the serious believer. The lifted up Jesus draws men unto Him. When Ananias and Sapphira were slain by the Lord, fear came upon "as many as heard these things". Many would have thought His attitude hard; this man and woman had sold their property and given some of it (a fair percentage, probably, to make it look realistic) to the Lord's cause. And then He slew them. But just afterwards, "believers were the more added to the Lord" (<em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>). The Lord's harder side didn't turn men away from Him; rather did it bring them to Him. And so the demands and terror of the preaching of the cross did likewise. The balance between His utter grace, the way (e:g:) He marvelled at men's puny faith, and His harder side, is what makes His character so utterly magnetic and charismatic in the ultimate sense. Think of how He beheld the rich man and loved Him, and yet at the same time was purposefully demanding: He told Him to sell all He had and give it to beggars. Not to the work of the ministry, but to beggars, many of whom one would rightly be cynical of helping. It was a large demand, the Lord didn't make it to everyone, and He knew He was touching the man's weakest point. If the Lord had asked that the man's wealth be given to Him, he may have agreed. But to beggars::. And yet the Lord made this heavy demand with a deep love for the man. </p><p><em>Were added to the Lord</em>- The RVmg. speaks of them being added “to them”, i:e. the believers who comprised the body of Jesus. Baptism is not only entry into covenant relationship with the Father and His Son; it is also baptism into the body of Christ, i:e. the body of believers (<em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>). This is where self-baptism shouldn't be used too liberally. Thus the record in Acts describes baptisms as believers being "added" to the body of believers (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>); but also as them being "added" (s:w:) to the Lord Jesus (5:14; 11:24). It is therefore appropriate that there are other members of the body of Christ present at baptisms; baptism is entry into relationship with the community of believers, as well as into a personal relationship with Christ. &nbsp;</p><p>Note that the Lord Jesus added converts to the church (<em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>), but here, they are added to the Lord Jesus (NEV, AV). In this we see the direct connection between the Lord Jesus and His church; as Paul expresses it, the church is the body of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>Crowds of men and women</em>- Gk. "Both men and women". Religion in the first century was largely the domain of men; the inclusiveness towards women would have made Christianity almost unique amongst contemporary religions.</p>


text:
<p><em>So much so</em>- This is picking up from the end of :12. Verses 13 and 14 are a parenthesis, and some versions place them in brackets. What had been done by Peter in the temple area, they believed could be done outside it. Again the Lord was developing the thought in their minds that actually there was nothing so special about that temple, not even Solomon's portico, the part of the structure believed to date back to Solomon's time. What was achieved in the temple area could be achieved on the streets::.</p><p><em>That they even carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by</em></p><p>- see on 5:6 <em>Carried him out</em>. The scene recalls that of <em><a href='B:470 14:35'>Mat 14:35</a></em>: “And when the men of that place recognised him, they sent word to all in that region and brought to him all who were sick”. In the same way as the Lord stretched forth His hand and saved Peter, so He stretches forth His hand, Peter observed, to save all who would come to Him (<em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 4:30'>Act 4:30</a></em>). But Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (<em><a href='B:470 14:35'>Mat 14:35</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 5:15-16'>Act 5:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 14:31'>Mat 14:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>), bidding them come through the water of baptism as Jesus had done to him.</p><p><em>At the least his shadow</em>- Perhaps in reference to how the mustard seed of the Gospel would become a tree under whose shadow unclean birds would come (<em><a href='B:480 4:32'>Mar 4:32</a></em> s:w:). The sick people were likely all ritually unclean, as were those who carried them. But it was exactly these types who were cured.</p><p><em>Might fall on some of them</em>- Gk. 'overshadow'. As Peter had been overshadowed [s:w:] by the Lord's glory, so now he was called to reflect that same glory (<em><a href='B:490 9:34'>Luk 9:34</a></em>). What we benefit from at the Lord's hands often becomes ours to share to others.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there also gathered crowds from the</em> <em>cities round about Jerusalem</em>- This is a phrase taken from the Old Testament, describing how these towns were the centres of idol worship (<em><a href='B:120 23:5'>2Ki 23:5</a></em>) and therefore the specific target for Divine judgment (<em><a href='B:300 1:5'>Jer 1:5</a></em>). Now, grace was being poured out upon them.</p><p><em>Bringing sick people and those that were vexed with unclean</em>- This is word for word a sentence Luke used earlier about the Lord's healing ministry (<em><a href='B:490 6:18'>Luk 6:18</a></em>). The point is being developed that the work of the believers in Christ is a continuation of His ministry as He walked around Palestine; and in essence, even if the form differs, that is what we are doing today. This is why the daily reading and reflection upon the Gospel records provides a key to attaching meaning to event and circumstance in our daily lives; for we are intended to be Him in this world.</p><p><em>And every one of them was healed</em>- The scale of healing here is perhaps the greatest of any time in history. There seems nothing analogous in the Lord's ministry; He appears to have worked with 'an economy of miracle'. This healing outbreak was the fulfilment of the promise that when possessed of the Comforter, "greater works than these shall you do" (<em><a href='B:500 14:12'>Joh 14:12</a></em>). "Greater" could mean more in number- and that was certainly the case here. "Every one" was healed- there were no failed healings, in marked contrast to the claims of Pentecostalism. This suggests that the healings were not dependent upon the faith of the individual, but were a pure outpouring of grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the high priest rose up</em>- Again, precisely the words used of how "the high priest rose up" and condemned the Lord to death (<em><a href='B:470 26:62'>Mat 26:62</a></em>). The apostles did the miracles they did of their own freewill. They chose to identify with their Lord and continue His work. And now the same Lord responds by bringing about circumstances beyond their control which confirmed their identity with His death and sufferings. The same happens with us; we make freewill choices to identify with Him, and He on a larger scale arranges circumstance to confirm that identity, to make us know His sufferings and the power of new life in His resurrection.</p><p><em>And all they that were with him</em>- Likewise the same word is used of how the whole multitude of the Sanhedrin 'rose up' and handed over the Lord to Roman punishment (<em><a href='B:490 23:1'>Luk 23:1</a></em>). The 'rising up' may reflect a Hebraism meaning 'to rise up in giving sentence'. We note how the same word is used of how Gamaliel 'stood up' to give his opinion (:34). </p><p><em>Which is the sect of the Sadducees</em>- We read that Gamaliel, a Pharisee, also "stood up" (s:w:) and urged a more lenient approach with the preachers (:34). Perhaps this was partly a reflection of the way the two groups loved to take opposing positions to each other.</p><p><em>And they were filled with jealousy</em>- Jealousy of the receptive audience of others was what caused the Jews to so hate the Christian preachers. The same words are used of how the Jews were filled with jealousy when they saw the crowds responding to Paul (<em><a href='B:510 13:45'>Act 13:45</a></em>), and this would seem to me to be an example of the Lord confirming Paul in seeing the similarities between his ministry and that of Peter. It was jealousy which led to the Lord's crucifixion (<em><a href='B:470 27:18'>Mat 27:18</a></em>); and jealousy of others' success in preaching has likewise led many in the body of Christ to similar abuse of their own brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em>And arrested</em>- Literally, 'laid hands on'. See on 4:3 <em>They arrested them</em>.</p><p><em>The apostles and put them in prison</em>- Gk. the public or "common" (AV) prison. That point is mentioned perhaps to draw out the similarities with the Lord's sufferings, in that the Jews handed Him over to the Roman authorities for punishment; and the Jews here did likewise, handing over the apostles to the Roman public prison.</p>


text:
<p><em>But an angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said</em>- Exactly the same happened to Peter again in Acts 12. This experience in Acts 5, like many of ours, was to prepare Peter for a future, greater experience when he was released from prison in Acts 12. Peter thought he was dreaming, and only realized he was in reality when he "came to himself" (<em><a href='B:510 12:9'>Act 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:11'>Act 12:11</a></em>). Perhaps he had been dreaming, or exploring in his subconscious, this previous release from prison. Again we see the verisimilitude of the Biblical record; it is all so psychologically credible. And again, Peter's experiences were repeated in Paul's life when the prison doors were shaken open by the earthquake at Philippi. This triple opening of prison doors recorded in Acts is of course allusive to the passage in <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em> which speaks of the Lord Jesus through the Gospel opening the prison doors to a humanity bound by sin. Those early preachers like Peter and Paul were being made to personally realize the radical, liberating power of the Gospel they were preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em>You go and stand and speak in the temple to the people</em>- A reiteration of the great preaching commission.</p><h4><em>All the words of this life</em>- It was Peter who had earlier used this phrase in confessing that the Lord Jesus had the words of eternal life (<em><a href='B:500 6:68'>Joh 6:68</a></em>). Now Peter is being told to go and speak them forth, at whatever risk to himself, if he really believes what he has said about the words of life. This connection with Peter's statement in <em><a href='B:500 6:68'>Joh 6:68</a></em> would explain the otherwise odd phrase "<em>this </em>life". It's as if the Lord is reading Peter's mind and saying: 'Yes, you said that My words are the words of eternal life- so go and preach the words of this life'. And of course it was the Sadducees who denied eternal life and resurrection. Another approach is to understand "this life" as referring to this present mortal life; the only other usage of the phrase is in <em><a href='B:530 15:19'>1Co 15:19</a></em> "If in this life only::.". In this case, the Angel was asking them to go and tell people the meaning of this life. </h4>


text:
<p><em>And when they heard this</em>- Demonstrating their immediate response to a difficult request.</p><p><em>In the morning they entered into the temple and taught</em>- Because of their role as <em>teachers</em>, it is understandable that the anger of the first century priesthood was always associated with Christ and the apostles <em>teaching</em> the people (<em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>), in the belief that they were a new priesthood: <em><a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:21'>Act 5:21</a></em>. The existing priests felt that their role was being challenged. The main priestly duty was to teach God's word to the people. A whole string of texts make this point: <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 17:27'>2Ki 17:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:11'>Mic 3:11</a></em>. Note too the common partnership between priests and prophets. </p><p><em>But the High Priest came and they that were with him, and called the council together and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought</em>- He “came” into the place of meeting of the Sanhedrin? Because :25 implies that they did not personally witness the apostles preaching and were not present with them. The senate was “of the children of Israel”, the wayward sons of Jacob, and not the assembly of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the officers came, they did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, saying</em>- The assistants to the Jewish leadership. It was probably the same men who arrested the Lord, bound and abused Him and who had been with Peter in the courtyard of the High Priest's house (<em><a href='B:500 18:3'>Joh 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:12'>Joh 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:18'>Joh 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:22'>Joh 18:22</a></em>). They would have been waiting there for instructions from the High Priest, and they were likewise at his disposal now. They may have been the very men who had heard Peter's fearful denial of his Lord. And now, they were the ones who saw his fearless witness. The source of the change in this man would have exercised their minds, and was surely part of the reason why the Lord told Peter to go back to the temple and continue preaching, knowing that these were the men who would be sent to arrest him or bring him out from the prison. Whereas we would have wished these men every curse for how they treated the Lord, His way was different. He sought to work in their consciences in order to bring them to recognize Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>We found the prison shut in all safety, and the keepers standing at the doors, but when we had them opened, we found no one within</em>- If nobody at all was in the 'prison', the 'prison' may therefore refer to a small arrest room. Or perhaps the language is like this to make the whole situation is so similar to the Lord's resurrection. For it was men from the same group of soldiers and officers, who were under the control of the Jewish leadership, who had guarded the Lord's tomb. And His body had all the same disappeared. They were being led to realize that the Lord's followers were like Him; they were as His body. And the Lord works in the lives of our contemporaries to potentially make them perceive the same about us.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when the captain of the temple, and the chief priests heard these things, they wondered what the upshot of all this would be</em>- Surely the same captain of the temple who had negotiated with Judas about betraying the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 22:4'>Luk 22:4</a></em>), and who had come to Gethsemane to arrest Him (<em><a href='B:490 22:52'>Luk 22:52</a></em>). And note how it is only Luke of all the Gospel writers who uses this term. Luke is making the connection- the apostles were fellowshipping their Lord's sufferings. Then, they had run away from Him and saved their skins. Now, they were experiencing what He did whilst they had hidden somewhere. And it would seem it was the same man or men involved. Surely the Lord was knocking at the door of conscience. His multi-layered, patient work on the hearts of men is wonderful to discern, and that same Lord is just as active today.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there came someone that told them: Behold, the men whom you put in the prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people</em>- In exact obedience to the command to go and stand and teach in the temple (:20). It was usual for rabbis to <em>sit </em>and teach; the Lord Himself <em>sat</em> and taught in the temple (<em><a href='B:500 8:2'>Joh 8:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 5:3'>Luk 5:3</a></em>). But the Lord asks them to <em>stand </em>and teach. Perhaps He wanted them to show that they were not pretending to the rabbis; and that their teaching was radically different, with no pretension to any authority on the part of the teacher.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then went the captain with the officers and brought them, but without violence</em>- Implying they asked the apostles to come with them, and they did without protest; following the spirit of their Lord, whose final sufferings are constantly alluded to in the record here.</p><p><em>For they feared the people, lest they should be stoned</em>- Luke twice uses this phrase about their experience in trying to liquidate the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a></em>). Popular opinion had swayed back the other way again. And a while later, it was to sway against the Christians again, when “there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem” (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>). This is the fickleness of human support.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying</em>- Gk. 'stood' them, the same word used of how the apostles stood and taught; and they continued to stand and preach at their trial.</p>


text:
<p><em>We strictly ordered you not to teach-</em> The same words used of how the Lord strictly ordered Peter, James and John not to speak of the things they saw at the transfiguration until after He had resurrected (<em><a href='B:490 9:21'>Luk 9:21</a></em>). Now that He had risen, that 'strict order' was from the Lord to teach::. and so the 'strict order' from the High Priest sets him up as a kind of anti-Christ. And there was no way that the Lord's people could do anything else than speak forth their experiences of Him.</p><p><em>In this name</em>- For them, authority was so important. Likewise the Lord had been asked by what authority He taught and cured. And it is likewise difficult for many today to see beyond mere religion and denominationalism, and realize that individuals who have experienced the Lord will therefore teach Him purely on their own private initiative.</p><p><em>And yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and</em>- The reference in the next phrase to guilt for blood makes us think that they were alluding to the two references to how wicked Manasseh "filled Jerusalem with innocent blood" (<em><a href='B:120 21:16'>2Ki 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 24:4'>2Ki 24:4</a></em>). Condemning the righteous in Biblical terms and through out of context Scriptural allusion is therefore no new thing. </p><p><em>Intend to bring this man's blood upon us</em>- Consider how the disciples responded to the High Priest rebuking them for preaching; he claimed that they intended to bring the blood of Jesus upon them. The obvious, logical debating point would have been to say: ‘But <em>you</em> were the very ones who shouted out ‘His blood be upon us!!’ just a few weeks ago!’. But, Peter didn’t say this. He didn’t even allude to their obvious self-contradiction. Instead he positively went on to point out that a real forgiveness was possible because Jesus was now resurrected. And the point we can take from this is that true witness is not necessarily about pointing out to the other guy his self-contradictions, the logical weakness of his position… it’s not about winning a debate, but rather about bringing people to meaningful repentance and transformation.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter and the apostles answered and said:</em> <em>We must obey God rather than men</em>- Something the Jews often said in excusing themselves from obeying various demands of the Roman empire. Peter is trying to reason with them in language they would understand and which had fallen from their own lips in other contexts. The specific obedience to God he had in mind was in preaching the Gospel. He uses the same word a few verses later in saying that the "Holy Spirit::. God has given to those that <em>obey</em> Him" (:32). What he meant was that the Spirit had been given to those who obey His command to preach. Peter was alluding to the great commission, which promised the disciples the gifts of the Spirit in their preaching work which was their obedience to that commission.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 4:20'>Act 4:20</a></em>. </p><p><em>The God of our fathers</em>- A common phrase in the Apostolic preaching (<em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:25'>Act 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:2'>Act 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:45'>Act 7:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:17'>Act 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:6'>Act 26:6</a></em>). They were not seeking to alienate their audience, but rather to bridge build with them, pointing out what they had in common and seeking to build further from that. </p><p><em>Raised up Jesus- </em>His resurrection is an imperative to preach. When Peter is asked why he continues preaching when it is forbidden, he responds by saying that he is obeying God’s command, in that Christ had been raised. There was no specific command from God to witness (although there was from Christ); from the structure of Peter’s argument he is surely saying that the fact God raised Christ is <em>de facto </em>a command from God to witness to it which must be obeyed. The resurrection of Jesus is itself the command to preach. </p><p><em>Whom you slew, hanging him on a tree</em>- But the Greek separates the slaying and the hanging on the tree. Earlier, Peter had thought that following Christ to the end could be achieved in a quick, dramatic burst of zeal- for surely his desire to “smite with the sword” in Gethsemane was almost suicidal, and yet by doing so he thought that he would fulfil his promise to lay down his life for Christ’s sake. He learnt the lesson, that crucifixion is a way of life rather than just dramatic death; for he said that the Jews had slain Christ <em>and</em> hung Him on a tree (<em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>). This seems strange- that they should have killed Him and then hung Him on the tree. Peter has in mind the practice of hanging an already dead criminal on a tree as a warning (<em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>). Paul appears to make the same mistake in <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>, where he too says that the lifting up of Christ on the cross was typified by the lifting up of the already dead body of a criminal. Christ was not dead when He was lifted up- physically. But first Peter and then Paul came to understand that His death was actually in His way of life- so that He was as good as dead when lifted up. He was the dead bronze snake of the wilderness; the flesh had been put to death by a daily life of crucifixion.</p><p>Perhaps the distinction implies the 'slaying' was an ongoing process in His ministry, crowned by the final hanging on the tree. Paul speaks similarly in Galatians; as if the body was already dead when it was lifted up on the tree; for he quotes the Mosaic law regarding the body of a dead criminal being displayed on a tree as if it was descriptive of the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>). The veil symbolized the flesh of the Lord; and yet in it was woven scarlet, a symbol of His blood and sacrifice (<em><a href='B:20 27:16'>Exo 27:16</a></em>), which permeated His mortal life. The lesson is that the cross is a daily way of life. The Lord taught this when He asked us to take up the cross daily: to live each day in the exercise of the same principles which He lived and died by. Let's not see spiritual life as a survival of a few crises, as and when they present themselves. It's a way of life, and the principles which lead us to the little victories (when we scald ourselves with hot water, when we dirty a newly washed shirt:::) will give us the greater ones also, when (e:g:) we stand before a tribunal, or face death in whatever form. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>.</p><p><em>Him did God exalt</em>- The same word is used about the lifting up of the Lord on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 3:14'>Joh 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:29'>1Jn 2:29</a></em>). God sees time differently to us; He knew the lifting up of His dear son was the basis of His future exaltation. And so the same word is used about His lifting up and His exaltation.</p><p><em>With His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour- </em>This could mean 'to His right hand'; for it is there that He is Prince and Saviour. These are ongoing jobs- for the Lord is indeed an active Lord, ruling and saving His people. He is a "Prince", the same word translated "author" in <em><a href='B:650 12:2'>Heb 12:2</a></em> - He is the author and perfecter of our faith. He initiates faith, by giving not only forgiveness but repentance to people; and works out the whole process of their transformation and salvation.</p><p><em>To give repentance to Israel and remission of sins</em>- Man cannot truly know God and be passive to that knowledge; he must somehow respond to the God he sees so abundantly revealed to him. And so it is with an appreciation of the height and nature of the exaltation of the man Christ Jesus. This motivates to repentance and conversion, and therefore the man who has himself been converted by it will glory in it, and hold it up to others as the motive power of their salvation too. <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em> is a clear example. "We are witnesses of these things”- in the sense that Peter himself was a witness to the repentance and forgiveness brought about by God’s resurrection and exaltation of His Son. Earlier Peter had preached Jesus of Nazareth as “made… both Lord and Christ”, and when they heard <em>this</em>, when he reached this climax of his speech in declaring that Jesus was now made <em>kurios</em>, the Greek word that would be used to translate Yahweh, <em>then </em>they were pricked in their heart and repented and desired association with Him in baptism (<em><a href='B:510 2:36-38'>Act 2:36-38</a></em>). Later he boldly declared: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men [i:e. no other name given to any man as this Name was given to Jesus], whereby we must be saved” (<em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>). Peter had once struggled with the teaching of the Lord that whoever humbled himself would be exalted (<em><a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a></em>). Now he joyfully preached the height of the Lord’s exaltation, knowing that by so doing he was testifying to the depth of His humility in His life. Now he valued and appreciated that humility (his allusions to the Lord’s washing of feel in his letters is further proof of this):&nbsp;</p><p>Notice that repentance, and not just forgiveness, was 'given' to Israel. A change of mind was given; and this surely is the gift of a holy spirit or mind. See on <em><a href='B:510 2:33'>Act 2:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>. But the recipient of the gift still had to respond. In Elijah's time, God turned Israel's heart back to Him, but they still had to return to Him (<em><a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a></em>). Jeremiah was an example of making good use of the gift of repentance: "Surely after that I was turned, I repented" (<em><a href='B:300 31:19'>Jer 31:19</a></em>).<br/>The early believers spoke constantly in their preaching of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:23'>Act 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:13-15'>Act 3:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:30-31'>Act 5:30-31</a></em>). The logical objection to their preaching 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. Paul in <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em> echoes this idea: "I have been crucified with Christ: the life I now live is not <em>my </em>life, but the life which <em>Christ lives </em>in me”. The spirit of the risen Christ lived out in our lives is the witness of His resurrection. We are Him to this world. The cross too was something which <em>shone</em> out of their lives and words. They sought to convict men of their desperation, the urgency of their position before God, the compelling nature of the cross, that they were serious sinners; that a man cannot behold the cross and be unresponsive, but rather must appropriate that work and gift to himself through baptism. The urgent appeal for repentance was quite a feature of their witness&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:51'>Act 7:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:21'>Act 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>). May I suggest there needs to be a greater stress on repentance in our&nbsp;preaching, 20 centuries later.</p><p>Our Lord ascended to Heaven <em>so that</em> opportunity of repentance might be given to Israel (<em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>), and <em>so that</em> He might give the Holy Spirit gifts to men (<em><a href='B:560 4:8-13'>Eph 4:8-13</a></em> cp. John 14-16 explaining how Jesus departed <em>in order</em> to receive the Comforter). It follows that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were given largely in order to convince Israel of the Gospel; and so too around the period of the second coming?</p><p>Note that it was repentance that was given on account of the Lord's resurrection and ascension. Not simply forgiveness. The gift of the Holy Spirit that was given on His exaltation was a mental, internal power; it was and is the power to repent. Those who do not repent are therefore stubbornly resisting God's powerful desire to see us change. See above on <em>With His right hand</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And we are witnesses of these things</em>- Reading carefully, Peter says that he is a witness not only of the resurrection, but of the fact that Jesus is now at God's right hand and from that position of power has enabled forgiveness. How could Peter be a witness to <em>that</em>? For he hadn't been up to Heaven to check. Quite simply, he knew the extent of his own forgiveness. And so he therefore knew that truly, Jesus had ascended and was there in a position of influence upon Almighty God, to enable forgiveness. His own cleansed conscience was the proof that his belief in the Lord's ascension was belief in something true. And yet we ask: does our belief that Christ ascended really have this effect upon us? </p><p>Luke concludes by recording how the Lord reminded His men that they were “witnesses” (24:48); and throughout Acts, they repeatedly describe themselves as witnesses to Him (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:22'>Act 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:32'>Act 2:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:15'>Act 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:32'>Act 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:41'>Act 10:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:31'>Act 13:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:15'>Act 22:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:20'>Act 22:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>). This is quite some emphasis. This Christ-centeredness should also fill our self-perception; that we are witnesses to the Lord out of our own personal experience of Him. They were witnesses that Christ <em>is</em> on God’s right hand, that He really <em>is</em> a Saviour and source of forgiveness (5:32); because they were self-evidently results of that forgiveness and that salvation. They couldn’t be ‘witnesses’ to those things in any legal, concrete way; for apart from them and their very beings, there was no literal evidence. They hadn’t been to Heaven and seen Him; they had no document that said they were forgiven. They were the witnesses in themselves. This even went to the extent of the Acts record saying that converts were both added to the ecclesia, and also added to Christ. He <em>was</em> His ecclesia; they were, and we are, His body in this world:&nbsp;</p><p>We are “witnesses [on account of our being] in him” (<em><a href='B:510 5:32'>Act 5:32</a></em> RVmg:). We are His epistle to men and women; His words of expression consist in our lives and characters (<em><a href='B:540 3:3'>2Co 3:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>And so is the Holy Spirit, which God has given to those that obey Him</em></p><p>- see on 5:29 <em>We must obey God rather than men</em>.</p>


text:
<h4><em>But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart and decided to kill them</em>- They had been reminded that the Lord Jesus was now giving repentance to Israel; He was working in the hearts of Jewish people to bring them to repentance. And they were resisting. No wonder they were cut to the very bone of their conscience. The same word is used of how they were again "cut to the heart" by Stephen's appeal to them (<em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>). And they responded the same way- they desired to liquidate the messenger, to destroy the channel of the message. But the message remained. To be twice "cut in half", as the Greek means, would have left them psychologically shattered. They either repented, or became murderous in their hatred of the preachers. </h4>


text:
<p><em>But a Pharisee in the council</em></p><p>- see on :17 <em>The Sadducees</em>.</p><p><em>Named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honour by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while</em>- Paul had been his student. Yet Paul differed from him regarding the Christians, for he was for persecuting and destroying them rather than following his teacher's advice of leaving them alone (:38). This difference with the respected Gamaliel was surely one of the many goads in Paul's conscience that was intended to lead him to accept Jesus as Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: You men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men</em></p><p>- see on 5:39 <em>You might be found to be fighting against God</em>. There is a repeated theme of local authorities being nervous about punishing the Christians (19:36; 22:26; <em><a href='B:470 27:19'>Mat 27:19</a></em>). And this was in an age where conscience was not well developed, and there was little justice nor fear of prosecuting people on insufficient evidence. There was simply a sense that somehow God was in all this; and the insistent persecution of the Lord and His people was therefore carried out against all the pricks of conscience, with Saul of Tarsus being the parade example. There is often likewise an undefined sense in our contemporaries that we are somehow of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>For before these days Theudas</em>- The two examples chosen are of charismatic men who attracted followers. Gamaliel is saying that these men should be compared to Jesus of Nazareth, and their followers to His disciples who were now under trial. Gamaliel therefore perceived that the disciples were following a leader- it was that obvious. But the leader was nowhere to be seen. Gamaliel is therefore admitting the possibility that Jesus may have risen from the dead and therefore had attracted followers. The fact he did not close off that possibility completely, and even the Sadducees who denied a resurrection agreed with him (:40,17), is all evidence enough of how the consciences of them all were being pricked. We would rather expect the Sadducees to have responded: 'Well yes, those men were visible men here on earth who attracted a following, but these disciples of Jesus are following a man who doesn't exist, seeing we killed Him and the dead do not rise'. But even they whose advertised position was that there could be no resurrection of anyone::. went along with the reasoning and did not make the logical comeback on it. Such was the pressure upon the consciences of these men. No wonder Paul and some of them gave in to it, in accepting that indeed, Jesus had risen.</p><p><em>Rose up</em>- The same word used of the resurrection of the Lord. Again, note that Gamaliel is not closing off the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth had risen; he is saying that others 'rose up' but in time, came to nothing; and so as far as he was concerned, the jury was still out as to whether Jesus had risen or not. The force of his logic was enough to make the Sadducees, who denied any resurrection, agree with him (:40). And his loyal student Paul was provided with yet another goad in his conscience concerning Christ- for his respected teacher was telling him that it was best to not rule out the possibility that Jesus had risen.</p><p><em>Claiming to be somebody</em>- Luke uses the same words in describing the accusation that the Lord claimed to be the Christ (<em><a href='B:490 23:2'>Luk 23:2</a></em>). The similarities are clearly being drawn between the Lord, and these two false leaders.</p><p><em>And a number of men, about four hundred, joined him</em>- This clearly echoes <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>: "The number of the men [the same Greek words are used] was about five thousand". </p><p><em>He was killed</em>- Same word used about the slaying of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>And all who followed him </em>- The language used of those persuaded by the cause of Jesus.</p><p><em>Were dispersed and came to nothing</em>- In contrast to the stress in Acts upon the unity of the Christians.</p>


text:
<p><em>After this man, there rose up</em></p><p>- see on :36 <em>Rose up</em>.</p><p><em>Judas of Galilee, in the days of the census</em>- Jesus of Galilee also 'appeared' in the days of the census, as only Luke records. Gamaliel is drawing similarities between these men and Jesus- and leaving the verdict open for the time being, as to whether He had really 'arisen' and whether following Him was the right thing to do.</p><p><em>And drew away some of the people after him</em>- Exactly as the Jews claimed Jesus had done. The Greek translated "drew away" is used again by Gamaliel in the next verse: "Keep away from [s:w. "drew away"] these men". He may be implying that their interest in these men and their invisible Master was in fact leading them to follow Him, to be drawn away after Him. This was an astute psychological observation; he perceived the process going on within his pupil Saul of Tarsus, and he was absolutely correct.</p><p><em>He also perished and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad</em>- This was exactly what happened to the rank and file followers (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em>). But <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em> records that when Saul's persecution led to the 'scattering abroad' of the disciples, the apostles did <em>not </em>scatter. And it was the apostles who were under judgment and are the reference of Gamaliel at this point. Saul was desperately seeking to prove his teacher Gamaliel correct by consciously seeking to scatter the followers of Jesus; but he did not succeed in scattering the apostles. And Gamaliel had reasoned that if this did not happen, then this whole thing was likely of God. The way the apostles didn't scatter was therefore another goad in Saul's conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em>And now I say to you, Keep away from these men and leave them alone</em></p><p>- see on :37 <em>Drew away some of the people after him</em>. </p><p><em>For if this counsel or this work is of men</em>- Gamaliel's reasoning made a deep impression on Paul; for years later he uses the same word in saying that he declared the "counsel of God" (<em><a href='B:510 20:27'>Act 20:27</a></em>). Gamaliel had reasoned that this "counsel" was either of God or man; and clearly it was of God. And Paul recognizes this by alluding to his teacher's words. The unusual position of Gamaliel, therefore, was surely a goad in Saul's conscience. Saul would have carefully noted and thought about his words. Luke has used the same idea in describing the "counsel and deed" of the Jewish Sanhedrin in condemning the Lord to death (<em><a href='B:490 23:51'>Luk 23:51</a></em>). Gamaliel is now addressing the Sanhedrin::. and so he may be suggesting that the 'counsel and work' of the Sanhedrin is being compared against the 'counsel and work' of the apostles, and only time will tell who is of God and who of man. Again, we must note that Gamaliel is open to persuasion that the Sanhedrin may be wrong; he does not condemn the apostles, rather does he urge leaving them alone and leaving time to judge. This very significant position would have irked and concerned Paul deeply, and developed his conscience for Christ. On the basis upon which Gamaliel reasons, I personally would consider it likely that he converted to Christianity. Whilst this appears impossible to prove, it is [incidentally] the position held within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, where he is revered as a saint. "According to Photius, he was baptized by Saint Peter and Saint John, together with his son Abibo (or Abibas, Abibus) and Nicodemus. The Clementine Literature suggested that he maintained secrecy about the conversion and continued to be a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of covertly assisting his fellow Christians".</p><p><em>It will fail</em>- The same Greek word translated "overthrow" in :39. Gamaliel had surely heard the Lord's prediction of the overthrow [s:w:] of the temple and the Judaism of His day (<em><a href='B:490 21:6'>Luk 21:6</a></em>). Again, Gamaliel is heightening the stakes- either Christianity will be overthrown, or the temple will indeed be overthrown as the Lord Jesus had predicted. This heightening of the stakes, and leaving the verdict open, was psychologically a path towards conversion to Christianity. And Paul was goaded down that path, as I suspect Gamaliel himself was.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if it is of God, you will not be able</em>- Gamaliel summarized the issue as being whether it was Judaism or Christianity which was of God or of men. I have mentioned already that Gamaliel is leaving the question open, rather than condemning the Christians; and that this was something which would have deeply exercised the conscience of his pupil Saul. The way Gamaliel's words deeply entered Paul's consciousness and conscience is reflected by the way in which he later alludes to those words. The choice between being of God or man is reflected in <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>, where Paul reasons that a true Jew has commendation "not of men but of God". This is framed in exactly the terms Gamaliel uses here. This phrase "of God" is very widely used by John in his Gospel and letters, e:g. "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness" (<em><a href='B:690 5:19'>1Jn 5:19</a></em>). John of course was one of the apostles referred to by Gamaliel; and John too would have heard these words of Gamaliel, and was triumphing in the fact that things had worked out to show that indeed, Christianity was "of God". </p><p><em>To overthrow them</em></p><p>- see on :38 <em>It will fail.</em></p><p><em>You might be found to be fighting against God</em>- Paul would have heard these words, and struggled with them, seeing they came from his respected teacher. He would have realized that indeed he was fighting with God- or as the Lord put it, kicking against the goads. The allusion is surely to Jacob, whose fighting with God in the form of an Angel is therefore read here in a negative light. These "men of Israel", descendants of Jacob / Israel, were not to be followers of Jacob in his negative aspects.</p>


text:
<p><em>They took his advice</em>- It was unusual for Sadducees to take advice from a Pharisee in this way. See on :17 <em>The Sadducees</em>. The sense that these men might in fact be of God was very strong. Again, the Lord was working on their consciences in an attempt to save even them. </p><p><em>And when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go</em>- The same word used about the beating of the Lord, probably at the same hands (<em><a href='B:490 22:63'>Luk 22:63</a></em>). Paul uses the same word about how he 'beat' the Christians "in every synagogue", and that surely included in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 22:19'>Act 22:19</a></em>). His anger at the attitude of his teacher Gamaliel would have been given full vent in beating the Christians. Perhaps Paul even whipped Peter at this time. For Paul was Gamaliel's former pupil and was present in Jerusalem at this time. This would explain his deep respect for Peter and what appears to be a desire to follow Peter's ministry, in witnessing to the Jews, rather than in developing his own ministry to the Gentiles as the Lord intended. See my comments throughout Acts 20 for more on this. It also makes the more wonderful Peter's reference to Paul as his "beloved brother" (<em><a href='B:680 3:15'>2Pe 3:15</a></em>). </p><p><em>But Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord</em>- The commendation of Paul's mission by the Antioch brethren could suggest that they took Paul's side in the dispute. But despite being seen as having done the right thing by conservative brethren, Paul's later allusions to the incident suggest he later realized that he had done wrong, and the approbation of his brethren didn't make it right before God.</p>


