1/17/24
Bruce, F.F. (1988). "Acts 1." In The Book of Acts (Revised). (pp. 28-48). William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
Bruce considers the first portion of Acts to deal with "The Birth of the Church (1:1-5:42" (Bruce 1988, p. 28). For convenience, for the most part, we will divide the comments at the traditional chapter divisions. Bruce gives a very brief summary paragraph, then a chunk of biblical text (in English), followed by his comments.
In discussing the ascription to Theophilus (1:1), Bruce considers briefly whether the recipient is assumed to be any Christian reader, an individual by that name, or an oblique reference to a political leader such as the emperor (Bruce 1988, p. 29). He concludes that, as the name is well attested as an actual name in use, it is most likely that the work is addressed to an individual named Theophilus, who was someone of some prominence and influence. Luke continues with reference to his previous volume, thus suggesting this work was not intended to be held as completely separate from the Third Gospel. "The implication of Luke's words is that his second volume will be an account of what Jesus continued to do and teach after his ascension" (Bruce 1988, p. 30, emphasis his).
In 1:2, Bruce emphasizes that Jesus' work involved the Holy Spirit and instruction to the Twelve (Bruce 1988, p. 30). In Bruce's estimation, the Holy Spirit serves as the main actor throughout Acts.
Verse three then refers to the forty day period between the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, in which he appeared to his disciples and others, demonstrating is resurrection and giving instructions. Bruce refers here to Paul's brief list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 (Bruce 1988, p. 31). While some sects suggested various arcane teachings by Jesus during this period, Bruce observes that Luke affirms his teaching to be consistent with what they had already received before the crucifixion. Jesus is presented as the eternal king of Israel (Bruce 1988, p. 32). He is further presented in Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament as the one who will eventually come in glory to judge all nations (Bruce 1988, p. 33).
In Acts 1:4-8, the focus shifts to Jesus' commissioning of the apostles. Bruce notes that Jesus, in the resurrection, has no need of food or drink. However, in verse four, he eats with his disciples, possibly as a demonstration that he is with them bodily, not as a phantom (Bruce 1988, p. 34). Bruce further suggests a "hint" at the eucharist, as also seen in Luke 24:30-31, 35. The apostles are to remain in Jerusalem until they receive a gift of the Holy Spirit, which Bruce reminds us was predicted at the Last Supper in John's Gospel (Bruce 1988, p. 34). Bruce continues to associate the promised gift of the Holy Spirit to statements recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Bruce 1988, p. 35). Verse six then makes a transition to Jesus' final conversation before the ascension (Bruce 1988, p. 35). Asked by the apostles whether the final judgment would be ushered in, Jesus' response in verse seven describes the final coming as a mystery. It is something which will happen at the Father's prerogative. The kingdom of God in the meantime, according to verse eight, is not based on political but spiritual power (Bruce 1988, p. 36). The followers of Jesus will be witnesses of the resurrection, bearing the news of salvation to all nations. Bruce notes the common concept of Acts 1:8 serving as an outline for Acts. Chapters 1-7 represent testimony in Jerusalem, while 8:1-11:18 describes ministry in Judea and Samaria, and the rest of Acts shows the spread of the gospel to other nations (Bruce 1988, p. 36).
Acts 1:9-11 describes the ascension of Jesus. Bruce notes that Jesus does not appear in bodily form after Acts 1:9 (Bruce 1988, p. 37). He further observes that Jesus' exaltation had begun with his resurrection, not with his ascension. This is simply the last time Jesus departed from his disciples in bodily form. Here Bruce observes, the could which received Jesus could well represent the cloud of God's glory, seen elsewhere in Scripture. Verse ten features two angelic messengers, viewed as witnesses who could give admissible testimony, telling the apostles that Jesus has indeed ascended to heaven (Bruce 1988, p. 38). The discioples can know that Jesus will return again, at the appropriate time. Bruce takes Jesus' presence at the right hand of the Father as symbolic of his ability to be "more effectually present with his people on earth" (Bruce 1988, p. 39).
Acts 1:2-14 describes the apostles, with a few others, remaining in Jerusalem, waiting, as they were commanded (Bruce 1988, p. 39). Bruce briefly describes the "sabbath day's journey" as approximately a kilometer. The place of the ascension was not far from Jerusalem. Verse 13 then describes an "upper room." Bruce notes that the location may have been that of the Last Supper, where Jesus had appeared to them on the day of resurrection, or the location of prayers in Acts 12:12 (Bruce 1988, p. 39). It is altogether possible that one and the same room is referenced for all these occasions or that they represented more than one location. There is no documentation which can demonstrate any view. Verse 13 lists the same apostles as Luke 6:14-16, though not in the same order and without Judas Iscariot (Bruce 1988, p. 40). Bruce observes that in lists of the apostles, they are normally grouped in threes and that the groups of three are always the same groups. Bruce briefly evaluates claims of which apostles may have been related to others, taking most of the claims as inconclusive. He briefly describes the militant group known as the Zealots, suggesting that Luke's description of Simon may indicate his political outlook (Bruce 1988, p. 40). Bruce furtehr notes that in Acts 1:14 we have the last New Testament mention of Mary, the mother of Jesus, joining in worship and prayer (Bruce 1988, p. 41). The brothers of Jesus, whom Bruce takes to be children of Joseph and Mary, are also present, presumably having believed. Bruce notes the leadership shown by James in the early church.
Acts 1:15-26 describes the move of the apostles, led by Peter, to select a replacement for Judas Iscariot in the apostolic band. Bruce observes in light of verse 15 that there were about 120 disciples in Jerusalem but that 1 Corinthians 15:6 shows a larger number probably in Galilee (Bruce 1988, p. 43). The number twelve seemed significant to the apostles, which Bruce suggests to be motivated by the parallel between the apostles and the tribes of Israel (Bruce 1988, p. 44). Bruce ties this move to replace Judas Iscariot also to interpretive habits of finding passages of the Old Testament which could be used typologically to demonstrate a fulfillment of prophecy (Bruce 1988, p. 44). For this reason, Bruce considers it natural that Peter would adduce Old Testament passages to confirm the validity of the process. Bruce observes the brief parenthetical descriptor of Judas' actions in verses e18-19, which would not have been needed by the apostolic band but could be helpful commentary to Luke's audience (Bruce 1988, p. 45). Bruce notes Peter's passages cited from Psalm 69:25 and 109:8. In verses 21-22 the qualifications of an apostolic witness are set forth. Bruce notes that in John's Gospel "nearly half of the Twelve began to follow Jesus in the days immediately following his baptism by John (Bruce 1988, p. 6). Bruce also observes testimony of Papias and Eusebius to great spiritual power of both Joseph and Matthias. The casting of lots in verses 24-26 is limited to those two witnesses. Bruce concedes that we do not know how many other potential replacement apostles there may have been. The casting of lots leaves the selection to God's providence (Bruce 1988, p. 46). Bruce observes, "It was Judas's defection and not the mere fact of his death that created the vacancy; no steps were taken to appoint a successor to James the son of Zebedee when he died by the executioner's sword some years later" (Bruce 1988, p. 47). Bruce further takes up the contention that the apostles should have simply waited until Paul was ready some time later (Bruce 1988, p. 48). He views this as an erroneous argument. Paul was not with the disciples all along, and never considered himself the same kind of disciple as Peter and the other eleven.