Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

Resource Manager · December 29, 2010

Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

H.A. Whittaker

First Impression 1985

Published by

Biblia, 130 Hednesford Road, Cannock, Staffordshire, United Kinqdom.

Books by Harry Whittaker obtainable from:

Biblia, 130 Hednesford Road, Cannock, Staffordshire, U.K.:

He is risen indeed

The Last Days

The Time of the End

Jews, Arabs, and Bible Prophecy

Through Patience and Comfort of the Scriptures

Exploring the Bible

Studies in the Gospels

The Epistle of Jude

Books by Harry Whittaker obtainable from:

The Christadelphian Office,

404 Shaftmoor Lane, Hall Green, Birmingham, B28 8SZ

Enjoying the Bible

Joseph the Saviour

Abraham – Father of the Faithful

Wrestling Jacob

Authors Note:

My warmest thanks to Elsie Bramhill for the massive and more than willing help she gave with her typewriter.

Printed by

North West Print Ltd, Danefield Road, Sale, Greater Manchester M33 IBP.

Cover Photograph

Temple of Apollo–Put out of business by Paul's preaching.

Courtesy R. Gibbs

StudiesintheActsHAW.pdf

Resource Manager · March 31, 2011

The Acts of the Apostles

Contents

Ch.		Acts

	Forward
1.	A Short Introduction
2.	Recapitulation	1:1–5
3.	A commission to preach	1:6-8
4.	Ascension	1:9-12
5.	Instead of Judas	1:13-26
6.	Pentecost	2:1-4
7.	The Crowd in Jerusalem	2:5-21
8.	"Jesus is risen!"	2:22-28
9.	"Both Lord and Christ"	2:29-36
10.	"Repent and be baptized"	2:37–41
11.	The first ecclesia	2:42–47
12.	On the Day of Atonement	3
13.	A lame man healed	3:1–10
14.	The guilt of Israel	3:11–18
15.	"Repent ye therefore"	3:19–26
16.	Peter and John arrested	4:1–12
17.	Set Free	4:13–22
18.	Thanksgiving and boldness	4:23–31
19.	"All things common"	4:31–37
20.	Ananias and Sapphira	5:1–11
21.	The healing Christ!	5:12–16
22.	More trouble with the rulers	5:17–32
23.	Gamaliel	5:33–42
24.	Seven helpers	6:1–7
25.	Stephen	6:8–15
26.	Stephen's "mistakes"	7
27.	Stephen's defence	7:1–50
28.	Accusers accused	7:51–53
29.	The death of Stephen	7:54–60

Resource Manager · March 31, 2011

30.	Persecution	8:1–4
31.	The Gospel in Samaria	8:5–25
32.	A man of Ethiopia	8:26–40
33.	The Way
34.	The early days of Saul
35.	Saul's conversion	9:1–9
		2:6–11
		26:12–18
36.	Saul's baptism	9:10–19
37.	Saul in Damascus and Jerusalem	9:19–31
38.	Aeneas. Dorcas	9:32–43
39.	Cornelius	10:1–8
40.	Peter's vision	10:9–16
41.	Peter comes to Cornelius	10:17–33
42.	Peter's Gospel to the Gentiles	10:34–43
43.	Cornelius baptized	10:44–48
44.	Discussion in Jerusalem	11:1–18
45.	Antioch	11:19–30
46.	Peter in prison	12:1–11
47.	The voice of an apostle, and the voice of a god	12:12–25
48.	An important new mission	13:1–3
49.	In Cyprus	13:4–12
50.	From Perga to Antioch	13:13–15
51.	In the synagogue at Antioch	13:16–37
52.	Appeal and warning.	13:38–43
53.	"We turn to the Gentiles"	13:44–52
54.	At Iconium	14:1–7
55.	Lystra	14:8–18
56.	"Death" and "Resurrection"	14:19–28
57.	Judaist controversy	(Gal. 2:1–17)
58.	Controversy intensifies	15:1–5
59.	Titus
60.	Peter's discourse	15:6–12
61.	James's discourse	15:13–21
62.	The apostolic letter	15:22–35
63.	Paul and Barnabas disagree	15:36–41

Resource Manager · March 31, 2011

64.	Timothy	16:1–5
65.	To Troas, and on	16:6–11
66.	Lydia of Philippi	16:12–15
67.	Apollo or Christ?	16:16–18
68.	Flogging and imprisonment	16:19–24
69.	Earthquake	16:25–34
70.	Free–under protest	16:35–40
71.	Success at Thessalonica	17:1–4
72.	Paul and the Thessalonian ecclesia
73.	Trouble at Thessalonica	17:5–10
74.	Berea	17:10–15
75.	Paul at Athens	17:16–21
76.	Paul and the philosophers	17:22–34
77.	The Old Testament on Mars' Hill
78.	At Corinth	18:1–11
79.	Gallio	18:12–17
80.	To Jerusalem and Antioch	18:18–23
81.	Aquila, Priscilla, and Apollos	18:24–28
82.	Disciples of John	19:1–7
83.	Diligent Progress at Ephesus	19:8–10
84.	Miracles and magic at Ephesus	19:11–20
85.	Problems in Corinth	19:21, 22
86.	Riot at Ephesus	19:23–41
87.	From Corinth to Miletus	20:1–6, 13–16
88.	Eutychus	20:7–12
89.	Paul's farewell at Miletus	20:17–38
90.	Miletus in Caesarea	21:1–14
91.	With the elders at Jerusalem	21:15–26
92.	Temple riot	21:26–40

Resource Manager · April 4, 2011

93.	Paul's speech to the temple crowd	22:1–21
94.	A Roman citizen	22:22–30
95.	Before the Sanhedrin	23:1–11
96.	Plot and escape	23:12–35
97.	Tertullus	24:1–9
98.	Before Felix	24:10–21
99.	Prisoner at Caesarea	24:22–27
100.	Before Festus	25:1–12
101.	Festus and Agrippa	25:13–27
102.	Before Agrippa	26:1–18
103.	"Not Guilty!"	26:19–32
104.	From Caesarea to Crete	27:1–12
105.	"All hope taken away"	27:13–26
106.	"All safe to land"	27:27–44
107.	From Melita to Rome	28:1–16
108.	In Rome	28:17–31
109.	Paul and the sufferings of Christ
110.	Luke himself

Appendices

1	Paul's journeys after his first trial
2	The gift of tongues
3	The Jewish plot
4	Parallels between Paul’s Farewell and his Epistle to the Ephesians

Index

Map: Paul's Travels

Resource Manager · April 4, 2011

This Foreword –

– is a snippet of autobiography

As a small boy in a Yorkshire primary school my Scripture lessons seemed to be mainly the Acts of the Apostles, and especially Paul's journeys. I found all this quite exciting.

But then, in grammar school, the same sequence came up again –twice over! Luke's "Volume 2" was beginning to lose its fascination.

Alas! about the same time my Sunday School syllabus had the same theme, and I was bored. Even Lucy Smith's able and dedicated teaching could no longer hold me. Although I was now ever so competent at drawing maps of missionary journeys and zigzag lines across the Mediterranean, I was bored, and my restlessness made Sunday School teaching heavy going for my ever–so–conscientious teacher who is now remembered (and so gratefully!) by nobody except three of the five of us in that class.

Some years went by, and I was showing signs of becoming an avid Bible student – but not of Acts! Prejudices had taken deep root. I read the book as little as possible, and studied it not at all. I was still bored.

Then, one day, at the end of a Bible Campaign in Banbury, Oxfordshire, I dived into a poky little second–hand book shop, and emerged with a worm–eaten copy of Rackham's "Acts of the Apostles", a particularly shabby peace–offering to my longsuffering wife to expiate my desertion of her for a week.

She looked at Rackham with suspicion. Then she began to read. And thereafter, every time I came into the house it was to be greeted with an astonished or delighted: "See, Rackham says ..."

So, thanks to that worthy scholar, the real study of Acts began at last, and has been joyfully and excitedly repeated time after time.

Now, with this book, how dare I attempt to walk in the footsteps of so able a man?

Well, I have dared–but still feeling unsure whether my own particular emphasis will suit the kind of readers this book is likely to have. I hope they will not be bored.

H.A.W.

-------

NOTE:

Notes are posted at the conclusion of each Chapter

Resource Manager · April 4, 2011

The Acts of the Apostles

1. A short introduction

It is, alas, not uncommon for commentaries on Acts, as on most other books of the Bible, to spend a lot of time and space on providing answers (arguing the pros and cons) to various questions and problems which the reader has little interest in: Who wrote it? When did he write it? Why did he write it? What is the dating of the narrative? What sources did the author draw on? Is the record dependable? – and so on, and so on.

Pirouetting of this kind is mostly futile. The main thing is to get on with the job of studying the text and learning from it. So here the preliminaries will be brief.

Only a blockhead would argue that the author of Acts was not Luke (Lk. 1:1–4; Acts 1:1). Here, as in the gospel, there is the same elegant Greek style, the same concern for women and down–and–outs, the same grasp of O.T. (LXX) teaching, the same interest in all things medical. "The Medical Language of Luke" (W. K. Hobart, 1882), still a standard work, shows how both the Third Gospel and Acts might well have been written by a "beloved physician" (Col. 4:14).

Date of Writing

There is a hint that Luke's gospel was published during or shortly before Paul's third journey: "We have sent with him (i.e. with Titus) the brother (his brother),^a whose praise is in the gospel in all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18). This date would be about A.D. 55,56.

Also, in 1 Tim. 5:18, Luke's gospel (10:7) is quoted as an authoritative Scripture.^b So when Paul wrote to Timothy (64?) this gospel must have been already well known.

Then, when did Luke follow with Acts?

Since that book concludes with the end of Paul's two years as a prisoner in Rome, yet fails to mention the apostle's acquittal (a very strange point of suspense at which to break off!), it seems very likely that Acts was completed and published about that time (61?).

Another volume

But why did Luke break off at that point? the first phrase of Acts 1:1 supplies a hint: "The former treatise have I made...". Here the Greek word is really "first". "Former" would imply the first of the two, but "first" (if used exactly) suggests the first of more than two. In other words, Luke intended a third volume. The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170–200) says he actually wrote it: "... as also he (Luke) clearly points out in a separate book, not only the sufferings of Peter, but moreover Paul's departure from the city (i.e. from Rome to Spain)".

If this testimony is to be accepted there is a problem. Why do we not have that volume 3 in our Bible? Is it credible that the Almighty guided Luke in the writing of that, as with Gospel and Acts, and then allowed it to disappear from human ken? Or was this volume 3 never accredited by Spirit–guided men in the early church endowed with the power of "the discerning of spirits" (1 Cor. 12:10)^c? Answers to these questions are, at best, unsure.

Luke's purpose in writing Acts is certainly not just to compile a continuous chronicle of the progress of the early church. His narrative is far too selective for that. Even though Acts 1:2 makes clear that it is "The Acts of the

(Twelve) Apostles", the book concentrates on Peter and Paul. And even regarding these two amazing men there are omissions galore; for instance, Paul recalls that "thrice I suffered shipwreck" (2 Cor. 11:25), yet not one of these scarifying experiences is even hinted at in Acts. Again, it is possible to infer from the well–known "we" passages that at certain times Luke himself was with Paul in the course of his missionary work. Yet these are the only very indirect references which the author makes to himself. And his brother Titus^d, who worked with Paul more than anyone else did, is excluded from the record altogether.

The Judaist problem

One hardly needs to be a clairvoyant to discern that from beginning to end Acts is concerned with the antagonism of Judaism to the gospel. In his first volume Luke depicts in masterly fashion how the Lord's ministry led eventually to a head–on collision with the vested interests of Jewry. And the men of the temple won–until the third day when Jesus rose from the dead.

The story is repeated in Acts. There is the same build–up of rancorous opposition, ending again with a Judaist victory which clipped Paul's wings with an imprisonment first at Caesarea and then in Rome. And Acts 28 shows Paul after two years in Rome, now about to "rise from the dead" to resume where he had left off.

There can be no doubt whatever that the bitter opposition of Judaism to the Christian faith is the most important theme of Acts (and of much of the rest of the New Testament). A commentary which does not give it considerable emphasis is missing the mark very sadly.

Ironside Still, in his very able book: "St. Paul on Trial", propounds the attractive thesis that the purpose behind the writing of Acts was to brief a Roman administrator who was intimately concerned with Paul's appeal before Caesar. The suggestion is that Paul's first journey to Rome was deliberately contrived to force a test–case before the Roman judiciary: Is faith in Jesus of Nazareth to be deemed religio licita, a permitted religion, in the same way that orthodox Judaism has been for a long time?

This may well be an important part of the story; but the main emphasis in Acts goes very dramatically on the stubborn refusal of Jewry to give heed either to their own Scriptures or to the hard facts of the Holy Spirit's witness, wisdom, and power, in the apostles who had now picked up where Jesus himself left off.

Johannes Weiss has put it this way: "I cannot understand 'Acts' except as a defence of the Christian religion before the Gentiles against the denunciation of the Jews, which is meant to show how Christianity, with its mission to the world, has proved to be the annulling (fulfilment, surely) of Judaism ... What he (Luke) is absorbed in is the breach with Judaism; for in Judaism he sees the real opponent of Christianity".

The long eloquent passage in the Lord's Olivet Prophecy (Lk. 21:12–19), warning against the hardship of a much diversified persecution inflicted by Jews, finds its fulfilment in the Acts account over and over again.

Notwithstanding, the cause makes progress. Of course, for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is now being followed by "The Gospel of the Holy Spirit." Luke's Volume 2 could have no better sub–title.

Resource Manager · April 4, 2011

Chronology

A note on the chronology of Acts is perhaps called for. Happily, exactitude here is rarely of special importance, for in this field the "authorities" display their complete lack of authority by their state of disarray. No two of them appear to agree. To illustrate this in only a small way, Angus's "Bible Handbook" gives the following samples:

		Harnack	Turner	Ramsay	Lightfoot	Usher
The Acension	1:9	29,30	29	30	(30)	33
Conversion of Saul	9:1-10	30	35,36	33	34	35
First visit to Jerusalem	9:26	33	38	35,36	37	38
Second visit to Jerusalem	11:30	(44)	46	46	45	44
First Missionary Journey	13:4	45	47	47	48	45
Council at Jerusalem	15:1-29	47	49	50	51	52
First visit to Corinth	18:1	48	50	51	52	54
Fourth visit to Jerusalem	18:22	50	52	53	54	56
Paul leaves Ephesus	20:1	53	55	56	57	59
Arrest in Jerusalem	21:33	54	56	57	58	60
Reaches Rome	28:16	57	59	60	61	63
Close of Acts	28:30,31	59	61	62	63	65
His martyrdom		64	64,65	65	67	67

It looks very much like a case of "Yer pays yer money, and yer takes yer choice!"

Cadoux has an interesting suggestion – that the history in Acts is sub–divided by Luke into five–year sections by seven "rubrics" (as he calls them) about the progress of the gospel. This gives a chronological scheme which approximates closest to that of Turner:

2:47	Pentecost	A.D.	30
6:7	Stephen		35
9:31	Cornelius		40
12:24	First Mission		45
16:5	Second Mission		50
19:20	Paul at Ephesus		55
28:31	Close of Acts		60

Luke's accuracy

Finally, a note on archaeological and historical evidence. Those who are not troubled with doubts about the authority or correctness of Acts are likely to find this more of interest than of help. But the commentators make a great thing of it, that Luke should be found to be invariably correct in the technical terms which he uses with reference to the rulers at various places visited by Paul.

Because Philippi was a "colony", the magistrates are correctly called strategoi, captains; and their "sergeants" are called rhabdouchoi, those who bear a rod.

At Thessalonica, a free city, the rulers are politarchai; and at Corinth Gallio is the deputy, anthupatos. Both instances have been proved to be exactly right. Yet only a year or two later (maybe less than that) Corinth had a propraetor, antistrategos. Luke could so easily have put his foot wrong here. The characterisation of Gallio (18:12–16) fits very well with the descriptions of him left by his personal friends. Sergius Paulus, the deputy at Paphos, is correctly referred to as anthupatos. A Cyprus inscription with his name harmonizes with the Acts record.

The picture given in Acts of the scene at Athens university is Athens to the life. It is not for nothing that Ramsay has described Luke as a thoroughly dependable historian. But readers of these words know that already.

Notes:

a. For the force of the definite article (in 2 Cor. 8:18) as meaning "his", compare Matt. 13:25; Mark. 14:46,47; John. 11:3,8,12. But of course it is only occasionally that this idiomatic usage comes in.

b. The quotation in 1 Tim. 5:18 is definitely from Lk. 10:7. Matt. 10:10 (Gk. text) has a slight variation.

c. "The discerning of spirits" – see "Studies in the Gospels" (H.A.W.), p.1.

d. Titus; see Ch. 59.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

2. Recapitulation (Acts 1:1–5)

Luke's introduction to this, his second volume, calls for comparison with both the beginning and end of what he wrote in his gospel. The phrase: "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" uses a double–meaning word which could read: "from above", in which case Luke may be making a definite claim to divine inspiration. There seems to be a similar implied claim in the beginning of Acts; but again it is not certain. The opening phrase, "the former treatise," uses the word logos, one of the commonest words in the New Testament. But it has not been generally noticed that Luke uses logos almost exclusively with reference to inspired Scripture or to utterance known to be guided by the Holy Spirit (alas, the same can hardly be said to be true of modern enthusiasm for the term!). In Luke's writings the only clear exceptions (Luke 16:36; 19:38,40) refer to the word of authority pronounced by a Roman official. Thus even here there is a comparable idea.

"The former treatise", then, takes in both Gospel and Acts under the same umbrella. What is true for one is true also for the other.

Some reject the idea that "former", which is really "first," implies Luke's intention to continue with yet another compilation about the progress of the gospel. But it is remarkable that, out of many occurrences, there seem to be only a few clear–cut examples of protos, meaning the first of only two, and those come in Hebrews.

It has even been argued that the separation between Gospel and Acts was dictated only by practical considerations. In the first century the useful limit for the length of a papyrus roll was about 35 feet. In his two writings Luke has gone right to the limit, bequeathing to his readers the two longest books in the New Testament.

Theophilus

Nobody knows who Theophilus was. The honorific title: "most excellent,..” identifies him as a prestigious Roman. The examples of this in Acts (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25) are clear enough – Felix and Festus, Roman governors.

The absence of this title here in Acts might suggest that because of Christian sympathies or Christian faith Theophilus had now been demoted or had resigned from public service. There is also the possible explanation characteristically put by 17th century Thomas Fuller: "What! had Luke in process of time less civility, or Theophilus (with more age) less nobility? Surely neither, but Luke may be presumed purposely to waive his titles out of compliance to the temper of Theophilus, who in reduced (advanced?) age grew weary of worldly pomp, more pleased to have the truth of honour fixed within him than bear the titles thereof fastened upon him."

Certainly, Luke's word "instructed" (Luke 1:4), which is really "catechized, taught by word of mouth", implies that Theophilus was a convert, not an official with only detached judicial interest. So his name would be a baptismal name, familiar to the brethren, but hiding from others his Roman identity.

The greeting: "O Theophilus," suggests personal intimacy, for in the New Testament this interjection is always emotional, implying either indignation or gladness or affection.

"To do and teach"

From the very first verse Luke recapitulates on "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was taken up" – that is, both during his ministry and after his resurrection. The Greek text neatly implies that there was little essential difference between the doing and the teaching. But the phrase: "began to do" (without 'teach' being included) is actually a quotation from Genesis 2:3 LXX (the Septuagint was Luke's Old Testament): "all his works which God began to do". Yet this comes at the end of the six days of creative work, as though implying that a further work of creation — the New Creation in Christ? – was yet to be taken in hand.

It is noteworthy that at the very beginning of the Lord's ministry, Nicodemus linked the two activities together: "thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles except God be with him" (John 3:2). The miracles were an essential part of the Lord's teaching; and his teaching was itself a miracle. On a lower level, all God's servants need to learn that doing and teaching must go together. To teach and not to do is hypocrisy. To do and not teach is a serious neglect. "Ezra prepared his heart (his mind) to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel." (7:10) – a worthy example!

Manifestly Luke could not cover all, everything, that the Lord Jesus said and did – as the conclusion of John's gospel perhaps needlessly emphasizes: "Even the world itself could not contain the books" (21:25). Therefore Luke must surely mean all the kinds of work and teaching which the Lord had made use of.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Unusual phrasing

Some suggest that "began to do and teach" is just another example of Hebraistic emphasis for "what he actually did and taught'. There are plenty of examples of this usage in the gospels, but the following phrase: "until the day ...," and also the context, both invite the reader to see the Lord's ministry as just a beginning, to be continued in the work of the apostles; or alternatively, presenting the Lord's work on earth as a prelude to his priestly work in heaven.

The Lord's ascension is described as taking place only "after he through the Holy Spirit had given commandment unto the apostles whom he had chosen." This language is pleonastic, more emphatic than is strictly necessary. Wasn't every commandment of the Lord given "through the Holy Spirit"? And weren't those eleven men apostles because he had "chosen" them?

Nevertheless, Luke knew what he was doing, for that mention of the Holy Spirit in Jesus leads on naturally enough to his promise to the eleven that they too should be baptized with the Holy Spirit; and the reminder that they were "chosen" underlines their authority to guide and direct the church after their Lord's ascension. Here, in short, is an echo of one specially momentous encounter with the risen Christ:

"As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye (Ye are receiving?) the Holy Spirit; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).

The commandments given to the apostles are summarised in Peter's word to Cornelius:

"He commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (10:42).

How long after the ascension would it take the disciples to recall one of their Lord's last mini–parables?:

"The Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch" (Mark 13:34).

That seemingly superfluous expression: "apostles whom he had chosen," is, then, not without its point. There is a reminder here not only that the Twelve were deliberately selected early in the Lord's ministry out of a much larger group, but also that that choice was the outcome of a night spent in prayer about this very problem (Luke 6:12,13) – hence the words: "through the Holy Spirit," which should probably be linked with "whom he had chosen."

Also, "chosen" here prepares the way for the solution of the problem about a replacement for Judas: "Thou, Lord ... shew of these two the one whom thou hast chosen" (1:24/R.V.).

It emphasizes, too, that instead of Israel, the elect (chosen) nation, there was now to be a New Israel headed by Twelve "princes" whose carcases were not to lie in the wilderness.

At this point several verses are taken up with a summary of the Lord's charge to his apostles during the forty days.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Infallible proofs

"After his passion (the old ecclesiastical word for "suffering") he shewed himself alive by many proofs." Again, the word "alive" is, strictly, pleonastic. Yet, again, Luke knew what he was doing, for thus, in a word, it is emphasized that the disciples were not deceived by some visionary immaterial appearance.

And the proofs were many – first, they saw him; then they heard him speak: "Peace be unto you;" they were challenged to inspect the marks of crucifixion: "Behold my hands and my feet;" more than this: "Handle me and see that it is I myself;" not content with this, "he took food, and did eat before them" (Luke 24:38–43). And this kind of demonstration happened more than once.

Well might King James's men emphasize the truth of the resurrection by their phrase: "infallible proofs." There was a Greek word, tekmar, meaning 'a fixed boundary mark'. From this came tekmerion, a clear proof inferred from a sure sign.

But these tokens were given only to the Lord's friends, not to his enemies. He had explained beforehand why it must be so: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

The word used to describe how the Lord "shewed himself" means literally that "he stood beside" them, the Greek aorist probably implying sudden appearances. There may also be the implication of standing by to comfort, as when two angels "stood by" the disciples at the ascension to reassure them (v.10). "The Lord stood with me, and strengthened me," wrote Paul about his trial (2 Tim. 4:17).

The forty days

From the mention of a sabbath—day's journey (v.12) it can be inferred that, whereas the Lord rose on the first day of the week, he ascended on the seventh; and therefore the forty days mentioned by Luke (a detail which comes nowhere else in the resurrection narratives) must be reckoned exclusively. Thus the Lord was with his disciples, appearing and reappearing, for a period of six weeks.

Doubtless Luke's unusual exclusive reckoning was deliberately designed to remind the reader of how the Lord's earthly ministry had begun with a crucial forty days. Then, the challenge had been: If thou be the Son of God, work the signs of the Son of God. Now, during this forty days, Jesus did just that, to the astonishment of his awed and comforted disciples.

Was Luke also hinting at another forty days, during which the Land of Promise was explored and its blessings demonstrated. Rejection of those "infallible proofs" had meant for unbelieving Israel forty years of rejection by their God (Num. 13, 14). Forty years from the ascension the carcases of another faithless generation were strewn in a Holy Land now become wilderness, whilst the remnant who did believe were reckoned amongst God's New Israel led by Joshua–Jesus.

"Seen"

Another lovely touch in Luke's narrative is conveyed by his choice of the word "seen". Carefully throwing away no less than nine or ten other Greek words, any of which would be adequate, he goes out of his way here to use optomai, which occurs only in 1 Kings 8:8 LXX and in a passage in the Apocrypha.

When the ark of the covenant was installed in the Holy of Holies in Solomon's temple, its staves "were seen from the holy place before the oracle, but were not seen without." Evidently Luke intended a delightful parallel. Only a priest on duty in the holy place saw the ends of the staves and so was able to infer that the ark with its mercy seat was truly there in the holy of holies. So also, only the disciples, now admitted to the holy place in the new sanctuary of the Lord, were able to infer from what they witnessed during the forty days that from now on he who had died as a sacrifice would be continually in the Father's presence, an assured means of their forgiveness and fellowship. Accordingly, in Luke 24:51 "he was carried up into heaven" has anaphero, the word very commonly used for the presenting of an acceptable sacrifice.

Even the Apocrypha passage (Tobit 12:19) is not without its point. The archangel Raphael is said to appear to the old man Tobit: "Fear not, for it shall go well with you ... All these days I was seen by you; but I did neither eat nor drink, but ye did see a vision." The story was well–known, and very popular, throughout Jewry. Then did Luke intend his readers to recall this incident and so gather how much superior Jesus was to any of heaven's seven archangels; for he did eat and drink with them (v.4 RVm), and was able to convince them that they did not merely see a vision (Luke 24:37,39)?

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Further instruction

The Lord Jesus provided not only "infallible proofs" but also instruction – he spoke to them "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God": "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things (first), and to enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:26). The speeches in the Book of Acts go a long way to amplify this brief opening statement.

There is now explicit reference to one particular meeting with the Lord. The AV says he was "assembled together with them," but RV margin prefers an alternative meaning of the Greek verb: "eating with them" (compare 10:41). There is good support for both of these readings, but the second is more likely, as making yet another allusion to what was already recorded in Luke 24 about the day of the Lord's resurrection (24:43,49).

At this meeting, he commanded them "not to keep on leaving Jerusalem (first one and then another going off to Galilee?) but wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me."

If in the age to come "the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Mic. 4:2), then was it not fitting that the same be true about the first message concerning the risen Christ?

"The promise of the Father" means quite simply: "what the Father promised" (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7).The Holy Spirit was to be the seal of their adoption as sons in His New Israel, that thus they might truly cry: "Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:5, 6).

The instruction to "wait" was emphatic, employing an unusual word which, rather significantly, comes in only one other Bible passage – Jacob's words: "I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord" (Gen. 49:18).

The promise of this second baptism, this time in Holy Spirit and with an endowment of power, is expressed (in the Greek phrase) in such a way as to imply a marked distinction from the water baptism which, very probably, most of them had received at the hands of John three and a half years earlier (John had made the same distinction in his prophecy about the Holy Spirit; Luke 3:16).

"Not many days hence," the Lord had said. Actually the waiting time was precisely a week; for, since Passover had fallen on a Friday, the fiftieth day (Pentecost), "the morrow after the seventh sabbath" (Leviticus 23:15,16) was a Sunday (Whitsunday), only eight days away from the day of the Lord's ascension. How likely it is that much of that time would be spent praying that they might be worthy of the promised Gift.

Notes: 1:1–5

1. The first phrase in the Greek text has a lovely subtle touch which is quite untranslatable. The particle men (= this on the one hand), instead of being succeeded by de (on the other hand),is repeated in v.5a, with de following in v.5b. The implication is: The ministry of the Lord began with baptism in water for the repentant, but over against that Christ now begins a new ministry by baptizing his men in Holy Spirit.

1. If by logos Lk. implies inspiration, what of these examples?: Lk. 5:15;7:17; 16:2;24:17; Acts 10:29;15:6;16:36;18:15; 20:24.

Made. Greek experts may like to enquire why this is Middle Voice.

To do and teach. Why the reverse order in John 3:2?

2. The apostles whom he had chosen. The Muratorian Canon (200A.D.) calls the book The Acts of all the Apostles'. Yet Peter and Paul are given the lion's share of the narrative – and Paul was not one of those chosen originally.

4. Assembled. Josephus and others use the Greek word with precisely this meaning. But one of the Greek versions has it in Ps. 141:4: "eat". However, there is Lk. 22:16 to be considered.

Depart. This word is also used for "divorce;" e.g. Mt. 19:6; 1 Cor. 7:10; and also Pr. 18:1, where Knox's version reads: "None so quick to find pretexts as he that would break with a friend." Then, was Jesus also implying that the twelve were not to "divorce" themselves yet from the temple because of the treatment meted out to their Lord?

Which ye heard (followed by accusative) might imply that they had had the promise explained to them.

5. Does the emphatic pronoun ye mean only the apostles (v.2)?

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

3. A Commission to Preach (Acts 1:6–8)

It is not easy to decide whether these verses describe another later meeting of Christ with his disciples, or whether they simply continue the recapitulation already given. The phrase: "when they were come together," suggests the former, the word "therefore" looking back to "assembled together" (v.4).

The Kingdom – how soon?

At this later meeting with Jesus they kept on asking (such was their eagerness) if he purposed to set up his Messianic kingdom forthwith. Ruefully they had had to regret their inappropriate excitement at their Lord's triumphal entry into the holy city. But now, with all his Passover–time suffering behind him, what was there to hinder an assumption of royal majesty? More than this, the explicit promise of an imminent outpouring of the Holy Spirit there in Jerusalem probably reminded them of the familiar prophecy Joel had made about that (2:28–32) in what was certainly a Messianic context. So was there not every reason for confidence?: "Wilt thou at this time (since we were mistaken about the earlier occasion) restore again the Kingdom to Israel?"

A literal Messianic Kingdom

Modernists blithely brush on one side this talk about a literal kingdom, and coming soon. Here, they aver, the disciples were still obsessed with the purblind materialistic Jewish ideas of a literal Messianic kingdom, with their Jesus, Son of David, sitting on David's throne in Jerusalem. And they also imply: But we know better.

How strange, then, that Jesus did not regard this “error" as serious, and therefore take the trouble – two minutes' worth of talk – to set their ideas straight! How strange, too, that this blunder of their's should come so very shortly after he had discoursed to them continually "of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (v.3)! Was Jesus so lacking in lucidity or themselves in intelligence as not to be able to grasp the "truth" that there was not going to be a literal kingdom at all? And how strange that even after this encounter and the abundant endowment of Holy Spirit power and wisdom, they still went on talking about a literal return of their Lord to establish a real visible rule of God in this world!

The Lord's response to their eagerness quietly implied: 'No, this is not the time either – "It is not for you know the times or the seasons." He did this by a most apt allusion to Daniel's prayer of thanksgiving for the enlightenment given him about Nebuchadnezzar's dream: "He changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings" (2:21). No plainer declaration could be wished for that the Almighty's purpose with this world is not tied to what human beings might consider a fixed programme. Hence, "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mk. 13:32). So, even had he wished, Jesus could not have answered the disciples' enquiry.

In view of the earlier allusion to the apocryphal Book of Tobit (1:3), it is interesting to note here the appropriateness of another passage from the same book: "Again God will have mercy on them, and bring them again into the land, where they shall build a temple ... until the times and the seasons be fulfilled ... and they shall build up Jerusalem gloriously ... as the prophets have spoken thereof" (14:5). Can it be that the apostles spoke with the Tobit quote in mind, and were answered by their Lord from Daniel? Later when Paul wrote to his new Thessalonian converts of "times and seasons" (1 Thess. 5:1), he was not interested in dates or calculations but in signs. Dates can be changed (Dan. 2:21), but signs inevitably lead without delay to the consummation they portend.

By a superficial consideration, the Lord's extended reply to his disciples' eager enquiry about the kingdom may seem like a deliberate non sequitur, as though he were deliberately pulling them away from an inconvenient or futile topic. Yet what he went on to urge was actually very relevant; thus: 'You will be given power to preach concerning me, and the time of the coming of the Kingdom will depend on your evangelism and the degree of success of your work.'

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Apostles

The essential function of an apostle was to be a witness concerning Christ, both in the days of his flesh and after his resurrection; (v.22; 2:32; Jn. 15:27). During the ministry, Jesus had claimed the witness of John the Baptist, and also of Moses in the Scriptures, and especially of his heavenly Father through the amazing works of power he had so convincingly wrought (Jn. 5:31–59). Now to all this testimony was added the inescapable truth of his resurrection. The apostles must be unflagging in their testimony about it. "My witnesses," some manuscripts read. Many others have: "witnesses for me." The distinction is unimportant.

Certainly the resurrection of Christ was their main theme (e.g. 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39–43; 13:31; 17:31; 22:15; 26:16); and with this the coming of the kingdom, which they were now asking about, was constantly linked.

Adequate power for this work was to be given them in the imminent Pentecostal gift. When sent out in twos to preach during their Lord's ministry, they had experienced a remarkable endowment of wisdom and power (Mt. 10:1; Lk. 10:17). But apparently that authority had proved to be only temporary (Mt. 17:16, 19). On the day of his resurrection Jesus had "breathed on them, and said, "Receive ye (or, Ye are receiving) the Holy Spirit; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ..."(Jn. 20:22, 23). Yet still it needed Pentecost. One is led to wonder whether the gifts were intermittent in later days also.

In their preaching they were to begin at Jerusalem – naturally! – and from there they were to cover all Judaea. Then Samaria. Since the Samaritans were a hybrid race, this may seem rather surprising. But during his ministry, Jesus had already shown the way (John 4); and in the last six months of his appeal to Jewry there had been plenty of warnings that non–Jews would yet be accepted into God's New Israel.

Galilee?

It is strange that Jesus made no mention of Galilee. Yet he himself had devoted most of his energies to preaching there. Was this the reason why? – Galilee had had its chance, and had scorned it (Lk. 10:13–15). However, after his resurrection Galilee still claimed attention (Mt. 26:32; 28:7, 10, 16). So the other valid reading: "the uttermost part of the land" (1:8), with reference to Galilee, may be correct. This would explain why for a long time the apostles made no attempt to take the gospel overseas – they interpreted their commission as covering the land promised to Abraham. Even the instruction to "teach all nations" (Mt. 28:19) may have been understood as meaning Galilee of the Gentiles. If so, the day came when they were to learn differently.

Notes: 1:6–8

6. There is another "men ...de..." formation here (see on 1:1), implying: Right now, not the kingdom, but the work of preaching about it!

wilt thou ... ? The question is introduced, in Greek, by "if" (perhaps corresponding to interrogative H in Hebrew);

compare 7:1; 19:2.

Restore. Another significant occurrence of this word comes in Mal. 4:6 – first, repentance in Israel; then, the kingdom.

8. But ye shall receive power. There is much more on this in "Revelation: a Biblical approach," by H.A.W. pages 259–273.

The Holy Spirit. Three times in four verses, here with reference back to the earlier mention in v.5, or to their earlier experience during the ministry.

Come upon. This double–meaning Greek word rather remarkably has also the idea of: the coming on the scene of a second husband. Not inappropriate here! But "come upon" in the sense of "invade" will hardly fit.

Jerusalem was, of course, in the middle of Judaea, but is here distinguished from it. This is the first of a large number of examples where Luke shows an unimpeachable topographical accuracy, for the rabbis always insisted in this distinction between Jerusalem and Judaea.

Samaria. Note the contrast with Matthew 10:5.

Uttermost part of the earth seems to be interpreted in 11:19 as meaning 'Jews within the furthest limits of Abraham's Land.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

4. Ascension (1:9–12)

The weeks went by. For the disciples they were filled with the renewed thrill and gladness imparted by repeated encounters with Christ their Lord. Now it was no longer a case of hardly daring to believe that he actually was risen from the dead. Now they knew that he was. Each time they saw him there was further opportunity to fill out their inadequate grasp of the truths he had taught them earlier. And their insight into the Messianic themes of the Old Testament intensified at an amazing rate.

Then, one sabbath, he led them out from Jerusalem down into the Kidron valley, past the garden of Gethsemane, and up the slopes of the mount of Olives. It is an awesome thing to contemplate that that day not a few Jews, going to temple or synagogue, passed within a few yards of the immortal Lord of Glory without having the slightest inkling of their high privilege (Acts 10:41).

He led the disciples past the brow of the hill until they were looking "towards Bethany." There he bade them farewell, and no doubt said a prayer on their behalf. The prayer recorded in John 17 would have been marvellously appropriate, in every one of its details, to this occasion. But in that case there is no explanation as to why it comes in the gospel where it does.

Then with uplifted hands (hands still showing clearly the marks of crucifixion) he gave them his high–priestly blessing, as one of the order of Melchizedek; and they, in turn, "worshipped him."

Then he began to ascend into the heavens. It was by no means a sudden snatching away — Luke uses a continuous participle: "he going up" (v.10). The verb: "taken up" (v.9), can be read as implying a certain reluctance in the Lord to be parted from his friends – a marked contrast with his earlier impatience regarding the ordeal of the cross (Lk. 12:50; Jn. 13:27). In Luke, the phrase: "he was carried up into heaven," uses a word which in the New Testament is commonly used for the presenting of acceptable sacrifice. The appropriateness of this here is evident. Now, but not the for the first time (Jn. 20:17), he was about to display in the heavenly Holy of Holies the tokens of his own sacrifice.

Problems about the Ascension

The practical problem as to whether the Ascension was seen by others from a distance, or if not, why not, seems to have been given little serious consideration. Some who have realised that the problem exists have gone so far as to suggest that the ascension took place at night–time. But there is so much emphasis on the disciples seeing it happen and on their looking intently into the sky that such a conclusion is set in doubt.

The only alternative seems to be an assumption that what happened on the day of crucifixion happened again — a supernatural darkness shrouding the entire episode from unhallowed view whilst bathing the Lord in heavenly Glory – darkness to the "Egyptians" but light to the true people of God ("Studies in the Gospels" (H.A.W., chapter 231). Alas, the two records are all too brief!

The four–fold emphasis on the disciples beholding, and again on their looking stedfastly (s.w.2 Cor. 3:7) "into heaven", might be a hint that, just as Elijah was (apparently) taken away in the cherubim–chariot of the Lord, so also now. It is noteworthy that then there was a like emphasis on: "if thou see me," then a double portion of the Spirit; "and Elisha saw it and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof" (2 Kings 2:10,12).

It is fairly probable that as Jesus ascended the disciples were expecting the Cloud to disappear, leaving their Lord in their midst again, for, after all, had not this happened at the Transfiguration?

But now, instead, the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory took him away to heaven. Modern scientific ideas about space–time inevitably set the present–day disciple wondering about the physical aspects of the Ascension. It is certainly difficult to believe that Heaven is an actual locality in some remote invisible centre of the universe, and that the Lord Jesus was whisked away bodily at space–travel speed to the presence of the Father there. Most probably the sight of a literal ascension into the sky was a mode of concession to the limited ideas of the disciples of that time and succeeding ages. The resurrection appearances and disappearances of the Lord suggest that, like the angels of heaven, he now had powers of withdrawal into a kind of "fourth dimension." No doubt, in place of a visible transference upwards, Jesus could have vanished suddenly, by an act of will. But how mystifying and how much less instructive and reassuring to the disciples such an "ascension" would have been!

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Archangels

So those men who for six weeks had rejoiced in the intermittent company of their Lord, with sudden appearances and disappearances, now had it made plain to them that he really was being taken away, for at that very moment, as their Master vanished in the Cloud, there appeared beside them two white–clad personages bringing a message of reassurance.

On the other hand, there had to be some distinction between this occasion and the sudden disappearances already experienced in order to teach that this separation was final – until the great day of his return in glory. Also, the fact that Mark's brief mention of the Ascension (16:19) uses the very words of Elijah's taking away (2 Kgs. 2:11 LXX) neatly implies a close parallel with the experience of that prophet. His "ascension" was not the end of his earthly life (see 2 Chr. 21:12), but was intended to signify the termination of his public work as a prophet and the beginning of a new phase of activity – a ministry of "the still small voice" among the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

Luke leaves it to the commonsense of his readers to supply the explanation that these men were archangels (cp. 10:3, 30). It is even permissible to speculate that they were Gabriel, the angel so much associated with Messiah (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Lk. 1:19, 26; 22:43), and Michael "the chief prince which standeth for the children of God's people," i.e. for the New Israel.

They addressed the disciples in terms of respect: "Men (andres, not anthropoi) of Galilee." Even such august beings as themselves do not have the exalted spiritual status of those who belong to Christ, the Lord of Glory: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb. 1:14).

Even so, the disciples were reminded of their own unexalted origins: "Ye men of Galilee." God had chosen the foolish and the weak to confound the wise and the mighty (1 Cor. 1:26–28).

His return assured

The angelic message set puzzled minds at rest: "This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

"This same Jesus"! For all the present manifestation of heavenly splendour, for all this undesired disappearance, he was still their gracious personal human friend, and would so continue.

And as they had seen him taken bodily away, so also he will return – both bodily and visibly, and with an accompaniment of angels and the cloud of the Shekinah Glory (Mt. 24:30,31; 16:27; Rev. 1:7; 14:14). More than this, he will return to the same place: "His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives" (Zech. 14:4). Here surely is the reason why the Ascension took place from the mount of Olives.

And since the Ascension was gradual, and not sudden, may it not be inferred that so also the Return will be of a similar character so that all the world will become aware that the greatest event in human history is taking place: "they – the tribes of the earth – shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven."

It was two thousand cubits, a sabbath day's journey (so the rabbis had dubiously inferred), from Jerusalem where the disciples had this memorable experience. Luke mentions the detail so as to invite his readers to see special significance in it. It was the width of the "green belt" round a priestly city (Num. 35:5). It was the distance to be set between the ark and the common people when entering the Holy Land (Josh. 3:4). Then in the two thousand cubits now set between the temple and the ascending Christ, which was the holy and which the profane? Yet, strangely enough, it was in the temple where the disciples continued "blessing God," and thanking Him for what they had seen and heard.

The loss of their Leader was not regarded as an irremediable deprivation. Although in one sense taken away from them, he was nevertheless "with them to the end of the age." His resurrection appearances had already effectively established this conviction in their minds, that even when they thought him absent he was present with them. So their return to Jerusalem was "with great joy" (Jn. 16:22; 14:28).

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Other "Ascension" passages

The sheet–anchor of apostolic Biblical exposition about the Ascension was Ps. 110:1: "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Inevitably so, for they had learned this from their Lord (Mt. 22:41–45).

But this was not the only place. It would be strange indeed if so important an event as the Ascension should find mention in only one Bible text. Daniel also has a prophecy which needs to be read from this angle, the more so since at his trial the Lord Jesus quoted it, combining it with the text just mentioned: "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 26:64).

There is no denying the connection between these words and Daniel 7:13: "And behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." "One like unto the Son of man" means "One who 'is the Son of man" (Ps. 122:3; Jn. 1:14; Rom. 8:3; 5:14; 6:5; 1:23RV; 1 Pet. 1:19; Philem. 9; Mt. 24:5; 2 Cor.3:18; Gen.5:1; Phil. 2:7).

It is a thing to marvel at that so many have failed to find incongruity about the equation:

Ancient of days = Christ;

Son of man = a multitude of believers.

One would have thought it obvious that:

Ancient of days = God the Father

Son of man = The Lord Jesus (why else should he call himself this? Compare also: Mt. 24:30; Rev. 14:14; 1:7a, 13a).

Solution of the seeming difficulty (Dan. 7:14, 27) is simplicity itself. The saints cannot receive the kingdom until it has first been given to their Messiah.

The correspondences between Dan. 7:13 and Acts 1:10, 11 are most impressive and should be sufficient to impress students of the former passage that here is a prophecy of the Lord's Ascension; but whereas Luke describes his departure from earth, Daniel gives an impressive representation of his honoured arrival in the Father's presence, there to sit at His right hand.

Revelation 5 fills out this picture. In chapter 4 there is a description of the heavenly court — the Almighty, the Ancient of days, enthroned. Then (5:6), when no one can be found worthy to open the Book of Life, there stands before him "a Lamb as it had been slain," yet alive. This Lamb is found worthy to take the Book and to open it, so that there is joy and praise on the lips of the "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" who are described as ministering to the Ancient of days (Dan. 7:10). This approach leads on to a very satisfying interpretation of much else in Rev. 5 (see "Revelation," by H.A.W. ch.5).

Another very satisfying prophecy of the Ascension comes in a sequence of passages in Ezekiel. In vision that prophet saw the Glory of the Lord remove from the Holy of Holies to the entrance to the Holy Place, and then to the east gate of the temple area., Thence it moved to the Mount of Olives, and was seen no more until in another vision Ezekiel saw it returning, with intensified brightness, by the same route (Ez. 10:4, 18, 19; 11:23; 43:2).

Notes: Acts 1:9–12.

8. Taken up. Note the variations:

v.9: "taken" (with emphatic epi);

v.2: "received up"

Luke 24 51: "borne up."

The last of these: anaphero, normally refers to the offering of sacrifice: Heb. 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; Jas. 2:21; 1 Pet. 2:5,24; and very commonly in LXX. In Lk. 24 51, RV omits this phrase, and blunders badly in so doing.

Behold. The four occurrences here are worth studying: v.9,11a: blepo, the ordinary word for 'see'; v.10: atenizo (sw Lk. 22:56), from a word describing the stretch or strain in a rope or sail (Luke has a remarkably good nautical vocabulary);

v.11b: theaomai, gaze at with keen interest (cp. theatre). Cloud. cp. the Glory at his birth; Lk. 2:9.

9. Apparel; s.w. 20:33, and hence the blasphemy in 12:21; Also in Luke 24:

Towards Bethany, which means 'date palms,' with Bible symbolism hinting at Gentile associations for the gospel hence–forth; Ex. 15:27; Rev. 7:9; Jn. 12:13 etc.
They worshipped him. Then why the strange reluctance of disciples today? Do they know better?
He blessed them. A Melchizedek blessing –"heaven and earth" (Mt. 28:18) = Gen. 14:19; and note in Ps. 110 the close association between v.1,4 = ascension and Melchizedek priesthood. The blessing was surely that of Num. 6:22 and Ps. 67.

10. Men of Galilee. By this identification the two "men" present their credentials.

Which also said. Here the force of "also" is; As the Lord himself has already told you.

Why stand ye gazing...? But why not? Was not this the most natural thing to do? Surely the question needs explaining. The Gk. word is the same as in Mt. 6:26, and similar to Acts 22:11; Ex. 3:6.

Have seen him go... The Gk. aorist seems to imply that by this time both Christ and the Glory were gone from sight. Other NT allusions to the Ascension: Acts 3:21; Eph. 4:8–10; 1 Th. 1:10; Heb. 4:14; 9:24; 1 Pet. 3:22.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

5. Instead of Judas (1: 13–26)

After their Lord's ascension the disciples did not scatter, as they had tended to do after his arrest and crucifixion (Jn. 16:32). Instead, back in Jerusalem they foregathered constantly in an upper room, probably the upper room where the Last Supper had taken place (Mk. 14:15). Since, in later days, they are found assembled in the house of the mother of John Mark (12:12), it has been surmised that this was also the location of the meeting Luke now goes on to describe. His word "abode" is probably to be taken as meaning that this was their rendezvous. It is difficult to believe that a hundred and twenty people, or even just the eleven, lived in this one room, even though it was of a considerably size.

The assembly

In repeating the list of the apostles, Luke uses one definite article for the group of them, as though to emphasize what he also says explicitly, that they were "of one accord" (a lovely word in Greek). The list given here suggests that although the Book of Acts is about only two of the apostles, they all did work of the kind described.

With the apostles there assembled a considerable number of others. These included not only the women mentioned in the gospels but also the Lord's own family — his mother and his brethren. In this last mention of Mary, she is pictured joining the disciples in prayer. What happened to her thereafter became the theme of various early church traditions. The most likely of these is that in later years when John moved to Ephesus he took her with him.

The presence of the Lord's half–brothers is surely one of the best proofs to be wished for of the resurrection of Jesus; for earlier the gospels represent them as not only indifferent but hostile to the Lord's preaching work (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 7:5).

Included also in the assembly were probably men like Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Simon of Cyrene, Lazarus and his sisters, and various socially well–placed Jews who had already been influenced by Joseph and Nicodemus. "The number of the names was about one hundred and twenty." This expression suggests even in these early days the drawing up of an ecclesial roll. It also echoes the language of Numbers 1:5, 15 etc., as though to suggest that here was a New Israel gathered together at the beginning of their wilderness journey.

"All these continued with one accord in prayer and supplication" – prayer, most likely, for the promised return of their Lord and for the gift of Holy Spirit power which, he had assured them, would soon be their needful added blessing.

Peter and Judas

At one of their assemblies, Peter took the lead to press for appointment of a successor to Judas. After the experiences described in Luke 24, in which the risen Lord insisted that his sufferings and his resurrection and also his future glory were all to be traced in the words of the prophets spoken beforehand, it is natural enough to find Peter now building on the same authoritative foundation:

"Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas ...".

Peter spoke without any rancour concerning the traitor, being content to describe him quite simply as the one who "was guide (Lk. 22:47) to them that took Jesus" and who "had obtained by lot a share in this ministry" – the Greek behind this phrase seems to suggest that Judas had become treasurer not because of any financial expertise he may have had, nor because the Lord Jesus thought this experience of handling money and charity for the poor (Jn. 13:29) would refine out his native covetousness, but through the drawing of lots, (s.w. Lk. 1:9; Jn. 19:24; and in common classical usage). The particular scripture Peter referred to was Psalm 69: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein" (v.25); and this was reinforced by another from Psalm 109: "His office let another take" (v.8).

That introduction: "must needs have been fulfilled" – literally: "it was necessary" – has a distinctly predestinarian flavour about it; but the men of the New Testament never found anything incongruous about that; they never thought it necessary to spend long hours complicatedly reconciling predestination and the freewill of the individual.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Judas's end

Luke's explanatory parenthesis appears to tell the grisly story of Judas's death. It has also provided a long–lasting headache for those who deem it necessary to reconcile the details here with those in Matthew's record.

In the first gospel (Mt. 27:3–10), Judas repents after seeing Jesus condemned and comes to the priests making his confession and casting the betrayal money into the sanctuary. Then he hangs himself. The priests use the money to buy the potter's field for use as a Gentile cemetery.

In Acts it seems as though the potter's field was bought by Judas; there he fell headlong and died in a ghastly fashion.

The usual reconciliation of these apparently divergent accounts goes on these lines:

"The reward of iniquity" was not the thirty pieces of silver but that which Judas had been systematically filching from the apostolic funds (Jn. 12:6 RV). Certainly it would need more than thirty pieces of silver to buy a piece of real estate. Some suggest that Judas is said to have bought the potter's field, because it was paid for by the priests with money that had originally belonged to him.
As to the detail of his death, it is suggested that Judas hanged himself there, and that after a while the rope broke or that the body corrupted and fell, with the dreadful outcome described by Luke. Possibly!

Rather surprisingly, it doesn't seem to have dawned on the commentators that Acts 1:18b is capable of a completely different translation, thus:

"And becoming downcast (i.e. with remorse), he screamed out (the word normally described a loud noise) in the midst (of the chief priests), and poured forth all his feelings (this word "bowels" is always used figuratively in the New Testament and Septuagint of Old Testament)." If this reading can be sustained, the revolting and unnecessary (and inaccurate!) details of Judas’s end disappear, and Luke’s account is now remarkably like Matthew's (27:3, 4).

Aceldama

It seems not unlikely that before the betrayal Judas had already invested cash stolen from the common fund by buying the potter's field. After his suicide this would come into the market again, and appeared to the men of the temple as a suitable purchase (at a give–away price now) for Gentile burials.

Thus, through the death of Jesus, Gentiles were provided with a place of interment in the holy city.

The name Aceldama is almost exactly Aramaic for "Field of Sleeping" (cp. the Greek original of "cemetery"), but by a very small popular modification it became — with reference to Judas – "The Field of Blood."

The two psalms quoted by Peter (to be dealt with in detail separately) are both remarkably apposite first with reference to the enemies of David and then, more trenchantly, concerning those who sought to destroy Jesus. It is noteworthy that in Psalm 69:25 Peter turned the plural into a singular, so as to make more pointed allusion to Judas. But the plural is not invalid. The fate of Judas was seen as a prototype of what would come on the evil men who used him as their tool.

Choosing a successor

Nor does "his habitation desolate" mean: "Leave his office empty." The parallel: "Let no man dwell therein" is seen to have reference to the use of that land as a graveyard. This first quotation, Peter pointed out, had already been fulfilled, and — he argued — it was now time for the second to be fulfilled also by the appointing to apostolic office of a successor to Judas: "His bishoprick (episkope: responsibility as overseer) let another take." Not that Judas had ever actually exercised such a high duty, but as one of the Twelve it was his prospectively. Now, with the Lord away, supervision and direction in what would soon be a growing ecclesia must be provided for.

The qualifications for a new apostle were succinctly set out. He must have been a disciple since the early preaching of John the Baptist (the words might even imply: 'baptised by John'); he must have been a constant follower of Jesus since that time right through to the day of his ascension; and especially he must have been a personal witness to the factual truth that the crucified Lord was risen from the dead.

It is most noteworthy that Peter's list of qualifications did not stress, or even mention, personal grace or innate ability, but rather a firm knowledge of basic truth.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

The method

The mode of election of the twelfth apostle was somewhat remarkable. First, "they appointed two" who had the needful qualifications. In this selection of Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas there may have been the exercise of a democratic vote expressing the judgment of the assembly. It is remarkable that apparently there were only two who were deemed qualified.

To decide between these two there was now recourse to the drawing of lots, after the manner of the Old Testament Urim and Thummim. But first – and how rightly — they prayed (as Jesus himself had prayed before the appointing of the Twelve: Lk. 6:12, 13) that the Lord would manifest His will by over–ruling the decision thus to be obtained: "Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen." They knew that the heavenly choice was already made. They wanted that choice to be openly validated. And with that, "they gave lots for them," by having someone, probably Peter, choose from two marked objects in a bag. The technicalities of the Greek text are not easy, but in two details at least a method similar to that of Urim and Thummim seems to be implied (see "Samuel, Saul, David," Appendix, by H.A.W.).

Joseph Bar–Sabbas

Nothing more is known about these two men except what can be inferred from Joseph's double cognomen Barsabbas–Justus. The first name here identifies a zealot for sabbath keeping, and the second one who was a dedicated observer of the Law of Moses, as also was Judas Barsabbas (15:22; Joseph's brother?). In view of the Judaist tensions and contentions which beset the early church before very long, it may well be imagined what awkward situations would have arisen if such an one as Joseph had joined the Twelve. The Lord, who "knew the hearts of all men," knew not only the heart of Matthias but also the heart of Joseph, and he guided the lot accordingly. Thus the number of the Twelve was made up. "The lot is cast into the bosom; the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Pr. 16:33).

A valid appointment?

There are those who express doubts about this. After all, it is argued, this method was one of human choice before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Ought not Peter and the rest to have waited for a lead from heaven in this matter? And since, before long, Paul was so emphatically an apostle — the "youngest" of the Twelve, as Benjamin was among the sons of Israel – was not the twelfth place his by right?

These plausible arguments have to give way before the clear witness of the inspired text in the rest of Acts: "Peter stood up with the eleven" (2:14); "the twelve called the multitude unto them" (6:2). Nor is it likely that Luke would have been guided to narrate this selection procedure in such detail if indeed it was a mistake from the start.

Judas had fallen away "to go to his own place" – here is the very phrase used (Num. 24:25 LXX) to describe Balaam, another "son of perdition" going away home with "the wages of unrighteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5; Balaam again). By contrast, Matthias was "chosen to take place in this ministry" (v.25 RV). The Judas chapter was now closed – until the day of judgement.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Notes: Acts 1:13–26

13. An upper room. Possibly, in one of the outer buildings of the temple; cp. Lk. 24:53 and what is advanced here on Acts 2:1.

14. Son of... brother of. Note the italics. These genitives mean "son of" (e.g. Jn. 6.71). When Luke means "brother" he says so.

With one accord. All the occurrences of this Greek word, except Rom. 15 .6, come in Acts; eight times w.r.t. the early church (s.w. Ex. 19:8 LXX).

In prayer and supplication – for their Lord's return?

Why should the preposition "with" be repeated?

With the women. The Bezan text adds: "and children"!

15. In those days. Gk: these days, which reads strangely.

An hundred and twenty. Ten has always been the requisite number of men for a synagogue. Therefore 12 synagogues in the New Israel (Jas. 2:2). Or, hinting at a triangular number. 120= 1 +2 + 3... + 15(153,276,666 etc. are also triangular numbers; why?)

16. This scripture. Which? Those quoted in v.20, or Ps. 41:9?

Guide to them which took Jesus, But why should the high priests' men need a guide at all?

17. Part means also inheritance; Mt. 19:28.

18. Should this parenthesis (in Luke's style, not Peter's) include v.20?

The reward of iniquity. The wages of sin; Rom. 6:23.

Falling headlong. The suggested alternative traces the word prènès back to pimpreni.

Bowels used figuratively in Ps. 109:18.

Gushed out, or poured out, perhaps suggesting tears.

20. Another. Greek: someone different.

Take. Better receive. Matthias did not take this high office.

Companied with us. But 1 Jn. 3:6 shows how to test a false apostle.

Went in and out. A Bible idiom for leadership, as a shepherd of the flock; cp. Num. 27:17; 1 Sam. 18:13; 2 Chr. 1:10;

Acts 9:28; Jn. 10:9.

22. A witness... of his resurrection. Jn. 15:27; Lk. 24:46–48; Acts 26:16; 1 Cor. 9 .1 RV.

Unto the day that he was taken up seems to imply that the Ascension was witnessed by more than just the eleven.

23. They. The women too had a say in this?

Joseph. The same as Mk. 15:40? He was evidently the first and more obvious choice. But what seemed to be high qualifications were actually disqualifications, as inclining him to "justification by works"!

Justus. Cp. James the Just, and Col. 4:11.

24. Shew by a clear unmistakable sign.

Which knoweth the hearts. It is difficult to be sure of the reference of these words; cp. 15:8; Rom. 8:27; Rev. 2:23 etc.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

6. Pentecost (2:1–4)

Because the Passover sabbath had coincided with the ordinary sabbath in this most important of years, Pentecost fell on the first day of the week, the day when God had said: "Let there be Light – and Light was" (Gen. 1:2, 3).

The rabbis had calculated – and they were probably right in this (Ex. 19:1, 16) – that the Ten Commandments were given at Pentecost. So in all Jewish minds the promulgation of the Law was specially associated with this feast.

It was also the beginning of the wheat harvest. On this day "two wave loaves... baken with leaven," were offered as "the first–fruits unto the Lord" (Lev. 23:17). Just as the wave–sheaf of barley, presented on the morning after the Passover sabbath, typified the risen Christ, so these wave–loaves represented his redeemed (why two?). Because that wave sheaf of barley was the true firstfruits, James refers to the believers as "a kind of firstfruits of his creatures (1:18).

With such pregnant associations, the disciples awaited the fulfilment of their Lord's promise in a spirit of high expectation. When the time came, "they were all with one accord in one place."

This is usually assumed to bean upper room in a private house (as 1:13). But, as will be shown by and by, this Pentecost experience took place in the temple. Nor is there any reason why that earlier assembly should not have been in an upper room in one of the buildings of the temple area. In such a case no doubts need arise about the adequate size of the room where they gathered together. The words are usually taken to mean all the 120 disciples.

Fulfilment

Luke's phrase says that "the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled," as though with reference to the fulfilment of a prophecy or type or the expiry of a divinely designated period of time (s.w. Lk. 9:51; 2 Chr. 36:21; Jer. 25:12; Dan. 9:2 LXX). Other possibilities are these: "In the filling up (of the Twelve) on the Day of Pentecost;" or, "in the filling up (of the temple) on the Day of Pentecost," There is room for both of these ideas, thus: The brethren came together early in the morning in a suitable assembly room in the temple area primarily to fill up the number of the Twelve by the choice of Matthias; and then, with full expectation that soon their promised baptism in Holy Spirit (1:15; Lk. 3:16) would take place, they waited all keyed up until the time of the morning sacrifice.

As at Sinai

As national Israel had come, all expectant, to Sinai, so now the New Israel were assembled on a holier mountain of the Lord. The number of marked resemblances between the two occasions (both of them Pentecost) is very striking. There is mention of wind and fire and the sound of a trumpet (Heb. 12:19 s.w.). Twelve men were the representatives of the rest (Ex. 24:4, 5). And the people were gathered together "with one accord" (Ex. 19:8 LXX).

In the Temple Area

That the disciples' place of assembly was the temple court or some part of the outer buildings of the temple to which they had access, seems very likely, for this was their normal place of assembly (2:46; Lk. 24:53). And the practical consideration has to be faced that there was nowhere else in the close–packed city of Jerusalem where a crowd of thousands could come together.

"When this sound was heard (v.6 RV) as of a rushing mighty wind," the great throng of worshippers in the temple area would be able to locate it immediately, so that in a matter of seconds the disciples would be the centre of universal attention.

Mention of "the house" has misled many readers into assuming that the centre of this sensational development was a private house, but this overlooks the fact that "The House" was the normal Jewish way of referring to the temple, (7:47,49; Lk. 19:46; 13:35, and scores of places in the Old Testament). And certainly no private house in Jerusalem would be so sited as to allow of the concourse of thousands of people.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Theophany

The phenomena associated with the gift of the Spirit were such as to influence strongly all Bible–minded Jews. Every detail of Luke's description needs to be pondered carefully.

There was an actual sound (v. 6 RV), and apparently a mighty gust of wind. But, as with the appearance of fire also, Luke is careful to say "as of... a mighty wind" (v.2, 3). Ezekiel had found his vocabulary beggared when attempting to describe the Shekinah Glory of the Lord: "the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness as the appearance of a man" (1:26); and the words "appearance, likeness" come another eight times in the next two verses. And now similarly, Luke's matchless vocabulary is utterly unequal to the occasion.

The description of "a rushing mighty wind" (AV) can be misleading, for "rushing" is certainly not the meaning of the Greek word there. It is actually a commonplace word which has been endowed, in some places in the New Testament, with a specialised meaning when the intention is to describe a divine prophetic inspiration. The outstanding example is, of course, 2 Peter 1:21: "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

It is useful to consider the marked contrast between this apostolic experience at Pentecost and the occasion after the Lord's resurrection when he "breathed on them and said, Receive ye (or, ye are receiving) the Holy Spirit" (Jn. 20:22). Was this earlier instance a prophecy of what was to come on them at Pentecost? or was it a separate inspiration of the divine Spirit of a temporary and less dramatic character than that at Pentecost? The tense of the verb suggests the latter, but other considerations (e.g. Jn. 16:7) seem to require the other conclusion. It is difficult to be sure.

The association of a "mighty wind" with a theophany is not uncommon. Indeed, it is to be expected, for the Old Testament word for "Spirit" also means "wind." The synagogue Haftarah for the Day of Pentecost, Ezekiel 1, has this detail about that theophany: "Behold, a whirlwind came out of the north...;" and there is emphasis on "the noise of their wings as ... the voice of speech, the noise of an host" (1:4, 24). There are plenty of significant examples of God's "stormy wind fulfilling his word" (e.g. Ps 148:8; Is. 29:6; Ps. 104:3; 18:10; Jn. 3:8; Ez. 37:9 = Rev. 11:11).

At the time when this awe–inspiring phenomenon was heard, the disciples were "sitting" in the Holy House, as David had "sat before the Lord" (2 Sam. 7:18) to pray and give thanks for the unique Promise given to him. With what fear and wonder did they now witness another token of the heavenly Presence! As they sat there, a mighty tongue of flame was seen. Then it subdivided and appeared to rest separately (or in succession?) over the head of each of the disciples. The fire which had appeared to Moses at the bush (Ex. 3:2) and to Israel and also to Elijah at Sinai (Ex. 19:18; 1 Kgs. 19:12) now brought an endowment of divine power to humble followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Had they not been promised a baptism in Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11)? The seven Spirits of God, seen in the heavenly vision as seven lamps of fire (Rev. 4:5), were now an active power in their lives.

This divine fire was "seen by them" (this is the most natural way of reading the Greek phrase), and may have been seen by nobody else. The amazed reaction of the crowd when they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance," seems to require such an inference.

It is difficult to be sure whether the word "all" is meant to describe the Twelve (as 1:26; 2:14 might suggest), or whether the wider context embraces the whole assembly of disciples. Certainly, it must be assumed that the apostles were assembled in the temple at this time accompanied by their equally enthusiastic brethren.

Resource Manager · April 5, 2011

Divine directives

It is impressive to note how, from this point onwards, every significant new activity of the early church is specifically attributed to the Holy Spirit:

4:8 - Peter's forthright rebuttal of priestly accusations.

6:3, 5 - The new organization of welfare for the poor in Jerusalem.

8:15, 17 - The acceptance of Samaritans into the church.

8:29 - Philip's preaching to a eunuch.

9:17 - The selection of Saul for a great work of preaching.

10:19, 44 - Peter taking salvation to Gentiles.

13:2 - The first missionary journey.

15:28 - The decisions of the council at Jerusalem.

16:6, 7 - Paul steered away from Asia to Macedonia

19:1 - (Codex Beza) The full gospel brought to disciples of John the Baptist.

19:21 - Paul's last fateful journey to

20:22 - Jerusalem.

Notes: 2:1–4

1. With one accord: s.w. 1:14; Ps. 133:1 LXX

2. Sound, used of trumpet blast; also s.w. Lk. 21:25; Heb. 12:19; Is. 28:15,18 LXX.

Filled all the house. So also other temples of the Lord: Ex. 40:35; 1 Kgs. 8:10,11. Is. 6:4; Hag. 2:7; Ez. 47 5,7; Jn 1 16

3. Appeared. This word commonly describes a divine vision; cp. also v.17. Fire. Cp. also 2 Kgs. 2:11; Is. 6:6; Jer. 5:14; 23:29; Ez. 1 4 13; Ps 29 7

4. All filled. Eph. 5:18.

Utterance: s.w. in v. 14:26:25 (a claim to inspiration!). The same word, shorn of its prefix, and therefore less forceful in 4:18; 2 Pet. 2:16,18; and the noun in Rom. 10:18; 1 Cor. 14:7.

Resource Manager · April 16, 2011

7. The Crowd in Jerusalem (2:5–21)

When Jesus was baptized in Jordan, a Voice from heaven declared him to be "my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mt. 3:17). Now, his disciples were baptized in Holy Spirit, and again the Voice was heard, doubtless speaking similar words (the Greek word in 2:6, 14 is the same), words so different from The Ten Words spoken at Sinai.

Perhaps, as on other occasions (Jn. 3:8; 12:29; "Gospels", p.94, 590), it sounded to undiscriminating human ears like thunder, but whatever the localised audible phenomenon, it brought together within a minute a massive crowd of worshippers from all parts of the temple.

These thousands now crowding together before the disciples were Jews from every part of the Roman empire and from many lands beyond its borders. It is commonly assumed that the variegated character of this multitude was entirely the result of pilgrimage to the Holy Land specially to observe the feast of Pentecost. This is a mistake, for, whilst it is true that for the Jews of the dispersion Pentecost was a more popular feast than Passover (because of easier and safer travelling at that time of the year), Luke is careful to describe them as "dwelling at Jerusalem" (s.w. 1:19); that is, they were Jews from all over the civilised world who counted themselves fortunate to be able to come and live in Jerusalem for the rest of their lives. So the main part of the multitude were "devout Jews of the Diaspora who for the purpose of being near the Temple had taken up their residence in Jerusalem, perhaps to live and die within the city walls" (Expos. Gk. Test.). Luke's word for "devout men" (s.w. Lk. 2:25) suggests comparison with the aged devout Simeon. As he greeted the baby Jesus in the temple, so now these greeted the infant ecclesia. The word "proselytes" (v.10) encourages the idea that "out of every nation under heaven" means converted Gentiles also, otherwise the word "Jews" (v.5) is redundant.

Of course the crowd would include also a great number of Jews who were native to the holy city (v.14), besides lots of worshippers from Judaea and Galilee. But it suited Luke's purpose to stress the international character of this Jewish throng because he thus sought to emphasize this Pentecost as the antidote to Babel.

Babel reversed

When, at the outset, he describes how the multitude was "confounded" at the remarkable phenomena they witnessed, his Greek word is precisely that which is used about the builders of Babel (Gen. 11:7, 9 LXX). Also, the first of the countries in his impressive catalogue is Parthia, where the tower of Babel had been located. Much more significantly (as the previous chapter has suggested), now at Pentecost men from a wide scattering of nations (compare Gen. 10) found themselves all listening, fascinated, to divine truth proclaimed in one holy tongue – "our own tongue, wherein we were born." It was a pointed reversal of the apostasy of Babel.

"When this sound (of the rushing mighty wind) was heard", the crowd rapidly assembled in a state of bewilderment. They were stupefied, flabbergasted, for here surely was a special divine phenomenon (cp. Jn. 3:8; "Gospels", p.93, 94, note 8). It was the easiest thing in the world to recognize the speakers as Galileans. Their dress and especially their speech made them as easy to identify as twentieth century Scots.

These men are just ignorant provincials, uncultured northerners. Then how is it that we hear them so skilful in the holy tongue (v.8: singular) and so fluent in proclaiming in familiar foreign speech the wonderful works of God?' And the more they listened, the more their mystification intensified. Luke's text has the unusual dialektos for "language", perhaps to suggest the cognate dialegomai, and so to imply "reasoning, justification" – the very opposite of the incomprehensible gibberish of modern Pentecostals.

"Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?" This detail seems to require restriction to the Twelve, for not all the 120 (1:15) were Galileans, nor were they all un–educated, nor could so large a number join effectively in a combined exhibition of the gift of tongues.

Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites