Acts 1:1-11

“I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God. While he was with them, he declared, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me. For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight. As they were still staring into the sky while he was going, suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.””

— ‭‭Acts‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭11‬‬

 I’m sure there are arguments against Luke’s writing of both Luke-Acts, but the same style of writing, recipient, continuation of themes and narrative—and tradition—are enough for me. We don’t know much about Theophilus. 

Connections between Acts and Luke: “former account,” Theophilus, Acts 1:4-5 references John the Baptist, ascension in both Luke 24 and Acts 1; Acts 1:2 recounts Jesus’ instruction about the Spirit.

Luke confirms his research efforts to Theophilus. This does not mean Luke acted independently—or that the other gospel writers didn’t do research or acted solely as eyewitnesses. If anything Luke gives insight into how authors did their work. Everyone used sources. Everyone copied from each other and edited as needed to get their point across. This does not affect their veracity or honesty. This is how all gospels in that day were written.

“Former” could mean “first” but this would possibly imply a third volume. Probably too much to put onto a word, so “former” is more appropriate.

“Through the Spirit” in v. 2 probably modifies Jesus’ instruction, not the choosing. There is no mention of the Spirit when Jesus chooses the disciples, but the Spirit is repeatedly part of their mission in Acts. He is the means of their enablement.

Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God for 40 days. NET makes important point that Jesus was not seen throughout the 40 days, just at various locations and situations. Not a continuation of His ministry. He was most likely explaining (again) why things happened the way they did, and showing them how it was “foretold” throughout their history/scriptures. After all, this is the content of their sermons throughout Acts.

They have to wait in Jerusalem for the Spirit, because without Him they can do nothing. But mentioning the Spirit makes them think of the kingdom. Spirit is part of the kingdom according to OT texts: Jer 31:27-34; Ezekiel 34-37; Isa 2; Amos 9: 11-15. One important point for any millennial debate is that Jesus does not deny their request. He simply postpones the answer. He changes the conversation.

There is debate over whether the terms “Israel” and “kingdom” change definitions as Acts progresses, but at least we can say that Acts extends the kingdom to the nations. Israel was supposed to the the means of representing God to the world. The focus is missional/ecclesiological/not eschatological.

Bock’s commentary makes a good point for v. 8 that the disciples probably heard “go to Jews in these regions.” Church wrestled with the Jew/Gentile relationship far beyond ch 10-11 of Acts.

Side note: Another reason Acts is a natural supplement to Luke is the geographical arrangement of the two together. Luke opens with the “whole word.” Jesus’ ministry has other regions (Galilee) then the last half of the book (9:59) he sets his face to Jerusalem. Acts 1 branches back out from Jerusalem to Judea to ends of the world.

Speeches in Luke-Acts always show continuity between OT and NT fulfillments. God’s plan is coming to completion. Luke uses phrase “must be” more than anyone else.

Back to v. 8: “power” —please, do all things holy, stop saying this is “dynamite.” Etymological fallacy. Last thing we need is more chaos from the gospel. Dunamis is the Greek word from where we get our English word dynamite, but we can’t read the meaning of modern English words back into Ancient Greek. That’s silly. Word studies are much more involved than that, but for my purposes here, the basic meaning is ability. We already said, the disciples could not do anything until the Spirit came.

Be witnesses: interesting distinction between noun and verb. Never really told to “witness.” But be “witnesses.” Disciples told of what they had seen and heard.

Ends of earth—of course, there are always more individuals and people groups that need to hear the gospel. But the purpose of Acts, both missionally and literarily, was fulfilled. The gospel went to Rome, and by the end of Paul’s life, he intended to get to Spain. Now apostles’ descendants have gone much much further. It did reach ends of earth.

Ascension is a weird topic still. Obviously, it’s essential to the gospel, because Jesus must be exalted to the Father’s side. This is further proof of His vindication. That’s the most important part—and clouds triggers a reference to Daniel 7 and the son of man. Riding on clouds and approaching the Ancient of Days. I think that’s the key, not Jesus playing hide and seek or floating into space.

John 1:6-13

 “A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.”

— ‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭6‬-‭13‬‬

Obviously talking about John the Baptist. His mission was to testify or near witness about Jesus/the Light/the Word.

Witness is a huge theme in John, both as a verb and noun. (“Testify”, bear witness)

John likes to throw around that word “all, everyone,” which would make us much more comfortable if it was qualified. He does sort of qualify it in v 12 and other verses like 3:16. 

Gives light to everyone—so apparently this can’t be life. Must be something like spiritual enlightenment or a chance to believe. Would have to trace the theme throughout John to see how he develops it, but to say Jesus gave light to everyone is bold.

“Who is coming into world” could modify the everyone or the light (even grammar could make a case for both.) See NET note for why they have chosen to modify light. Comes down to other uses in John with periphrastic constructions (verb + participle) and the context of the passage. In v 9 and following Jesus is in the world. (Again, incarnation is actually here, and in v. 14. Repetition there is for purpose of Jesus’ coming, and provides a name. He is revelation of God-the ultimate revelation as human).

NET also has good note on meaning of “world.” Rarely means universe or physical earth. More often humans and human affairs. Contrasts with not only the future age (John says this world at times) but also the heavenly world. Jesus is the connection between all the worlds.

World did not recognize their maker. But then he comes to his own “things.” Probably territories. And his own people may or may not have recognized him. But they didn’t welcome or accept him. This is far worse.

Receive is defined in v. 12. Believe as noun (faith) is never found in John, though the verb is all over the place. No one knows why. Some think John didn’t want to be confused with similar terms of proto-Gnosticism. But the verb with eis as preposition is his preferred phrase. NET suggests it has a more Jewish style, emphasizing not just believing a creed but having a personal connection to a person or idea, basically.

Right/authority, different words for power, ability. This is accurate of course.

See NET note for their translation on these three phrases in v 13. Bloods is probably related to conception and birthing process. Plural noun may be bc of two parents. Other two are similar, and may be related to priority of patriarchy in Jewish culture…difficult to prove.

Will of flesh is sexual desire but not evil. Will of man/husband is probably desire for an heir.