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)
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 the sense of being no longer bodily here. 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 is very evident from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that 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 were 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 is what we see in 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 is quoted here in Acts 2:17 through 21. Now that is as far as we got the other night. We got up to the end of verse 21. And so we are going to begin in verse 22 and proceed from there.
Acts 2:22 "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. . .
This verse begins the first proclamation of Jesus as Christ by the disciples who are part of the church. Now there is no doubt that they did some, I guess you might call it practicing, when Christ sent them out two by two, 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 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.
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. Remember to whom this is addressed. I think that I mentioned that to you the last time, but it is 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 is going to build on that. He is going to recall to their minds that what they are seeing is an extension of the events that took place in the preceding 3.5 years. And so he is going to connect the Jesus of Nazareth that they are celebrating with the giving of God's Holy 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. 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, the one who did the miracles, the signs, and the wonders, really and truly is the Christ. They need to be convicted of that.
Now he ends that sentence there or at least that phrase, "which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know." So he is establishing something that they were familiar with.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death.
The lawless hands are at least assumed at this point to have been the Romans, because 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 when 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 cannot 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 is something that is too wonderful for me to understand. By wonderful I mean it is 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 without actually forcing us into doing it.
How He is able to work these things out I do not know. But it is very similar to Pharaoh hardening his heart. Now God did not hit him over the head 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 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 through the use of our free moral agency.
As I said, it is something that I cannot explain. It is something that I cannot understand. And yet we manage, we human beings manage to carry out the will of God, having free moral agency. And well, I do not know where to go with it. It is a paradox that no one is able to figure out. John Calvin solved it by blaming everything on God. He did not really blame it on God, but he made everybody in their life and everything to be predetermined by God. But that is 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.
Acts 2:24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
This is kind of interesting because it fits into 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 are 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 there 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 dead, 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 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 is 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.
There is one other interesting thing to hear, and that is, "He was loosed from the pains of death." Now, in my margin, it shows me there that it translates it "birth pains" or "labor pains," would be another way of putting it. Now 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 two opposing metaphors. On the one hand you have death, which is exactly the opposite of giving birth, you see, to life. And somehow, he combines these two contrasting metaphors and puts them into one, showing that the grave or death was unable to hold Christ. And the reason why? Why could not 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 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? Then he would have fallen back on prophecy, which is exactly what he did. He did not explain why until he begins to get the prophecy.
Here is his proof. His proof begins in verse 25.
Acts 2:25-28 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. For You will not leave my soul in Hades [in the grave, Sheol], 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.'
The metaphor that he used in verse 24 is then defended by the quotation of these verses from Psalm 16. That is, why He could not be held was because He was the Messiah. And it was prophesied that the grave would not be able to hold the Messiah and therefore, He was resurrected because He was the Messiah.
Now you are 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 there not 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?
He has to convict these people that the One that they put to death was the Messiah. That is what he is 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 prophesied from as early as Genesis the 3rd chapter, now that was a crime that was horrible beyond thinking. Because they would have understood 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 is doing is he is 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. The Jews of that day would have recognized Psalm 16 as applying to the Messiah and applying to a resurrection of the Messiah. Now in 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 that psalm. And that maybe David was talking about himself. So he says,
Acts 2:29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day."
His tomb was there. Now, how does that fit the context of Psalm 16? Well, it does not. 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.
Acts 2:30-31 "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."
David knew, this is what Peter is saying here, that when he wrote 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 us 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 us go back to Psalm 132, verse 11.
Psalm 132:11-12 The Lord has sworn in truth to David [this particular psalm 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."
Psalm 89:3 "I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David: 'Your seed I will establish forever, and build up your throne to all generations.'"
Incidentally, it says in my Bible, Selah, which apparently it is 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. Verse 4 appears to limit forever to all generations. So normally one would think of that in terms 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 line. But a little bit later in Psalm 89,
Psalm 89:35-37 "Once I have sworn 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."
That is 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, beginning, I believe, in verse 7 and going through verses 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 seed or in his seed, 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 is happening here in the book of Acts is Peter is putting the final touches on that to show, once and for all, that this descendant of David that is going to sit on the throne for all eternity is the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. That is the argument that he is trying to establish in these people's mind in hope to convict them to the place where they will actually repent.
Acts 2:32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
So then what was prophesied, he is saying, is now fulfilled. The Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would rise, and Jesus is risen, therefore, Jesus must be the Messiah.
Incidentally, 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 will give you a bit of information or a bit of strength to why I said that Peter, if he was asked a question there at the end of verse 24, why was He raised from the dead? Well, it was because He was the Messiah. He was already the Messiah! 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 is the point 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.
Acts 2:33 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.
This has set up the explanation for what those people, then, were witnessing. The power and the vigor, zeal, dynamism of these men, that formerly had been hiding themselves, had 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 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 is what he says here. "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out. . ." That is what He is doing. He is 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.
You might tie this together with Ephesians the 4th chapter, verse 7, "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift." Now that phrase "the measure of Christ's gift" can be taken two ways. 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, . . ." It is like the Spirit was given to the Son as a gift. Now maybe that will give you some sort of an idea of why He said that it is necessary that I go to the Father. Otherwise you are not going to receive it. The other Comforter will not come. And then Christ in turn gives of that gift to His church.
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says, "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men."
Ephesians 4:11-12 And 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 ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Now you put that together with I Corinthians 12, we find then that all share in these gifts.
I Corinthians 12:3-7 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, 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].
Back to Acts 2 again. And so then, again, the resurrection of Christ was not just a matter 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 is His gift to you and me.
Acts 2:34-35 "For David did not ascend into the heavens [David is still in his grave.], but he says [This is given as further proof that Jesus is Lord, Jesus is Messiah.] himself: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'
Now it is interesting in my Bible that they translate translated the word "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. Adon or Adonai. Now that came from Psalm 110. I am not always sure that I am pronouncing these names correctly, but we will get close to it.
Psalm 110:1 [It says] YHVH said to my Adonai. . .
Undoubtedly, the intention of that verse is being clarified here in Acts 2:34. Now who was David's Lord? Well, David's Lord was 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, "LORD" 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.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.
That 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. That verse is important because this is the one that cut them to the quick. Because the connections made such logical sense to them, 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 murder of the greatest Being that has ever been on the face of this earth. And it really hit home so they took his words in verse 37 as applying to them.
Acts 2:37 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?"
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 is saying here is it gave them pangs of anxiety. Almost as if they knew that at any moment that God's hammer was going to fall and it was going to hit them right on the head and drive them 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 smeary grease spot on the street. They wanted to know, what can I do?
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let 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 is not just an intellectual assent to a certain string of logic. It is not just remorse. Because we find in other places that those things 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 is not just a change of mind. It is a change of mind, but it is not just a change of mind. It is a change of attitude, but it is not just a change of attitude. 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 implies a coming out away from. It implies a turning from something to something else. And of course, we understand it means 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.
In one sense, repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. They are different and yet they are same. Repentance 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.
There is more that I wanted to say about repentance. It comes up in chapter 3 so I will wait until we get to chapter 3 till I say any more on repentance.
But the baptism is, then, an expression of the repentance and of the faith. Now, when a person is baptized, it says that he is to be baptized in the name. We have generally said that that means to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, and that is not wrong. I want to give you some synonyms that might be helpful. It can also mean to be baptized "on account of." You are being immersed because of Jesus or 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 account of.
Now, the synonyms "by the authority of" or "in reference to" or "account of" are all implying the same thing. What it implies is the entering into allegiance to Jesus. See, a loyalty to Him. And the immersion is the first expression of that allegiance, the first public or the first outward expression of that allegiance to Him. You see what it is beginning to symbolize. Before the baptism your allegiance was to someone or something or some concept or some way or some institution. Now you are being baptized, and it is symbolizing your commitment, your allegiance to another Being, institution, or whatever. It indicates a change of allegiance. From / to.
We have a process here. In order to repent, one has to believe. If one believes, one is going to repent. I mean, if one believes in the right way, one is going to repent. Now what that is going to produce 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 is being baptized or immersed, however you want to put it, in reference to or on account of the one that he is going to become loyal to.
So 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 commitment. And of course since you are totally immersed, it is a total commitment. Total loyalty, total allegiance to. 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.
Acts 2:39 "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."
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 is talking to Israelites, "The promise is 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 Israelites who are in the Diaspora. Well, that is certainly possible. But I think I see a great deal more there, and he is including all, "as many as the Lord our God shall call." That is 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.
Acts 2:40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted 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 have gotten the essence of it. It is like somebody took notes of what he was saying, and who knows, there might have been a sermon there that was an hour, an hour and a quarter long. Who knows how long it took him to unreel 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 saved.
Acts 2:41 And those who gladly received his word were baptized; . . .
I think that is so interesting. Does it mean there 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 is those who were zealous about it. They wanted it. They gladly received his word and were baptized.
Acts 2:41 . . . and that day about three thousand souls were added.
Boy, that is 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 usually, I will not say that we grill people, but we are usually fairly thorough 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 what are the proofs of God? We might ask people a lot of things. But if they baptized 3,000 people in one day, they did not ask them very much. And maybe they knew how deeply they were convicted and they were able to discern how well they believed by the expressions of gladness that they heard of that. 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.
When my wife and I were baptized, we were counseled for all of about seven minutes. I do not know whether it was that long or not. But somehow it stuck. I heard one of our ministers say recently that he has counseled people for baptism, maybe spent a couple of hours with them, did it thoroughly, maybe over several counseling sessions. And these people would be baptized and a month later they were gone. You know something is missing. And I do not know exactly what it is. Maybe the apostles had a great deal more discernment. But at any rate, 3,000 souls were added to them.
Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
There we probably have a brief description of what took place in, let us say, the meetings of the early church. There are four things that are given there. 1) 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 2) fellowship. Fellowship, this word is 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.
3) 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 eating of a meal that they would like to compare to the Last Supper or the taking of communion. But that does not 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 is 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 I 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. We know they only did it once a year, so therefore the breaking of bread has to do with eating.
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 it could even include,
Acts 2:46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.
But it does not 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 communion service. It has to do with eating a meal.
And then 4) in prayers. So we find there are at least four things that they did together as a community: the teaching, the fellowship, eating together, and the prayers.
Acts 2:43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
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, 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 who were able to do unusual and wonderful things. So fear came upon these people.
Acts 2:44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common.
What we see here is a very tight unity. Now there have been some who have tried to attach the label 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 commonality of goods, a greater sense of community than we have today.
It says that they "had all things in common." I think that this is going to be explained a little bit more clearly when we get to chapter 4 and leading on into chapter 5 when we have the occasion of the striking dead of Ananias and Saphira. As Peter said to Ananias, you know, when it was yours, was it not in your own power? I do not think that Ananias' property was an isolated thing. I think that everybody had their own property in their own power. However, there seems to been a great deal of 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 is what Ananias and Saphira were deceitfully doing.
I think it is in chapter 13 (I am not real sure right at this time), 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 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 is 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 happened to need them.
Acts 2:46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, . . .
That is 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 ninth 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 was one reason why the book of Hebrews, chapter 7, was written, in order to clarify that the money was to go to the church and no longer to the Temple. But there was a very close connection with the Temple and with Judaism. They had not yet broken away from it completely.
Acts 2:46-47 So 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 is God who adds to the church. It is not by our efforts. Our efforts are certainly included within it, but God adds to the church. He is the one who picks and chooses.
JWR/aws/drm
Sermon Topics
The Gospel
