Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryActs 1

The ACTS of the APOSTLES INTRODUCTION 1. Title. Since ancient times this book has been known as The Acts of the Apostles, but the title does not appear in the book itself. In the earliest extant (but incomplete) copy of the book, known as Papyrus 45 (see Vol. V, p. 116), and in the Codex Sinaiticus the title is given simply as “Acts,” with no mention of the apostles. This is reasonable, for the book is not a full history of all these men. A few chapters describe the work of Peter and John, while the remainder of the book records the conversion and ministry of Paul until his first Roman imprisonment. Consequently the book does not completely cover the work of any one of the apostles, and, indeed, is silent about most of them. Of the Twelve, only Peter, James, and John play leading parts in the narrative, but much of the book is devoted to Paul, who, though an apostle, was not one of the original disciples. The title “Acts” would therefore seem sufficient. From the 2d century onward there appeared a stream of tales purporting to give the lives and experiences of the apostles (see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8; cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History iii. 25. 4–7). These writings were also called “Acts.” It was perhaps to distinguish the canonical Acts from these apocryphal imitations that the name of the Biblical book was variously elaborated as “Acting of the Apostles,” “Acts of All the Apostles,” or “Acts of the Apostles.” 2. Authorship. The introduction to the book of Acts (ch. 1:1–4) makes it clear that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by the same author. For a detailed discussion of the authorship of both Luke and Acts see Vol. V, pp. 175–179, 663–665. The early church never seriously questioned the canonicity of the book, and it soon gained a secure place among New Testament writings. 3. Historical Setting. The Roman Empire was enjoying its heyday. Augustus had laid a firm administrative foundation on which the better of his successors were able to build, and which the lesser were unable to demolish. The benefits that Roman civilization brought to the empire’s inhabitants continued to be enjoyed by them even when the ruler himself was weak or tyrannical or both. Thus, during the period covered by the book of Acts, c. A.D. 31–63, the emperors were Tiberius (14–37), Caligula (37–41), Claudius (41– 54), and Nero (54–68). Of these, Tiberius and Claudius used their abilities for the good of their far-flung possessions, whereas Caligula and Nero did little but harm. Yet, in spite of this checkered leadership, the empire maintained conditions that were favorable to the spread of the gospel. A fairly stable government, a common administrative system, Roman justice, an expanding citizenship, peace preserved by disciplined legions, roads pressing into every corner of the then-known world, a language (Greek) that was almost universally understood—these were factors that favored the program undertaken by the apostles. At first the new religion profited from its connections with Judaism. The chosen race had been dispersed to many corners of the empire, and its basic beliefs were eventually tolerated by the Romans. Christianity, as an offshoot of the older faith, shared in this toleration. But Judaism fell into disfavor. Its adherents were expelled from Rome during the reign of Claudius (Acts 18:2), and intense Jewish national aspirations led to rebellion in Palestine and to the disastrous wars of A.D. 66–70 that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. As the position of Judaism worsened, the situation of

Christianity grew more perilous. It was a religion with no legal standing, and its members were without protection in the eyes of the law. When trouble arose, such as when Rome burned in A.D. 64, it was easy to make a scapegoat of the Christian community, and the subsequent persecution set a terrible precedent that was all too faithfully followed in succeeding years. It is against this background that Luke prepared his history of the early church, and wrote the Acts of the Apostles. For a fuller discussion of the subject see Vol. V, pp. 46– 73, 664, 665, and Vol. VI, pp. 22–33, 71–84, 89–95. 4. Theme. Luke declares (Acts 1:1) that his “former treatise” dealt with “all that Jesus began both to do and teach.” With clear historical insight he recognized that the work of Jesus on earth was but a beginning, which beginning he recorded in his Gospel. But he knew that his history would be incomplete without an account of what Jesus did through the infant church after His ascension. He therefore sets his hand to describe the continuation of Christ’s work through the ministry of His disciples. He does this in an orderly way by taking Acts 1:8 as the theme around which the acts of the apostles are developed. In obedience to their Master’s command, the disciples witnessed (1) in Jerusalem, (2) in all Judea, (3) in Samaria, and (4) in the uttermost parts of the earth. As Luke follows their movements, his record falls naturally into those divisions, and his book thus traces the geographical growth of the early church. He also records another significant development. The church was Jewish in its origin, but it could never fulfill a worldwide mission if it remained within the limits of an exclusive religion like Judaism. It had to free itself from such exclusiveness. Luke outlines the steps that led to freedom. His narrative describes the growth of Christianity from a Jewish sect to an international religion, until the time when Paul could say that the gospel “was preached to every creature which is under heaven” (Col. 1:23). Luke records that thousands of Jews, including priests, early accepted the gospel (Acts 6:7); and that persecutions soon drove Philip to evangelize the Samaritans and the partly Judaized Ethiopian (ch. 8). He tells how Peter reached the Roman centurion Cornelius (ch. 10). He emphasizes how men of Cyrene and Cyprus preached to non-Jews for the first time (ch. 11); how, the way having been opened, Paul and his associates evangelized the heathen in great numbers (chs. 13; 14); how they were actually able, with the help of Peter and James, to secure for Gentile converts freedom from subjection to Jewish ritual (ch. 15). His record closes with a vivid picture of the gospel’s spread throughout the eastern Roman world (chs. 16 to 28). He sees Christianity becoming largely a Gentile religion. Luke was peculiarly fitted to be the historian of such a movement. He is thought to have been a Gentile. He showed a deep interest in ministry to non-Jews (see Vol. V, pp. 663, 664). How appropriate, then, that he should be chosen to relate the story of the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentile world! The author of Acts fully recognizes the position of the Holy Spirit in the growth of the infant church. From the day when Jesus “through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles” (ch. 1:2), the Spirit appears as the counselor of the leaders and their associates. By the miracle of Pentecost “they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (ch. 2:4). A little later the believers also were “filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness” (ch. 4:31). The seven men chosen as deacons were “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” (ch. 6:3), and one of the most prominent of their number,

Stephen, was “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost” (v. 5). As the narrative progresses the Spirit continues to guide—in such situations as the ordination of Saul (ch. 9:17), in the acceptance of Gentiles into the church (ch. 10:44–47), in the separation of Barnabas and Saul for missionary work (ch. 13:2–4), in the Council of Jerusalem (ch. 15:28), and in Paul’s missionary journeys (ch. 16:6, 7). The book of Acts may therefore be said to stand as a partial record of the Spirit’s accomplishments through the apostles and their followers. 5. Outline. I. Introduction, 1:1–11. A. Luke’s “former treatise,” the Gospel, 1:1. B. The gospel commission, 1:2–8. C. Christ’s ascension, 1:9–11. II. Ministry in Jerusalem, 1:12 to 7:60. A. Waiting for the power of the Spirit, 1:12–26. 1. The apostles’ return to Jerusalem, 1:12, 13. 2. The prayer season, 1:14. 3. The death of Judas, 1:15–20. 4. The appointment of Matthias to succeed Judas, 1:21–26. B. The power of the Spirit, 2:1–47. 1. The outpouring of the Spirit, 2:1–13. 2. Peter’s sermon, 2:14–36. 3. Results of the sermon, 2:37–41. 4. The devotion and increase of the infant church, 2:42–47. C. The healing of the lame man, 3:1 to 4:31. 1. The miracle of healing done in Christ’s name, 3:1–11. 2. Peter’s address, 3:12–26. a. Accusation against the Jews, 3:12–18. b. Call for repentance, 3:19–26. 3. The arrest of Peter and John, 4:1–4. 4. The trial and release of the apostles, 4:5–22. 5. The church’s praise service, 4:23–31. D. The early Christian community, 4:32 to 6:7. 1. Community of goods, 4:32 to 5:11. a. The believers share their possessions, 4:32–37. b. The deception and death of Ananias and Sapphira, 5:1–11. 2. Official opposition, 5:12–40. a. Miracles of healing, 5:12–16. b. The arrest, escape, and rearrest of the apostles, 5:17–28. c. The defense of Peter, 5:29–32. d. Gamaliel’s plea for moderation, 5:33–40. 3. Preaching from house to house, 5:41, 42. 4. Appointment of deacons, 6:1–7. E. Arrest and death of Stephen, 6:8 to 7:60. 1. The preaching of Stephen, one of the deacons, 6:8–10. 2. Stephen’s arrest and trial, 6:11 to 7:53. a. The arrest, 6:11–14.

b. Stephen’s illumination, 6:15. c. His defense, 7:1–53. 3. The death of Stephen, 7:54–60. III. Ministry in Palestine and Syria, 8:1 to 12:23. A. Scattering of the church under persecution, 8:1–4. B. Philip, Peter, and John in Samaria, 8:5–25. 1. Philip’s successful ministry, 8:5–13. 2. Simon and his simony rebuked by Peter, 8:14–25. C. Philip’s further ministry, 8:26–40.. 1. Philip and the Ethiopian, 8:26–39. 2. Philip in Azotus and Caesarea, 8:40. D. The conversion of Saul, 9:1–31. 1. Saul of Tarsus the persecutor, 9:1, 2. 2. Saul’s vision of the Christ and consequent conversion, 9:3–17. 3. His baptism and first preaching, 9:18–22. 4. Jews plot to kill him, 9:23, 24. 5. His escape to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and return to Tarsus, 9:25–30. 6. The church has rest from persecution, 9:31. E. Peter’s later ministry, 9:32 to 10:48. 1. Miracles of healing, 9:32–42. a. Aeneas cured of palsy, 9:32–35. b. Dorcas resurrected, 9:36–42. 2. The conversion of Cornelius, 9:43 to 10:48. a. Cornelius directed to Peter in Joppa, 9:43 to 10:8. b. Peter’s vision concerning clean and unclean, 10:9–16. c. Peter goes to Caesarea and instructs Cornelius, 10:17–43. d. Cornelius and his company are baptized, 10:44–48. F. The gospel to the Gentiles, 11:1–30. 1. Peter defends his Gentile ministry before the apostles, 11:1–18. 2. The gospel to the Jews beyond Palestine, 11:19–21. 3. Barnabas and Paul in Antioch, 11:22–26. 4. Famine in Judea relieved by Christians in Antioch, 11:27–30. G. Persecution of James and Peter, 12:1–23. 1. Imprisonment and execution of James by Herod Agrippa I, 12:1, 2. 2. Imprisonment and miraculous release of Peter, 12:3–9. 3. Death of Herod Agrippa I, 12:20–23. IV. Paul’s First Missionary Journey, 12:24 to 14:28. A. Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, 12:24, 25. B. Paul and Barnabas commissioned by the prophets and teachers of Antioch, 13:1–3. C. Their ministry, 13:4 to 14:28. 1. Cyprus, 13:4–12. 2. Perga; departure of John Mark, 13:13. 3. Antioch of Pisidia, 13:14–50. 4. Iconium, 13:51 to 14:5. 5. Lystra, 14:6–19. 6. Derbe and return through Pisidia, 14:20–23.

7. The return to Antioch, 14:24–28. V. The Council of Jerusalem, 15:1–35. A. Trouble with the Judaizers, 15:1, 5. B. Delegates to the council, 15:2–4. C. The discussion, 15:6–18. D. The decision, 15:19–29. E. The decision made known in Antioch, 15:30–33. F. Silas, Paul, and Barnabas remain in Antioch, 15:34, 35. VI. Paul’s Second Missionary Journey, 15:36 to 18:22. A. Dissension between Paul and Barnabas, 15:36–39. B. Paul and Silas depart for Cilicia, 15–40, 41. C. The calling of Timothy at Lystra, 16:1–3. D. The ministry in Galatia, 16:4–10. 1. The care of the churches, 16:4, 5. 2. The Spirit’s restraint concerning Asia and Bithynia, 16:6, 7. 3. Macedonian call at Troas, 16:8–10. E. The gospel in Europe, 16:11 to 18:17. 1. Philippi, 16:11–40. 2. Thessalonica, 17:1–9. 3. Berea, 17:10–14. 4. Athens, 17:15–34. 5. Corinth, 18:1–17. a. Paul’s labor, 18:1–5. b. Expulsion from the synagogue, 18:6–11. c. Intervention of Gallio, 18:12–17. F. Return to Antioch, 18:18–22. VII. Paul’s Third Missionary Journey, 18:23 to 21:17. A. Ministry in Galatia and Phrygia, 18:23. B. Apollos in Ephesus and Corinth, 18:24–28. C. Paul rebaptizes converts of John the Baptist, 19:1–7. D. Evangelization of Ephesus, 19:8–41. E. Ministry in Macedonia and Greece, 20:1–5. F. The first-day meeting in Troas, 20:6–12. G. Meeting with the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, 20:13–38. H. The journey to Jerusalem, 21:1–17. VIII. Paul’s Arrest and Trials, 21:18 to 26:32. A. Paul’s report to the apostles and purification in the Temple, 21:18–26. B. The riot, 21:27–32. C. Paul’s detention, 21:33–39. D. His defense before the multitude, 21:40 to 22:22. E. Paul’s first imprisonment, 22:22 to 26:32. 1. Remanded for a hearing, 22:22–30. 2. Defense before the Sanhedrin, 23:1–10. 3. Paul’s vision, 23:11. 4. The Jewish plot against Paul, 23:12–22. 5. Paul’s removal to Caesarea, 23:23–35.

6. Detention under Felix, 24:1–27. 7. Paul’s appeal from Festus to Caesar, 25:1–12. 8. Festus takes counsel with Herod Agrippa II, 25:13–27. 9. Paul’s defense before Agrippa and Festus, 26:1–19. 10. His innocence confirmed, 26:30–32. IX. Journey to Rome and Imprisonment, 27:1 to 28:31. A. The voyage, 27:1 to 28:16. 1. From Caesarea to Myra, 27:1–5. 2. From Myra to The fair havens, 27:6–12. 3. From Crete to shipwreck, 27:13–44. a. The storm, 27:12–20. b. Paul’s assurance of final safety, 27:21–26. c. The shipwreck, 27:27–44. 4. Landing on Melita, 28:1–10. 5. Completion of the journey to Rome, 28:11–16. B. Paul’s defense before the Jews of Rome, 28:17–29. C. Paul’s two years in Rome, 28:30, 31.

Former. Literally, “first,” indicating that the present work is the second in a series. The Gospel according to Luke obviously is the “former treatise” (see Vol. V, p. 663). Theophilus. See on Luke 1:3. All. The Gospel of Luke is an essentially complete account of “all things from the very first” (Luke 1:3). Luke records principal facts, not all the details (see p. 114). This may be seen by a comparison with John’s Gospel, which contains much omitted by Luke. Yet John also omits much (see John 20:30; 21:25). In Scripture the word “all” (or “very”) is often used in a general sense (see Matt. 2:3; 3:5; Acts 2:5; Acts 12:11; Rom. 11:26; Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 1:16; James 1:2). Began. Gr. archomai, “to begin,” is characteristic of Luke’s Gospel, in which it occurs some 30 times. Its presence in Acts provides an unstudied evidence of Luke’s authorship. The work of the gospel, begun by Jesus in person, is carried forward in Acts by Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the work of the church. To do and teach. Jesus was “mighty in deed and word” (Luke 24:19). The deeds referred to are His miracles (Acts 10:38). The words and works of Jesus alike were with “authority” and “power” (see on Luke 4:32). The writer implies that this twofold activity will also be found in the book he is about to write.

Ellen G. White

Until the day. That is, the 40th day after His resurrection (see v. 3). Was taken up. The passive form of the verb, as used here and in vs. 9, 11 and Luke 24:51, implies that Jesus’ ascension was a manifestation of the Father’s power.

Through the Holy Ghost. This expression may be understood to mean either that the Holy Spirit was to guide the disciples into all truth (John 16:13), or that Jesus, both before and after His crucifixion, spoke as one possessed of the Holy Spirit. The latter must be intended, for everything pertaining to Christ’s life on earth was accomplished by the power of the Spirit: (a) His conception (Luke 1:35); (b) His baptism (ch. 3:21, 22); (c) His justification, that is, the manifestation of His righteous life (1 Tim. 3:16); (d) His guidance in His life of service (Luke 4:1; see on ch. 2:49); (e) His miracles (Matt 12:28); (f) His resurrection (1 Peter 3:18). Had given commandments. Better, “having commanded,” with particular reference to the gospel commission by our Lord (see Matt. 28:18–20). Apostles. Gr. apostoloi, “those who are sent,” from apo, “off,” “away,” and stellō, “to send.” In classical Greek apostolos (pl., apostoloi) frequently was connected with the dispatching of a ship or a naval expedition, and it was also used for the commander of a squadron and for an ambassador. These two general applications, to things and to persons, carried over into Koine Greek. Thus an Egyptian papyrus from the 2d or 3d century A.D. speaks of the “account for the ship [apostolos] of Triadelphus” (J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 70). The papyri also show that from the ship itself the meaning of the word was transferred to its cargo, for that also was “sent.” Not only was the cargo called apostolos, but also the documents that represented the ship and its cargo, so that the word might refer to an order for the dispatch of a vessel, a bill of lading, or even an export license. At the same time, in Koine as in classical Greek, apostolos might refer to a person, as Josephus uses it of ambassadors sent by the Jews to Rome (Antiquities xvii. 11. 1). None of these usages, however, appear to shed light directly on the origin of the word “apostle” as it was employed in early Christianity. Paul is the first NT writer to use the word (1 Thess. 2:6), and for him it was, apparently, already a technical term designating a specific group of men performing with authority generally recognized functions in the church (see 1 Cor. 4:9; 9:1, 2). The fact that in this very earliest Christian literature such a specific meaning of the word already was taken for granted suggests that it probably had some earlier authoritative inauguration. Writing in Greek, years after Jesus’ death, Luke and John used the word apostolos (Luke 6:13; 11:49; John 13:16 [“he that is sent”]). The office of apostle in the early church apparently stems from Jesus’ ordination and commission of the twelve disciples. In terming His disciples “apostles,” Jesus probably used the Aramaic word shelicha’, the equivalent of the Hebrew participle shaluach, “sent.” These words appear to have had a technical use among the Jews as well as among Christians. Rabbinical literature used the term shaluach (or, in another form, shaliach) of various authoritative messengers. Justin Martyr says (c. A.D. 146) that the Jews sent messengers throughout the world telling blasphemies against Christ (Dialogue With Trypho 17, 108). Eusebius, the 4th- century church historian, declares that writings already ancient in his day recorded that the Jewish priests and elders sent men all over the world to warn their people against Christianity. He goes on to call these Jews “apostles,” and says that in his own time they

traveled throughout the Dispersion with encyclical letters (Commentaria in Isaiam xviii. 1, 2). Epiphanius (d. A.D. 403) records that these “apostles” consulted with leading Jews and traveled among the Jews outside Palestine, restoring peace to disorderly congregations and collecting tithes and first fruits—functions that have striking parallels with the apostolate of Paul (see Acts 11:27–30; Rom. 15:25–28; 1 Cor. 16:1; Epiphanius Against Heresies i. 2., Heresy xxx. 4, 11). The Theodosian Code (A.D. 438) remarks, “It is part of this worthless superstition that the Jews have chiefs of their synagogues, or elders, or persons whom they call apostles, who are appointed by the patriarch at a certain season to collect gold and silver” (Theodosian Code xvi. 8. 14; translation in Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 329). Therefore, although it cannot be proved that the word apostolos was used in NT times of Jewish messengers to the Dispersion, the evidence suggests that it was, and that particular usage made of this word by the early Christian church was derived from a somewhat similar custom among the Jews. Whom he had chosen. See Mark 3:13–19.

Shewed himself alive. See Additional Note on Matt. 28. Passion. Rather, “suffering.” Infallible proofs. Gr. tekmēria, “proofs” which carried with them certainty of conviction, in contrast to what was only probable or circumstantial. These “infallible proofs” were the postresurrection appearances of Christ, not the miracles the disciples had seen Jesus perform (ch. 2:22). They confirmed the crowning miracle of the resurrection. These proofs consisted of: (1) His eating and drinking with the disciples (Luke 24:41–43; John 21:4–13); (2) His real body, which He permitted them to touch (Matt. 28:5–9; John 20:27); (3) His repeated visible appearances to as many as 500 at once (Matt. 28:7, 10, 16, 17; Luke 24:36–48; John 20:19–29; 1 Cor. 15:6); (4) His instruction in the nature and doctrines of the kingdom (Luke 24:25–27, 44–47; John 20:17, 21–23; 21:15–17; Acts 1:8). The certainty of the resurrection gave dynamic power to the message of the apostles (Acts 2:32, 36, 37; 3:15; 4:10; 5:28, 30–33). It was the basis of Paul’s magnificent argument on the certainty of the bodily resurrection of the redeemed (see 1 Cor. 15:3–23). Forty days. Literally, “through,” or “during,” 40 days. Jesus did not remain with them continuously, but manifested Himself repeatedly during the postresurrection period (see Additional Note on Matt. 28). There is no conflict between these 40 days and Luke’s much-abbreviated account in the Gospel (see Luke 1:24). The things. Here, the expression includes (1) the correct interpretation of the Messianic prophecies (Luke 24:27, 44, 45); (2) the extension of the mission of the church to the whole world and the admission of the saved to the kingdom by baptism (Matt. 28:19); (3) the promise of supernatural power and divine protection (Mark 16:15–18); and (4) the promise of Christ’s own perpetual presence in His church (Matt. 28:20). See on Matt. 4:17; 5:3.

Assembled together. Gr. sunalizō, literally, “to salt with,” hence, “to eat with,” or “to gather together,” “to assemble.” This possibly refers to a meeting in Galilee (Matt. 28:16–18), for the last meeting, at which the disciples saw Jesus ascend, is not introduced until v. 6 of Acts 1.

Not depart from Jerusalem. They were to return to the capital, the place where the Saviour had so often ministered and where He finally suffered, was buried, and rose from the dead. There His disciples were to be empowered, and there they were to begin their witness (AA 31, 32). Wait. Compare Luke 24:49. The task confronting the disciples could not be accomplished by human means alone. They must wait (1) until the time appointed, (2) at the place appointed, Jerusalem, the place of greatest danger and greatest challenge. The disciples were to “wait,” not to “go a fishing,” as Peter and others had done a little while before (John 21:3). There was to be (1) a devout expectancy of the great power of God; (2) a deep longing for that power, and for fitness to receive it; (3) and earnest, united prayer that God would fulfill His promise. Promise of the Father. That is, the promise concerning the gift of the Holy Spirit (see John 14:16; 16:7–13). Of me. That is, from Me. The promise was spoken by Jesus, but its fulfillment was to come jointly from the Father and the Son (see John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7–15).

John truly baptized. That is, John the Baptist (see Matt. 3:1–11). With the Holy Ghost. Such a baptism had been promised by John the Baptist (see Matt. 3:11). The promise (Acts 1:4) called for a baptism, not with water (see on Matt. 3:6, 11), but with the Spirit, “not many days” after the promise had been given—at Pentecost.

Come together. That is, in Jerusalem, in obedience to the Lord’s will (v. 4) and by agreement with one another. Jesus Himself was with them, though no unexpected, supernatural appearing is mentioned. This was the last meeting of the disciples with their Lord, for it was the day of His ascension (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50, 51; 1 Cor. 15:7). They asked of him. The Greek suggests that they asked Him repeatedly. Wilt thou at this time restore? Rather, “Art thou restoring at this time?” The disciples did not yet understand the nature of Christ’s kingdom. He had not promised the sort of restoration they were anticipating (see on Luke 4:19). They thought Jesus “should have redeemed Israel” (Luke 24:21), that is, from the Romans. Peter and the other disciples found a different redemption at Pentecost (Acts 2:37–39). The ascension, and the Pentecostal experience which followed, gave them new understanding; they finally realized the spiritual nature of their Master’s kingdom. The Jews were eager with Messianic hope. In the Psalms of Solomon, an apocryphal work written shortly before the Christian Era (see Vol. V, p. 90), repeated expression is given to this idea. The following prayer is typical: “Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, at the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant. And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, and that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction.... And he shall purge Jerusalem, making it holy as of old: so that nations shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as gifts her sons who had fainted, and to see the glory of the Lord, wherewith God hath glorified her” (The Psalms of Solomon 17:23–35; cited in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, pp. 649, 650). Such thoughts may very well have led the disciples to hope that the time had arrived for establishing the promised dominion, and prompted their question. Israel. Even yet the disciples had not grasped the concept of the spiritual kingdom from all nations (Matt. 8:11, 12), composed of the true Israel of the circumcised heart

(Rom. 2:28, 29). Nor did they realize that when the Jewish nation rejected Jesus, it cut itself off from the root and stock of the true Israel, into which the Christian converts, both Jew and Gentile, were not to be grafted (see Rom. 11). Obviously they still expected the Messianic kingdom of David to be set up in the royal nation of Judah, among the literal Jewish people. See Vol. IV, pp. 26–36. The disciples’ use of the term “Israel” to mean “Judah” offers no difficulty. It is true that “Israel” often means the northern tribes in contradistinction to Judah. But it is also often applied to the whole twelve tribes and even to Judah in particular, as well as to the chosen people of God without tribal designation (see, for example, on Isa. 9:8). The context must indicate the usage in any given case. Therefore it is not surprising that we find the NT consistently applying the term “Israel” to the Jewish nation. Although the Jews of that time were predominantly of the tribe of Judah, they were in the direct and legitimate line of succession not only from the postexilic province of Judah (which was the continuation of the earlier kingdom of Judah) but also from the original united nation of Israel. The Jews of Christ’s day were the heirs of the old theocracy that had been governed by the divinely appointed Davidic dynasty, centered in the divinely prescribed Temple worship, and founded on the national covenant between God and His chosen people. Paul called his fellow Jews “Israelites,” to whom, after the flesh, pertained “the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came” (Rom. 9:4, 5; cf. v. 3; see also chs. 3:1, 2; 11:1). These disciples, therefore, were not unreasonable in their belief that the prophecies and promises given to early Israel belonged to the Jews as the successors of the old Davidic kingdom—not to the “Israel” of the ten tribes that had seceded from the house of David. For those tribes had separated themselves not only from Judah, but also from the Temple and the true worship of God, and hence from the national covenant. To the fact of Judah’s royal heritage was added the fact that the southern nation had, from the time of the division under Jereboam, included numerous members of the northern tribes who wished to remain true to Jehovah (2 Chron. 11:13–16; 15:9; cf. ch. 16:1). These facts explain the repeated use of the term Israel for both the kingdom of Judah and, after the Captivity, for the Jewish community reconstituted as the province of Judah, to which belonged all those, of whatever tribe, who returned from exile (see Ezra 2:70; 3:1; 4:3; 7:7, 13; 8:29; 9:1; 10:5; Neh. 1:6; 9:1, 2; 10:39; 11:3, 20; Eze. 14:1, 22; 17:2, 12; 37:15– 19; Dan. 1:3; Zech. 8:13; Mal. 1:1). Further, the Jewish nation of Jesus’ day represented the other tribes of Israel not only in population (see Luke 2:36) but also in territory (Vol. V, pp. 45, 46). It was referred to as Israel by John the Baptist (John 1:31), by Simeon (Luke 2:32, 34), by Jesus Himself (Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:9; John 3:10), by the disciples and others in Judea (Matt. 2:20–22; 9:33; Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6; 2:22, 23; 3:12; 4:8, 27; 5:31; 21:28), by Gamaliel (Acts 5:35), by Luke (Luke 1:80), and by Paul (Acts 13:16, 17, 23, 24; Rom. 9:4, 6, 31; 11:1; 1 Cor. 10:18; 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5). Thus the Messianic reign prophesied for Israel was still sought by these disciples as a restoration of Jewish national sovereignty. Indeed, the Messiah’s kingdom would have belonged to the Jews if they had not forfeited it by rejecting the Son of David because He came offering a kingdom of universal righteousness instead of Jewish conquest. The

nation’s rejection as the chosen people, a status that had been conditional from the first (Ex. 19:5, 6; Jer. 18:6–10; Matt. 8:11, 12; 21:33–45), was too recent for the disciples to understand. They well knew that the old northern kingdom of Israel had severed itself irrevocably from the true Israel of the covenant except as its individual members might choose to rejoin the chosen people. What they did not yet see was the fact that the Jewish nation likewise, having rejected the rule of the Son of David, was the chosen people no longer, although individual Jews might be grafted into the stock of true Israel, the church of Jesus Christ (see Vol. IV, pp. 25–38), in whom there is no distinction of race, nationality, or position (Gal. 3:28, 29; Col. 3:11).

He said. Christ did not give a direct answer to His disciples’ inquiry. Instead, He directed them to the work that lay ahead. Times or the seasons. Gr. chronoi ē kairoi. Chronoi refers to chronological “time,” thought of simply as such, in a general sense, and kairoi to specific, climactic points of time, with emphasis on what takes place. Thus by “times” Jesus here apparently refers to the seemingly endless procession of the ages, and by “seasons” to the climactic events to occur at the end of the age (see on Matt. 24:3). It is as if Jesus said, “It is not for you to know the date, or the precise manner in which the kingdom will be established.” Living as a man among men, Jesus knew neither the day nor the hour of His coming (see on Matt. 24:36). Here is a gentle rebuke to men (1) who are not yet ready to receive all knowledge (John 16:12), but (2) who know enough to carry out their Lord’s commission (Matt. 28:19, 20), and (3) who will be guided by signs and by the Spirit (Matt. 24:32, 33; Mark 16:17, 18; John 16:13). Put in his own power. Rather, “fixed by his own authority.” The Greek word used here for “power” or “authority” (exousia) differs from that used for “power” (dunamis) in v. 8 (see on John 1:12). God is not the servant of time, but its Master. His knowledge transcends time, for He is omniscient, knowing all things (Ps. 139:1–6; Prov. 15:3; Heb. 4:13). His foreknowledge is a proof of His deity (Isa. 46:9, 10). He shares what He will with those who serve Him (Deut. 29:29; Ps. 25:14; John 15:15; 16:25).

Ellen G. White

Power. Gr. dunamis, “strength,” “ability,” “power” (see on John 1:12). Our English word “dynamite” is derived from dunamis. Luke here refers to supernatural “power,” received only by those upon whom the Holy Spirit comes (see on Luke 1:35; 24:49). This power is for witnessing: it gives (1) power within, (2) power to proclaim the gospel, (3) power to lead others to God. Through the disciples, thus empowered, Jesus would continue the work He began on earth, and even “greater works” than those would be accomplished (John 14:12). This Spirit-given witness was to be a distinguishing mark of the Christian church. Witnesses. Gr. martures, those who confirm, or can confirm, what they themselves have seen or heard or known by any other means. The word is used 13 times in Acts. As “witnesses” the apostles knew Christ to be the Messiah of prophecy and the Redeemer of mankind. They could also testify of His promise to return. As witnesses, the disciples were the first and foremost link of visible evidence between the crucified, risen, and ascended Lord and the world, which, through their testimony, might believe (see on John 1:12). John writes, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you” (1 John 1:3). Followers of Christ today are similarly called to bear personal witness to the works

and teachings of Jesus, to the purpose of God to save the world through His Son and to the effectiveness of the gospel in their own hearts. No more convincing testimony can be borne. Without personal experience there can be no true Christian witness. Peter’s bold statement following the healing of the lame man (Acts 4:10) is an excellent example of witnessing in apostolic times. In Jerusalem. It was the divine plan that the chosen people should have the first opportunity to benefit from the apostles’ ministry (see on Luke 14:21–24). During this brief time thousands of Jews believed (see Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4, 32, 33; 5:14; 6:1, 7; EGW Supplementary Material on ch. 2:1, 4, 14, 41). When the Jews spurned this privilege, and stoned Stephen (ch. 7), the good news was carried farther afield. In Samaria. The Samaritans were a mixed race, ever at enmity with the Jews (see on John 4:9). For Jesus’ personal ministry to the people of Samaria see on Luke 10:1, 33; 17:16; John 4:39–42. After the stoning of Stephen they were first visited by Philip the deacon (Acts 6:5; 8:5), then by Peter and John, who went to Philip’s aid (ch. 8:14). There was a good harvest in Samaria. Uttermost part. The disciples were to go “into all the world” (Mark 16:15), “unto all nations” (Matt. 24:14). The worldwide work was begun by scattered representatives of the gospel who preached to Jews in Phoenicia, Cyprus, Syrian Antioch (Acts 8:4; 11:19), and by Saul of Tarsus in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 9:15, 30; 11:25; Gal. 1:21, 23). Soon, it was vigorously extended by Paul’s great missionary journeys (Acts 13 to 28). Paul was inspired to declare that in his day the gospel “was preached to every creature which is under heaven” (Col. 1:23; cf. Titus 2:11). In contrast with the commission given when Christ first sent out the Twelve (see on Matt. 10:5, 6), this work was to be, not national, but universal. It is the beginning of this worldwide work that Luke describes in Acts. This book is not a miscellany of biographies of the apostles, nor even of certain apostles, nor yet exclusively concerning the apostles, but of what was done by all believers to proclaim the gospel “unto the uttermost part of the earth.” When this work is finally completed, Christ will come (Matt. 24:14). Luke here gives the outline for the book of Acts: The proclamation of the gospel to (1) Jerusalem and Judea (chs. 1 to 7), (2) Samaria (chs. 8 to 10), (3) and the uttermost part of the earth (chs. 11 to 28).

Ellen G. White

When he had spoken. See on Luke 24:50. While they beheld. No believer had seen the Saviour rise from the dead, but the eleven disciples and the mother of Jesus (EW 191) were permitted to see Him ascend to heaven. Thus they became reliable witnesses to the fact of the ascension. Taken up. Here the ascension is related as a simple historical fact. Hereafter in the NT it is not often mentioned, but it is implicitly accepted as a cardinal truth of historical Christianity. It had been foretold by Jesus (John 6:62). The event was again related by Peter (Acts 3:21), and was later referred to by Paul (1 Tim. 3:16). The ascension was a fitting climax to Christ’s ministry on earth. Our Saviour had descended from heaven to effect man’s salvation (John 3:13, 16). When His earthly work was finished, He planned to return to His heavenly home (John 14:2), to mediate for man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25; 8:1, 2, 6; 1 John 2:1) until His second coming (John 14:3). A cloud. This cloud was an angelic host (see DA 831). Christ’s return will likewise be “with clouds” (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Rev. 1:7). Vast companies of angels will

accompany their Lord when He appears in glory (Matt. 25:31). He will “so come in like manner” (Acts 1:11). Out of their sight. Literally, “away from their eyes.”

Ellen G. White

Looked stedfastly toward. Literally, “were gazing into”—with upturned faces. As he went up. Rather, “as He was going.” Jesus ascended gradually. There was no sudden disappearance as at Emmaus (Luke 24:31). Two men. Concerning the identity of one of these two angels see on Luke 1:19. Although called “men,” because in human form, they were angels (DA 831, 832). Compare the two angels clothed “in white” who greeted Mary at the tomb (John 20:12, 13), one of whom is called “a young man” (Mark 16:5). Stood by. Rather, “had been standing by”; they were already there when the disciples noticed them. White apparel. In his Gospel, Luke describes the angels of the resurrection announcement as “two men … in shining garments” (Luke 24:4). See also Acts 10:30; cf. ch. 11:13.

Men of Galilee. Literally, “men, Galileans.” All of the disciples, except perhaps Judas (see on Mark 3:19), were natives of Galilee and were distinguished for their Galilean speech (cf. Matt. 26:73; see on Acts 4:13). But the angels knew these men without reference to their speech, even as they knew other men’s lives (cf. ch. 10:3–6). Why stand ye gazing? The rapt disciples seemed unable to take their gaze from the spot where their beloved Master had disappeared from view. The two angels break the spell with a question: The ascended One is God the Son; He has told you His plans, He will come again—“why stand ye gazing?” He has given you work to do in preparation for His return. Compare the question of the angel at the resurrection, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5). There is a sense in which Christians should ever be gazing into heaven (see Phil. 3:20). This same Jesus. The Jesus whom the disciples had intimately known during the previous three and one-half years. Although He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the Son of God, He still retained His human nature (see DA 23–25). Shall so come. The second coming of Christ is indissolubly bound up with the resurrection and ascension as a promised event tied to historical incidents. Scripture reveals (1) Christ the Creator (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; see on John 1:1–3); (2) Christ the Incarnate (Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14, 15; see on John 1:14); (3) Christ the Crucified (Acts 17:3; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; see on Matt. 27:31–56; John 19:17–37); (4) Christ the Risen One (Rom. 1:3, 4; 1 Cor. 15:3–22; see on Matt. 28:1–15; John 20:1–18); (5) Christ the Coming King (Matt. 24:30; Rev. 11:15; 19:11–16; see on Matt. 25:31). These revelations, no one of which we dare omit, constitute a unified presentation of the Son of God in successive and related phases of His great work of saving men for His kingdom. In all these phases He is “this same Jesus.” “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). In like manner. By this promise, His return must be (1) personal—“this same Jesus” (see DA 832); (2) visible—“ye have seen him go”; (3) with clouds—“a cloud received him”; (4) certain—“shall so come.” This quiet but solemn pledge of the angelic counselors brings to the doctrine of the second coming of Christ an utter certainty, assured by the reality of the ascension. It is all true, event and promise, or none of it is true. Without the second advent, all the preceding work in the plan of salvation would be as vain as the sowing and cultivation of crops without a harvest.

Ellen G. White

Returned they. The disciples turned away from the cross in profound sorrow and utter frustration. After each of the Master’s resurrection appearances they were left in perplexed hope. Now, however, having seen their Lord taken up into heaven, they returned in joy, with an unshakable assurance that He would come back again. Unto Jerusalem. In obedience to the command of v. 4. Olivet. The place of the ascension, the Mount of Olives, lying east of Jerusalem toward Bethany, and halfway distant toward that village (see on Matt. 21:1). Bethany is 15 furlongs (Gr. stadia, see Vol. V. p. 50), that is, about 2 mi. (c. 3 km.), from Jerusalem (John 11:18). Luke explains that after the last meeting with the disciples in Jerusalem, Jesus “led them out as far as to Bethany” (Luke 24:50), possibly because it was in the old familiar setting He loved so well. From there, a short return walk over “the mount called Olivet” would bring them back to Jerusalem. Sabbath day’s journey. A phrase occurring in Scripture only here, describing the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives (see on Ex. 16:29; see Vol. V, p. 50). This distance is measured by Josephus as 5 or 6 stadia, or furlongs (Antiquities xx. 8. 6; War v. 2. 3 [70]), or about two-thirds mile (c. 1 km.). The Mishnah agrees with these figures, for it defines the “Sabbath limit” as 2,000 cu. It says: “If a man who was permitted to do so went out beyond the Sabbath limit and was then told that the act [which he intended to do] had already been performed, he is entitled to move within two thousand cubits in any direction. If he was within the Sabbath limit he is regarded as if he had not gone out. All who go out to save life may return to their original places” (‘Erubin 4. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 306). There were ways provided for overcoming the inconvenience caused by such a “limit.” “If a man who was on a journey [homeward] was overtaken by dusk, and he knew of a tree or a wall and said, ‘Let my Sabbath base be under it,’ his statement is of no avail. If, however, he said, ‘Let my Sabbath base be at its root,’ he may walk from the place where he stands to its root a distance of two thousand cubits, and from its root to his house another two thousand cubits. Thus he can walk four thousand cubits after dusk. If he does not know of any tree or wall, … and said, ‘Let my present position be my Sabbath base,’ his position acquires for him the right of movement within a radius of two thousand cubits in any direction. … The Sages, however, ruled: The distances are to be squared in the shape of a square tablet, so that he may gain the area of the corners” (Mishnah ‘Erubin 4. 7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 343, 344). “The Sages did not enact the law in order to add restrictions but in order to relax them” (ibid. 5. 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 411). The origin of the 2,000-cu. measurement is said to have been found in the tradition that the distance from the farthest tent in the wilderness camp of the Israelites to the tent of meeting, or tabernacle (cf. Num. 35:5), was the greatest distance a Hebrew might walk without its being said that he had gone “out of his place on the seventh day” (Ex. 16:29). More probably, it was the distance specified by Joshua to lie between the people and the Levites bearing the ark, at the crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3:4). Chrysostom (Homily III, Acts 1:12) supposed that the ascension must have been on a Sabbath, to account for the mention here of a “sabbath day’s journey.” Such a conclusion is not necessary. The ascension probably took place on a Thursday (see Additional Note on Matt. 28).

An upper room. Rather, “the upper room.” Not in the Temple (Luke 24:53), where the disciples still worshiped (cf. Acts 3:1), but in the upper story of a private house, under the flat roof, where there would be seclusion (see on Matt. 26:18; Mark 14:15; Luke 24:33; John 20:19). Both Peter. For the list of the apostles see on Matt. 10:2–5; Mark 3:13–19.

Continued with one accord. Rather, here and in ch. 2:46, “persevered with one mind.” What a contrast to the competitive spirit shown at the time of the Last Supper (Luke 22:24). How different in its calm, solemn joy was this period of waiting. Here is the commencement of the “accord” that bore such dynamic results a few days later (Acts 2:1, 41). In prayer. Gr. te proseuchē. This is capable of at least two interpretations: (1) “in prayer”; or (2) “in the place of prayer,” in which sense it occurs in ch. 16:16. Some commentators suggest that the disciples did not constantly remain in the “upper room,” but went, from time to time, to a synagogue, and that such visits are included in Luke 24:53, “And were continually in the temple.” And supplication. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words. The fact of the disciples’ unity in prayer, however, remains. During the days before Pentecost the 120 (v. 15) reverently urged the fulfillment of the pledge that the Spirit, the Comforter, would come (John 14:16) with power (Acts 1:8) “not many days hence” (v. 5). See AA 36, 37. This text contains an excellent formula for effective prayer: (1) The petition—they prayed; (2) the perseverance—they continued in prayer; (3) the unanimity—they prayed with one accord. See on Matt. 18:19, 20 Luke 18:1–8. With the women. Rather, “with women,” which may refer to the wives of the men there assembled. This receives support from the fact that “Mary the mother of Jesus,” who was not the wife of any man present, is separately mentioned. However, the usual interpretation is to see in “the women” a reference to those who ministered to Christ, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, “and many others” (see Additional Note on Luke 7; see on Luke 8:2, 3). Mary. This reference to the mother of Jesus is instructive. Her unique relationship to the ascended Lord justifies her being singled out for special mention, but she is not given any undue pre-eminence. In this, her last appearance in Scripture, she is one of the united group who “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication.” Legends concerning her later life and position after death have no Biblical or factual basis. His brethren. These were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55; see on Matt. 12:46; Mark 6:3). They had stood aloof from Jesus (John 7:5; DA 450, 451), and are not mentioned among those who gathered around the cross (John 19:25–27). But the final scenes in Christ’s earthly life had brought about their conversion, and they are now numbered with His adherents. No more is heard of Simon and Joses, but James is probably the one who became a leader in the church (see on Acts 12:17; see Acts 15:13; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; Vol. V, p. 71), and is thought by many to be the author of the Epistle of James (see Introduction to the Epistle of James, Vol. VII). Judas may be the Jude who wrote the brief epistle that bears his name (see on Mark 6:3; see Introduction to the Epistle of Jude, Vol. VII).

Ellen G. White

Those days. Between the ascension and Pentecost. The ascension came forty days after the resurrection (v. 3). Thus ten days were left until Pentecost, the “fiftieth,” the day of the Feast of Weeks (see on Lev. 23:16; Acts 2:1). See Vol. V, p. 233. Peter. For his calling, position, and character see on Mark 3:14–16. The lessons he had received from Jesus (Luke 22:32; John 21:15–17; see DA 812, 815) now bear good fruit. His natural gifts have been sanctified through conversion, and he emerges as a leader in the church. But there is nothing dictatorial in his guidance. He stimulates his brethren to concerted action, and subsequent decisions come from the whole group and not from one man. He takes a prominent part in early church affairs. His is the only Pentecostal sermon that is recorded (Acts 2:14–40), and other sermons of his receive special notice (chs. 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 10:34–43). He, with John, performed the first miracle of healing recorded in Acts (ch. 3:1–11), and his miraculous powers are specially mentioned (chs. 5:15; 9:32–41). He plays the chief part in rebuking Ananias and Sapphira (ch. 5:3–11). It is clear that he held a leading position in the early church, but he disappears from Luke’s record after ch. 15:7, and attention is then focused on Paul. For a discussion of the supposed supremacy of Peter see on Matt. 14:28; 16:16–19. The disciples. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the reading “the brethren” (not to be restricted to Christ’s brethren only, as in v. 14, for there were about 120 persons present). The occasion was obviously a formal meeting, called for the election of a twelfth apostle to take the place of Judas Iscariot. Number of names. Literally, “crowd of names,” that is, group of persons. Hundred and twenty. The word “about” indicates that this was an approximate figure, but the group is large enough to form a firm foundation for the young church in Jerusalem. The number does not include all those who believed, for “above five hundred brethren” saw Christ after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6).

Men and brethren. Literally, “men, brethren.” Some have suggested that Peter particularly addressed the men in the company, and that they alone took part in the election of the twelfth apostle. This scripture. Rather, “the scripture,” which is quoted in v. 20. Note how, from its beginning, the apostolic church appealed to the OT for its authority. Must needs. Not that events were engineered to fit the scripture, but that scripture, inspired by the Holy Ghost, foresaw the events. Matthew has many somewhat similar uses of OT quotations (see on Matt. 1:22). Holy Ghost. Here Peter reveals the disciples’ convictions concerning the inspiration of David’s psalms. They believed that David spoke (or wrote) as the mouthpiece of the Spirit. This teaching accords with 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. Judas. Note the way in which the apostle uses Scripture. He sees its fulfillment after the event, and boldly applies it to an individual, Judas, although David does not mention the betrayer by name. Which was guide. Literally, “became a guide” (see on Matt. 26:3, 14, 47). What a fearful change in occupation! He who had been ordained to lead men to Christ that they might be saved, chose to lead men to Christ that the Saviour might be destroyed. But note the restraint in the description of Judas. In spite of the horror that Peter and his fellow apostles must have felt, there are no recriminations. He leaves the judgment of Judas in the hands of God.

Numbered with us. Accounted one of the apostolic company (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). There is no record of his being called to discipleship; he offered himself for inclusion among the Twelve (see DA 293, 294). Obtained. Rather, “obtained by lot,” or “received by divine allotment,” which emphasizes Christ’s acceptance of him as a disciple. Part. Gr. klēros, “lot,” “allotted portion,” or “share.” From this comes our word “clergy.” Ministry. Gr. diakonia, “service,” “ministry,” which later came to mean “diaconate.” The workers in the early church keenly felt the responsibility of the ministry (diakonia) of the gospel (Acts 12:25; 20:24; 1 Cor. 16:15; Col. 4:17; 2 Tim. 4:5).

This man purchased. Verses 18, 19 may be Luke’s explanation inserted in Peter’s speech; Peter would scarcely need to give to the 120 details concerning Judas’ death. It need not be taken from this wording that Luke believed Judas had purchased the “field of blood” before his death. Judas’ money, ill-gotten, bought the field, and his burial in it was a reward of his iniquity. Matthew’s record is explicit: When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned to be crucified, and was making no effort to save Himself, he felt remorse over his treachery. He returned the 30 pieces of silver to the priests with whom he had made his nefarious bargain and then hanged himself. With the money the chief priests bought a potter’s field, where the waste from potteries had been dumped, and there they buried Judas. Because of this, or because the money was the price of “innocent blood,” the place was called “the field of blood” (see on Matt. 27:3–10; see DA 722). The difference between the accounts of Matthew and Luke is rhetorical, not factual: all Judas received as his reward was disgraceful burial in a barren piece of ground. Falling headlong. There is some evidence that the words thus translated should be understood instead to mean “swelling up.” However, the evidence is insufficient to clearly recommend such a translation. Judas, perhaps the most personally ambitious of Jesus’ disciples, had sought to reach great heights of worldly power by identifying himself with the kingdom he thought Jesus would set up on earth. His horrible death seems strikingly significant of the tragic results of such ambition. Instead of gaining the heights to which he treacherously aspired, “falling headlong,” he perished.

Known unto all. Rather, “it became know.” As the report of the treachery of Judas and his suicidal death spread abroad, it probably influenced the people of Jerusalem in Christ’s favor, for they would realize that He was the victim of priestly plots and a disciple’s betrayal. Furthermore, the scenes of the crucifixion had been witnessed by crowds (Luke 23:27, 35; John 19:19, 20; DA 741, 775–777). Those who rose from the grave after the great earthquake, appeared to many (Matt. 27:52, 53; DA 786). The events attending the sacrifice of Christ for sinners did not take place secretly; they were not hidden in a corner (Acts 26:26). Is called. Some have suggested that the use of the verb form “is called” provides unstudied evidence that Luke wrote the Acts before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, after which event place names, except the most significant, would be largely lost sight of. Their proper tongue. Literally, “their own dialect [dialektos].” This would suggest that Aramaic was not Luke’s own language, and that he was not a Jew.

Aceldama. A transliteration, through Greek, of the Aramaic, chaqel dema’, “the field of blood.” Tradition associates it with Haḳḳ ed–Dumm, on the south bank of the Valley of Hinnom, to the south of Jerusalem (see on Matt. 5:22).The field bought with the 30 pieces of silver was used for burying strangers who lacked relatives or friends to inter them (Matt. 27:6–10; cf. Zech. 11:12, 13).

It is written. The connection with v. 17 should be noted and maintained. After the explanation of vs. 18, 19 Peter quotes Ps. 69:25 (from the LXX, with some changes) and Ps. 109:8 (also from the LXX). Ps. 69 includes imprecations upon the enemies of David, but also contains prophetic utterances that pertain to the Messiah, as can be seen from vs. 7–21. Verse 25 is primarily a curse upon David’s enemies, and in an extended sense upon the enemies of the Messiah, and hence is applicable to Judas. Ps. 109 is also imprecatory, in terms even more bitter than the other, and v. 8 is a plea that the composite foe being imprecated may have a short life, and be removed from his responsibility (see on Ps. 69; 109). Judas and his dreadful deeds stand as counterparts of what the psalms describe, and his deserved fate corresponds to that of the enemies described in these passages. This is a type of exegesis frequently employed in the NT to interpret and apply the OT (cf. 1 Peter 1:10, 11; cf. on Deut. 18:15). Here, Peter has taken the quotation and applied it to the filed that Judas bought (see on v. 18), foreseeing that it would not be inhabited. Bishoprick. Gr. episkopē, “oversight,” “charge,” “office,” correctly translating the Heb. pequddah. The word “bishoprick” should read, rather, “overseership.” Bishops were the ruling officers in the Church of England in 1611, when the KJV was translated, and it is psychologically understandable that the Anglican translators read into the Greek word, which means “oversight,” or “superintendence,” a much later and stronger ecclesiastical significance. Compare the mention of “Easter” in ch. 12:4, where the Greek means “passover.” The Calvinistic refusal to recognize any church official of higher authority than “elder” (Gr. presbuteros) was not reflected in the Anglican translation of 1611, although it had appeared in the Geneva Bible of 1560, in the translation, “charge.” For the NT meaning of the Greek words presbuteros, “elder,” and episkopos, “bishop,” see pp. 26, 38. In the NT, “elders” were sometimes called “bishops,” that is, “overseers,” but only here in Scripture are thee apostles even indirectly referred to as “bishops.” Hence, the translation “charge,” or “office,” is preferable here. See pp. 26, 38. The apostle uses Ps. 109:8 as authority for the election of another to take the place left vacant by Judas.

These men. There seem to have been several among the believers who fulfilled the qualification needed by the successor of Judas, although only one was chosen. Companied with us. Peter describes the qualifications desired of the candidate. He must have been with the disciples throughout the Lord’s earthly ministry—from the days of John the Baptist to the day of Christ’s ascension. Went in and out. A Hebraism referring to daily activities, such as Jesus and shared with His disciples.

Beginning. Compare “the beginning” (Mark 1:1).

Baptism of John. This can refer either to the days when John was preaching and baptizing or to the specific day when John baptized Jesus. Must. Gr. dei, “it is necessary” (cf. v. 16). Peter apparently thought that the original number of the disciples should be maintained. The apostles doubtless had a concept of 12 as a full number, after the example of the 12 tribes of Israel. In fact, they had been promised 12 thrones from which to govern the tribes (Matt. 19:28), a promise that calls to mind the 12 stars in the crown of the church (Rev. 12:1), and the 12 foundations of the walls of the New Jerusalem, with the names of the 12 apostles on them (Rev. 12:14). Jesus had ordained a company of 12, one of whom was lost. Peter reasoned: The full number is necessary to give testimony concerning all aspects of the Lord’s life and works; a mighty task lies before the apostles, and the full quota of witnesses is needed for its accomplishment. The number 12 was broken by the martyrdom of James about A.D. 44 (ch. 12:2), but we do not read of the appointment of a successor. Ordained. Gr. ginomai, “to become.” Some feel that the expression “be ordained” too strongly reflects the principles of church government held by the KJV translators. That assumption is not necessary, for the Twelve had been “ordained” by their Master (see on Mark 3:14; see DA 296), and it would be fitting that the elected one should be similarly set aside for the ministry. Witness. See on v. 8. The emphasis rests on the witnessing to the historical fact of the resurrection (see on Luke 24:48).

They. This probably indicates the whole company of 120, though the immediate context of vs. 21, 22 might possibly suggest limiting the reference to the eleven apostles only. Appointed two. Gr. estēsan duo; these words may be translated either “they set two forward” or “two stood.” In the former sense, this passage would mean that Joseph and Matthias were proposed by the disciples as candidates upon whom the lot might be cast. If the verb is to be understood in the latter sense, it would imply that when Peter had stated the qualifications necessary for the man to fill Judas’ place, he asked whether there were any such present, and Joseph and Matthias stood. Joseph. A common Jewish name (see on Gen. 30:24). Barsabas. Gr. barsabas, a transliteration from the Aramaic, perhaps bar shabba’ meaning, “son of the Sabbath,” that is, one who is born on the Sabbath, or bar saba’, “son of the aged.” Some have tried to identify this Barsabas with Barnabas, the Levite from Cyprus, who became a companion of Paul (chs. 4:36; 9:27; 11:22, 24), but there is no scriptural support for this. It is possible that he was the brother of Judas Barsabas mentioned in ch. 15:22. Justus. A Latin surname. In Roman times many Jews assumed such names. Matthias. Perhaps a shortened form of Mattathias, which is from the Heb. Mattithyah, “gift of Jehovah.” He is not mentioned again, apart from v. 26, and there is no reliable tradition concerning his career. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History i. 12. 3; iii. 25. 6) includes him among the Seventy, and mentions an apocryphal gospel attributed to him. He is said to have been martyred in Ethiopia or in Judea (see p. 36).

They prayed. What a prayer this must have been, springing fresh from a simple insistent faith. In every great moment of the infant church prayer was spontaneously resorted to. This was not from mere habit, though the habit was good; nor as a ritual, for this had not yet come to formalize the worship of the church, but because it seemed to the apostles as natural to talk, through prayer, to their Lord in heaven as it had been to talk face to face with Jesus on earth. So should it have ever been in the church’s experience, and so should it now be. Lord. Inasmuch as Jesus had instructed His disciples to address their requests to the Father, in His (Jesus’) name, it is to be presumed that the word “Lord” here refers to the Father. Knowest the hearts. Compare 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 139:1–4; John 2:25. Shew. The 120 had used their best judgment in putting forward the names of Barsabas and Matthias. Now they called on the Lord to make the final choice.

Part. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) “place.” Ministry and apostleship. The apostles were highly conscious of the spiritual dignity of their calling (see on v. 17). By transgression fell. Rather, “turned aside.” “transgressed.” His own place. The Lord was being asked to choose one to replace him who had chosen apostasy, and who had found “his own place,” in disaster and death. Such a place was Judas’ own, by his own choice. Events had proved what the Lord had already foreseen (John 6:70, 71; John 13:2, 21, 26), that a place among the Twelve did not properly belong to Judas.

Gave forth their lots. Literally, “gave lots for [or, “unto”] them.” This can mean either, (1) the company drew lots on behalf of the two men, or, (2) the candidates themselves drew lots. Whichever method was used, it resulted in the election of Matthias. Jews were well acquainted with the lot as a standard OT method of decision: (1) in choosing the goats in the highly significant ceremonies of the Hebrew Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:5–10); (2) in allotting land in Canaan to the tribes (Num. 26:55; Joshua 18:10), and upon the return from exile (Neh. 10:34; 11:1); (3) in settling criminal cases where there was uncertainty (Joshua 7:14, 18; 1 Sam. 14:41, 42); (4) in choosing forces for battle (Judges 20:8–10); (5) in appointing to high office (1 Sam. 10:19–21); and (6) in allotting the cities of the priests and Levites (1 Chron. 6:54–65). The method is seen in operation in 1 Chron. 24 to 26. The Lord was understood to have the final dispensing of lots (Prov. 16:33). Soldiers cast lots on Calvary for the Lord’s seamless garment (Matt. 27:35; see on John 19:23, 24). But the choice of Matthias by lot is the only recorded instance among Christians in the NT. For caution against relying on such methods today see on Joshua 7:14; Prov. 16:33. As far as the record shows, Peter’s proposal to use the lot was accepted without challenge or discussion. It appears that after Pentecost the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit made the casting of lots superfluous (Acts 5:3; 11:15–18; 13:2; 16:6–9). An instance of the lot in the postapostolic church is the provision for its use in the selection of a bishop in the third canon of the Council of Barcelona in Spain, in the year A.D. 599. He was numbered. Gr. sugkatapsēphizomai, from sun, “with,” kata, “down,” and psēphos, “a pebble,” referring to the ancient method of electing a person by casting a pebble into an urn. The word may be translated as “voted” or “enrolled.”

With the eleven. In the eyes of the world, Matthias had succeeded to a very humble position, that of a leader in an insignificant group of humble people who were soon to be persecuted. But to the believers, the position to which Matthias was commissioned held immeasurable possibilities for the future. There is no reason to deny Matthias his dignity as a replacement in the apostolic body. If it be argued that nothing is said in Scripture concerning Matthias’ later work, let it be remembered that nothing is said there of the later work of Andrew, Philip (the Philip of ch. 8 was the deacon), Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Less, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Lebbaeus Thaddeus. There is no record that the disciples laid their hands upon Matthias (cf. chs. 6:6; 13:3). Evidently the church believed the Holy Spirit had shown His approval in the election by lot. In this choice of Matthias we have early and significant evidences of church organization: (1) an official meeting of believers, (2) the discussion of an important item of church business, (3) the decision and its execution. The church was organized and now awaited divine power. Some would make Paul the twelfth apostle. But though Paul called himself an apostle again and again (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1, and in other epistles), he never claimed to be one of the Twelve, nor is he ever so designated. In fact, he knew and emphasized a distinction on the point (1 Cor. 15:5, 8). He made it plain that he did not receive his knowledge of the gospel from the Twelve (Gal. 1:11, 12, 15–19). He followed a program separate from theirs (Rom. 15:20, 21). In EW 199 and AA 102 it is stated that Paul took the place of Stephen.

Ellen G. White