‘And, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, “which,” said he, “you heard from me”.'
The importance of the Holy Spirit in what follows comes out here. The book commences with reference to ‘the promise of the Father', which Luke then defines in terms of the Holy Spirit. Compare for the phrase ‘promise of the Father' Luke 24:49 where ‘the promise of My Father unto you' connects with ‘power from on high' which will come to them. The phrase is thus a mark of continuity with Luke's Gospel and a promise of supernatural power, power from Above. This confirmation of what Luke 24:49 refers to, draws specific attention to Luke's deliberate failure to mention the Holy Spirit in the latter part of his Gospel, probably in order not to take away from the impact of Acts 1-2, and in order to bring out the first and second phases of the Spirit's activity.
‘The promise of the Father.' This promise can be looked at from three aspects, all mentioned in context:
1). As Peter makes clear in Acts 2:17-18 the promise of the Father was given in the Old Testament. It was for example given by Joel, ‘But this is that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel, “And it shall be in the last days, says God, I will pour forth of my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, yes, and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days will I pour forth of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” As this is referred to directly in context it is clear that this is an aspect of the promise of the Father. And this promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by other prophets where it is made clear that it will transform the lives of men and women and result in the bringing about of God's purposes (see Isaiah 44:1-5; Ezekiel 36:25-27. See also Isaiah 32:15).
2). The promise of the Father comes out in the ministries of John the Baptiser and Jesus. John promised that the Coming One would ‘drench you with the Holy Spirit and fire', something to which his own baptism in water pointed (Luke 3:16). And again this is referred to in context here in Acts, for in Acts 1:5 immediately following Jesus will remind them of what John had said. Furthermore Jesus promised, ‘he who believes on Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his innermost being will flow rivers of living water' and we are immediately told that this refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit once Jesus has been glorified (John 7:38-39). And He promised in John 14-16 that He would send the Holy Spirit, the One called alongside to help and strengthen (the Paraclete), who would come as His other self (Acts 14:18) to lead into truth, to make plain the Scriptures, and to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father, and by Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 16:7), for the purpose of strengthening, guiding and empowering His people (John 14:16; John 14:18; John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26-27; John 16:8-10; John 16:13) so that their message might make an impact on the world (John 16:8-10).
3). The promise of the Father has been emphasised by Jesus in His resurrection appearances. In Matthew He said, “Lo, I am with you always” (Matthew 28:20). In Mark He said, “These signs will follow those who believe” (Mark 16:17) which is then described as, ‘the Lord working with them' (Mark 16:20). In John a foretaste has already been given which was uniquely for the Apostles when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit' (John 20:22). That this was actually effective prior to Pentecost is confirmed in Luke 24:45 where Jesus, “Opened their minds that they might understand the Scriptures”. This was then followed by words in which He spoke of the promise of the Father, which was coming, which would give them power from Above (Luke 24:49).
So the promise of the Father was promised in the Old Testament as to occur when God's Kingly Rule began, was promised by John and Jesus in terms of what Jesus would give to His people, and was promised by Jesus after His resurrection as what was about to come.
Perhaps at this stage we should clarify a little more about New Testament teaching about the Holy Spirit, for it is important in dealing with this subject that we are careful to discern what Scripture is actually saying. Far too much interpretation is based on what we would like it to mean rather than on what Scripture reveals. Three terms are used with reference to the filling with the Holy Spirit which must be clearly distinguished.
1). ‘Filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit.' This is used a number of times to explain some temporary outward manifestation such as prophecy, or speaking in tongues, or speaking the word of God with boldness, or speaking a word of power, and occurs for that temporary purpose (Luke 1:41; Luke 1:67; Acts 2:4; Acts 4:8; Acts 4:31; Acts 13:9). It is similar to ‘the Spirit of Yahweh came upon --' in the Old Testament which was also temporary for a particular task and was revealed in the satisfactory completion of that task in the power of God. The exceptions are John the Baptiser and Paul who were permanently ‘filled' (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit because of their unique ministries (Luke 1:15; Acts 9:17), but even then this permanent filling is revealed in their powerful ministries. Their experience can be compared with ‘the Spirit of Yahweh came upon -- from that day forward' on Saul (1 Samuel 10:6 with Acts 16:14) and David (1 Samuel 16:13). It always without exception results in ‘inspired' words.
2). ‘Filled (pleroo) with the Holy Spirit.' This ‘being filled' (pleroo) is always evidence of continuing spirituality and reveals itself in joy and praise, and is for all believers (Acts 13:52; Ephesians 5:18). It is clearly distinguished from the use of pimplemi.
3). ‘Full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit.' This is used of Jesus' permanent and unique experience of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1) which undergirded all His ministry and resulted in His rejoicing in Spirit (Luke 10:21). In His case we can hardly doubt that ‘full of the Holy Spirit' is to be read in all through Luke's Gospel. The Holy Spirit was not given by measure to Him (John 3:34). The same phrase is used in Acts in order to describe those who were recognised as being in a good spiritual state, as manifested by being full of wisdom, faith or spiritual insight (Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5; Acts 7:55; Acts 11:24).
So the Holy Spirit had begun His work in John the Baptiser (‘filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb' - Luke 1:15), and in Jesus (‘full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit' - Luke 4:1), but there was yet to be a greater manifestation of Him and His work in Acts 2 after which there would be a host of people continually being again and again filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit as His work moved forward (Acts 2:4; Acts 4:8; Acts 4:31; Acts 9:17; Acts 13:9), the latter in each case connected with an outward manifestation of powerful words. In other words, to sum this up, the experience referred to as ‘being filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit' resulted in some particular manifestation for service (which was how it was known that it had happened), while being continually full (pleroo) of the Holy Spirit in life was the lot of all believers who fully responded to Him.
‘Pimplemi' always refers to a special anointing for service and is usually temporary, although repeatable. The specially chosen John and Paul, for whom it was permanent, were the exceptions. We can compare ‘the Spirit of Yahweh came upon --' in the Old Testament which was also usually temporary and repeatable, but in the cases of Saul and David was permanent, although finally forfeited by Saul. In all cases it was for the fulfilment of a specific task.
‘Pleroo' on the other hand signifies a permanent, continual filling (Acts 13:52; Ephesians 5:18) which brought joy and fellowship with God. ‘Pleres' was used in Jesus' case and was connected with the manifestation of His supreme gifts and with rejoicing in the Holy Spirit (Luke 10:21), but of course Jesus was the great exception. The Spirit was not given by measure to Him (John 3:34). Compare the use of pleres in Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5; Acts 7:55; Acts 11:24 where it refers to the permanent experience of those who were pleasing to God and full of Him, but not to particular activities.
‘He charged them not to depart from Jerusalem.' Note the emphasis on the need to wait in Jerusalem from this point on (after the appearances in Galilee) until the Holy Spirit comes (compare Luke 24:49). It will be apparent that Luke lays great emphasis on the commencement at Jerusalem, so much so that he deliberately does not mention the Galilean appearances. This kind of silence is typical of Luke and does not mean that he did not know of them. He also deliberately refrained from mentioning the Holy Spirit from Luke 4:2 onwards (even in preparing for the future in Luke 24), except indirectly; put Jesus' ministry in the form of a ‘journey to Jerusalem' from Luke 9:51 onwards; and in Acts 1-2 refrains from mentioning the Temple, even though he had drawn attention to it in Luke 24:53. However, his reference to the forty days leaves plenty of room for the Galilean appearances, and a little of their content might appear in Luke 24:46-49. This silence rather confirms that he has a primary desire to emphasise that Jerusalem was the source from which the word of God went out into the world (compare Isaiah 2:2-4), and wants all concentration to be on Jerusalem, and on his building up to these first two Chapter s of Acts which centre on Jerusalem.
This is in distinct contrast with Matthew, and to some extent with Mark, who both take the stress away from Jerusalem and put it on Galilee. They were justified in doing so, for that had been Jesus' original intention (Matthew 28:7; Matthew 28:10; Mark 14:28; Mark 16:7) until hindered by the disobedience and unbelief of the Apostles who in their unbelief stubbornly remained in Jerusalem. To Matthew the Galilean appearances were the ones that Jesus had originally intended, and were therefore to be emphasised. He probably remembered with deep sorrow how foolish they had been in not obeying Him immediately as a result of their unbelief, and he stresses their final obedience with its subsequent reward. Mark 16:9-20 and John, however, agree with Luke in confirming appearances in Jerusalem, and John further agrees with Matthew in confirming one in Galilee (evidence that they did go to Galilee during that period as Matthew says). Paul makes quite clear that there were a number of resurrection appearances, even some not mentioned in the Gospels (1 Corinthians 15:4-8).
It is not surprising that the Apostles would return to their homes in Galilee after the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread was over. It was the place where they would feel most secure, where they enjoyed the most support, and where they were among friends while they tried to sort out their confusion over what had happened. Besides there was no longer a Jesus to follow and the angels had specifically told them to go to Galilee. But as the continual appearances of Jesus brought home to them the wonder of what had happened, and what His purposes were for them, and no doubt under His further instructions, they returned to Jerusalem and spent their time continually in the temple praising God (Luke 24:53).
This stress of Luke on Jerusalem to the exclusion of Galilee brings out that one of his main purposes is to emphasise that the good news of the Kingly Rule of God became established in both Jerusalem, the centre of the Jewish world, and Rome, the centre of the Gentile world (Acts 27:17; Acts 27:19; Acts 27:28), drawing together both believing Jews and believing Gentiles as one. The dictum ‘Jew first, and then Gentile' is one of his themes (Acts 13:5; Acts 13:43; Acts 14:1; Acts 17:1-2; Acts 17:10-12; Acts 17:17; Acts 18:4-6; Acts 18:19; Acts 20:21; Acts 28:17; Acts 28:19; Acts 28:28), one which Paul himself confirms (Romans 1:16). It is seen as fulfilled here.
‘Jerusalem.' Here it is Hierosoluma (the Hellenistic form) as in Acts 8:1; Acts 8:14; Acts 8:25 (which may reflect the movement to the Samaritan ministry) and Luke 24:49, but not Acts 8:26-27 (referring to a God-fearer). In the latter, and in Acts 1-7, Acts 1:9 it is always Yerousalem (which is the Aramaic form and first used in Acts 1:8). The change appears to be deliberate, often reflecting Aramaic speaking preachers, even though we may not always appreciate why it occurs. It may sometimes reflect the source from which Luke obtained his information. In Acts 25:3 when Festus goes up to Jerusalem and is approached by the leaders of the Jews it is Yerousalem, but when in that chapter he returns to Caesarea or uses it in speech it is Hierosoluma.
‘Being assembled together' (singular active participle of sunalizo). While this indicates Jesus being together with them in some way the exact meaning is not clear. Some translate as ‘an eating together', but the connection with eating is not strictly found in the use of the term elsewhere. Others see it as meaning ‘being assembled together' but the singular present participle makes that difficult. If it could be seen as a variant of sunaulizo it could indicate ‘ staying with'. The general significance is, however, clear. He was there with them.