THE GOSPEL   |   QUESTIONS   |   ARTICLES   |   SERMONS   |   SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   ABOUT

biblestudy: Acts (Part Four)

Acts 2:22-47 Christ's Messiahship / Giving of Holy Spirit
John W. Ritenbaugh
Given 16-Aug-88; Sermon #BS-AC04; 64 minutes

Description: (show)

---

OK. Acts the 2nd chapter has within it the subject that is absolutely essential for the rest of the book, and that is the story of the receipt or the giving of God's Holy Spirit. Because it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that the continuing work of Jesus Christ went on. Christ was gone in, in the sense of being no longer bodily here. Uh, he was no longer in the flesh and he was no longer leading his disciples on a day to day basis you know, just being right with him. But the story in the book of Acts is told in order to show the continuing work of Christ through the church and that through men and women empowered by God's Holy Spirit. So it was absolutely essential that the stage be set at the very beginning of the book in order to show where the power and authority and the wisdom to do the things that they did came from because it's very evident from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now this particular group of people was not very effective in their witness for Christ before the coming of God's Holy Spirit. Even though he had just died, they immediately abandoned him and were going back to their old pursuits. Peter said, I go fishing, and most of the group followed him and apparently we are going right back to what they had come out of. And if they had not received the Holy Spirit, they surely would have gone back and the teaching and that period of 3.5 years with Jesus Christ would have been a fond memory, and that is all. But the church became empowered by the comforter, that Jesus Christ said that he would send, and it was absolutely essential for him to leave in order for it to be sent. If he did not leave, it would not have been given. And so we find that at the giving of the Holy Spirit, the attention is attracted to the occasion by the sound of a mighty rushing wind and the tongues of fire and the men and women speaking in tongues and the people hearing in their own language. And of course there had to be an explanation for what was going on, and that's what we see is the bulk of chapter 2, that is the explanation of what was going on. And so we find in verse 14 that Peter begins his discourse by removing a misunderstanding by showing that these people were not drunk, but rather what they were seeing was the fulfillment of prophecy that is that particular one that was spoken of by the prophet Joel, and that is in Joel 2, beginning in verse 28 and going through verse 32, but it's quoted here in Acts 2:17 through 21. Now that's as far as we got the other night, we got up to verse, the end of verse 21. And so we are going to begin in verse 22 and proceed from there. So men of Israel hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know. Now, this verse begins. The first proclamation of Jesus as Christ by the disciples. Uh, who are part of the church. Now there is no doubt that, that they did some, I guess you might call it practicing, when Christ sent them out, you know, 2 by 2, and he sent the 70 out and he sent the 12 out from time to time. I am sure that they were doing a certain amount of speaking. In helping to prepare the way for Christ as he as he moved from city to city because they were casting out demons and they were doing things that would attract attention to them and then they of course shifted the attention to Jesus Christ. But here is the first proclamation of Jesus as Christ by the church. Now, What they, what he is going to do here is establish something that they were really well aware of, but had not admitted the truth to themselves, and that is that Jesus was a figure that was well known of them. I remember to whom this is addressed. I, I think that I mentioned that to you the last time, but it's addressed to two basic groups, those who are dwellers in Jerusalem and those who were the pilgrims who were just passing through, you might say. Now the dwellers in Jerusalem should have certainly been aware of the preaching of Christ because he was there in the area of Palestine for 3.5 years, and of course they were. At least somewhat aware of the events that have taken place there during the Days of Unleavened Bread with the crucifixion and resurrection. Now Peter's going to, to build on that. He's going to recall to their minds that what they are seeing is a is an extension. Of the events that took place in the preceding 3.5 years. And so he's going to connect the Jesus of Nazareth. You know that they are celebrating with the giving of God's Holy Spirit, Spirit and the miracles and the wonders and the signs. And so he begins then with the miracles and the wonders and the signs which God did through him. So he then begins to establish a basis because that was something with which they were well aware. But what they needed was not just a reminder of these things occurring. But rather what they needed was to be convicted that that Jesus, you see, the one who did the miracles, the signs, and the wonders, really and truly was, is the Christ. They need to be convicted of that. Now he ends that that sentence there. Or at least that phrase, which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know. So he's establishing something that they were familiar with. Now him. Being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you. have taken by lawless hands and and have crucified and put to death. Now the lawless hands are at at least Assumed At this point, to have been the Romans, because they, they, they were the ones who literally put him to death. But he also stuck the word you in there to begin to lay a basis of conviction. Because the Jews were part of the crucifixion, and that it was by their machinations that Pilate actually carried the crucifixion through and Pilate wanted to let him go. So there is a sharing of the guilt here. And as we come to understand it, all of us are guilty through sin. As much as if we had been a part of the crowd that cried, crucify him, crucify him. But he has to establish very firmly in their mind to the point of conviction. Not only was Jesus the Christ, but that they personally were responsible for the putting of him to death, and it was not just something that they could conveniently shift over to the Romans. And blame it on them and point the finger. We can't do that either. We have to recognize that our sins also are responsible in the causing of his death. Now, there is a paradox here. And that is that what was done by men. was predetermined by God. And yet I think that as I mentioned to you the last time, It's something that is too wonderful for me to understand. By wonderful I mean it's something that is beyond my comprehension how that God can give us free moral agency and allow us through that free moral agency to do something that was His will all along anyway. See, without actually forcing us into doing it. Uh, how he is able to work these things out I do not know. But it's very similar to Uh, Pharaoh hardening his heart. Now God did not hit him over the head with a, with a 2x4 and say, Pharaoh, change your mind. But Pharaoh did change his mind, and God still did not take away Pharaoh's free moral agency. Now how he does that, I do not know. If it if it is not that way. Then God is ultimately responsible for all of the acts of all of mankind. In one sense he is because he permits these things to occur when he could step in and stop them. But he does not step in. He permits them to occur and thereby takes a measure of the responsibility upon himself. But there is no guilt in that. Because we did it ourselves anyway. See through the, through the use of our free moral agency. And as I said, it's something that I cannot explain. It's something that I cannot understand. And yet we manage, we human beings managed to carry out the will of God, having free moral agency and Well, I do not know where to go with it. It's a paradox that no one is able to figure out. John Calvin solved it by blaming everything on God. I did not really blame it on God, that he made everybody in their life and everything to be predetermined by God. But that's not so. If it were so, then there would be no free moral agency at all. And so that kind of approach is not correct. So there is free moral agency, and yet somehow or another, mankind carries out the will of God using its own free moral agency. OK, verse 24. whom God raised up. Having loosed the pains of death, because it, it was not possible that he should be held by it. Now, this is kind of interesting. Because it fits into Uh, other similar statements that are made by the apostles in other places. And that is That here we have a sermon. That was preached by Peter. In other places, we have sermons that were preached by Paul. They're the two. Most quoted But none of the apostles. Ever stops to prove the resurrection. They just preach it, assuming. That everybody knows of it, believes of it. Now we can look back on that and say, well, they did not have to do that to us because we see Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and they are the evidence is presented. But we have to remember the context in which they preached. That Not everybody would naturally know that this Jesus was actually raised from the from the dead, but yet there is no evidence of them ever going to the place where they stopped to prove it. Well, the question might be how do you prove it. Now how would you prove it in their, in their, in the context of their time? Well, I do not know, but they never stopped to do it. They just assumed. That others would, at least that's the approach, it seems as though they assumed that these people would believe that he indeed had been raised from the dead, and maybe they assumed on the basis that it was heard. OK, now that there is one other interesting thing to hear, and that is Uh, he, he was loose from the pains of death. Now, in my margin, It shows me that there that It translates it birth pains or labor pains. Would be another way of putting it. Now the, the metaphor that Luke is using here is as though death. is a woman and is giving birth to a child, and it shows death as being unable to stop the birth. Which is a very interesting approach to this. Now you have, you have two opposing metaphors, you see. On the one hand you have death, which is exactly the opposite of giving birth, you see, to life. And, and, and somehow, he combines these two contrasting metaphors and put them in, into one, showing that the grave or death was unable to hold Christ. And the reason why Why could not the death or why could not the grave hold Christ? Well, I know what his answer would have been. Because he was the Messiah. I mean, it would, would have been that simple. It would not have had to have been a complicated answer because death could not hold the Messiah. Now, why could not death hold the Messiah? But then he would have fallen back on prophecy, which is exactly what he did. He did not, he did not explain it. Who it was, not who it was, but, but why, until he begins to get the prophecy. Now, here is his proof. His proof begins in verse 25. For David says concerning him. I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken. Therefore, my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad. Moreover, my flesh will also rest in hope because you will not leave my soul in Hades in the grave, sheo, nor will you allow your holy one to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life you will make me full of joy in your presence. Now the metaphor that he used in verse 24 is then defended by the quotation of this these verses from Psalm 16. That is why he could not be held was because he was the Messiah. And it was prophesized that the grave would not be able to hold the Messiah. And therefore, he was resurrected because he was the Messiah. OK, now you're beginning, beginning to see the point in Peter's argument here. He is beginning to zero in on the greatness of this Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, he was a man who did miracles, signs, and wonders. But that was a claim that might have been made by others. Because were not there other? People, charlatans, fakes, magicians, sorcerers who are going around doing what they might consider to be miracles, signs and wonders. But how many of those people do you know that went to their grave and arose? You know, he has to convict these people that the one that they put to death was the Messiah. See, that's what he's aiming for. If he was just an ordinary man. That would be one thing. But if he was the long-awaited Messiah, the Messiah that had been prophesized from as early as Genesis the 3rd chapter, now that was a crime that was horrible beyond thinking. Because they would have understand that they would have been guilty of putting to death their Creator. And they knew those things intellectually. But they had to be convicted of it. So what he's doing, you see, is he's going to draw on prophecies from various places and remind them that this Jesus of Nazareth fit. What those prophecies said, and so he begins with a resurrection. Now the Jews of that day would have recognized Psalm 16 as applying to the Messiah and applying to a resurrection of the Messiah. OK now verse 29 comes another part of the argument, because part of the argument might be, well, that Psalm really did not apply to the Messiah, that Psalm applied to David. Because he was generally seen to be the author of, of that song. And that maybe David was talking about himself. So he says, men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the Patriarch David. He is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Now his tomb was there. Now, how does that fit the context of Psalm 16? Well, it doesn't. He is implying, of course, that David went into the grave, into the tomb, and that David's body saw corruption. Therefore, he could not be the one being spoken about there. It had to be The holy one of Israel. It had to be the Messiah that was being spoken of. So then David's tomb is proof that the psalmist was not writing about himself. Now verse 30. Therefore, being a prophet, that is David, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, David, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ that his soul, that is the Christ, was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. Now David knew. This is what, what Peter is saying here is that David knew that when he wrote that, that he was prophesying of the Messiah. In no way could that fit a common ordinary man or even a man of the stature of David. And that David knew that he was writing, then that the Messiah would be resurrected. Now how did he know that? Well, he knew from the prophecy that came through, Nathan, I believe it was. And then given to David. That David would always have an heir. To sit on his throne. Now, let's look at that. You see, David had to use His thinking processes. In order to determine this, it was not, I do not think very hard for David to figure out. Let's go back to Psalm, not Psalm, but 2 Samuel. I want to go to that one later. Psalms is the one I want. Let's go to Psalm 132. We'll go back to II Samuel a little bit later. Psalm 132. And in verse 11, The Lord has sworn in truth to David. Now this particular song was not necessarily written by David. But it was Quoted from David. And he will not turn from it. I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body. If your sons will keep my covenant and my testimony, which I shall teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore. OK, now let's go to Psalm 89. In Psalm 89 and in verse 3. I have made a covenant with my chosen. I have sworn to my servant, David, your seed will establish forever and build up your throne to all generations. Incidentally, it says in my Bible, see law, which means apparently it's a pause, intending for us to meditate or think on that. Now, to that point, We have the word forever. We had the word forevermore in Psalm 132. But I think most of us understand that the word forever in the Bible does not mean the same thing as the English word forever. The English word forever means without end. But the Hebrew word forever means as long as the conditions exist. OK, now, verse 4 appears. To limit forever to all generations. So normally one would think of that in terms of, of being, as long as men and women are procreating, and a new generation is coming up every 25, 30 years. Now without further information, We might have a hard time establishing. That The Messiah was intended to come from David's David's line. But a little bit later in Psalm 89 and in verse 35. Once I have sworn to my holiness, or by my holiness, I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me, it shall be established forever like the moon, even like a faithful witness in the sky. You know, that's intended to give us something that goes far beyond. The life of man on earth and extends over on into the World Tomorrow into the kingdom of God. As long as there is a sun and the moon, then David is going to have someone from his line sitting on the throne. And we would couple that with II Samuel 7. Uh, beginning, I believe, in verse 7 and going through verse 12 to 16, something like that. You begin to understand then. That whenever Nathan told that to David, David began to piece things together, and he came to understand that God had one particular descendant in mind. It was not just a line. Of sons and daughters who would come out of David, yes, that was certainly included. But it is very similar to what God said to Abraham. Regarding the seed, you see, by his seat or in his seat, all families would be blessed. Now we could use seed in a plural sense. Even the way David could have used his descendants in a plural sense. But he knew, he understood. That God intended one seed. He intended one descendant. Now what what is happening here. is here in the book of Acts. Peter is putting the final touches on that, the show once and for all. That Uh, this descendant of David that is going to sit on the throne for all eternity is the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. You know, that's what, that's the argument that he has going, that he's trying to establish in these people's mind in hope to convict them to the place where they will actually repent. OK, verse 32, this Jesus, God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. So then what was prophesized, he is saying is now fulfilled. The Old Testament prophesized that the Messiah would rise, and Jesus is risen, therefore, Jesus must be the Messiah. Now incidentally, there is a there is a thought here that might be good to get across, and that is this. Jesus was Messiah from birth. He was not made Messiah by a resurrection. He was not made Messiah by anything that occurred after the resurrection. Maybe that'll give you a bit of information or a bit of, of, of strength to why I said that Peter, if he was asked a question there at the end of verse 24, why did, why was he raised from the dead? Well, it was because he was the Messiah. He was already the Messiah. See, he was, all the word Messiah means is the anointed one. He was the anointed from the very beginning of his life. So therefore, Jesus was raised because he was the Messiah. That's the point that that Peter is trying to get across. Therefore, if he was Messiah before he died, they killed the Messiah. Who was the Creator. The God who made the earth and gave life to Adam and Eve. Verse 33 then. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit. He poured out this which you now see and hear. You know this has set up the explanation for what those people then were witnessing. See the the power and the vigor, zeal, dynamism. Of these men, you see that formerly had been hiding themselves and abandoned Christ, and now here they were speaking out with a great deal of power. Now something else is said in that verse. And that is that the resurrection of Jesus was not just a revi revivifying of his body. But rather It was a raising of him to be God's right hand man. In other words, it was a raising to power and authority. And what was that authority to administer the Holy Spirit. That's what he says here. therefore being exalted to the right hand of God and having received from the from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he poured out. That's what he's doing. He's administering the Holy Spirit, and that is what makes possible the salvation of individuals and the empowering of them, that is those individuals, to do the work of witnessing. Now, you might tie this together with Ephesians. The 4th chapter And in verse 7 But to each one of us. Grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Now that phrase can be taken two ways. That phrase the measure of Christ's gift. It can be taken in the most common sense of being Christ's gift to us. But it can also and just as truly mean the gift which Christ received. Now you put that together with Acts 2:33. Where it says, and therefore being exalted to the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit. So then, it's like the Spirit was given to the son as a gift. Now maybe that'll give you some sort of an idea of why he said that it's necessary that I go to the Father. Otherwise you're not going to receive it. The other comforter will not come. And then Christ in turn. Gives of that gift to his church. Verse 8 of Ephesians 4. Therefore, he says, when he ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men. And then we find in verse 11. That he himself gave some to be apostles, that is through the power of His Spirit, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Now you put that together with I Corinthians 12. We find them that that all share. In these gifts. Verse 3. Therefore, I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus a curse, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. Now there are diversities of gifts. But the same spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord, there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all, but the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all or for the common good. OK, back to Acts 2 again. And so then again, The resurrection of Christ. It was not just a matter of, of reviving him. But it was an ascension to the right hand of God. From which he then administers the Holy Spirit. Empowering individuals to salvation and the doing of the work of witnessing. So then the Holy Spirit is the gift. To the church Of the exalted resurrected Jesus Christ. That's his gift to you and me. Verse 34. For David did not ascend into the heavens. David is still in his grave. But he says Now this is given as further proof. That Jesus is Lord. Jesus is Messiah. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. Now it's interesting in my Bible. That they Translate translated the words Lord here in the New Testament, the same way they appear in the Old Testament. Which is kind of interesting because There is no YHVH. In Greek, They have one word that covers both of the Lords. Aon or Adoni. Now that came from Psalm 110. In Psalm 110. I'm not always sure that I'm pronouncing these names correctly, but we will get close to it. In Psalm 110 and in verse 1. It says Y Y VH said To my Adoni. Undoubtedly, The intention Of that verse is being clarified here in Acts 234. OK, now who was David's Lord? Well, David's Lord with Jesus of Nazareth, you see the Messiah. Now, the Jews generally interpreted Psalm 110 in that way. And Peter is here making The point That the same David who spoke in Psalm 16 of the Messiah not being held by death. is also saying here that this Lord of his. Was the holy one of Israel was the Messiah. So The first Lord Capital L O R D in this context. is the one that we know of as being the Father. The second Lord is the one that we know of as Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. So David's Lord was the Messiah. And the Lord of that Lord. was the Father. OK, verse 36 then. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly. That God has made this Jesus, whom you crucify both Lord and Christ. OK, now that put a, put a cap on it. The subject of Psalm 16. Is the Messiah The subject of Psalm 110 is the Lord. Peter is saying that Jesus of Nazareth is both. He is Lord and Christ. He is the subject of Psalm 16. He is the subject of Psalm 110. Now, Let's see. That verse is important because This is the one That cut them to the quick. Because The connections made such logical sense to them. You know, putting together what they knew of the teachings of Christ, because that was in the background because they were familiar, at least to some degree. They also knew, of course, of many of the miracles. They of course knew of the resurrection and crucifixion. But nobody had ever explained to them. The scriptures in this connection. Now whenever they got that whole schmear together, it made such sense to them. That they were convicted. Because they knew that they were backed into a corner. And that they had participated in the in the murder of the greatest being that has ever been on the face of this earth. And it really hit home. So they took verse 37. They took his words as applying to them. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart. And said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, What shall we do? Now I had these people Most of them had they At least tacitly. Agreed to the death of Christ. Now whether they did or did not. Maybe we will not know until the resurrection and we are able to talk to some of them. But I can guarantee you this from what I see in the context. That His status And his dignity, I guess you would call it. Came as a shock to them. It was something that really cut away at them. And what it's saying here is it gave them pangs of anxiety. Almost as if they were, they knew that at any moment, you know, that, that God's hammer was going to fall and it was going to hit them right on the head and drive them right feet first, right into the ground. They were anxious for their lives. They were probably expecting thunderbolts at any moment. They were going to be melted until they were nothing but a a smear grease spot on the street. They wanted to know what, what can I do? So then Peter said to them, Repent But every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now repentance is not just A change of attitude. It's not just Uh, an intellectual assent to A certain string of logic. It's not just remorse. Because we find in other places that those things are are mentioned. It is all of them combined. But the word implies not just remorse, not just a change of attitude, not just an intellectual agreement with an argument, but it also implies that the person is literally turning. It is a turning from something to something. It's not just a change of mind. It is a change of mind, but it's not just a change of mind. It's, it is a change of attitude, but it is not just a change of attitude. It, it is a feeling of remorse. But it is not just a feeling of remorse. It is all of them combined together that produces an actual turning in the person's life. Which, which implies a coming out away from it, it implies a turning from something to something else. And of course we understand it means a, a turning of direction in the person's life. Where there is literally something that has begun to take place. In the way of action. Now in one sense, Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. They are different and yet they are sameRepentance toward God requires faith in God. And faith in God will produce repentance. The one hangs with the other. The two go together. They cannot be taken separately. Let's see, there was something that I wanted to get to here, maybe it comes up in chapter 3. I think it does. I'll wait until we get to chapter 3 till I say any more on repentance. But the baptism I then an expression. Of the repentance and of the faith And let's see. Now, when a person is baptized, It says that he is to be baptized in the name. Now we have generally said that that means to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, and that that is not wrong. I want to give you some synonyms. That that might be helpful. It can also mean To be baptized on account of. You you're being immersed because of Jesus. For account of him If Jesus was not who he was. And if Jesus had not done what he did, Then you would not be baptized on account of it. It can also mean To be baptized in reference to him. Which is very similar to being baptized on a condo. Now, the synonyms by the authority of or in reference to or kind of are all implying the same thing. And they, what it implies is, is the entering into allegiance to Jesus. See a loyalty to him. And the immersion is the first expression of that allegiance. the first, maybe first public would be better or the first outward expression of that allegiance. To him. OK, now you see what it's beginning to symbolize. Before the baptism. Your allegiance was to someone or something or some concept or some way or some institution. Now you're being baptized, and it is symbolizing your commitment, your allegiance to another. Being, institution, or whatever. It, it indicates a change of allegiance. Prom 2. So we have a process here. In order to repent, one has to believed. If one believes, one is going to repent. I mean, if, if one believes in the, in the right way, one is going to repent. Now what is what that is going to be, what that is going to produce, you see, is a turning. And as the person turns, he makes his first public act of commitment or allegiance or loyalty to what he is turning to. So he's being baptized or immersed, however you want to put in reference to account of. In a account or on account of. The one that he is going to become loyal to. Though baptism symbolizes a great deal more than just a death. It is indeed a death. It is indeed a burial. But it is the symbol of commission of commitment. And of course since you're totally immersed, it is a total commitment. Total loyalty, total allegiance to. OK, then, if they will repent, And take this first step. Then will come remission of sins. And The power to enable us to be loyal to committed to. The one that we are turning to, that is to Christ. Now verse 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. Now I think that we can see there. A beginning of an expression. That certainly would include the coming of the Gentiles into the church. He's talking to Israelites, the promises to you Israelites, and to your children and to all who are afar off. Now we might be able to strictly interpret that by saying that he might mean all the all the Israelites who are in the diaspora. Well, that's certainly possible. But I think I see a great deal more there, and he's including all, you see, as many as the Lord our God shall call. That's interesting all by itself. The promise is only to those that God calls. We can limit it to that, but it would certainly include the Gentiles as well. OK, verse 40. And with many other words, he testified and exerted them, saying be saved from this perverse generation. Now that verse indicates that Luke has only given us a summary of what Peter said. We've gotten the essence of it. It's like somebody took notes of what he was saying, and who knows, there might have been a sermon there that was. An hour, 1 hour and a quarter long. Who knows how long it took him to unreal all this. There may have been many, many other scriptures from out of the Old Testament that he quoted that are not gotten into this because all we need is the essence of what he said. And he says to be saved from this perverse generation. And that certainly indicates a sense of urgency. Do it now, be safe. And those who gladly received his word were baptized. I think that is so interesting. Does it mean there that that they did not baptize the ones? who were just indifferent. Or so so about it. Or could take it or leave it. Or Thought they needed to think it over a little while longer? No, it's those who were jealous about it. They wanted it. They gladly received his word and were baptized, and that day about 3000 souls were added. Boy, that's impressive. Can you see the assembly line. Of baptisms. That also is very interesting. What kind of baptism counseling did they give those people? You know, today, we, we, we usually, I will not say that we grill people. But we are usually fairly thorough in our in our baptism of people. And we might go through. A couple of different counseling sessions going over repentance and going over baptism and the receiving of God's Holy Spirit and do you believe God? Do you believe in the Bible? Are you willing to live by the words of the Bible and you know what are the proofs of God? We might ask people a lot of things. But I do not think that they, if they baptize 3000 people in one day. They did not ask them very much. And maybe they knew how deeply they were convicted and how were able to discern how well they believed. By the Expressions of gladness. That they heard about. The joy over the forgiveness of sin. The joy that there is a savior and that they had actually witnessed his preaching in many cases. You know, when my wife and I were baptized, we were, we were counseled for all of about 7 minutes. I do not know. I do not know whether it was that long or not. But somehow it stuck. I heard one of our ministers say say recently. That That he has, he has counseled people for baptism, maybe spent a couple of hours with them, did it thoroughly, maybe over over several counseling sessions and uh. These people would be baptized and a month later they were gone. You know something's missing. And I do not know exactly what it is. Maybe these people just, I mean, the apostles had a great deal more discernment. But at any rate, 3000 souls were added to them, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Now there we we probably have a brief descriptionWhat took place in Let's say that the meetings. Of the early church There are 4 things that are given there. They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine. Which indicates that they were receiving teaching from the apostles or those whom the apostles designated as being faithful teachers of the same doctrine that the apostles were teaching. And fellowship. Well, fellowship, this word. I More closely synonymous with our English word sharing. And it indicates The sharing of a meal. It indicates the sharing of more than just a meal in common. It could include the sharing of hopes, dreams, ideals, standards. It could indicate the sharing of goods. But it is the sharing. It indicates a commonality. So they had then A fellowship. Now there are people with whom we have social contacts and social dealings. But we are not fellowshipping with them. We may socialize with them because whatever it is, business reasons or whatever, it has thrown us together and at the very least, we share one meal together or we share a business deal together. But that is not fellowship in the biblical sense. This is something that carries through into one's life in many different areas. And includes above all a commonality of mind. So there was a unity there. Then, the next thing was the breaking of bread. Now there are those who like to feel that they are talking here about Passover or the The eating of of a meal. That they would like to compare to the Last Supper or the taking of communion. But that doesn't hold water. We do not have the time to do this now, but if you follow that same phrase through the Bible, you will find. That in most cases, all it indicates was eating. That's all. It has nothing at all to do with anything that is a ritual. In terms of a sacrament. As a communion meal. Now there is no doubt that in First Corinthians, Paul uses the phrase, the breaking of bread. In reference to the taking of the Passover. And that is certainly true because bread is broken then. But that section also says that we are to do it as often as we come together for this purpose, and we understand from other parts of the Bible that that means once a year. And the breaking of bread is mentioned so frequently. That they could not be doing that. You know, it could not be one Passover meal and then another Passover meal and then another Passover meal, and we know they only did it once a year, so therefore the breaking of bread has to do with eating. Now apparently, They ate together As a community, A lot more frequently than we do. I do not know, maybe it was almost for a while anyway, a regular part of services. There is certainly that possibility. I do not know for sure. Nobody does, but uh. It could even include Uh, verse 46. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house. That it doesn't necessarily have to mean that they were breaking bread in a communal way, that is eating a meal with every service that they had. But in any case, it has nothing at all to do with a with a communion service. It has to do with eating a meal. And then in prayers. So we find there are at least 4 things that they did together as a community, the teaching, the fellowship, eating together, and the prayers. In verse 43, then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now in this case, the fear means An awe or a terror. In other words, the people in the community were afraid. I mean, if you saw men doing unexplainable things. Fairly frequently In many different locations. You know, far more than Jesus ever did. In the one location that he was, if you multiply that times 12, and who knows how many more of these people were doing signs and wonders and miracles, I think that we would begin to understand why these people would fear. I mean, be afraid. Just like somebody came from another planet and they had weapons. We're able to do unusual and wonderful things. Though fear came upon these people. Now verse 44, now all who believe were together and had all things in common. What we see here is is a very tight unity. Now there have been some who have tried to attach the label communism, communism to this. But it is not communism in any stretch of the imagination. Communism is a political system. The church is not a political system. Communism is an ideology. A political ideology. That is used to Get power over the people and over the economy. But there is no doubt that these people had a greater Uh, commonality of goods, a greater sense of community than we have today. Now it says that they had all things in common. I think that this is going to be. Uh, Explained a little bit more clearly when we get to chapter 4 and leading on into chapter 5 when we have the occasioner of the striking dead of Ananias and Sahara. As Peter said to Ananias, you know, when it was yours, was it not in your own power? I do not think that Ananias's propertywas an isolated thing. I think that everybody had their own property in their own power. However, there seems to been a great Deal of, of well, a sense of community in such a way that they The believers made their goods available to others on a very free basis. Very willing basis. I think a better way of saying it was that they put their goods, their material goods to the disposal or at the disposal of others when they were needed. And that's what Ananias and Sahara were deceitfully doing. You know, I think it's in chapter 13. I'm not real sure right at this time, but But Luke goes out of his way to mention that Barnabas sold a piece of property. And I guess he contributed the proceeds of it to the welfare. Of the people and if, if that was not unusual, then why say it? If everybody was doing it, then what was so unusual about Barnabas doing it? But the fact that it's pointed out indicates that what he did was rather an unusual act. And so therefore it does not indicate at all the common idea that we have of communism. Where everybody shares things supposedly in common, but rather these people had such an attitude of giving that they put their goods at the disposal of any who happen to need them. And so verse 46, so continuing daily with one accord in the temple. Now that's interesting in the temple. It indicates that the church had not made a break yet from Judaism. Now we are going to see that as we go over into chapter 3, that the thing that occurs in chapter 3 occurred at the temple at the 9th hour, which was the hour of the evening sacrifice. There are also indications that The tithe money was very largely going to the temple. And that that was one reason why the book of Hebrews chapter 7, was written in order to clarify that that the money was to go to the church. And no longer did the temple, but there was a very close connection with the temple and with Judaism. They had not yet broken away from it completely. Though continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people, they were frightened of them, and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. I guess the last thing that I want to get out of this chapter is that it's God who adds to the church. It's not by our efforts. Our efforts are certainly included within it. But God adds to the church. He's the one who picks and chooses.

JWR/aws/drm

 

 

Sermon Topics

False Gospels

Jesus Christ's Return

Life after Death

Repentance

Resurrection

The Gospel

The Kingdom of God