Commentary on the
Book of Acts

Getting Practical

Unity as our goal

It is remarkable that even before they were filled with the Spirit, the 120 could dwell under the same roof without conflict. The reason is that they had spent the last several years living in the very presence of Christ. Just days before, they had walked and talked with Christ after He rose from the dead. His words and character and love so filled their thoughts as to lift them up above pettiness in their dealings with each other.

We who are indwelt by the Spirit have a great advantage over the believers in the Upper Room. But do we reach the same high mark of unity among ourselves? Do we give the Spirit practical control of our hearts, so that He can prevent any outbreak of anger or self-will?

Getting Practical

Personal surrender

Like the other feasts that the Lord gave the nation Israel, Pentecost had a spiritual meaning. The nation offered the Lord two loaves of fine flour taken from the first harvest of the year, as well as young, unblemished animals from their flocks and herds (Lev. 23:15-21). These offerings picture what God requires of every believer. We too must be willing to give Him our very best without holding anything back.

It is therefore evident that God intended an important lesson in the timing of the Holy Spirit's descent to fill the disciples. He came on Pentecost, the day illustrating personal surrender to God. The lesson? Full surrender is the requirement we must meet to receive the same filling.

Delving Deeper

Contrasting inaugurations of law and grace

Scripture records that the law was given to Israel in the third month after the exodus from Egypt (Exod. 19:1). The exodus fell in the month Nisan, and the third month on a calendar reckoning Nisan as the first month is Sivan, the month of Pentecost. This coincidence was the basis of a Jewish tradition that Pentecost commemorated the giving of the law.⁵ Perhaps God chose Pentecost for the giving of the Spirit to emphasize that His descent upon believers was an equally pivotal event in sacred history. Both givings laid the groundwork for a new dispensation. The Age of Law started on Mt. Sinai. The Age of Grace started in the Upper Room. The places of origin—one public and intimidating, the other private and friendly—illustrated the difference between a dispensation centered on fear’s submission to God’s external authority and a dispensation centered on love’s cry for God’s internal presence.

Delving Still Deeper

Agreement between the two reckonings of Pentecost

As we said, the law of Moses set the Feast of Firstfruits on the next day after the sabbath, presumably the sabbath associated with Passover week (Lev. 23:5–11). The Sadducees understood the sabbath specified in verse 11 as the ordinary weekly Sabbath. But the Pharisees connected it with the first day of Unleavened Bread, when, as God said, "Ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein" (v. 7). They reasoned that this directly antecedent reference to a day of worship and rest must show the sabbath intended in verse 11.⁶

Which interpretation, if either, was correct? The subsequent directions for celebration of Pentecost resolve any doubt (Lev. 23:15–16). Counting from the Feast of Firstfruits until the day after the seventh ordinary Sabbath produces, by inclusive reckoning numbering the days at both ends of the interval, a total of fifty days. Therefore, the Feast of Firstfruits must itself follow an ordinary Sabbath. The Sadducees were right.

But in Jesus’ day, the Pharisees had enough popular support to command when the nation observed the feast.⁷ Therefore in every year, the celebration was held on Nisan the sixteenth, one day after the first day of Unleavened Bread on Nisan the fifteenth.

In AD 33, it so happened that the first day of Unleavened Bread fell on a Sabbath. Therefore, even by the misguided reckoning of the Pharisees, Pentecost in that year fell on the day God intended. It was Sunday, 6 Sivan (24 May). In this coincidence we see the hand of Providence, a hand so mighty that it is equal to any task in arranging details of human experience. God oversaw the Jewish calendar to assure that the descent of the Spirit would take place on the day that was Pentecost both in man’s view and in God’s view.

Pondering a Question

Why were the wind and the fire appropriate signs of the Spirit's presence?

The disciples had heard Jesus compare the Holy Spirit to the wind that "bloweth where it listeth [that is, wherever it chooses to go]" (John 3:8). The analogy between wind and spirit was already familiar to them, because the languages they knew did not have words distinguishing these concepts. The word for both wind and spirit, as well as for breath, was ruach in Hebrew,⁸ pneuma in Greek.⁹ Also, Jesus doubtless expected His disciples to remember that Ezekiel used the wind to illustrate the Spirit of God (Ezek. 37:9–14).

The Spirit is like wind in His ability to do a great work with profound effects although He is invisible. His freedom to go where He pleases shows that He is no mere force or influence, but a person in His own right, with a will of His own. Although He does the will of the Father and of the Son, He is subject to them not by necessity but by choice. We conclude that He is sovereign God.

No doubt the disciples also knew the saying of John the Baptist that Christ would baptize them "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matt. 3:11). In many ways, fire affords a good picture of the Spirit.

1. Fire speaks of purification, such as accomplished by a refining fire when it purges metals of dross. We read of the Spirit's power to purify from sin in many texts (1 Cor. 6:11; John 16:7-8).
2. Fire speaks also of judgment, because it is destructive. Judgment is another function of the Spirit (Isa. 4:4; John 16:7-8). Just as He did the work of creation in the beginning (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30), so He also does the work of destruction when God ordains it.
3. The Spirit, like fire, is a giver of light. He is the One who enlightens, or illumines—that is, He gives understanding of spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:11-16).
4. The fire at Pentecost took the form of flaming tongues. These suggested that the Spirit would enable believers to witness with burning zeal and power.

Pondering a Question

How was the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost different from His visitations in the past?

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came to establish a new relationship with believers. At the Last Supper, Jesus promised to send the Spirit as His replacement (John 14:16–17, 26; 15:26; 16:7–14). The promise was misleading if the Spirit was merely to continue the functions He had always performed.

In the past, He had come upon believers occasionally to empower them for specific tasks. For example, He filled Bezaleel so that he might have the wisdom necessary to build the tabernacle of the Lord and all its furniture (Exod. 31:1–5). He filled the seventy elders of the congregation of Israel so that they might assist Moses, and the outward sign was that they began to prophesy (Num. 11:24–29). He rested upon Gideon so that he would have the courage to lead Israel in war against a host of invaders (Judg. 6:33–36). Many other examples could be cited.

But at the Last Supper, Jesus clearly implied that the Spirit would now form a new relationship with believers. Three of His remarks are especially significant.

1. He gave the Spirit a new name, Comforter (John 14:16). The Greek word is the source of the English word Paraclete, which means someone who comes alongside to help.¹⁰ Moreover, Jesus called the Spirit "another Comforter"; that is, another like Himself. The meaning is that the Spirit would be a helping companion like Jesus. Had the disciples ever been deprived of Jesus' presence and guidance? No, He was a constant companion. So also is the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus said that the Spirit would now indwell believers (John 14:17). In other words, He would not come and go from them as He did in the past. Instead, He would reside in each believer's heart.
3. Moreover, He would "abide with" them forever (John 14:16). The home He established in each heart would not be temporary, but permanent.

Delving Still Deeper

Distortions of John 20:22

To retain the full significance of Pentecost, we must disallow two erroneous teachings based on the incident remembered at the end of John's Gospel, when Jesus breathed on the disciples and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22).

The first alleges that this incident was when the Holy Spirit came to indwell the disciples. In reply, we can point to Acts 1:4-5. Jesus said that the disciples would not receive baptism of the Spirit until they had waited for it in Jerusalem. We can also point to John 16:7. Jesus said that the Comforter could not come and take Jesus’ place until Jesus departed. Clearly, He was talking about an event that would happen after the Ascension, not before.

The second erroneous teaching acknowledges that when Jesus breathed on the disciples, the Spirit did not descend to indwell them, yet it maintains that they did receive a special filling of the Spirit. In reply, we can present four arguments.

1. The disciples in the Upper Room before Pentecost displayed no special power. Indeed, they were still casting lots to determine God’s will.
2. They did not at that time need special power. On the contrary, they needed a special sense of weakness so that they might pray more effectively for the power to come.
3. Just previously, Jesus had said, "Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21). His sending of the disciples to preach the gospel would happen in the future. The context therefore suggests that His sending of the Spirit would also happen in the future.
4. By breathing on His disciples, Jesus was merely teaching them what would soon come to pass. Like the wind, His breath symbolized the Spirit. The meaning was that the Spirit would come forth from Jesus.

Delving Deeper

The diaspora

Perhaps some of these foreigners from eastern countries were remnants of the first captivity, when the Assyrians overthrew the northern kingdom, the Kingdom of Israel, in the eighth century BC and resettled much of its population in other parts of their vast empire. But far more of the Jewish diaspora (dispersion) in the days of Acts were remnants of the second captivity, when the Babylonians conquered the southern kingdom, the Kingdom of Judah, in the sixth century BC and led away its best citizens to Mesopotamia. Those who returned after the second captivity belonged to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (Ezra 1:5).

The old idea that the ten northern tribes disappeared, becoming lost tribes, is a myth, however. It is true that their descendants eventually forgot their exact ancestry. But it is not necessarily true that they all lost their identity as Israelites or, at a later time, as Jews. After the first captivity, Judah absorbed many of those left behind (2 Chron. 34:3–6, 9). It is even possible that some of the eastern settlements created by the first captivity retained or rediscovered worship of Jehovah and eventually blended into the larger world of Jehovah worshipers. For either of these transitions by survivors of the northern tribes, the eventual outcome was probably a belief that their tribal roots lay in the south. But James was confident that the Jewish readers of his epistle would, presumably according to their male line of descent, include members of all twelve tribes (Jas. 1:1). Descendants of all twelve will be alive during the Tribulation (Rev. 7:3–8).

Ancient Jews were tremendously prolific. After the second captivity, migrating Jews established colonies throughout the Roman world and in many places became a dominant presence.¹⁴ In Egypt, they numbered close to a million.¹⁵ From twenty to fifty thousand lived in Rome itself.¹⁶

Pondering a Question

Was the crowd made up of foreigners living in Jerusalem or of pilgrims to the festival?

The answer depends on the Greek word translated "dwelling" (v. 5). It has been claimed that it refers to settled residence—to staying long-term and not just for a matter of days.¹⁷ Indeed, this is the sense we usually find (Acts 1:20; 7:2, 4, 48; 9:22; 11:29; 13:27; 17:24, 26; 22:12). But its meaning should not be construed too narrowly. Luke obviously did not intend us to view the word as excluding reference to Jews who were visiting the city only for a few days or weeks, for he described some of the gathered multitude as not only dwellers in Jerusalem (v. 5) but also as dwellers in Mesopotamia (v. 9). (The puzzling structure of the list opens the possibility that "dwellers" is linked also with places mentioned after Macedonia.) Joachim Jeremias has left us a fascinating discussion showing that Jerusalem in Jesus’ day was a magnet for Jews from places far and wide. Many took up permanent residence in the city, together forming a substantial portion of its population. But many also came at festival time to join in the celebration.¹⁸

Delving Still Deeper

Basis for Luke's selection of nations

Luke’s list of nations represented in the crowd of witnesses to the events at Pentecost has raised many difficult questions which commentators have long debated.

1. Why does Luke omit reference to Syria, the current or original home of many Jews in the city? For that matter, why does he include Judea but leave out Galilee? Also, why does he omit Greece and Macedonia? And why is his list of provinces in Asia Minor not all-inclusive? He mentions Cappadocia, for instance, but not Galatia nearby. The reason for these anomalies is that he is enumerating all who said, "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"
        Some commentators have suggested that the tongues recognizable to hearers from different lands included dialects of Greek, the dominant language in the eastern Roman Empire.¹⁹ But in the first century, the ancient dialects that had once been scattered over the Greek homeland and colonies were now largely supplanted by a new form of Greek known as Koine.²⁰ When the 120 spoke in tongues, one purpose was to overleap all barriers to communication. But between speakers of Koine, no real barriers existed. If there were any regional variants, the differences between them were slight. Although some Greek dialects that preceded Koine were still alive in the first century, we will show that only one or two of these were probably among the tongues spoken at Pentecost.
        Exactly which other tongues were spoken? All Jews knew Aramaic, but many were ignorant of Greek (Acts 21:37–39). Many especially among the Galileans were also ignorant of Hebrew. Yet it is probable that some of the 120 were at least bilingual, with functional command of Greek as well as Aramaic.²¹
   1. In later years, many of the apostles served as evangelists and church leaders in the Greek-speaking world (1 Cor. 9:5).
   2. Several left us writings in Greek (the New Testament books by John, James, Mark, Peter, etc.).
   3. In Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, he quoted at length from the Old Testament (Acts 2:17–21, 25–28, 34–35). Although the Septuagint provided a Greek translation, there was no Aramaic translation—perhaps one reason the Pharisees viewed the Jewish masses, many of whom did not comprehend either Hebrew or Greek, as "this people who knoweth not the law" (John 7:49). We may therefore suppose that from the field of languages Peter knew, his choice when he preached was Koine.²² We may suppose further that while he spoke, another member of the 120 made his sermon far more accessible by translating it into Aramaic.
   
        We infer that neither Aramaic nor Koine Greek was among the "other tongues" (v. 4) heard at Pentecost. Prophesying in either of these languages already known to many disciples would not have appeared supernatural, and the effect would not have been to draw amazed onlookers. Aramaic was the native tongue of Syrian as well as Galilean Jews, and Koine was the native tongue of Jews from Greece and several other regions missing from Luke’s list. All these Jews receive no mention because in the welter of "other tongues," they did not hear anything they understood. The explanation for omission of any region that spoke neither Aramaic nor Koine must be that it did not furnish any portion of the crowd listening to the disciples at Pentecost.
        We conclude that every land appearing in the list had as its native tongue something other than Aramaic or Koine. Perhaps most prominent among the languages rising from the 120 were first-century forms of Persian, Latin, Arabic, and Egyptian (Demotic). Why does Luke mention Judea? Perhaps to underscore that another language was Hebrew, which was still alive in many Judean home.²³
2. The last answer raises more questions. Although Luke overlooked many Greek-speaking nations and regions, he included others. Why? They appear evidently because a native tongue from a bygone era was still extant. It may not have been what a local Jew spoke at home, but he employed it so often in his daily rounds that he viewed it as his own language.
   1. Phrygia. The Phrygians, originally a Balkan nation, invaded Anatolia in about the eighth century BC²⁴ and took possession of the large central region later known as Phrygia. Their language and culture remained uppermost in this region well beyond the first century AD.²⁵ Phrygian was the language spoken in Antioch and Iconium, among the first cities evangelized by Paul and Barnabas.²⁶ In each was a substantial Jewish community which could have furnished witnesses to the miraculous tongues-speaking at Pentecost (Acts 14:19).
   2. Asia. Among the early churches in the province of Asia, including the one at Colossae ("Colosse" in the KJV) and the seven addressed in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 2–3), were doubtless some with a Jewish base. The province was an amalgam of regions²⁷ with indigenous languages, including Phrygian, Lydian, and Carian.²⁸ But all these old tongues seem to have disappeared from Asia by the first century AD,²⁹ although Phrygian was still predominant in Galatian Phrygia and, according to Strabo (died c. AD 24),³⁰ Lydian survived in the Asian city of Cibyra. But the meager evidence for any of these languages even when in common use cautions us against viewing a later vanishing of evidence for one in particular as proof that it had become extinct among Jews whose families had lived in Asia for generations.
   3. Cappadocia. Peter’s letter to Jewish believers including some in this region (1 Pet. 1:1) is consistent with Luke's naming it as one homeland of Jews who heard their language spoken at Pentecost. An ancient non-Greek language peculiar to Cappadocia survived until the 6th century AD.³¹
   4. Pontus. A Jewish presence in Pontus is affirmed not only by Luke’s record of Pentecost, but also by his reference to the origin of Paul’s friend Aquila (Acts 18:2). Pontus was another site of an early church (1 Pet. 1:1). Any indigenous language of Pontus has been lost to history, but some Jews from Pontus were probably acquainted with another non-Greek language, Galatian. This Celtic dialect was brought into Asia Minor when the Celts, also called the Gauls, invaded it in 278 BC and took possession of the north central region that became known as Galatia.³² Galatian, which in the first century AD was still spoken in rural areas,³³ lingered at least until the fifth century.³⁴ In 3/2 BC, a southern portion of Pontus was attached to the province called Galatia and became known as Pontus Galaticus.³⁵ It is possible that the presence of a Celtic population in that area was one consideration promoting the merger. If so, it is likely that any Jews living in Pontus Galaticus would be familiar with Galatian and at Pentecost would have been identified as residents of Pontus.
   5. Pamphylia. The chief evidence for a Jewish presence also in this region is that Paul preached at Pamphylian Perga at the close of his first missionary journey (Acts 14:25). It was his practice at that time to use a synagogue as his starting base for evangelism. The language that Pamphylian Jews heard at Pentecost is a bit of a mystery. The ancient tongue native to the region seems to have disappeared long before,³⁶ and the dialect known as Pamphylian Greek was probably little used in the first century.³⁷ This dialect was quite distinctive in many respects, especially in its omission of articles.³⁸ Thus, it is quite possible that when Pamphylian Jews heard it spoken, they recognized it as belonging to their heritage, and because it was simply a form of Greek, they also understood it.
   6. Crete. Here we have a similar case. The ancient tongue called Eteocretan was probably extinct in the first century,³⁹ and Koine was making inroads against the older Greek dialect, Doric, that once prevailed in the region.⁴⁰ Yet it had not disappeared,⁴¹ so that Cretan Jews might well have identified it as their own and found it comprehensible.
3. Luke says that the crowd included "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes." From what land do these Jews and proselytes come? He is likely summarizing the composition of the whole crowd. Yet positioning them right after Rome probably had a purpose; namely, to put Paul in a better light. He wanted the Roman officials to know that the church was not a weird growth on the margins of the civilized world, but a movement that, from the beginning, was joyfully embraced by good citizens from every corner of the empire, even by both Jews and gentiles (albeit proselytes) from the imperial capital itself.
4. What consideration dictated Luke’s ordering of the nations? Some have proposed that he places them roughly from east to west. But why then does he give Arabians last? The reason is that he organizes the regions by kingdom. First come all in the Parthian Empire, then all in the Roman Empire, and lastly the Arabians, who lived in the independent kingdom of the Nabataean Arabs.

Delving Still Deeper

Luke the poet

An even greater difficulty when we seek to understand Luke’s list of nations is the attributed source. He says that the words quoted in verses 7b through 11 and in verse 12b were spoken one to another by all who were in the crowd. But it is impossible that a large group of onlookers all deprived of the Spirit’s filling could have uttered precisely the same long string of words. Indeed, the complex list of nations does not appear to be anyone’s spontaneous expression.

The difficulty is overcome when we recognize the poetic structure of verses 7 to 12. Discovery of another poem in Luke’s writings should be no surprise, since it has been well established that in his Gospel, the parables of Jesus have poetic form.⁴²

1. The opening and closing words exhibit the poetic structure known as inverted parallelism.
   
   And they were all amazed and marvelled,
        saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
   And how hear we every man in our own tongue,
        wherein we were born?. . . .
   
   We do hear them speak in our tongues
        the wonderful works of God.
   And they were all amazed, and were in doubt,
        saying one to another, What meaneth this?
   
   
2. The enclosed list of nations is highly rhythmic in its repeated use of kai ("and") and the article to (with its sound-alike variants).
3. He organizes the names to juxtapose the same endings, thereby generating pleasing internal rhyme. First come Parthoi and Medoi. Later come two quasi-stanzas with an AAAB rhyme scheme: Mesopotamian, Ioudaian, Kappadokian, and Ponton, followed by Asian, Phrugian, Pamphulian, and Aigupton. Toward the end we find Romaioi, Ioudaioi, and proselutoi. Lastly come Kretes and Arabes.
        Although rhyme was not a regular feature of Greek poetry, it was not unknown to the Greeks. Aristotle recognized its use in a rhetorical device which he variously named paromoiosis or homeoteleuton. The technique he described was to give a similar sound to the endings of neighboring phrases or clauses.⁴³ Matching words with the same finishing letters is exactly the technique we find in Luke’s poem. Generally, because of the nature of Greek inflections, the last syllables of words were weakly stressed.

We conclude that Luke only means to attribute verse 7b to the whole crowd. The rest of the speech, verses 8 to 11 inclusive, is intended as a poetic summary of everything else the crowd was saying. Perhaps it was an early Christian hymn.

Pondering a Question

Is tongues-speaking in churches today the same as what happened on Pentecost?

No, on Pentecost, the believers spoke in real languages. Each speaker could find someone in the crowd who understood exactly what he was saying. The tongues-speaking in churches today is mere babble. No example that has been recorded and analyzed is an identifiable language; nor does it have the properties of a language. It is a psychological phenomenon known as glossolalia. Almost anyone, believer and nonbeliever alike, can be taught to do it. Indeed, the priests and priestesses in pagan religions have, in their rituals, used ecstatic speech similar to what is heard in modern Pentecostal and charismatic churches.

Delving Deeper

The contrast between Babel and Pentecost

At ancient Babel, as judgment upon the nations striving to become godlike in their great achievements, God withdrew their common language and rebuilt their minds so that different groups would afterward think and communicate in different languages. This confusion of tongues forced them to abandon their unified civilization and to go separate ways.

At Pentecost, many different languages were heard again—not as a result of divine judgment seeking to drive peoples apart, but as a result of divine mercy seeking to bring men together in the body of Christ. Pentecost was to some degree a reversal of Babel. Ever afterward, the ministers of Christ would cross language barriers to reach the world with the gospel. They would go as missionaries to other lands, where provision of both verbal and written testimony to Christ would require them to master languages unknown in the world of their childhood.

Delving Deeper

Returning to the distant past

After fundamentally different tongues emerged at Babel, distinct varieties continued to proliferate throughout history, at least until recently. Now, the total number of extant languages and dialects in the world is, for the first time in history, not growing but shrinking. The reason is that as modern life forces people to join the global community, regional languages are replacing the traditional languages of cultural subgroups. Today, if someone wished to craft an oral message for two thirds of the world, he would need to frame it in perhaps no more than ten languages.⁴⁴ One language, English, seems to be slowly emerging as the common speech of all mankind.

The original scattering of the peoples congregated at Babel was in part a pragmatic measure driving them to occupy the whole earth as God had commanded (Gen. 1:28; 11:8). It was vital that they disperse during the Ice Age, when land bridges between continents were still available for safer passage than afforded by sea travel.⁴⁵ But the confusion of languages was also a stroke of judgment on corporate sin: on pride in what they could create by pooled effort and ingenuity (Gen. 11:5–6), on discontent with their appointed realm, the face of the earth, which they sought to escape by building a tower heavenward (Gen. 11:4), on willingness to concede supreme authority to a mere man (Gen. 10:8–10), and on invention of a new man-centered religion.⁴⁶

The decline in language diversity today seems like a return in some respects to Babel.⁴⁷ But it is not the only trend backward to the same point in history. Like the builders of the original tower, we too think that no challenge exceeds our prowess. We call it modern science and technology. (These are not inherently evil, of course, but are increasingly being exploited for evil purposes.) We too are trying to reach the heavens. We call it our space program. We too are coming together under a single government with totalitarian potential. We call it the United Nations. We too are seeking a common form of religion congenial to man’s sinful heart. We call it, when intended for the elite, humanism, or, when intended for the masses, ecumenism.

Is it possible for modern man to reverse God’s judgment on his ancient forbears? Can he through exercise of the united strength of many advanced nations build, as it were, a new Babel of far greater scope and sophistication? He will try, but he will fail (Rev. 16–18).

Delving Deeper

Keeping grape juice free of alcohol

At least four methods of preserving grape juice were in common use.⁵⁰

1. Fermentation proceeds only if the concentration of grape sugar falls within a certain range. Thus, boiling the fresh juice until the sugar concentration exceeds a certain amount prevents the formation of alcohol. The syrupy liquid so produced lasts unfermented for years. It is highly prized as a drink both in concentrated form and when mixed with water. Evidence from tradition and from many ancient writers indicates that this method of preserving grape juice has been widely practiced in the Middle East since time immemorial.
2. On the same basis we know that another method was also widely practiced. After the grape harvest, jars containing the pressed juice were stored in caves or wells where the temperature was low enough to inhibit fermentation, which occurs only within a certain temperature range, the lower limit being about 45°F. While the cooled liquid sat undisturbed, sediment drifted to the bottom. The clear juice then poured off from the sediment remained unfermented for about a year. The benefit in keeping the juice still was that the yeast bodies responsible for fermentation settled out with the lees.
3. Grape juice with enough sweetness to remain unfermented can be made just by pressing dried grapes. The result, called raisin wine, was the staple drink of Roman women in the early days of the Republic.
4. Salt retards fermentation. According to Columella, an ancient writer, "Some people—and indeed almost all the Greeks—preserve grape juice with salt or sea-water."⁵¹

Getting Practical

How to handle malice

The charge brought against the apostles was a foolish charge born of malice, but it was the kind of unreasonable opposition that Christians contend with every day. Notice that in answering the charge, Peter was patient and kind. He did not retaliate with anger or sarcasm. Thus, he set an example for us.

Delving Still Deeper

The Septuagint

Since Peter was likely preaching in Greek, we may reasonably suppose that the Greek text in verses 17–21 reproduces exactly what he said. From what source did he obtain his translation of the prophecy from Hebrew into Greek?

According to a tradition affirmed by Josephus and other ancient sources, Jewish leaders in Egypt during the middle of the third century BC carefully chose seventy-two scribes from the whole nation of Israel to assemble in Alexandria and produce the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. In coming generations, the Septuagint was adopted for use in Jewish communities throughout the Greek-speaking world.⁵²

When in the Book of Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament, we read a quotation of the Old Testament, it is generally taken from the Septuagint, although often with slight changes. That is the case also with the passage that Peter recited from Joel on the Day of Pentecost. He followed the Septuagint word for word except for nine slight departures.⁵³ Eight of these were, however, departures also from the original Hebrew text.⁵⁴ For the sake of comparison, consider the close translation of Joel’s original prophecy in the KJV: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered."

We may assume that Peter’s alterations of Joel’s words were inspired by the Spirit. The purpose in some instances was to provide clarification. For example, he adds "and they shall prophesy" after "in those days will I pour out my spirit," perhaps to discourage any thought that mere servants and handmaids would receive the Spirit in lesser degree than sons and daughters of their masters.

Other changes add new meaning. For example, Peter replaced "afterward" with "in the last days" to expand the reference. Joel said only that the fulfillment would come after a time when Israel suffered shame. Peter’s edit revealed that in one sense the prophecy pointed to the final dispensation of earth history. The last days when the Spirit would be outpoured were the Church Age, then commencing at Pentecost.

Getting Practical

Christian evidences

To prove that Jesus was the Christ, Peter used two kinds of evidence: His miracles and His fulfillments of prophecy. Besides these, we have a multitude of other evidences that Christianity is true, including design in nature, the impossibility of evolution, the accuracy of the Bible, the genius and sterling character of Christ, and the transforming power of the gospel.

As we will see in our study of Acts, evidences were prominent in the preaching of the apostles, although in the modern church they have fallen into neglect. But it is difficult to witness to an educated person today without discussing evidences. His mind has been so indoctrinated against Christianity that he automatically rejects any statement grounded on the Bible. In bringing such a person to Christ, the Holy Spirit often begins by using Christian evidences to open up his mind.

To use evidences effectively, however, we must observe the following guidelines:

1. We must study them ourselves, so that what we say is correct and convincing.
2. We should not use evidences in detail unless we detect that the hearer has rejected Christianity mainly because he has been taught that it is not true, yet in his own heart he is not sure. The reason for this guideline is that God reveals Himself only to those with a seeking heart (Deut. 4:29; Prov. 8:17; Jer. 29:13; Luke 11:9; Heb. 11:6).
3. When we use evidences, we must be careful not to engage in mere argument, degenerating into rancor. Rather, we must keep a humble spirit and continue talking only so long as we sense an interest in what we are saying. We avoid casting our pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6).
4. We do not discuss evidences as a substitute for giving the gospel. The gospel should be brought into the discussion as soon as the hearer appears willing to hear it.

Another important use of evidences is to strengthen the faith of Christian young people and new Christians. A good grounding in the reasons assuring us that the Bible is true affords them a strong shield against the unbelieving lies they hear in the world and against the worldly influences luring them into moral corruption.

Pondering a Question

If Christ has already begun to reign, where is His kingdom?

Although Jesus sits on a throne with authority second only to the Father's, we do not see Him ruling this world. Yet He lives and rules in the hearts of those who believe in Him. Wherever the King is, there also is His kingdom. That is why Jesus taught His disciples, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20-21).

Delving Deeper

Psalm 110

In His last confrontation with the Jewish leaders who bitterly opposed Him, Jesus rebuked them for ignoring Psalm 110. He asked, "How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.' David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?" (Mark 12:35-37, quoting Ps. 110:1).

Jesus pointed out that David refers to the second Lord, the Lord who would overthrow many kings (Ps. 110:5) and countries (Ps. 110:6), as "my Lord." This future conqueror was known to the Jews by the name given Him elsewhere in prophecy. He was the Messiah (Dan. 9:25), which means "anointed One" (so translated in Ps. 2:2).⁶¹ Thus, from Psalm 110 the Jews understood that the Messiah would be David's Lord. Yet, other prophecies plainly teach that the Messiah would be David's descendant (Ps. 89:3–4; Isa. 11:1–5; Jer. 33:15–17). Why would a father call his own grandson "Lord"? As a rule, honor goes to the ancestor, not to the offspring. A father who knelt before his son, or even a grandson many generations removed, would be acting contrary to nature, unless, of course, the offspring were a uniquely exalted person. David's willingness to concede the title "Lord" to his son therefore implies that his son is not only his own lord, but even the Lord of all men. He must be very God.

Yet Psalm 110 carefully distinguishes between David's Lord and another Lord who is even higher in authority, for He is the One who invites David's Lord to sit at His right hand. His title rendered as "Lord" is actually the divine name Jehovah.⁶² Thus we learn from Psalm 110 that the Godhead consists of at least two distinct persons. The Lord who speaks must be God the Father, and David's Lord—the One appointed to reign over all—must be God the Son.

Critics dispute the traditional view that the psalm is David's vision of Christ. They maintain that a later poet wrote it as a celebration of David's military victories in the bygone days of Israel's glory. They say that the poet uses "Lord" in verse 1 only as a term of honor for David, the mighty king.

Admittedly, the word so translated is Adon,⁶³ which in Scripture often denotes a human lord or master. Two simple considerations are enough, however, to show that the critical interpretation of the psalm lacks merit.

1. The psalmist identifies the second Lord as a "priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (v. 4). David was not a priest. Nor did anyone imagine that he was a priest, much less a priest forever. The priesthood of the second Lord must refer to His divine role as perpetual mediator between God and man.
2. Although verse 1 is vague concerning the identity of Adon, subsequent verses show clearly who He is. He appears in verse 5 as "the Lord," which in Hebrew is Adonai, a common name for God.⁶⁴ Never does the Old Testament grant this title to a mere man. Yet, Adon in verse 1 and Adonai in verse 5 are the same person. Both sit at the right hand of God. Furthermore, what Adonai accomplishes (vv. 5-7) is what Adon was given to do (vv. 1-3).

Pondering a Question

Did Peter mean that baptism is necessary for salvation?

In commanding the new believers to be baptized, Peter was merely following the steps given in the Great Commission: first, to make disciples, then to baptize them (Matt. 28:19). He did not mean that baptism is necessary for salvation. As Peter himself observed years later, the dipping of a man's body in water has no effect on the condition or destiny of his soul (1 Pet. 3:21). Getting wet has no spiritual value. Baptism is mainly an opportunity for a new believer in Christ to show the world that he is now a Christian.

Peter's wording, "Repent, and be baptized" shows that he expected baptism to follow salvation immediately. He linked the two requirements because he wanted a convert to know that getting saved was not just a decision of the moment, but the entrance to a new life requiring concrete steps of obedience, the first being baptism. Others afterward include going to church, regular Bible reading and prayer, witnessing, and doing good works.

Getting Practical

Being filled with the Spirit today

On Pentecost and in the days afterward, the Spirit gave believers an amazing power to do God's work and live according to His will. In some respects their experience was unique. The 120 who left the upper room spoke in tongues, and the apostles performed many "wonders and signs" (Acts 2:43). The term "signs" shows their purpose. They gave visible proof that the church was a work of God.

Believers today do not speak in tongues or go about working miracles. God still performs miracles in answer to prayer, but no one is gifted to do them routinely just by speaking a command. Why? We have no need to display wonders and signs. We can offer a completed Bible as well as many other evidences, including our witness to God's work in our own lives, to verify that the gospel is true. But it is wrong to think that we cannot reach the high plane of spirituality that appeared in the church after Pentecost. Peter's assurance that the promise of the Spirit is for us proves that we should seek to be filled with the Spirit just as the early Christians were.

Delving Still Deeper

Peter's forward-looking sermon

Some scholars question the authenticity of Peter’s speech in Acts 2. They claim that it reflects the thinking of a later time,⁶⁵ for he anticipates the gospel going to the whole world—by implication, even to gentiles everywhere—and, further, he does not reckon the climax of history as imminent. In the view of these scholars, the disciples at the first Pentecost after Jesus' death had a different view of the church, seeing it only as a Jewish movement that God intended to unite the whole Jewish world, and they excluded gentiles from their picture of the church’s mission. Also, they were fervently looking for the Messiah’s kingdom to be inaugurated even during their lifetimes.

What Peter says in this speech is, however, just a simple rephrasing of what Christ said at His ascension a few days earlier.

He had directed the disciples to reach out to the uttermost parts of the earth. Surely Peter knew that there were no Jews so far away. It was a simple deduction that the gospel was for gentiles.

Also, Christ had discouraged any hope that He would soon set up His kingdom. He expressly refused to confirm that it was near, and He added that the church had a huge task to complete first. That Peter did not fail to comprehend is obvious in his second epistle, where he speaks of Christ’s return as an event far in the future (2 Pet. 3:3–13). At Pentecost he therefore knew he was on solid ground when he said that the gospel would be offered to future generations.

Pondering a Question

By what mode were the new believers baptized

Our position is that the ordinary mode of baptism in the apostolic age was immersion. Of all the arguments that have been raised against our position, the only one that is remotely plausible questions how the church on the day of Pentecost could have immersed three thousand people. The answer is that the Jews practiced ritual washings by immersion, and tanks for this purpose, known as mikveh, existed in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel. Archaeologists have in recent years found that there were at least one hundred mikvehs near the Temple wall.⁶⁶

Pondering a Question

Aside from the 120, when did other believers in Jesus before Pentecost receive the Spirit?

Notice that Peter’s sermon was addressed to unbelievers. After charging them with crucifying Jesus (v. 36), he called on them to "repent" (v. 38) in order to "save" themselves "from this untoward generation" (v. 40). They had to meet this condition before they received the Spirit. The strong implication is that all who met this condition in the past had received the Spirit already. He also descended on them, wherever they were, when He filled the 120 in the Upper Room.

Among those now enjoying the Comforter’s presence were many in Galilee—including some households of the 120, some of the five hundred believers who saw the risen Christ (Matt. 28:16–17; 1 Cor. 15:6), and others besides—as well as many elsewhere that Jesus during His ministry had commended for their faith. Believers were widespread. Some were in Galilee, some in Judea (Luke 19:1–9; John 9:35–37, etc.), some in Samaria (John 4:39–42), and even some outside the country (Matt. 15:21–28).

In our discussion of Acts 18:24–28, we will tackle the tough question as to how and when these earlier believers were baptized.

Getting Practical

Loving God

Do you love God? How do you show it? It would be hard to prove that you love Him if you hardly ever look at a Bible away from church, or if you never thank God for saving you, or if you never pray except when you are in trouble. If there is no evidence that you love Him, are you really saved?

Getting Practical

Loving God's people

Here is another test of your salvation. Do you love God's people? It would be hard to prove that you love them if you seize every excuse to stay away from the one place where you find them—at church. If there is no evidence that you have a special love for believers in Christ, are you really saved?

Pondering a Question

Did the early church practice a form of communism?

The writer's meaning has often been misunderstood. They did not engage in communal living. Each family kept its own home. Nor did they practice communism. In communism, a ruler abolishes private property and dictates how the wealth should be distributed. But in the early church, the sharing of wealth was voluntary, not compulsory. The apostles did not force anyone to hand over his property to the church. The wealthy sold excess houses and lands, but retained whatever possessions they needed. Their possessions remained private property.

Pondering a Question

Was it really God's will for the early church to share property?

Yes, the sharing of wealth in the early church was God's will. In passage after passage, God commands the wealthy to be generous to the poor. For example, John taught, "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" (1 John 3:17). Paul agreed, saying to Timothy, "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life" (1 Tim. 6:17-18). The words "distribute" and "communicate" have much the same meaning.⁶⁷ They refer to assisting the needy with money and material help.

Getting Practical

A heart for the poor

In a prosperous nation like the United States, believers should be more generous, but in fact they are stingier. In relation to believers in other nations or in the past, professing evangelical Christians in America today spend a greater percentage of personal income on church facilities, making them lavish retreats for the wealthy, but a lower percentage on charity and missions. Their priorities are clearly selfish. They justify their neglect of charity by pretending that there are no needy people around them or, if they see any, by assuming that the government will take care of them. They shortchange missions on the grounds that the whole world has already heard the gospel. But all their excuses will evaporate when they stand before God in judgment.

The Jews in Jesus’ day, especially their religious leaders, were also callous toward the poor. They viewed poverty as God’s punishment for sin. To excuse their heartlessness, they told themselves that the poor were getting what they deserved. But Jesus turned the social ladder upside down when He taught, "Blessed be ye poor" (Luke 6:20). Both by His words and His conduct He made it clear that far from ranking at the bottom in God’s estimation, the poor ranked at the top. The new standing that Jesus conferred on the poor led directly to the vigorous work of the early church to help them.

Delving Deeper

The church universal

Some Baptists deny the existence of a universal church, in the sense of a mystical entity that is more than the sum of all local churches. They take this position in defense of a Baptist distinctive—the belief in the autonomy of the local church. They say that the doctrine of the universal church compromises this distinctive by legitimizing ecclesiastical hierarchies and denominations. How? Supposedly because if there is a universal church, such structures can say in self-justification that they merely make the ties visible that already exist between churches and believers.

This rejection of a universal church illustrates how a party spirit in theology often leads to doctrinal extremes. The Bible teaches that the church is the same as the body of Christ (Col. 1:18). There is only one body (Eph. 4:4). Thus, the church equivalent to the body must be singular as well. Jesus did not say to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my churches." It is entirely appropriate to consider this one church as a universal church, because it embraces all believers.

Yet it is not merely the sum of local churches, for two reasons. (1) There are believers who belong to no local church. Many deathbed conversions take place apart from the presence or knowledge of any local church or its members. Also, under severe persecution, local churches may break down, leaving believers scattered and isolated. (2) The singular church contains believers only, whereas most local churches include some members who are not truly born again. The point of Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt. 13:24–30) is that the visible church, including all members of local churches, is a mixture of God’s children and the devil’s children, and that there is no practical way of rooting out the devil’s children without eliminating some of God’s children as well.

Equivalence between the universal church and the body of Christ is not just a metaphor, but a mysterious and mystical reality.