Chapter 2
ESV titles this section "The Coming of the Holy Spirit".
Day of Pentecost. The time is clearly stated. Sound of wind. Divided tongues of fire. Why divided? There is an alternate translation in the footnote: And tongues as of fire appeared to them, distributed among them, and rested. I suppose we add "on each one of them" to that. This is less confusing. And they began speaking in other tongues. So windy noise, flaming tongues of fire resting on them but not burning them, and once indwelt, they spoke other tongues. Other tongues seems to have the connotation of languages, not of gibberish incomprehensible to man or beast. But that is another study.
Verse 2 says they were all together in one place.
2023 - Back in 1:13 is the last place we were given a precise - sort of precise - geographical location in an upper room. If we trace this back, those who return and enter this room are the "men of Galilee" addressed by the two angels following the ascension. It even goes on to NAME those in the room. Only 11 are named. ONLY 11 but it says that Jesus mother and the women were also there. So...the 11 and some women? In 1:15 though, Peter stands up to say something, and there we find him speaking to about 120. So the 11 and 109 women? That cannot be the right count, because Matthias and Joseph are "put forward" for the 12th spot. Surely they were there at the time!
2023 - STILL, when Chapter 2 starts, we see that it is separated in time from the election of the 12th apostle. We see that because it starts with "when the day of Pentecost arrived". "They" were all together in one place. So we have to ask ourselves if Luke meant "they all" as in all 12 apostles, or "they all" as in all the remaining followers of Jesus. I think the latter is a bit much, and go with the former. Again I emphasize that they were in one place. No upper room is mentioned. In 1:13, Luke tells us they were staying in an upper room, and perhaps that is where they were at this later time also. And maybe there were still about 120 of them there. Luke can be so precise at one verse and then make so many assumptions that you will know what he meant at another verse!
2023 - NO! Keep reading. The "entire house" were they were sitting was filled. So we know they were INSIDE when this rushing wind occurred, not outside.
Does not say they were in the upper room. Doesn't say there were 120. We don't know. But the "sound" part of the coming of the Holy Spirit was heard by a lot of people, and concerned them enough that they all gathered somewhere, presumably in the neighborhood of where the sound seemed to have originated. The implication to me is that they all moved to a public square where information was regularly exchanged. A social area of some sort. And when they got there, those filled with the Spirit were speaking in lots of different languages.
2023 - Those affected - those who had now received the Spirit - had gone OUTSIDE and were speaking in many languages. What were they saying? We were told back in vs 4 that they were saying what the Spirit gave them to say. So that's that.
Fifteen countries are named when they are talking about the languages they are hearing, one being Judean, another Roman. It could be that the same language was spoken in some of these countries, for instance "Pontus and Asia", or "Phrygia and Pamphylia". What I am trying to establish here is just how many people the divided tongues of fire landed on. There were 12 apostles. Given the list of languages that were heard, it is QUITE POSSIBLE that ONLY the 12 apostles received the Holy Spirit with power at this time. It may have started ONLY with the 12. Note also in vs 7 that ALL THOSE SPEAKING were Galileans. Doesn't that greatly restrict the number of people who were present in that house? The men present were hearing languages that they understood and not gibberish. The apostles - or whomever was talking - were recounting the mighty works of God. Also, we see in vs 37 that those who were repentant say "to Peter and the rest of the apostles", not "the 120 or so upon whom the Spirit fell". Why would they only ask the apostles, unless it was ONLY the apostles who were present? Again, in vs 43, we see that "many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles", not "through the 120 that were in the Upper Room on that first Pentecost".
In the face of all these questions about how Galileans can be speaking so many different languages, Peter stands up to explain. It says he is standing with the 11 - perhaps because it was ONLY the 11 and Peter that were speaking other languages - and then he refers to "these people", inferring to me that he means other people beside the 11. (2021-1 - It could just as easily mean the 11 besides himself, and probably does, as this is the easiest explanation.) So this speaking affected possibly the whole 120. Maybe they all came pouring out of that upper room, so filled they couldn't keep quiet, and what came out were languages.
2022 - This is interesting:
14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. [Act 2:14 ESV]. Matthias had been chosen. Why was Peter not standing with the 12? Or did Luke mean Peter, and 11 others....Seems a stretch...but perhaps in Greek it is obvious that's what he meant.
Peter says this is a fulfillment of Joel's prophecies, in Joel 2:28, 29, 30-32. But the things in Joel 30 and 31, quoted in Acts 2:19. 20, don't really come to pass here. The signs in the heavens do not occur. So while this may be a partial fulfillment, a confirmation of God's continuing work, it is most certainly not a complete fulfillment.
2021-2, Possibly the way to understand it is that the fulfillment of this prophecy "begins" on the day of Pentecost. One result of this beginning is that EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Note how that seems to be where all the items mentioned are leading. Not just the Jews, but everyone will be saved. A sea change from what went before. The fulfillment begins with the coming of the Holy Spirit and the prophecies and signs that accompanied that, and moves on ultimately to the heavenly portents in the Revelation, indicating that this time of "everyone" is nearly over. I think this is the right way to look at these verses.
Peter gets right to the point. Jesus, who's miracles prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was sent from God, was delivered by you Jews to the Romans so they would kill him. But God raised him from the dead. This is how it had to be, and David wrote in Psalms 16 about this very thing. (Invoking both the OT and King David.) Peter explains that these verses in Psalms are not David speaking of himself, because David is long dead and buried. He is a corpse, so David wasn't speaking of himself but prophesying of another - this same Jesus. David's use of "my" is prophetic of someone descended from him. He speaks of a descendant of his who will not see corruption. Peter says they are all witnesses of this resurrected Jesus. Way more than 2 witnesses.
2022 - Vs 34. Peter's point is that Jesus was seen ascending into heaven to the Father. No one saw David do that. Peter is offering further evidence that David was not talking about himself, because he didn't do any of the things he's saying. David was speaking of another, one yet to come, the Messiah...and Peter is hammering home that David was speaking of Jesus.
2022 - This verse:
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." [Act 2:36 ESV]. A good Christological verse. Peter says Jesus was both Kyrios and Christos. Lord and Messiah. These are the two titles that Peter asserts for Jesus. It occurs to me that I don't know a lot about this title Kyrios. I wonder if MacArthur's book on the gospel according to Jesus, which focuses a lot on Lordship, is a place to look that up. It could also be a chapter in the Christology book...of course it is. Chapter 7.
The crowd is convinced, convicted, and begging for information on what they can do to escape the penalty of such a sin as killing the Messiah. And Peter says:
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Act 2:38 ESV]
Baptism in the name of Jesus is included. There are 3000 added that day.
It would be very unwise to denigrate baptism in any way, given that the very first ever proclamation of the gospel after the Holy Spirit came to guide men's words included it. How can we say it is not necessary?
2022 - A rephrasing of 38...Repent and be baptized...because of the forgiveness of your sins. On this turn all the arguments about required baptism. Some take it literally as it is written here in the ESV, and see no sense at all in reading it any other way. Baptism is FOR forgiveness. St. Augustine and many other early church fathers delayed baptism until as late in life as possible so that all the sins of their lifetimes might be forgiven in this ordinance. They were much closer to the actual delivery of Peter's speech, and this is how many of them understood it.
I argue that there are too many references in the NT to "Christ alone" (one mediator comes to mind) for another person (the baptizer) to be required for salvation. Separating salvation from forgiveness....as in you can be saved from hell though sin is still imputed to you until you are baptized, and then you will still have some unforgiven sins when you get to heaven because you sinned AFTER you were baptized...well look at all the implications of that...That can't be right. God will not tolerate sin in his presence. So when are these post-baptism sins forgiven? Where is the verse for that? Are those the sins we're judged for at bema? Think of those implications!!!! The biggest crowns go to those baptized latest in there lives since they come in with fewer residual sins? Oh come on!
Still - what is says is "for the forgiveness of sins". "Eis" is the little tiny Greek preposition on which all this turns. Epsilon, iota, sigma. It is used 1,774 times in the KJV NT, and we can't figure out from context what it means. Here is the summary:
The KJV translates Strong's G1519 in the following manner:into (573x), to (281x), unto (207x), for (140x), in (138x), on (58x), toward (29x), against (26x), miscellaneous (322x).
You can go to the store for groceries. Groceries are at the store, and you go there to get them. This is the "baptism required" interpretation of "for".
The party was for Tom's birthday. BECAUSE it was Tom's birthday. Tom isn't trying to obtain a birthday, only to memorialize it. This is the "baptism as symbol" interpretation.
Oh my!!! Just noticed the first word of the next verse. Never connected it before. Here is that verse:
39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." [Act 2:39 ESV].
There are four "fors" in this verse, immediately after the eis of 39. None of the words translated "for" is from the Greek "eis". Even so, the Greek word "eis" is in the verse, but is not translated directly. It is almost like a fifth "for" that would be redundant in English if actually translated. FURTHERMORE, the only "for" in vs 39 that is a conjunction, as "eis" was in vs 38, is that first one - "gar". "Gar" is translated from the Greek word spelled gamma alpha rho. It clearly means "because of" what went before. This word is used 1067 times in the NT. Here is that summary:
The KJV translates Strong's G1063 in the following manner:for (1,027x), miscellaneous (28x), not translated (12x).
So, without looking up all 1027 "for"s, the question is obviously this: if, in vs 38 Luke meant "for" in the sense of "because of", why did he choose "eis" instead of "gar"?
What if we translate eis as it is most commonly translated, and read the verse "be baptized into the forgiveness of your sins" and then try to work out the theology of that statement. Right now today, I think that is what needs to be done here with baptism!
(Aren't there other verses that talk about being baptized into John, and into Christ? Are those verses "eis"? Those would be the ones to compare to 38 if you can find them...Here are three:
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Rom 6:3 ESV]
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [Gal 3:27 ESV]
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [Eph 4:15 ESV]
The word translate "into" in all three of these is "eis". Hmm... there is a LOT of insight here!
I didn't find anywhere that said "into John".
Rom 6.3...baptized into Christ means baptized into his death. Eis both places. You certainly don't die when you are baptized, so into is not necessarily a literal physical displacement/change. It is symbolic. We are symbolically "in" Christ, so all that he does we participate in, as in his death. So being baptized into forgiveness is to be symbolically seen as forgiven just as Rom 6.3 shows us symbolically dead. We are "in" Christ who has no sin. Christ is seen as "forgiven" because he never sinned, we are baptized into him, and so are seen by God as sinless.
Does that help? Because that doesn't firmly establish whether water baptism is required or just a symbol, does it.
I have to move on so...
CONCLUSION: Luke 10:21. Little children can understand the gospel. It is NOT a huge complex thing that takes years to understand. Both sides overcomplicate it. Just do it! There is no denying that Peter said to do it, and then we can worry about what it actually means later. It is the gospel. Repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit. One last note...both repent and be baptized are in the imperative mood. These are commands, not suggestions.
Well, actually there is a little more to the story...
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. [Act 2:41 ESV]. How did those who heard Peter's instructions respond? THEY GOT BAPTIZED!!! Now how can we say it is ok to wait...even if St. Augustine and many others of his stature waited?!?!?!?
2023 - In vs 39, several of the "fors" are apparently implied. Let's look at some other translations:
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. [Act 2:39 KJV]
39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." [Act 2:39 NKJV]
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." [Act 2:39 LSB]
Looking at these other translations, we don't find all those "fors". I like the NKJV, because I think it shows much more plainly that there is really ONLY ONE "FOR" in vs 39...but all the NKJV did is put in "to" instead of "for". In any case, "eis" is used only once in vs 39, and I am not enough of a Greek scholar to argue one way or another about where it ought to show up in English. The ESV didn't show it directly translated at all.
2023 - And "gar" is translated "for" almost exclusively. Here is the BLB definition of "gar":
γάρgár, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles):—and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.
The Strong's definition is here: γάρ, a conjunction, which according to its composition, γέ and ἄρα (equivalent to ἄρ), is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, "the thing is first affirmed by the particle γέ, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ἄρα".
Affirmation and conclusion. "Be baptized "gar" the remission of sins" would have made it imminently clear that it was symbolic. But Luke did NOT use "gar", he used "eis". Why would he do that? He was smart, the scripture is inspired, I believe down to the very three letter word chosen. "Gar" would have been much more specific...so we might well conclude that Luke did not want to be specific. He wanted to leave it loose, flexible in some sense? We can go a lot of places with that! Different methods of baptism are ok, baptism removed in time from salvation is ok, and so on. Maybe he did it because there was no reason, at that time, to discuss whether baptism was required for salvation because NO ONE WAS ASKING that question!!! They already knew that answer. What Luke wanted to make certain was that this salvation, this gospel, was FOR ("gar") both Jews and Gentiles. And why wouldn't Luke want to emphasize that!?!?! So trying to use THIS verse - 2:38 - to make a doctrinal case either way about baptism being necessary or unnecessary, in contextually invalid from the start! I think that, in 2023, is where I will stay on this issue. The necessity of baptism is an important question, but that question is not going to be answered by twisting ourselves this way and that over 3 letter Greek words in Acts 2:38. The conclusion ought to be reached from scriptures that more directly address SALVATION, not baptism.
Vs 43 says there were many wonders and signs done by the apostles. This was to testify to their own selection by God to spread the gospel. To confirm that what they were doing was appointed and authorized by God. These signs and wonders came through the apostles - does not say others did miracles. Christianity takes off. The church takes off and is endorsed with miracles and wonders. And the movement is in Jerusalem itself. These first Christians broke bread with each other - which means they had meals together in their homes - and they also went to the temple together. So they weren't just together at "church", but they purposely fraternized with each other. These days, 2021-1, Christians certainly need to form stronger bonds, to know each other better, because it isn't going to be very long until...we may all be "in it" together.