Posted on 08/15/2015 11:02:28 AM PDT by LearsFool
Some will tell you the Bible can't be understood. Others say you can't understand it without a theology degree, or an ordained teacher, or a special vision/revelation.
I challenge those claims, and invite everyone to read Acts 1 and see whether the following questions are too difficult. And when you're done, you might find you know more than your preacher. :-)
1. Acts is Luke's second book. What was his first book about?
2. What convinced the apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead?
3. Why didn't they begin proclaiming the gospel right away?
4. When would they receive power and be witnesses to Jesus?
5. What would these witnesses testify about?
6. A replacement for Judas had to be named. What were the qualifications?
7. How many candidates met those qualifications?
8. Extra credit: From what we read from this chapter, can just anyone be an apostle?
I’ll give it a try...
1. Acts is Luke’s second book. What was his first book about?
The Gospel according to St. Luke
2. What convinced the apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead?
They saw him many times along with over 500 others.
3. Why didn’t they begin proclaiming the gospel right away?
Because they need the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as his people need today.
4. When would they receive power and be witnesses to Jesus?
Upon the arrival and baptism of the Holy Spirit. “HE (not man) will testify of me” ( John 15:26) and “HE (not man) will glorify me” (John 16:14).
5. What would these witnesses testify about?
What they “saw and heard” (1 John 1:1).
6. A replacement for Judas had to be named. What were the qualifications?
Peter, of course, jumped he gun as he was prone to do. Jesus said, “Wait” for the Holy Spirit but Peter couldn’t wait and held a church board meeting to figure out the new 12th apostle. It appears to have been a dead work as it appears that God’s choice was Paul. Many church board meetings, especially among those who have not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit are as dead, fruitless, and futile as the one in Acts 1.
Peter had his human understanding prior to his being filled with the Holy Spirit, so he said things like he must have been a witness to Jesus’ resurrection. God had other ideas.
7. How many candidates met those qualifications?
Whose qualifications, God’s or man’s?
8. Extra credit: From what we read from this chapter, can just anyone be an apostle?
No, God, not man, appoints apostles to the church (Eph 4:11).
Perhaps I should’ve added that all the answers are found in Acts 1. :-)
That’s not to say that the rest of the Bible is irrelevant. But merely that if we read Acts as Luke wrote it, we’ll learn what God wants us to know.
Well, it looks like you did this all in good faith and sort of for fun and I like that.
But we should let God’s Word interpret God’s Word and since the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible, we should let the Holy Spirit teach us as Jesus said He would. Sealing off a chapter by itself can lean to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
God bless. :)
Yes, I’m doing this is good faith. But no, not for fun.
If we can find the answers in Acts 1, we can understand what the Lord wanted us to learn from reading this book. If we go looking elsewhere, then we’re not learning Acts, and the Lord’s work through Luke is not accomplishing its purpose in us.
I do hope you’ll try again, and won’t consider this just an elementary exercise. :-)
Well, God bless you.
You can glean a lot from a portion of scripture like Acts 1 as I have with the help of the Holy Spirit and time, like the whole Peter jumping the gun and having a board meeting without first being baptized in the Holy Spirit. But except for the fact that Peter didn’t wait as Jesus said (which is a lesson in itself), unless you read on, you don’t know about the results.
Remember, chapters are not God-made, they are man-made to make it easier for us to reference. So to confine to a man-made chapter is not fair, even to Luke.
The rest of Acts sheds light on the first part (”Chapter One”). For example, you never hear from the new guy, Matthias, again. The effort appears to have been, in fact, futile which our self-efforts always are when we don’t wait on the Lord. Also we learn that Peter’s understanding was flawed because he and the rest believed at that time that salvation was confined to the Jews. Later we also see that God’s choice for the twelfth apostle was Paul who didn’t necessarily meet Peter’s requirements (God isn’t subject to man’s requirements). But Paul turned out to be the greatest communicator of the gospel of the the grace of Jesus Christ to all, both Jew and Gentile.
I’m curious what makes you think Peter jumped the gun, and that he and the other apostles were acting on their own. Please explain further.
They were told to not begin their commissioned work (i.e. being Jesus’ witnesses) until the Holy Spirit had equipped them. But as for the qualifications stated by Peter, those coincide with the job Jesus had just previously alluded to.
Yes, it’s true that Luke didn’t write in chapters - and the manmade chapter divisions can sometimes cause misunderstanding if we’re not careful. But it’s a convenience in a study of this sort.
The questions above could’ve just as easily be part of a set covering Acts 1-2, and the answers would be found in those chapters rather than elsewhere. Luke wrote with a purpose, as the Holy Spirit inspired him. If we just trust the Book and follow along with him, watching as the story unfolds, how can we go wrong?
I think following along is good, but we want not to lean on our own understanding and always ask the Holy Spirit to teach us as we read because that is one of the reasons He was sent. This is a positive thing and we need not be doubtful, just trust the Lord to help us to surrender to Him so we can learn at his feet. His grace will help us.
Acts shows us the amazing contrasts between believers with and without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1 shows Christians without the baptism of the Holy Spirit doing what they do best - tending toward self-effort and forgetting what the Lords says. Jesus said to stay in Jerusalem and “wait” (Acts 1:4-5). Later, the Lord began to talk about the power they would receive from the Holy Spirit to be his witnesses (Acts 1:7-8).
Peter, as we all know he was inclined to do, ran ahead. Peter hadn’t yet been baptized in the holy Spirit, so we see Peter still being more or less ruled by his own human understanding.
Nothing in scripture indicates this meeting and Peter’s efforts were initiated by the Lord but may have, and I think was, actually in contravention to the Lord’s words to “wait”. Peter wanted to draw straws. Where did Jesus tell him to do that? The results were basically zero. It is evident that Jesus himself picked Paul, the replacement apostle (Acts 9:15), as He, not man, picked the first twelve.
Contrast that with Peter after he was baptized in the Holy Spirit. He arose and spoke with boldness to the crowd and 3000 were saved. His life dramatically changed after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit - he was bold and effective and his life was characterized by being led by the Spirit. We too are effective to the degree we are filled, energized, and guided by the Holy Spirit.
***It appears to have been a dead work as it appears that God’s choice was Paul.***
Paul was not with them from the Baptism of John to the Ascension, so he could not take Judas’ place. Paul was the enemy of Christ until God knocked him off his high horse on the road to Damascus.
**3. Why didn’t they begin proclaiming the gospel right away?
Because they need the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as his people need today.***
Actually Christ had already sent them out with power, and later sent out 70 more.
The Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed on them before the crucifixion. What we saw at Pentecost was a verification of that power.
***Some will tell you the Bible can’t be understood.***
The bible is easy to understand. Read it. The problem is too many people jump around reading and do not get a feeling of how it is structured.
OK, well anyway, you put up the questions, I answered, you replied with some more questions and I did my best to answer them.
I’ve thought about this subject in Acts 1 over time and I believe it to be correct but we’re all learning as we go here.
Fun subject (I think this stuff is fun). Thanks for opening the subject.
God bless.
**Paul was the enemy of Christ until God knocked him off his high horse on the road to Damascus.**
There is no scripture to prove that Paul was riding any animal on his way to Damascus. He fell to the ground. That can happen when standing or walking.
**The Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed on them before the crucifixion. What we saw at Pentecost was a verification of that power.**
That opinion is more man-made interpretation.
1. Acts is Luke's second book. What was his first book about?
His first book was a summary of the life and acts of Jesus of Nazareth, also apparently written to Theophilus (named in the Acts of the Apostles)
2. What convinced the apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead?
Not just a Jesus, but the same Jesus circulating amongst them for forty days after arising back to life in the wounded human body
3. Why didn't they begin proclaiming the gospel right away?
They had not been commissioned to do so. Even after they were, they were commanded to wait for not many days, until the Holy Ghost baptized them, after which they would be empowered to serve.
4. When would they receive power and be witnesses to Jesus?
Act 1:8a,b "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: . . .". These disciples had been baptized unto repentance by John Baptist, They were baptized by Jesus into study as His disciples. They were to be baptized into service by the Holy Ghost, with resurrection power (dunamis), not there speaking of administrative power (exousia). The eleven disciples were given administrative power only to recruit disciples, not to choose and commission Apostles like themselves.
5. What would these witnesses testify about?
These participants in God's plan of salvation would be judicially acceptable witnesses of God's transformation of their lives, and of the second coming of the Messiah as Lord, and the establishment on earth of His Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace, which the Jewish theocracy had refused to acknowledge which John Baptist offered them up til his death, when that offer was withdrawn. In Acts 1, Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, not about the Kingdom of Heaven which was to come at a time known only to the Father.
6. A replacement for Judas had to be named. What were the qualifications?
Oh? Who said that a replacement for Judas had to be named? Jesus gave them no command to do this, nor even a hint. But the qualifications were:
a. An apostle had to have seen Jesus.
b. An apostle had to have been personally chosen by Jesus as a disciple.
c. An apostle had to have personally accepted and been supervised for three and a half years by Jesus.
d. An apostle had to be a disciple personally commissioned as an apostle to be sent by Jesus unto all tribes to recruit, baptize, and teach other disciples of His commands.
e. An apostle had to be personally accompanied by Jesus in Spirit from then on as each followed His commands.
7. How many candidates met those qualifications?
From the date of His Resurrection and through the coming of the Holy Spirit, only eleven men.
No women, including His mother Mary, were included.
Had He desired to then augment the eleven special disciples, He had forty days to do so, and did not; neither did he instruct Peter to cause this action to be taken.
Jesus order to them was to abide in Jerusalem, and to simply WAIT until they were endued with power from on High. With Jesus ascended, and the Holy Spirit not yet come, they had no authority as fallible men to interpret and apply Scripture without spiritual counsel. But the brethren were egged on by the obstreporus Peter to do so, reading into Scripture an application not explicitly commanded or implicitly authorized by the Christ.
8. Extra credit: From what we read from this chapter, can just anyone be an apostle?
No. The Apostolic age passed with the death of Beloved John, the last prophet. None other than Saul ever met the above qualifications. Nothing can be deduced from this chapter that any Apostles are ever to be appointed after the passing of the eleven--plus, of course, Saul of Tarsus, renamed Paul, and added by Christ to them.
Interesting and good point about Luke being a fellow-laborer/disciple of Paul as well as among Jesus disciples. Never thought about that but that gave Luke a deep and wide perspective about the amazing and surprising way God moved in the book of Acts, which of all the New Testament books, does not have an “Amen”. The works in Acts continue through today among those willing to surrender to Him by grace.
As far as “The Apostolic age passed with the death of Beloved John...” that may be true, but I certainly know of no scriptural basis for that assertion. Again, the Book of Acts never concludes with an “Amen” and the works therein are meant to continue until he returns, unlike the “traditions of man” that are taught in so many churches.
**..so we see Peter still being more or less ruled by his own human understanding.**
It never ceases to amaze me, when I see people pointing out instances of Peter’s less then perfect behavior, how they are actually insulting the Lord’s choice to lead, AND the Lord’s ability to teach his choice to lead.
We remember Peter’s bold claim to never deny the Lord, and his subsequent failure (which fulfilled the prophecy of all the sheep being scattered), and judge him as mediocre in his role as a disciple, forgetting:
Who chose him,
Who taught him,
That other than the Christ, he’s the only person to have ever walked on water (I can imagine Paul treading water in the Mediterraean, wishing he could).
Although wrong in his carnal effort to defend the Lord, was the only one to draw his sword against a more heavily armed force.
So, in Acts 1:15-26, we find Peter referring to Psalms 41:9, 69:25, 109:8, and Zech. 11:12, to make the case for replacing Judas.
Peter was certainly well instructed. Remember how John said “that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (Jn 21:25), concerning all that the Lord did. We don’t know everything that the Lord instructed his disciples to do in detail. But, Peter points out these facts:
“..and his bishoprick let another take.” vrs 20,
“Wherefore OF THESE MEN which have accompanied with us ALL THE TIME that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. BEGINNING from the baptism of John, UNTO THAT SAME DAY that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection”. vrss 21,22
While not of the original chosen twelve, it’s safe to say that Matthias was one of the 70 that were given power (temporarily, else they wouldn’t have failed to later cast out the unclean spirit in the one man’s son).
Apparently Matthias had stayed faithful through it all (not leaving when the Lord said that they must ‘eat his flesh, and drink his blood’, like so many that left then).
Is the opinion that Matthias has no epistles or words in the scriptures a reason to dismiss his position? Neither do several of the original twelve have words or epistles recorded.
Yes, it is enjoyable to discuss these things! And as you say, we’re always learning more as we return to the Word to find what the Lord wants us to know.
Thanks for joining in the discussion. I hope to have questions over chapter 2 soon, and I hope you’ll join in again. :-)
Human failings are never an insult to the Lord’s choice of leaders. Quite the opposite.
“For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.