Vít Šmajstrla

Vit.Smajstrla@bormed.cz

Acts – Chapter 2

Vít Šmajstrla

Acts – Chapter 2

1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.

  • i.e.: was being fulfilled (This may refer to the completion of the seven preceding weeks.);
  • Pentecost; 
  • Fifty days have passed since Christ’s resurrection, and ten days since his Ascension. A brief summary of the timeline:
    • Pentecost (Shavuot) was celebrated fifty days after Easter (Passover).
    • They counted 7×7 days = 49, and the fiftieth day It was the day of Pentecost.
    • Acts 1:3 Jesus “He appeared to them for forty days and spoke to them about the Kingdom of God”.
    • The disciples then waited in Jerusalem, as the Lord had commanded them (Acts 1:4–5), and ten days later, that is, on the fiftieth day, the Holy Spirit came.
  • It would be interesting to know whether the disciples had pinned their hopes on Pentecost. They knew they were to wait, but they had not been told for how long. They had now been waiting for ten days since Jesus’ departure.
  • What did they get up to whilst they were waiting? I reckon they were still on a high.
    • How long does great joy last? How long does the joy of newlyweds last, or the joy of parents following the birth of a child? How long does the joy of being released from prison, of being healed, or of having one’s life saved last?
    • Certainly not forever – after just a few days or weeks, the realities of everyday life will start to catch up with you.
    • Whenever the disciples remembered that they had indeed been with the risen Christ, they must have been filled with bliss.
    • But they had to do something to pass the ten days; they had to prepare food, they had to sleep, and they must have talked about something. They couldn’t have been in a constant ‘binge’.
    • Were they determined to wait until something happened? Would they have been able to wait forty days and nights, as the Israelites (did not) do at Mount Sinai?
  • They certainly stuck together. Shared experiences bring people closer, and particularly intense, extreme experiences do so even more. Friendships forged in war (or simply military service) last a lifetime.
  • There was certainly plenty to talk about – time and again they discussed their shared experiences with Jesus, pondering every one of His words. Many things were only just dawning on them, coming together to form a meaningful narrative. After all, there were so many things they hadn’t understood; so many things that only made sense in hindsight, seen through the prism of Christ’s death and resurrection.
  • No doubt they also read the Scriptures together, and little by little the fulfilled Messianic prophecies became clear to them.

2 Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, like a violent wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 

  • n.: became;
  • n.: breath;
  • It came suddenly and without warning: one moment they were sitting there and nothing was happening – and the next, there was noise everywhere.
  • We can probably picture it as the sound of a fighter jet or a tornado – but without the accompanying movement of air.
  • It is interesting that the Holy Spirit manifested Himself acoustically as a whirlwind. This is consistent with both His nature and His name – in Hebrew (ruach) and in Greek (pneuma)1 The name of the Holy Spirit is distinctly onomatopoeic, evoking the sound of moving air. It means ‘spirit’, ‘wind’ and also ‘breath’.
  • So now the Spirit comes to the sound of the wind, being ‘true to its name’.

3 And tongues appeared to them, as if it fires that had split apart, and he settled on each of them a man.

  • The descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven was also (as well as by wind) accompanied by fire. Why fire? What does a Person of the Holy Trinity have in common with fire?
  • Fire As we know it, it is a visible sign of an ongoing chemical reaction – oxidation.
    • Oxidation refers to the loss of electrons by a burning substance to oxygen (which is reduced). This results in the formation of carbon dioxide or, in some cases, ash.
    • It’s perhaps a rather over-elaborate symbolic representation: one substance sacrifices itself so that another may be gained, accompanied by the birth of light, whilst ashes remain. 😊
  • Fire runs through the Bible like a common thread. The number of occurrences of the words ‘fire’ and ‘to set alight’ exceeds the scope of even a dedicated biblical study – there are several hundred occurrences.
  • Here’s just a brief, random overview:
    • The Lord appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush (which, however, did not burn up)
    • The Lord went before the Israelites in the form of a pillar of fire
    • The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai in fire; to the Israelites, the Lord’s glory on Mount Sinai appeared as a consuming fire.
    • God’s fire melts, tests for authenticity and purifies (like a smith’s fire, or charcoal touching the lips)
    • The Lord rained down brimstone and fire from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
    • He also burnt Nadab and Abihu.
    • The Lord your God is a consuming fire, a God of jealous love.
    • 2 Thessalonians 1:7–8 The Lord Jesus will appear from heaven with his mighty angels in a blaze of fire.
    • Luke 12:49 I have come to bring fire upon the earth, and how I wish it would blaze up already!
  • Let us reflect once more on why the Holy Spirit (a member of the Holy Trinity) wishes to present himself as wind and as fire.
    • Because the Holy Spirit is neither fire nor wind – the fact that He reveals Himself to us in this way is entirely deliberate – He wishes to reveal Himself to us in this manner.
  • The wind itself is invisible – we recognise its presence by its effects (John 3:8).
  • The wind is the breath of God — the breath that gives life to Adam.
    • Jesus ‘breathed’ on his disciples (John 20:22) “Receive the Holy Spirit”), thereby repeating the Creator’s life-giving gesture.
  • Perhaps one could say that the wind or the breath point to God’s activity towards people and on relationship-oriented towards people.
    • The Holy Spirit is neither inactive (still air, a lull) nor indifferent towards people (lacking interest, lacking interaction).
  • Fire produces light, heat and transformation, if applicable ruin.
  • For the sake of completeness, let us note here that the Holy Spirit is also symbolised in the Bible by with water (rain), oil . dove:
    • Water restores, purifies, revitalises and refreshes.
    • Oil nourishes, heals, protects and adds shine.
    • A dove is flying in (or flying away), it is clean, shy, unobtrusive, likeable.
  • The fire in this case was certainly not hot, let alone scorching.
  • It looked as though the fire had filled the room in the form of a single, continuous cloud, from which branches extended towards each of those present.
    • It’s like something out of a sci-fi film – there’s a cloud of fire in the room, from which pseudopods (little tentacles) detach and seek out a place on the heads of those present.
    • If aliens were to do something like that to the crew of a spaceship, people would surely be running about the room, screaming in terror and waving their arms about.
    • This is, in fact, a fundamental encroachment on human autonomy: a person is ‘taken over’ by an external force, an ‘intruder’.
  • We can see that not all ‘casting’ is the same.
    • We certainly have a duty to protect our autonomy – not to let ‘just anything’ that comes our way (especially dark, demonic forces) get in.
  • Opening oneself to the Holy Spirit is different. Why?
    • The Holy Spirit never imposes Himself; He never visits anyone uninvited, let alone by force.
  • Although it may seem here that the Holy Spirit comes upon people against their will, this is not the case: for all those present had gathered that is precisely why, that they were waiting for the Holy Spirit, that they wanted to receive Him.
  • They acted in accordance with Jesus’ instructions – Jesus had told them that they would receive the Spirit, and where and how they were to wait for it. He even told them this twice, on both occasions just before he left:
    • Acts 1:4–5 And whilst he was eating with them, he instructed them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the Father’s promise — ‘which you have heard from me, 5‘For John baptised with water, but in a few days’ time you will be baptised in the Holy Spirit.’ 
    • Luke 24:49 ‘And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but you must remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.’ 
  • If the disciples had not wanted to be clothed with power from on high, they would not have gathered anywhere; they would simply have gone their separate ways – and nothing out of the ordinary would have happened to them. (It is quite possible that some of them did just that2).
  • God is the only being in the universe to whom we can truly open ourselves completely and without fear. Only God can we allow to ‘operate without anaesthetic’ within our innermost being.
  • To put it another way: at Pentecost in Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit comes to a well-prepared environment – everyone present had already given Jesus their ‘informed consent’ in advance, that they agree to receive the Holy Spirit; or, to be more precise, that they desire to do so.

4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to speak. 

  • Of those present, the following were filled with everyone. That is interesting and exciting – when we consider what a diverse group of people they were, when we consider that the only thing uniting everyone present was their relationship with Jesus, when we consider that none of them were anywhere near perfect (they were ordinary people, no better than us). Yet the Holy Spirit sought out each person present individually, connected with them through tongues of fire, and filled him.
  • The Word to fill It is an interesting topic in relation to the Holy Spirit. Even from a Greek linguistic perspective, it is a rather complex issue, as there are two Greek words that express the concept of ‘fulfilment’:
    • I. πλήθω  [pléthó] fill in, 27 occurrences
      • is often used by Luke (in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles)
      • e.g. about John the Baptist “‘Even whilst still in his mother’s womb, he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.’
      • about Elizabeth, in response to Mary’s greeting, before she spoke the prophecy.
      • about Zechariah “‘And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied.’
      • here in Acts 2:4
      • about Peter in Acts 4:8, before he spoke before the Sanhedrin
      • Acts 4:31 “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.”
      • Acts 9:17 Ananias said to Saul: “…so that you may be healed and filled with the Holy Spirit.”
      • Acts 13:0 “Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked at him…”
    • II. πλήρης, ες [plérés] also indeclinable: adjective, full (of what), filled (with what); 16 occurrences πληρόω [pléroó] verb, 1. to fulfil, to carry out, to complete (of something / for someone, and ‘something’ as the object); to supplement; to bring to completion, to finish ¦¦ ὡς δὲ ἐπλήρου Ἰωάννης τὸν δρόμον (*Acts 13:25) when John had completed his mission 2. (pass.) to be filled; to be fulfilled (also fig.), to come to pass; (of time, also) to elapse; to reach the full number ¦¦ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφή the Scripture was fulfilled; 86 occurrences
      • Apart from the Acts, Paul often uses the term in his epistles
      • Acts 6:3, the election of deacons: “‘seven men… filled with the Holy Spirit’, 6,5 “Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit.”
      • Acts 7:55 “Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven…”
      • Acts 11:24 Barnabas: “‘He was a good man, filled with the Holy Spirit and faith.’
      • Eph 3:19 “…so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”
      • Eph 5:18 “…but be filled with the Spirit”
      • Colossians 1:9 ‘...so that we may be filled with the knowledge of his will”
      • Phil 1:11 “…filled with the fruit of righteousness”
  • We can therefore see that both Greek verbs refer to fulfilment in the sense of the physical filling of the container – and the process of being filled with the Spirit is much the same: a person is empty, God fills them, and then they are no longer empty; there is something (or rather, someone) within them.
  • It may be repeated and may precede some form of spiritual expression, an act of courage or service.
  • ‘Plerō’ is always used in the passive form ‘to be filled’ = the agent is therefore the Spirit, not us (it is not we who fill ourselves, but God who fills us).
  • Pleróo is more enduring; it is not a one-off experience and can be more active (we are meant to fulfil ourselves, or at least to strive to do so).
  • Pleróo and pléthó need not refer solely to the Holy Spirit, but both Verbs also occur in other literal and figurative meanings: to fill a boat or a net with fish, to soak a sponge in vinegar, the days of childbirth were fulfilled, everything that was written was fulfilled, the house was filled with fragrance, fulfil the will of the fathers, sorrow filled the heart.
    • The verb *gemizō* is used to describe the filling of the jars with water at Cana; this is said to be practically synonymous with *pleróo*.
  • It is not only the Holy Spirit who fills the human heart – on the contrary, Satan filled the hearts of both Ananias and Elimas.
    • In the case of Judas, the verb ‘entered into him’ is used in reference to Satan.
  • The Old Testament also occasionally refers to being filled with the Holy Spirit in various ways:
    • on Joseph, Gen. 41:38: ‘Is there a man in whom the Spirit of God dwells?’
    • Exodus 31:3 and 35:31 concerning Bezalel “and filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, understanding and knowledge for every kind of work”„
    • About Joshua, Numbers 27:18 “The Lord said to Moses: ‘Take Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand upon him. Set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole congregation, and commission him in their sight’.” 
    • 1 Samuel 10:6 concerning Saul “The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you; you will prophesy with them, and you will be transformed into a different man.” 11,6 “When Saul heard these words, the Spirit of God came upon him and he was filled with rage.”
    • Judges 6:34 concerning the judges Gideon, Jephthah (Judges 11:29), Samson (Judges 14:6; 15:14) and Gideon “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon” – h. put on (a lovely term).
    • Nu 11:25 “The Lord came down in a cloud, spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was upon him and bestowed it upon seventy men from among the elders. And it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but did so no more.
    • About David 1 Sam. 16:13 “Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. From that day on, the Spirit of the Lord continued to rest upon David.”
  • It would therefore seem that, in the Old Testament, being filled with the Holy Spirit does occur, but it is:
    • a gift reserved for a select few
    • namely, people with important roles (government, prophecy, leading in battle, craftsmanship)
    • it may be temporary or short-term
  • Other languages – this is the first mention of anything of the sort. Speaking in tongues is not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament.
    • Glossolalia may be concealed within certain forms prophecy or other ecstatic manifestations, e.g. in the case of Saul and the prophets, or the seventy elders (including the two who remained in the camp).
    • He is probably talking about languages Joel when he promises that ‘God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh… they will prophesy, have dreams and visions…’
  • Pentecost is sometimes regarded as a sort of “anti-Babel”: The confusion of tongues was God’s response to human pride; mutual understanding is God’s response to faith.
  • To conclude – there is no doubt as to who is donor this unusual aspect – it is The Spirit who enables believers to speak.

5 In Jerusalem there were Jews, devout men from all the nations which are under the open sky.

  • Anyone who sets out on a pilgrimage is devout; they must be – after all, setting out on a journey to Jerusalem requires considerable organisational effort and financial sacrifice.
  • The influx of Jews from the diaspora was considerable and diverse – indeed, as we shall see later, there were Parthians, Medes and Elamites, Mesopotamians, Judeans, Cappadocians, Pontians, inhabitants of Asia Minor, Phrygians, Pamphylians, Egypt, Libyans, Cyrenians and Romans.
  • For none of them, however, was this a matter of a few days in the sense of: ‘I’ll pop over to Jerusalem for a week’ – after all, from the Parthian and Median Empires, and from Elam, it was around 1,500 km to Jerusalem; from Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Phrygia and Pamphylia it was around a thousand km, and from Egypt around five hundred. The Libyans from Africa apparently had the longest journey (up to two thousand km).
  • That must certainly have involved travelling for several months and costs running into hundreds of thousands in today’s terms, not to mention the dangers and hardships of the journey.
    • I assume that these pilgrims could not set out on the journey every year – that was an obligation reserved for the Israelites. Nevertheless, there were thousands, even tens of thousands, of pilgrims.
    • Such an approach is unimaginable to us today – after all, it’s sometimes a struggle for us just to get from Ostrava to Prague, let alone find accommodation in Prague.
    • Even missionary trips tend to be short these days – for example, I have never spent more than a month in Africa. Yet travelling is now incomparably faster, safer and more comfortable.
  • Setting out on such a journey requires truly strong motivation: it is of great importance to God that I visit Him in Jerusalem and worship Him. My salvation, and so on, depends on whether I worship the Lord. And thousands of Diaspora Jews and proselytes found this motivation within themselves.

6 And when that sound was heard, a great many people gathered people and they were confused, because each of them had heard him speak  6 Its rising in their own words. 

  • The sound of the gale was so loud, then, that it could be heard far and wide even outside the house – presumably throughout the whole town.
  • This was not a private affair involving the 120 worshippers who had gathered, but an event affecting the whole town. The noise attracted pilgrims and local residents in their thousands to the scene.
  • What had they witnessed? The 120 people present left the house and were now speaking to the crowd gathered outside.
  • How should one picture their glossolalia?
    • Were the believers, filled with the Spirit, speaking more or less in a trance, whilst the pilgrims present watched them with interest, walking amongst them and gradually finding (more or less by chance) those who spoke their language?
    • Or were the filled Christians aware of the power they had just received, and were they moving through the crowd to see who would ‘take the bait’ at the words coming from their mouths?
    • Or did people spontaneously form groups based on nationality (which would be logical – people at pilgrimages would surely have naturally stuck together according to their countries of origin) – having been baptised in the Spirit, did they join these groups, receive an ad hoc language for the group present, and preach to them?
  • Naturally (given the way incomprehensible glossolalia in angelic tongues appears today), we tend to imagine the gift of tongues at Pentecost as a kind of trance – but that is not the only possibility.
  • The Pentecost experience was extraordinary – the Church was born on that day.
    • There is no account in the Bible of glossolalia ever recurring in an intelligible form – in his epistles, Paul always refers only to unintelligible glossolalia.
    • Nowadays, unintelligible glossolalia is by far the norm – reports of speaking in an intelligible language are rare and isolated cases3.
  • That there were people confused, it’s hardly surprising – what am I supposed to think when I hear Czech spoken in a faraway foreign country? And not from a Czech, nor from someone who’s been learning Czech, but from a local who’s never even heard of the Czech Republic in his life?

7 Everyone] They were amazed and said in wonder, ‘Look, aren’t these all those who…’ here Do the Galileans speak?

  • Confusion, amazement and wonder – understandable reactions to the situation.
  • It was obvious at first glance that the disciples were ‘country bumpkins’. How did those present identify them?
  • Not based on the accent of Hebrew or Aramaic this time, so presumably based on their clothing.

8 How come, all Does each of us hear our own language, the one we were born speaking? 9 The Parthians, Medes and Elamites, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the regions of Libya near Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 

  • Cyrene – the area around present-day Tripoli; 
  • In the NS, ‘Asia’ refers to the western coast of the province of Asia Minor; 
  • Fifteen countries (with two more mentioned in the following verse) of origin of visitors and pilgrims to Jerusalem are listed. As we have already noted, this is a truly diverse selection of countries, most of which are quite distant.
  • Fifteen is more than twelve – so it was not only the twelve apostles who spoke to the pilgrims in different languages, but also some of the other disciples who were present.
    • We do not know exactly how many people were filled with the Spirit – when a new apostle was chosen shortly after the Ascension, there were one hundred and twenty disciples gathered together – so we might perhaps estimate that a similar number spoke in tongues. .
  • In Jerusalem, on Pentecost, it must have looked like ‘London at the airport’ – a mix of people of different races, wearing the most varied clothing and observing the most diverse customs.
    • The Egyptians certainly look different, as do the Romans, and the Libyans (black people) look different again.
  • What united them all, however, was their reverence for the Lord – it was this that brought them to Jerusalem.

11 Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs: everyone we hear them speaking in our own languages about great things ‘Divine.’

  • that is, the pagans who joined Israel through circumcision; 
  • Among the pilgrims were Jews from the diaspora, but also indigenous pagans who had converted to Judaism or joined the Jewish faith.

12 Everyone of which They were amazed and bewildered, and said to one another, ‘What does this mean?’

  • Confusion, amazement and wonder had already been mentioned – Luke had already run out of verbs to describe the travellers’ state of mind: surprise, shock, confusion, the lack of a plausible explanation.

13 But others mocked them, saying, ‘They’re drunk.’

  • e.g.: They are full of new wine;
  • Those present sought an explanation at any cost – the general drunkenness did not explain the event, but at least provided some explanation that was natural and fitted within the framework of their experience.
    • Could mass poisoning from some sort of psychedelic mushrooms perhaps induce a similar state?
  • It can nevertheless be concluded that the state in which the disciples speaking in tongues found themselves was, at least to some extent, ecstatic – in that it resembled drunkenness in some respects to those present.

14 Peter stood up together With the eleven, he raised his voice and spoke directly to them: ‘Men of Judah and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you; listen carefully to my words.’ 

  • Greek: apofthengesthai, spoken directly in the New Testament on 3 occasions: Acts 2:4; 2:14; 26:25 ‘to speak (clearly) / to proclaim (emphatically)’ – the word here denotes: to speak prophetically / by the Spirit;
  • Let us imagine the following situation: Thousands of pilgrims have gathered at the site. The disciples are speaking to them, each in a different language. Groups of people who speak related languages are beginning to form, but there is still considerable confusion – people are arguing excitedly amongst themselves.
  • At this moment, Peter is trying to get everyone’s attention – he is trying to shout above the general din. Gradually, the disciples speaking in tongues and the pilgrims fall silent.
    • We can see that even at the first outpouring of the Spirit, it was the case that People have control over their spiritual gifts (1 Cor 14:32: “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.) ": However intense the experience of being filled with the Spirit may have been, however much tongues of fire may have rested upon each of the disciples, when the time came to be silent, the disciples simply fell silent.
  • Everyone is hanging on Peter’s every word – eagerly waiting to find out what’s going on.

15 These People They aren’t drunk, as you think. After all, they’re (nine o’clock in the morning).

  • i.e.: the third hour of the day;
  • We first learn that all this is taking place in the morning – if it is currently roughly nine, the roar of the approaching Spirit must have been heard by eight at the latest, though more likely at seven or even earlier (people needed time to gather from all corners of the town; they had to observe the situation for a while, listen, and so on).
    • So either the disciples were early risers, or rather, they had all spent the night there. It is quite likely that, after the night, they gathered for morning prayer, perhaps at six or seven o’clock in the morning.
    • In Jerusalem, dawn breaks before six o’clock in the morning in May and June.
  • Peter first responds to the most common explanation of the events that is circulating amongst those present – namely, that the disciples were all drunk.
    • This explanation is, of course, flawed – a group of drunken ramblers wouldn’t have attracted thousands of people from all over the city (it was the roar that drew them in).
    • Although the disciples may have shown some signs of an ecstatic state that might resemble drunkenness (they may have had uncoordinated movements), they remained on their feet and spoke clearly.
  • However, Petr felt the need to refute this rumour. He points to the early hour, arguing: ‘No one could possibly have got completely “drunk” this early in the morning.’
    • To put it light-heartedly: Petr’s argument wouldn’t have gone down well in Ostrava – it’s not uncommon to see groups of drunk people wandering around the city in the early hours after a night of partying.

16 But this is what is said through the prophet [Joel]: 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, all I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. 18 Even upon my servants and my handmaids [in those days] I will pour out of my Spirit, [and they will prophesy].

  • vision: Greek: horasis; cf. the more common term: horama. Horasis was mentioned by Cornelius in Acts 10:3 and by John in Revelation 9:17.
  • Joel 3 says the following: Then it shall come to pass that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the male and female servants I will pour out my Spirit in those days. I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth: blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and dreadful Day of the Lord comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be a place of refuge, as the Lord has said, amongst the survivors whom the Lord calls.
  • Peter quotes Joel very accurately (no doubt from memory); the differences from the original text are insignificant:
    • Peter: ‘in the last days’ vs. Joel: ‘then it shall come to pass’
    • the order of the young and the elderly: Joel lists the elderly first, followed by the young; Peter lists the young first, followed by the elderly.
    • Petr labels the phenomena on the ground with the names of the signs.
    • ‘turns’ (the Sun into darkness) → ‘changes’ – it’s the same thing
    • ‘The Lord’s’ → ‘the Lord’s’ is the same thing.
  • We have before us one of the Old Testament prophecies, the place and time of whose fulfilment we know precisely.
  • Peter does not hesitate to identify Joel’s prophecy with what is happening at that very moment. This is certainly an inspired and therefore true interpretation, but it is not as straightforward as it might seem at first glance: Joel says nothing about tongues; on the contrary, he speaks of a whole range of other phenomena which were not taking place in Jerusalem at that time (there were no dreams, visions, wonders or signs in the heavens or on earth).
  • For Petr, the key part of the entire passage quoted was the beginning of Joel’s words about the outpouring of God’s Spirit upon every flesh.
    • And this applied to everyone, regardless of status or background, including slaves – there may well have been some slaves amongst the disciples.
  • Nevertheless, he quotes the prophet’s entire third chapter – perhaps to capture the attention of those present and demonstrate his knowledge of Scripture – for they were all devout Jews and proselytes who certainly knew their Scriptures well and took them very much to heart. Their willingness to listen to someone well-versed in the Scriptures was surely greater than if some ignorant person had been speaking to them.)
  • It could have come from Petr and some sort of ‘identification’ procedure upon entry: Look – you are being addressed by someone who is able to quote long passages from our Holy Texts from memory.
  • It may be, however, that Peter quoted the whole passage in order to emphasise that the outpouring of the Spirit is an eschatological event, that it’s as a sign that these are the last days.
  • Peter draws a clear parallel between current events and Joel’s prophecy: “He says: ‘This is what is spoken through Joel’ – it is a question of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon every person (including male and female slaves).
  • Joel also speaks of the prophecies of children, the visions of young men and the dreams of the elderly – Was that what happened at Pentecost in Jerusalem as well?
  • Probably yes, even though Luke does not explicitly mention this in the Acts of the Apostles – the outpouring of the Spirit evidently affected the whole city.
  • In other words: a revival came over Jerusalem. – How else can one explain that, shortly afterwards (following Peter’s rather ordinary sermon), three thousand of those present were suddenly converted? A mere encounter with people speaking in tongues was certainly not enough to bring this about.

19 And I will perform wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, [blood and fire and columns of smoke]. 

  • row: steam (column: columns);

20 The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and glorious Day of the Lord comes. 21 I (it will happen,) all ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’“

  • e.g.: obvious;
  • We know of no such heavenly signs having taken place at Pentecost in Jerusalem.
  • Joel is referring more specifically to the solar eclipse at Easter at the time of Christ’s death – he thus includes the events of Easter amongst the eschatological events, to which they certainly belong – for Christ’s death and resurrection undoubtedly marked the beginning of the final phase of human history.
  • That the Lord’s Day will be exceptionally great and glorious, There is no doubt about it.
  • Joel and Petr are now following up with further information, all Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
    • Listeners therefore learn that they are facing some danger, but that there is a way to avoid it.
  • It seems to have struck a chord in their hearts – the pilgrims in Jerusalem were devout; they ‘knew’ the Lord and ‘felt a sense of guilt towards Him’: they felt the need to make amends to the Lord through their pilgrimage and by offering sacrifices in the Temple.
  • They were ‘soft-hearted’ on the Feast of Pentecost; their ‘spiritual ears’ were open.
  • Now, moreover, they were terrified by the supernatural events they had witnessed. Their knees were probably shaking at that moment – they feared that the terrible noise they had heard would be followed by those present being wiped off the face of the earth, or something similar.

22 ‘Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God by mighty deeds, wonders and signs which God performed amongst you through him, as you yourselves know,

  • e.g.: Nazarene;
  • Peter changes the subject and directs the attention of his (shaken) listeners towards Jesus – He is the problem.
  • Those present were certainly aware that Jesus had performed many supernatural deeds.
    • There were apparently not many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles amongst the listeners, although there may well have been some among them who had been healed or supernaturally fed.
    • But there is no doubt that every single one of them had heard of Jesus.
  • Peter unequivocally (and boldly) declares that Jesus performed his deeds by the power of the Lord.

23 of this men, issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure and prior notification You were crucified by the hands of the godless on the cross and removed it.

  • e.g.: lawless;
  • It was clear to the listeners who had put Jesus to death – it was the Jewish authorities.
  • Peter emphasises that this happened by God’s permission – that it was part of God’s plan (office) and that this was a decision God had made long ago (anticipation).
    • So it was neither an accident nor a triumph of evil.
    • The perpetrators of Christ’s death, however, were godless people – Roman soldiers.

24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him . the agony of death, for it was impossible to keep him from it. 

  • usually associated with labour pains;
  • var.: the underworld (Hades); 
  • But God did not allow evil to triumph – it was impossible for this to be the Messiah’s definitive defeat.
  • God saved Jesus from death and raised him from the dead.

25 For David says of him: ‘I have always seen the Lord before me, for he is at my right hand, so that I may not be shaken; 26 therefore my heart has rejoiced and my tongue has exulted; moreover, my body shall dwell in hope, 27 for you will not abandon my soul to the grave, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’”

  • Petr quotes the Old Testament again: this time four verses from Psalm 16: 8 I always set the Lord before me. With him at my right hand, I shall not fall. 9 Therefore my heart rejoices and my soul exults. Even my body shall dwell in safety, 10 for you will not abandon my soul to the grave; you will not let your faithful one see the pit. 11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures for evermore.
  • Once again, he quotes very accurately, even though Peter is said to be quoting from the Septuagint translation rather than the original Hebrew.
  • If we compare the KMS translations, we can see some minor differences:
    • “"I saw the Lord always before me" vs. “I always keep the Lord before me“: There is a subtle distinction between ‘seeing’ and ‘picturing in one’s mind’. Lord vs. Jehovah.
    • ‘for He is at my right hand, so that I may not falter.“ vs. ‘As long as I have my right hand, I won’t fall.’“To falter or to fall – God, standing at one’s right hand, prevents both.”
    • “‘my heart leapt for joy’ vs. “delights“: a difference in aspect.
    • „‘the language burst into song’ vs. “"Glory rejoices": Fame is incomprehensible; language is more logical.
    • ‘The body lives in hope’ vs. “safe„:
      • It’s a matter of difference – perhaps it could be understood as follows: When Jesus was dying, His body was by no means safe, but there was hope of resurrection.
      • God, on the other hand, protected David, and he lived his life in safety – he died of old age and did not perish in any battle.
      • This shift from ‘security to hope’ had already been made by the translators of the Septuagint, not by Peter himself. However, Peter, guided by the Spirit, made excellent use of it.
    • “‘you shall not leave a soul behind’ vs. “shall not give over” (in the underworld): more or less the same
    • “to his faithful one” vs. “to the saint”
    • “ruin“ vs. "a pit“:
      • Once again, following the Septuagint, Peter equates the pit (that is, the grave) with destruction, that is, complete decay. For whilst Jesus did experience the pit/grave, he did not experience decay.
    • “You have shown me the paths of life“ vs. “"You show me the path of life": essentially the same thing – God informs His people of the way of life that leads to eternal life with Him.
    • “Your presence is a source of great joy” vs. ‘You will fill me with joy in your presence.’: the meaning is the same – it is good with God.
    • Petr is giving it a miss ‘In your right hand is eternal bliss."

29 ‘Brothers, I can tell you with confidence that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is amongst us to this very day.

  • i.e.: passed away;
  •  i.e.: up to the present day;
  • Peter embarks on an inspired interpretation of David’s prophecy. He approaches it logically and astutely. The soil (the hearts of those listening) is ‘fertile’ – they take the sacred texts seriously, and are currently moved by the Spirit and bear witness to God’s workings.
  • At this point, we might reflect on how Peter came up with his sermons, how he ‘devised’ them.
    • It is reasonable to assume that they were not prepared for it: the outpouring of the Holy Spirit came more or less as a surprise – although the disciples knew that something was going to happen, and perhaps suspected it would be on Pentecost, they did not know the details. They could hardly have known that it would happen first thing in the morning.
    • Although, to a certain extent, their waiting might have been centred on the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. Perhaps that is why they were gathered together first thing in the morning. Perhaps they did not meet like that every morning.
    • And they certainly couldn’t have known that, moments later, they would need to address a crowd of several thousand.
    • So Petr spoke off the cuff, without any preparation. Something had to be done, and Petr took up the gauntlet.
    • As is often the case (as we know from throughout the Bible), his speech was a blend of his own thoughts and the supernatural inspiration of the Spirit.
  • He addresses those present as brothers – he overlooks women; either they were not present, or they were in a significant minority, or he omitted them when addressing people (which was nothing out of the ordinary at the time; in fact, it was the norm).
    • It’s possible that there really weren’t many women there – when I hear something strange and noisy going on outside and I rush out to see what’s happening (or perhaps grab a gun), I wouldn’t take a woman with me.
  • And it begins by drawing a parallel between Jesus and David – David, like all other people (apart from Enoch and Elijah), died without exception. In David’s case, there is undeniable evidence of his death grave (which was apparently already the centre of a certain form of worship at that time).
    • Where is David’s grave today?
    • King David’s traditional tomb, as a tourist and religious site, is situated on Mount Zion. The building has a complex history, having served as a church, a mosque and eventually becoming an important Jewish place of worship. The Last Supper is said to have taken place on the first floor of the building. It lies to the south-west of Jerusalem’s Old City, just outside the walls, near the Armenian Quarter. However, this site did not come into existence until the Middle Ages, and most archaeologists reportedly do not recognise its historical authenticity.
    • The Bible states (1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16) that David was buried in the ‘City of David’, which is a south-eastern hill in Jerusalem below the Temple Mount, where the kings were buried.
      • However, no clearly marked grave was found. Moreover, the entire area had been destroyed and rebuilt many times (following the Babylonian destruction, Hellenistic reconstructions, the Roman destruction, and later Muslim and Crusader settlements).
      • It is not possible to carry out a thorough archaeological ‘excavation’ of the site – it is inhabited, has new developments, and is a politically sensitive location4.
      • It is quite likely that the royal tombs were plundered – they were a lucrative target.
    • So if Petr locates David’s grave with such certainty, it is either because the grave still existed at that time, or (more likely) because a place of pilgrimage identified as David’s grave and generally accepted as such already existed at that time.

30 He was speech, a prophet, and he knew that God had sworn to him that He would place him on His throne (a descendant of his loins);

  • i.e.: from the fruit of his loins;
  • Peter now points out the obvious contradiction between David’s words and reality: David claims that his The body will dwell in hope, for God will not leave its soul in the underworld, nor will He allow it to see destruction.
  • David, however, died – and so he ended up in the underworld and in the pit – he obviously did not actually remain there, but he did end up there. And his body still lies in the pit, as anyone can see for themselves. And his soul is apparently still waiting in the underworld / Hades for the resurrection.
  • So either David was ‘talking rubbish’ or there must be another explanation for what he said.

31 He foresaw the future and spoke of Christ’s resurrection, when he said, all [his soul] she was not left in the underworld, and his body did not see decay.

  • e.g.: Hades; 
  • Because David spoke under inspiration, his words must be taken seriously – and Peter offers an explanation for this apparent contradiction: in the psalm, David was not speaking of himself, but of his descendant – and the descendant in whom all these things were fulfilled was none other than Jesus. He did indeed not remain in Hades, and His body did indeed not decay.

32 It was this Jesus whom God raised from the dead . We are all witnesses to this.

  • And this resurrection took place recently, and we were there to witness it for ourselves.

33 When, then, he was exalted by the right hand of God . received from the Father (the promised Holy Spirit), he poured out what you now you can see and hear. 

  • n.: on the right; 
  • e.g.: the promise of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the subject or content of that promise); 
  • Peter takes the events ‘one step at a time’ – after his resurrection, Jesus was exalted to the Father and from there poured out the Holy Spirit upon the earth. And that is what is happening now, and what all those present are witnessing.
  • It is a strange feeling to witness the intertwining of sacred prophetic texts with the reality of the present day. One cannot help but wonder: is it really possible that this millennia-old prophecy, which has puzzled thousands of scholars, is being fulfilled right here and right now, in my very presence?
  • We may experience similar feelings when we ourselves are filled with the Spirit or when we witness something supernatural.

34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I make your enemies a ‘the soles of your feet.’

  • Peter continues his argument, this time quoting Psalm 110:1: A psalm of David. The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ 
    • He quotes it exactly.
  • He elaborates on his argument – David is dead; we have his grave. So when David speaks of the resurrection or of eternal life, he cannot be speaking of himself.
  • This is true of Psalm 16, just as it is of Psalm 110.
  • What does Psalm 110 actually say?
    • That David has some other lord besides the Lord.
    • Everyone realised that this man was the Messiah.
    • Peter clarifies that this Lord / Messiah is, specifically, Jesus of Nazareth.
    • If we identify Jesus with the ‘Lord’ of David, it follows logically that the Lord will one day call him to Himself.
    • He will seat Jesus the Messiah at his right hand and will work to ensure that he later ‘hands over’ dominion over the entire universe to Jesus.

36 ‘Let the whole house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.’ 

  • n: recognises;
  •  trans.: Christ;
  • Peter’s line of reasoning has been logical so far and is now reaching its climax: KWhen we take into account the prophetic texts, the reality we have experienced recently, and what you are seeing right now, we cannot but conclude that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of God.
  • Meanwhile, Petr is taking a dig at the audience – he says that They were the ones who crucified Jesus.
  • He surely means, first and foremost: ‘You, as Jews; you, as the Jewish people; or, perhaps, your authorities.’
  • He may, however, point out that a similar crowd chanted ‘Crucify him’ just under two months ago. Some of those present now might well have been among the crowd chanting against Jesus back then.
  • Which is, of course, a disaster – to be confronted with the fact that I recently ‘lynched’ an innocent person, is an endless disgrace and a disaster.

37 When speech, they heard, they were (deeply affected) in the heart . They said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘What shall we do, brothers?’ 

  • e.g.: pierced; 
  • [There are two ways to wield the tongue (= the sword) – to bring death, or to bring life, and indeed eternal life …] 
  • Of course they wouldn’t be struck at the heart – To discover that the man whom I, or my nation, sent to his death was God’s chosen one is a shock.
    • Did I really behave like that? Did I really wish death upon an innocent person? Am I really such a ‘bastard’?
    • The shock of realising one’s own sinfulness is one of the most harrowing realisations in life. When King David realised what he had done to Uriah through his affair with Bathsheba, he was overcome with shock – he lay on the ground, distraught, and refused to eat or drink.
    • It is one of the worst experiences a person can have, but at the same time it is a life-saving and purifying experience. For without being confronted with the reality of our sinfulness, there is no hope for us.
  • Blessed are those who experience this shock whilst still alive and thus have the opportunity to respond. By contrast, the misery of those who will only face this confrontation with reality after death, when they stand before God’s judgement, is endless.
  • Those present reacted in the very best possible way – they didn’t break down, but They asked for advice: What should we do? 
    • Those present might have started making excuses or shifting the blame: ‘We didn’t mean to’, ‘We didn’t know’. But there’s no helping people like that.
  • Fortunately, God does not leave us to wallow in our guilt, but wants to help us out of it: ‘Yes, what you did was truly awful, but I want to pull you out of this situation. I am offering a solution.’
  • It’s lovely that those present refer to Peter and the other apostles as: ‘Brothers’.
    • In saying this, they are alluding to their shared origins: ‘After all, you are Jews too.’
    • In this way, they express their trust in them, believing that they can receive help or good advice from them.
    • In fact, they are ingeniously ‘winning the apostles over to their side’. They could have been aloof and cautious towards the apostles, thinking: ‘We have killed these men’s master; they will probably want to take revenge on us; they certainly won’t be inclined to make our situation any easier.’
    • But those present said to the apostles: ‘You are Jews, just like us – so tell us, how can we get out of this terrible situation?’
    • This is a universally applicable and universally effective approach: When one member of a pack of dogs ‘shows its belly to another’, it is signalling: ‘I am putting myself at your mercy, I do not wish to fight, we are part of the same pack’ – the stronger individual will not only stop attacking, but will even begin to protect the weaker member.
    • Jewish congregations do something similar. They pull the apostles ‘into their boat’ and ask for help and advice on how to save themselves. They emphasise that it is not the case that ‘we are pitted against one another’ – you, the disciples of Christ, and us, His murderers.
  • As we shall see later, this was a wise approach – they did indeed receive help from the apostles.

38 Peter said to them [he said]: “Repent, and let each of you be baptised in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

  •  n.: k (Greek: eis);
    • The phrase ‘towards’ the forgiveness of sins is perhaps more accurate than ‘for’. ‘For’ implies that baptism is a sign of forgiveness, whereas ‘towards’ the forgiveness of sins better conveys purposefulness this act: I am being baptised, “so that“I was forgiven.”
  • n.: you will receive;
  • Petr doesn’t stand on ceremony and shows them the way to safety.
  • Peter neither excuses nor downplays their sin – they did indeed play a part in the unjust death of God’s Son, and strictly speaking, they ought to be severely punished for it.
    • Similarly, Peter neither played down nor made excuses for his own failure when he denied Jesus.
  • Making excuses for or downplaying one’s own sins is not the path to salvation. That one goes a different way.
  • The path to salvation is both easy and difficult at the same time: Repent and be baptised.
  • Strictly speaking, it’s almost insultingly simple – absolutely anyone can do it: admit that I’ve done wrong, apologise to God, and seal it all with a brief dip in the water.
    • That we’re supposed to let ourselves to baptise in the name of Jesus the Messiah It is quite logical – it is all about Jesus; our salvation revolves around Jesus. So it is on Jesus that we also base our new covenant with God.
  • This process is salvific – repentance and baptism result in the forgiveness of our sins!
  • But the ‘benefits’ of this process do not end there – in addition to the forgiveness of sins, the penitent and the newly baptised also receive supernatural gifts for life – the gifts of the Holy Spirit. One of the Persons of the Holy Trinity descends upon such a new Christian and takes up residence with him or within him.

39 For this promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away . ‘whom the Lord our God shall call.’ 

  • I can guarantee you this outcome of repentance and baptism (forgiveness and the reception of the Holy Spirit) (declares Peter) – (had) promised for it is the Lord Himself.
  • To whom does the Lord guarantee this outcome? Put simply – to all. To everyone, regardless of age, generation or where they come from.
    • The promise also applies to people living far from Jerusalem – including us here in Ostrava or in the Czech Republic (around 2,600 km as the crow flies).
    • Just for interest’s sake – this naturally also applies to the inhabitants of the place on the planet furthest from Jerusalem, which lies somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, near French Polynesia.
  • It is interesting to note that the invitation and the promise apply to those whom The Lord is calling. What’s it all about?
  • In passing, Peter touches on the question of God’s election and calling here. This is a complex theological question predestination, concerning whether a person’s turning to God is a matter of human free will or divine intervention.
    • In a mysterious way, both are true at the same time: it is an act of free human will, which would, however, not be possible without God’s calling.
    • Paul’s listeners were clearly not troubled by this theological ‘subtlety’ – they had no problem with God’s calling.

40 A in many other ways speech, He testified to them and urged them: ‘Save yourselves from this perverse generation!’ 

  • n.: distorted;
  • Peter offers a way to salvation whilst at the same time making no secret of the gravity of the situation – for what we humans have done in our perversions . distortions They did this to Christ; God’s destructive wrath hangs over us.
  • And that must be avoided at all costs. There is a way to save the situation; we just need to make the most of it at all costs.
  • Petr described the situation vividly and urgently, and he certainly repeated the rescue plan several times.

41 Those who [joyfully] They accepted his message, were baptised, and on that day about three thousand souls were added to their number.

  • The question is how many people had gathered – not everyone accepted Peter’s words, but it is possible that the majority did.
    • However, if, say, ten thousand people were present, just under a third would respond positively to the word.
  • Three thousand baptised people is a great many – the hearts of those present were prepared and moved by Peter’s words.
  • Under the influence of the events they had experienced (the roar, the intelligible speaking in tongues), Peter’s words and the Holy Spirit, all the baptised said: ‘That man is right – that Jesus was the Messiah and we really did kill Him. God must be angry with us – we must save ourselves. So we’ll do as he says.”
  • Not only did they do that, but they also took Peter’s words to heart joyfully. When a person realises what they are facing and, at the same time, that they can avoid it, it is a cause for joy that there is nothing beyond their control.

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

  • Without us really noticing, a church has just been established.
  • In a single step, we move from a Pentecostal ‘evangelistic’ sermon to the circumstances of the early Church.
  • A series of events must have followed on Pentecost – after Peter’s sermon had ‘struck a chord’ and those present began, one after the other, to ask to be baptised, someone must have called out at some point: ‘Let’s go to the water.’
  • Then the three thousand penitents, together with the twelve apostles and a few dozen other disciples, had to set off for some body of water or river. Where could they go? What options did they have?
    • During the excavations, more than 50 large ritual purification basins (mikvahs) were reportedly found near the Temple5. So they could have gone there. Pilgrims to Jerusalem would purify themselves there ‘en masse’ before entering the Temple Mount. There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, so three thousand new Christians could easily have gone unnoticed amongst them.
    • They could have gone to the Pool of Siloam or Bethesda.
    • The Gichon Spring was the town’s main source of water.
    • The Kidron stream was nearby.
  • It seems more likely that those being baptised dispersed to the various mikva’ot around the Temple. If a procession of three thousand people had set off for some large body of water, it would have caused quite a stir.
  • However, in a town teeming with pilgrims, all sorts of things could have gone missing.
  • What did these new believers do next? They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. In a nutshell – they stuck together.
    • Christianity is a collective endeavour. It is not possible (with a few exceptions) to be a Christian in the sense of: ‘I’ll believe, I’ll get baptised, and then no one among Christians will ever see me again.’
  • What does it mean to continue in the apostles’ teaching? To associate with those who were already more advanced in their knowledge of Christ and to learn from them. The Apostles were unrivalled in this respect – the three years they spent with Christ had given them knowledge, experience and insights that no one else could have had.
    • The Apostles did not have to come up with anything complicated – all they had to do was tell others what Jesus was like; what it was like to be with Him; all the things they had experienced with Him and what He had told them.
    • The Word steadfastly This shows that interest in the apostles’ teaching was neither short-lived nor fleeting. Those who repented and were baptised held fast to their new faith.
    • Even the preparation of the apostolic teaching alone required a great deal of organisational work from the early Church – people had to be organised in some way, suitable venues for meetings had to be found (e.g. with good acoustics), it had to be decided who would say what, the time of the meetings had to be set, and much more besides. The apostles had their work cut out for them. And all this was happening on the fly.
    • It might help to imagine how we would cope if, overnight, three thousand enthusiastic ‘souls’ were to join our congregations.
  • What does it mean to remain in the community, We’ve already mentioned this. Living together, sticking together.
  • What does it mean to remain in the thick of things: It seems this was already some form of commemoration of the Last Supper. Jesus said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ and the disciples began to do so.
    • The early form of breaking bread together was quite possibly more ‘natural’ than it is today – it was not a celebration or a ceremony, but the disciples ‘simply’ gathered together and ate and dined together. As they ate, the apostles told them time and again how the Last Supper with Jesus had taken place on the eve of Passover.
    • Sharing a meal is always a very unifying experience, wherever you are.
    • Gradually, the Lord’s Supper became increasingly formalised and took on a ceremonial character.
    • At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the doctrine of transubstantiation was adopted (in my view, erroneously) as official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
    • Today’s Protestants generally practise communal breaking of bread ‘somewhere in between’: not entirely informally (like an ordinary communal meal), but not as a magical ritual either.
  • What does it mean to stay in prayers, is quite clear. But I would be very interested to know how Christians prayed together back then.
    • There’s so much I’d like to know!: Did they praise God alone? Did they give thanks for salvation? Did they also pray to Jesus? Did they bring their needs before Him? Did they pray for the sick? Did they pray in tongues? When did the tongues cease to be intelligible? To what extent was supernatural power present during their prayers? And much more besides.
    • Some of our brothers and sisters in the congregation have been praying every evening for at least half an hour on Zoom for three years now (since the start of the war in Ukraine). I don’t join them nearly as regularly as they do, but even so, it’s clear that such persistent prayer is a special (and demanding) form of prayer discipline.
    • There are, in fact, a number of pitfalls: one must avoid falling into a rut, ‘submarine sickness’ (as it is usually the same group of people who attend), repeating the same topics over and over again, slipping into ‘begging’ prayers, and much more besides.
    • There was certainly a revival in the early Church, and the presence of the Holy Spirit was evident – such prayers are then easier, but still far from easy.
    • I once saw a video of a house church prayer meeting in China – it was taking place behind closed doors, but people were also gathering outside the door to pray. And God’s power was quite clearly at work even upon those who remained outside.

43 Fear gripped every soul; through the apostles, in Jerusalem many wonders and signs took place and there was great fear amongst them all. 

  • Let us just recap the sequence of recent events: Easter … the risen Jesus spending forty days with his disciples … the Ascension … ten days of waiting … the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost … the immediate establishment of the great Church.
  • The sequence – or rather, the whirlwind – of events unfolded at a dramatic pace. Out of the blue, the apostles found themselves in charge of a congregation of at least three thousand. And the revival continued.
  • For God continued to confirm the apostles through supernatural miracles and signs. It didn’t end with the tongues – the supernatural interventions continued. What form did they take?
  • It seems that (as with Jesus) these were mostly miraculous healings and the casting out of demons: Jesus mostly healed (or raised people from the dead, which is healing taken to the extreme) and cast out demons – but on occasion he also performed miracles and signs of a different nature:
    • He calmed the storm, walked on water, multiplied the food, turned water into wine, and placed a coin inside a fish.
  • I would rather guess that the apostles mostly healed people and cast out demons, although later on, for example, they were supernaturally delivered from prison.
  • It is mentioned twice fear – Why? When faced with truly massive supernatural acts of God, it is only natural – one finds oneself ‘floundering’ in the face of things that are beyond one’s grasp, things over which one has no control. God’s miracles were certainly ‘benevolent’ and kind and helpful towards people, but who can guarantee that such things will not ‘get out of hand’ for people?
  • Furthermore, it is highly likely that there were confrontations with demons, that is, evil forces. When a person does something like this, they must be ‘firmly grounded’ (firmly rooted in Christ) so that the supernatural forces unleashed do not sweep them away. Even for Jesus himself, confrontations with demons were not always entirely trouble-free.
  • So The apostles themselves, the new Christians who had joined them, and the people around them must have felt fear or awe at these events. Suddenly, things were happening in Jerusalem that defied ordinary understanding. A new ‘sect’ was growing at a rapid pace, and accounts of supernatural healings and exorcisms were becoming commonplace.

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold own their goods and possessions, and shared them out amongst everyone according to their needs. 

  • n.: plots of land;
  • New believers were drawn to the fellowship more than is usual. The events were so dramatic and unfolded so quickly that people were reluctant to leave the gathering in the evening and return home to everyday reality.
    • Similar accounts are quite common amongst witnesses to various revivals, even in modern times: people spend long hours together, often entire nights, in praise and prayer, sleeping only as long as is absolutely necessary so that they can return to the gathering the following morning.
    • When God acts in this way, it’s a ‘shame’ to go home – after all, one might miss out on something important or beautiful.
  • They shared everything It is a completely unexpected piece of information about which reams of books have been written.
  • What was it all about, really? Christian communism6, what is this situation sometimes called?
    • If this really was a case of voluntary sharing of property, it is a unique event in history.
    • As far as I am aware, apart from the kibbutzim in Israel, this model has never worked effectively in history.
    • We who lived through real socialism7, we have a deep mistrust of any suggestion of joint ownership of property. Nothing like that can work – we humans are far too sinful and selfish for that.
    • There is no further mention of anything of the sort in the rest of the Bible – a short while later, Ananias and Sapphira did not bring all their possessions, but only the money from the sale of one field.
  • In my view, this was an extraordinary situation shortly after Pentecost, when a revival was taking place, accompanied by a surge in a sense of belonging.
    • A comparable example here might be the events of the Velvet Revolution in 1989, when students, artists and many others lived together for days and weeks on end in schools and theatres. They held meetings and made plans whilst sleeping on the floors; they ate together. People from the local community supported them, bringing them food. Nobody worried about possessions – everyone shared everything, united by a single powerful idea.
    • Such surges of solidarity are not uncommon (I recall, for example, the film *The Strawberry Proclamation*) – they occur during periods of various revolutions and other momentous changes.
    • However, they fade away within a matter of days or weeks, or months at most. Then they must transform in some way, because every revolution eventually runs its course.
  • I therefore believe that this account of the growth in assets corresponds to a period of growth lasting several weeks following the establishment of the Church. The apostles then had to gradually transform the situation into a model that could be sustained in the long term.
    • In this case, it was most likely enthusiasm fuelled by the expectation of Christ’s imminent return (i.e. within a matter of weeks or months).
    • As the weeks went by and Jesus did not return, the church had to respond by returning to normal life – people needed to earn a living, farm work could not wait, and so on.
  • Where else in history has the sharing of property occurred?
    • The hermit and monastic movements; religious orders.
    • The Waldensians, Anabaptists and Moravian Brethren placed an emphasis on mutual support (without completely abolishing private property).
    • Some exceptional examples are Campers. Here, the sharing of property continued for one or two years, after which the rules were relaxed. There were conflicts between radicals and moderates.
    • Jewish institutions have proved capable of functioning effectively over the long term kibbutzim8.
    • The kolkhozes and sovkhozes in the Soviet Union serve as a disastrous cautionary tale.
    • ‘Primitive’ tribal societies continue to function in this way to this day.
    • In the USA, a number of different experimental communities of marginal significance sprang up.
    • Various community-based organisations are still being set up today, for example those with an environmental focus.
  • In general, let us emphasise that, from a higher perspective, a communal way of life without personal property is the right one. The fact that it has never been successfully established in a meaningful way over the long term is attributable to the sinful nature of humankind.
  • Personal possessions are largely pointless – after all, our shroud really ‘won’t have any pockets’. And as for our descendants: who among us knows ‘who will inherit what we have accumulated?’
  • On the contrary, personal possessions are an obstacle to gaining eternal life and treasure in heaven – as Jesus warned us time and again.
  • The only meaningful use of one’s personal possessions is to place them at God’s disposal and to try to use them to acquire lasting treasures in the heavenly bank.

46 Day after day they continued to meet together in the temple, and in their homes they broke bread . They ate their meal with joy and a simple heart. 

  • What else did the early Church do?
  • They used to meet at “everyday "base".
    • They used the Temple as a suitable meeting place – after all, it had never ceased to be the house of ‘Jesus’ Father’.
    • All those who were converted were Jews, and it never occurred to anyone to make an issue of their Jewishness.
    • They were not prevented from doing so – apparently the Jewish authorities could not find sufficient grounds for doing so, or perhaps lacked the courage.
    • If they gathered in their hundreds and thousands, they must have been a distinctly prominent group within the Temple’s activities.
    • No doubt other visitors joined their gatherings – and it is quite possible that some of them turned to Christ.
  • I wonder whether they spent whole days in the Temple or met up there in the afternoons after work?
  • The apostles apparently ‘preached’; they all sang songs together and prayed.
  • Where in the Temple did they gather?
    • Presumably in the Court of the Gentiles (to which everyone had access – men, women, even non-Jews), or perhaps in the Court of the Women (that was as far as women were allowed to go; that is where the festivals were held).
    • It seems that Jesus himself taught there.
    • I’m sure that at least sometimes in Solomon’s Colonnade — „‘All the people gathered round them in Solomon’s Portico’ (Acts 3:11); “…they were all in agreement . ‘Solomon’s Colonnade.’ (Acts 5:12)
    • The colonnade was spacious enough to accommodate hundreds or even thousands of people.
    • Perhaps, however, sometimes as far as the Court of the Israelites, where women were no longer permitted (only ritually pure Jewish men).
    • There was also the Courtyard of the Priests, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (reserved for priests and the high priest).
  • They went from house to house breaking bread: It may have been some form of commemoration of the Passover meal with Jesus, but it could also have been a communal meal, where families invited one another to dine together.
    • It was probably a mixture of both – at that time, they probably didn’t pass a piece of bread round the table as we do today.
  • They ate their meal with joy and a simple heart: Luke seems to be saying that the meal together ‘was lovely’. That there was a friendly and warm atmosphere and that God’s presence could be felt.
  • Simplicity of heart It reflects the sincerity and straightforwardness of their motives – people welcomed one another into their homes without any ulterior motives, simply because they cared for one another and, together, felt they were part of something great and significant.
    • Once again, we can draw on the image of a student movement – when everyone is camping together in a tent city, nobody worries about who’s sitting next to whom or who’s brought more or less food.

47 They praised God and (they were popular) among all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. 

  • i.e.: being in favour; 
  • The primary sentiment of the early Church was gratitude: Gratitude for salvation, gratitude that God was willing to forgive the crucifixion of His own Son. Gratitude for eternal life, gratitude for finding the meaning of life, gratitude for the Church.
  • At first, the early Church elicited overwhelmingly positive reactions from those around it – it was only with the passage of time that this began to change.
  • The reason for this positive reception was apparently the presence of the Spirit of God over the city. The Christians had also (so far) done nothing controversial. It is also possible that the recent events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion were still fresh in people’s minds, perhaps accompanied by feelings of guilt.
  • In any case, the situation was such that people were turning to God every day and joining the Church. As a result, the Church was able to grow from three thousand to perhaps double that number, or even more, within a short space of time.
    • The apostles and the other leaders ‘had their work cut out for them’.
  • The words The gentleman was topping up reminds us that every person’s conversion depends on God’s intervention.
    • It is a combined process involving God’s sovereign action and human free will.

.

  1. And, after all, in Czech too. ↩︎
  2. If someone was unable to be with the others at Pentecost, they could still receive the Spirit wherever they happened to be – just as Eldad and Medad at the Israeli camp at Nu 11. ↩︎
  3. I’ve heard about it ‘first-hand’, but I’ve never personally seen intelligible glossolalia in an existing language, let alone experienced it myself. ↩︎
  4. Which is practically everywhere in Jerusalem. ↩︎
  5. Some mikvahs were reportedly so large that they could accommodate several people at once. They had staircases for both going down and coming up. ↩︎
  6. The Communist principle, which was utterly nonsensical and utopian, was: ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.’ ↩︎
  7. This is a widespread phenomenon – anyone who has experienced something of the sort first-hand in any way, such as the inhabitants of South American countries with left-wing governments, is highly sensitive to any hint of communist thinking. ↩︎
  8. The kibbutz movement. A kibbutz is a voluntary agricultural or industrial community based on collective ownership of property, equality amongst members, the sharing of labour and income, and collective decision-making. They began to emerge in 1909 (the first kibbutz Degania Alef). They were founded by young Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe.
    The ideology was largely socialist. The second phase continued following the establishment of Israel in 1948. The movement reached its peak in the 1970s, when it comprised 4% of Israel’s population. Kibbutz members had communal dining halls and laundries; men and women were equal; children were brought up in separate ‘children’s houses’; they elected their leaders and received equal pay. Today, there are reportedly around 270 kibbutzim; some are traditional communal settlements, whilst others are mixed and even include private ownership. ↩︎

hi SEO, s.r.o.

Login