|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman This Section - Introduction, Chapter 2 ch. 2:1-14 ch. 2:14-42 ch. 2:42-47 The Holy Spirit Comes At Pentecost (ch. 2:1 - 13) Here
in Acts chapter 2 the New Testament era begins.
It begins with a miraculous and historic event.
The Holy Spirit’s coming to earth, to live in the lives of
God’s people. The Holy
Spirit’s coming was to replace Jesus, as He told his disciples in John
14 through 16. The
coming of the Spirit not only introduces the New Testament era, but it
brings about a new community of God’s people called the church.
It brings about a new mission for God’s people, that is, the
proclamation of the gospel, with all of its secondary issues. In
verse 1 of chapter 2 Luke says that “when the day of Pentecost
came…”. The feast of
Pentecost was 50 days after Passover.
Pentecost means 50th.
This feast was also called the Feast of Weeks. It
is interesting to note that the coming of the Spirit happened on the Day
of Pentecost. Obviously this
was not some accident, but was part of God’s design.
Passover represents the sacrifice of Jesus, while Pentecost
represents the giving of the Holy Spirit to God’s people. This to me is
yet another reason to believe that God has a timetable.
He does things at specific predetermined times.
Without getting involved in the discussion here, all of the seven
feasts found in Old Testament Judaism are symbolic and representative of a
New Testament fulfillment. Luke
says that “when the Day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one
place”. Who does “they”
refer to? There may be two
groups of believers mentioned in chapter 1.
In verses 12 to 14 you have the 11 apostles, along with some women,
Mary and Jesus’ brothers. Then
in verse 15 you have Peter standing up in front of 120
believers. Were these 2
groups actually 2 groups, or were they one in the same?
That is, were 120 people staying and living in that upstairs room?
There is a good chance that not all 120 were staying in the upper
room, but only those mentioned in verses 11 to 14.
The rest stayed elsewhere, but at times they all gathered together
at this location. So
here in chapter 2 verse 1 there is a good chance that all 120 were meeting
together in one place. The KJV
says that they were “all of one accord”, while the NIV says that they
“were all in one place”. Much
has been made of “being of one accord”, as being really united.
These people were united in prayer, united in waiting for the
Spirit. Most of all they were
simply together in one place. We
should not over emphasize this point by saying that people must be united
in all sorts of things, including doctrine in order to see the Holy Spirit
move. At this point in time,
these people’s theology was not that developed to be so united in
thought and doctrine. The way
in which these people were united was in the anticipation of something
that would happen. Jesus told
them to wait in It
was most likely during a time of prayer when a loud noise sounded.
It was sudden and it sounded like a very violent wind storm.
The word sudden suggests that the noise was not anticipated and
came on them without warning. Those
in the room were most likely very shocked. This
suddenness began this new age, the age of the church.
The same suddenness will end this age when Jesus returns to earth.
It will be just as sudden. There
will be no advance warning. Luke
says that this noise came from heaven.
It came down from above and filled the whole house that they were
in. So will also the return of
Jesus be to end this age. Jesus
will come from heaven, and the glory that filled those believers in Acts 2
will fill the whole earth. During
the sound of this mighty noise there came down also from heaven what
appeared to be like flames of fire, or as Luke calls them “tongues of
fire”. The fire separated
itself and “rested” on each person in the room.
These tongues of fire were not real fire, but only appeared to look
like fire. This most likely is
a direct fulfillment of Luke
3:16 where Jesus says that the believers would one day be baptized with
the Holy Spirit and with fire. To
keep the comparison going. When
Jesus returns, the fire of His judgment will be seen that will wipe away
the last remnant of sin. It
is clear that these “tongues of fire” had something to do with the
“tongues” or the other languages that the disciples were about to
speak for the first time, having never learned. It is quite normal that
when our heart is full of anything, our tongue will give evidence of that
by what it says. If we are
happy about something, we most likely will tell someone about our
happiness. When filled with
the Spirit, our tongue, sooner or later will get involved, one way or
another. This obviously was a
special event for the formation of the new church, the introduction of the
Holy Spirit to the earth. Verse
4 says that “all of them were filled with the Holy Spirit”.
Not one person was left out of this event.
We should ask ourselves what being “filled with the Holy
Spirit” really means. There
are a number of phrases that the New Testament uses for this phenomena.
Such words as “baptized and poured out” are a couple of
examples. Peter himself in
verse 18 uses an Old Testament Scripture where the words “poured out”
are used. By using the words
“poured out” it gives a picture of God pouring, as if He was pouring
from a large cup. With
this in mind, when the Holy Spirit comes on a person, He is being poured
into that person, and filling him up, as filling a cup with water.
When this happens the person knows that something real and
miraculous is happening. In every case in the book of Acts you can clearly
see that this experience was dramatic.
It only makes sense, that if God’s Spirit fills a person up, that
person should know that something is happening.
In
this particular instance this “filling up”, or “pouring out” on
the disciples was a first time experience.
These people had the Holy Spirit come into them for the first time.
Yet these same people were refilled later, as you will see in Acts
4. As a matter of fact, they
had many fillings. It does not mean that they lost the Holy Spirit and had
to receive Him again. It means
that there is more of the Holy Spirit than one person can contain. If
these disciples were refilled, so should we be refilled. Not
only did these people get filled with the Holy Spirit but they also spoke
in other tongues, or languages, ”as the Spirit enabled them”.
Speaking in tongues is listed by Paul as one of 12 gifts of the
Holy Spirit. Paul calls these
gifts a “manifestation” of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:7)
This simply means that certain gifts are given by the Spirit to
individuals, showing that He truly lives within the person.
To manifest means to show forth that which is within.
Here
the 120 began to speak in other tongues, that is, languages that they did
not know before. It was
God’s Spirit that caused this to happen.
It was a miracle. This
was not man made, but truly a miraculous phenomena of God.
The
tendency in Pentecostal and Charismatic
circles, which is the tendency in all areas of the church, is to reduce
the supernatural into human effort, as Paul puts it in Gal. 3.
We have too often reduced speaking in tongues into a more human
phenomena. By this I mean that we have said such things as, “repeat
after me”. A person would
say a word or two in tongues and ask another to repeat these words, hoping
the other person would continue on their own and speak in tongues. I
have heard some say, “just say any syllables that come to mind, and then
the Lord will take over and cause you to speak in tongues”.
These examples are abuses of the gift. This is humanizing something
that is spiritual and miraculous. When
the people in Acts 2 spoke in tongues, it was a miracle of God.
They did not have to start in their own human effort and hope God
would take over. As a matter
of fact, I don’t even think that these people expected this to happen.
I believe it was a total surprise to them, as it was to those who
watched it happen. We
need to note that “speaking in tongues” is not really a Christian
phenomena. Such things
have been recorded in pagan worship. This
is one reason why the Corinthian church had so many problems with tongues.
They had seen it happen before in pagan worship.
Maybe some of them had actually spoken in tongues as a pagan.
This does not mean that we should downgrade this gift.
We know that the devil has many counterfeits.
This is only one. One
thing we should note here is that there is a difference between speaking
in tongues and praying in tongues. The
people here spoke in tongues and it was a witness to those around.
Yet, if you read 1 Corinthians 14 you will see Paul use the phrase,
"praying in the Spirit", which in context is praying in tongues.
This is important to understand, especially for non-Pentecostals
who only think tongues is that which we see here in Acts 2.
There is more to tongues than Acts 2 tongues.
There is 1 Corinthians 14 tongues as well, and that is, praying in
tongues that is not a witness to others, but a simple private prayer
language. In
verse 5 Luke says that “there were Godly Jews staying in This
point has been noted by some in that they say the real miracle was in the
hearing, and not the speaking. Some
say that the 120 were speaking in their own language, while the hearers
heard in their own language. Therefore
the miracle was not in the speaking but the hearing.
But this cannot be the case. The
text clearly says that the believers spoke with other tongues.
We can admit that there was a miracle in the hearing, since if a
number of people were speaking different languages at once, that would
make it extremely hard for anyone to understand.
If you have 10 people all speaking English at once, there is a good
chance you won’t understand anything that is being said.
Here you have more than 100 people speaking many languages at once.
So with this in mind, there was a miracle in the hearing.
So I conclude there were 2 miracles, one in the speaking of the
tongues, and one in the hearing of the tongues. Some
people make a connection between this event and the We
are not exactly sure what was being said in tongues other than Luke says
that they “were declaring the wonders of God”, but I’m convinced
that they were not preaching the gospel as non-Pentecostals suggest. Luke
does not say they were preaching the gospel.
If they were I think he’d say so.
We do know that Peter did preach the gospel after the event
concluded. If the tongues was
the preaching of the gospel, then why did Peter preach the gospel? People
who believe that this tongues was preaching the gospel say this in order
to suggest that there is only one type of tongues that they will accept as
being valid and that is tongues that is a form of preaching the good news.
Tongues in a Christian gathering is not valid tongues. But this
can’t be so. Paul in 1 Cor.
14:2 says that tongues is actually speaking to God in another language,
and that is what took place on the Day of Pentecost -
the 120 were speaking
the wonders of God to God. They
were not preaching the gospel. This
raises a secondary question. Most
tongues and interpretation spoken in Pentecostal meetings are interpreted
as if the tongues are a message from God to the saints, but how can that
be if Paul says tongues is speaking to God?
Some suggest that the interpretation of such tongues is more
prophecy than interpretation. Others
might suggest that the tongues are out of order because there is not a
proper interpretation. It goes
to show that we need to understand these things much better than we do.
Peter
Addresses The Crowd (ch. 2:14 - 41) Luke
tells his readers in verse 14 of chapter 2 that Peter took the lead.
He says that Peter “stood up with the eleven”.
At some point the commotion must have died down and Peter took the
opportunity to explain what had just happened.
Why Peter? Was it
because of his impulsiveness, and he was the first one to speak out?
Or could it have been God’s choice, or even Jesus’ choice.
Some would say that Jesus had already told the 11 that Peter would
be their spokesman, when He said, “upon this rock I will build my
church”. I believe that we
can at least say that the Holy Spirit chose Peter on this day to give
explanation for the event of the day. Also
in John 21:17 Jesus tells Peter to “take care of my sheep”.
Could this be another reason why it was Peter who stood up on the
first day of New Testament times to
preach the first gospel message? I
think so. It
is interesting to note that after the miracle that had just taken place,
someone had to “preach the gospel” to these people.
Seeing and hearing the miracle was not good enough.
This is what Paul seems to say in Romans 10;14 when he says, “how
can they hear without someone preaching to them”.
The preaching of the gospel, that is using ones mouth is
fundamental to New Testament thinking.
I have heard it said, “live the life, and if necessary preach”.
This is not a Scriptural saying.
It is very necessary to preach.
On the very first day of the New Testament times, after God’s
miracle, a human had to preach the gospel.
This is also what Mark was talking about in Mark 16:20.
He says, “the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the
Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word with signs that accompanied
their preaching”. You see,
the spreading of the gospel is a partnership between the Lord and us.
We do the manual labour, that is the preaching, and whatever else,
and He confirms what we say by miracles. Peter
speaks to “fellow Jews” and also to “all who live in Peter
opens the first Christian sermon by saying, “these men are not drunk, as
you suppose. It is only nine o'clock in the morning”. (ch. 2:15)
Some had mocked the believers for their behaviour, thinking that
they were drunk. This is why
Peter begins as he does. We
might think that the nine o’clock in the morning reference suggests that
it was too early for people to be drinking wine.
There might be something to this, but most likely what Peter had in
mind were the strict dietary rules Jewish people were suppose to follow,
as can be seen in Ex. 16:8 and Ex. 10:16 – 17.
They could only eat bread until 10 o’clock in the morning, only
eat meat in the evening, and only drink wine with their meat.
So if these Jewish people speaking in tongues were drunk, then they
weren’t following Jewish Law. By
Peter’s response you might even say that he was a little indignant
concerning the idea of him and his brothers being drunk.
It may have appeared to be drunkenness
to the scoffers, but for Peter, it was far from being drunk.
I am not sure that Peter would even relate being filled with the
Spirit to being “drunk in the Spirit” as you often hear in modern
Pentecostal or Charismatic circles today.
We, in our modern day usage of words should not use words said by
scoffers, but use words said by Peter.
My suggestion is to stay away from the phrase “drunk in the
Spirit”. Well,
if these men are not drunk, then what does their behaviour mean?
Peter quotes from the Old Testament prophet Joel. (Joel 2:28-32)
Joel prophesied around 870 BC.
Peter says that if God said these words through Joel, his audience
needs to pay close attention to what God said. God
said that “in the last days” He would “pour out His Spirit on all
flesh”. Two important points
are made by these words. One
is that the last days began on the day of Pentecost.
Peter believed that this event ushered the period of time called
the “last days”. The
second point is that the Holy Spirit could now be poured out on all men
and women, no matter what nationality you were. The giving of the Spirit
was not exclusive to the Jews, something that Peter himself did not
understand as yet. All this
being said, because of the influx of Jews into Christians
are viewed as being exclusive, and in one sense of the word we are.
Yet from the beginning of New Testament times, Christians are not
exclusive. They believe that
all peoples can find favour with God, yet only through Jesus. Peter
continues to quote Joel by saying that “your sons and daughters will
prophesy”, which you might say is one of the main results of the
outpouring of the Spirit. Once
again, we don’t receive the Spirit for the sake of having an “awesome
experience”. We receive Him
in order to prophesy, that is, in the broadest sense of the word, meaning
“to preach” the gospel. Not
only will your children prophesy, but “your young men will see visions
and your old men will dream dreams”.
What Joel is saying here is that everyone can be as the prophets of
old were. We all can proclaim God’s message, even if we are not
prophets. This was a new
concept to the Jews. Joel
goes on to say that “even on my servants will I pour out my Spirit”.
It is clear that in order to be a real servant of God, you need the
presence of God’s Spirit in your life, and not simply hovering over you
as the Jehovah Witnesses would say, but actually living within you. Joel
also says that these servants of God would prophesy. Once again, the
result of the indwelling Spirit is prophesying. Peter
continues to quote from Joel, but the prophecy skips from the present
outpouring of the Spirit to the end of the age of the Spirit.
This suggests that the giving of the Spirit is not a one time event
for the formation of the church. This
is something that can and will happen until Jesus comes back. Joel
speaks of “wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth”.
Jesus, and all New Testament writers put these 2 words, “signs
and wonders” together. Any
miraculous wonder is to be a sign, pointing to Jesus. The
words “blood, fire and billows of smoke” make you think of the final
calamities as described in the book of Revelation, all of the end time
events that precede the return of Christ.
The blood, fire and smoke could easily be from the wars that Jesus
describes in Mat. 24. The same
with the sun being turned into darkness and the moon into blood.
Jesus says this very thing in Mat.. 24:29. All
these things will happen says Joel “before that great and glorious day
of the Lord”. The KJV
version says “terrible day of the Lord”.
In reality, that day is both glorious and terrible. Yet before that
final day comes Joel says, and Peter repeats, “everyone who calls on the
name of the Lord will be saved”. The
name of the Lord is Jesus. There
is no other name under Heaven whereby one can be saved.
The word “call” implies a serious heart felt cry to Jesus, not
simply a mental ascent to the gospel.
This call is a cry. It
implies that more than anything else, you want Jesus and His
salvation, and you will do anything to get it.
With this call God grants salvation.
You
might say that the word call here could be used by one calling out to a
fireman who is trying to rescue those in a house on fire.
If you were in the house, you would be screaming at the top of your
voice so the fireman would hear you and rescue you.
There is a desperateness involved in the cry, in this call.
The same is true with what Peter and Joel are saying.
This call is a desperate cry for help, which implies a good measure
of repentance. This is
extremely important when thinking of the gospel and preaching it.
Too often we have not viewed this call in this way.
We more often than not give the impression, “just try Jesus and
see how it goes”. This is
not the gospel. Earlier
in this chapter I compared the coming of the Holy Spirit to the return of
Christ. There are many
similarities. I think the
quote from Joel backs up my point. It
links the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2 with the events which will close
this age. In
verse 22 Peter says, “Jesus of Peter
says that “Jesus was accredited” by God through the miraculous signs
and wonders. That is to say.
The miracles were God’s stamp of approval on Jesus.
Peter
says, “as you yourselves know”. Peter
is saying that his audience knows about this Jesus.
It wasn’t too many days earlier that Jesus walked their streets,
and talked with them, confirming His words with miracles.
Peter knows that these people would remember Jesus. Many,
if not most of these people might have been the ones praising Jesus as He
entered Verse
23 is very important. It says,
“this man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and
foreknowledge…” It is
clear by these words and also by a reading of Isaiah 53 that God was the
one who killed Jesus. It was
His set purpose. At the same
time, He knew ahead of time how this would happen.
The debate has raged over the years, did God make Judas hand Jesus
over to the authorities? Did
God make the Jews bring Jesus to Pilate?
I don’t believe that God had to make anyone do anything.
There were enough people who wanted Jesus dead.
They didn’t need God’s help.
Yet God knew ahead of time who these people were, and in the long
run God wanted, and even needed this to happen.
I also think that Jesus knew who He was choosing when He asked
Judas to be His disciple. It is said that Judas was a thief from the
beginning. Peter
had the courage to say that “you (those Jews he was speaking to), with
the help of wicked men, put Him to death”.
You refers to the Jews. The
wicked men refers the Roman authorities. “But
God raised Him from the dead” says Peter.
The resurrection is a main part of the gospel.
The gospel without the resurrection is not the true gospel.
This too would be called “another gospel”, as the apostle Paul
puts it. Peter says, that
“it was impossible for death to keep a hold on Him”.
It only makes sense. Jesus is God in human flesh.
Death could not have a hold on Jesus forever. To
prove the resurrection of Jesus to the Jewish listeners Peter quotes from
another Old Testament passage. This
time Peter quotes from David. (Psa.16:8-11).
There is something to think of here concerning how Old Testament
Scripture is interpreted in the New Testament.
These words were spoken by David.
When he spoke these words he was speaking about himself.
Yet when Peter quotes these words he says that these words, though
spoken by David were not about him. These
words were prophetic. They
spoke about Jesus. In
verse 29 and 30 Peter tells his audience that David died and his tomb
could still be seen. He said
that David was actually acting as a prophet as he spoke “and knew that
God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendents on
his throne. Seeing what was
ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ…”
Especially in the Psalms, what was said about ordinary life was
prophetic of things to come. So
this is the case when David says, “I saw the Lord always before me”.
(ch. 2:25) In the prophetic
sense, it was Jesus who saw the Lord God before Him at all times.
“Because He is at my right hand, I will not be moved”.
God was at Jesus’ right hand, thus Jesus was not moved. He was
not swayed from His purpose in life. “Therefore
my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body will also live in hope
because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy
One see decay”. Peter’s
point is that if these words were about himself, then these words did not
come true because David’s body did see decay.
They were spoken about Jesus. Jesus’
heart was glad and His tongue rejoiced because His Father did not leave
Him in the grave. “You
have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your
presence” (ch.2:28) Jesus
was filled with joy, and as He prayed in John 17, He eagerly awaited the
day where He would be united into the full presence of God once again.
His hope granted Him such joy. In
verse 32 Peter says that “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are
all witnesses of the fact”, thus the beginning of the prophecy Jesus
spoke saying that his disciples would be witnesses in The
word "this" in "this Jesus" is important.
There were many false messiah's in those days, as there are today.
Peter wanted everyone to
know that the Messiah he was talking about was the Jesus that lived among
them and was killed by them. There
should be no mistake what Jesus, what Messiah Peter is speaking about
here. Yet
Peter goes beyond the resurrection of Jesus, as we should to in our
preaching. Yes, Jesus was
raised from the dead, but He was raised to higher heights.
Verse 33 says, “exalted to the right hand of God…” tells of
the ascension of Jesus. Jesus
had to leave this earth as He said in John 16:7.
Before the Holy Spirit could come Jesus had to return back to the
Father. Therefore Peter
continues by saying, “He has received from the Father the promised Holy
Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear”.
This is the picture that Peter paints.
Jesus died, God raised
Him from the dead. He ascended
into Heaven. God the Father
gave Jesus the Holy Spirit to pour out on His disciples. Peter,
getting back to his proof concerning the Davidic Psalm being prophetic of
Jesus and not himself says, “David did not ascend into Heaven”.
Thus one more proof that this Psalm was about Jesus. Peter
then goes on to quote Psa. 110:1. This
Psalm says that Jesus would “sit at the right hand” of God until all
of God’s enemies would become His footstool.
As Paul clearly points out in 1 Cor. 15, the last enemy is death.
Once death has been conquered and thrown into the lake of fire,
Jesus will return all things over to His Father. According
to this verse, at this present time, not al the enemies of God have been
put under Jesus' feet Death
and the devil, and sin itself have still to be conquered.
The cross is only the beginning, not the end of the story.
When Jesus returns all these enemies will be put under His feet.
Until then. We suffer, and we die, but there is a better life to
come. When
speaking of the “right hand of God” it is commonly understood that
when people in that generation heard this phrase, they did not necessarily
think of God having a literal right hand. They thought in terms of Jesus
being in a place of authority along side of God.
Thus when it is said that Jesus is now sitting at God’s right
hand, what it really means is that Jesus is in a place of final authority
in the universe. We
also need to note that in verse 33 Jesus received the “promise of the
Holy Spirit” The word
“promise” is used elsewhere, as in Acts 1:4.
Some have claimed that the “promise” is an experience called
“the baptism in the Holy Spirit”.
This is not so. Here
Peter clearly states that the promise is the Holy Spirit, not an
experience. Once again, the
baptism in the Spirit is only the way in which the Holy Spirit was given.
It in itself was not the “promise” from God.
We need to be clear and put the emphasis where it needs to be put,
and that is, on the Holy Spirit Himself, not on an experience, especially
in our day and age when experience is primary.
In
verse 36 Peter says, “let all Here
we see the earthly name of Jesus, along with His 2 titles.
Jesus is His earthly name, yet God has made Him both Lord (final
authority over all things) and Christ (Saviour for all those who believe)
Wrapped up in one person, that is Jesus was all that Peter,
being bold as he was, had to tell his listeners that they were the ones
who killed Jesus. I am sure
this would have irritated them. Yet it was the Jews who handed Jesus over
to the Roman authorities who actually put Him to death.
But behind all of these events was the will of God. God needed to
see Jesus die in order to bring salvation to the world. Isaiah
53, the chapter that is all about Jesus, tells us that it pleased God to
bruise Jesus. In one real
sense of the word, it pleased God to see Jesus hang on the cross.
You might want to read Isaiah 53 to understand what I've just said.
The
words of Peter most likely did irritate some but for others his words
“cut them to the heart”. It was as if someone had stabbed them right
to the core of their being and twisted the knife around in circles.
The people simply did not know how to respond to Peter.
They only sensed the convicting power of God. The Holy Spirit
brought such conviction to them that the only thing that they could say
was to ask Peter, “what shall we do’?
Simply
put they were asking, “what’s next”. So Peter told them what was
next. In verse 38 he says,
repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for
the forgiveness of your sins”. Peter
preached repentance and faith. True faith cannot come unless true
repentance has preceded it. That
is to say, one cannot truly trust Jesus with his life unless he has seen
the need to do so,. The need
is ones lostness before God. One needs to repent once seeing their lost
position before God. That
simply means to turn from the direction which ones life is going. Sometimes
there is great sorrow involved in repenting, and sometimes not.
But one must turn from their own ways.
Of course they must see the need to turn.
This is where the Reformation Movement gets its thinking on “law
and grace”. They say, as
does Scripture, that one must have the law preached to them.
People must understand that they live in a fallen state, they
disobey God daily, and they are in desperate need of help from God.
This is what Romans 1 and 2 is all about. This is the preaching of
the law. Yet
once law is preached, people need to hear grace.
That is God’s love and provision for them.
People have a way out of their lostness.
So Peter says, “repent”. Although
in the verse he doesn’t actually tell them to “believe”, or to have
“faith or trust” in Jesus, he does tell them to be water baptized,
which would imply faith. Yet
Peter does not leave things there. He
does not leave the people with repentance and faith.
He continues to say, “and you will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit. The promise is for
you….” The natural result
of true repentance and faith is that you “will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit”. Note once
again, the gift is the Holy Spirit, not an experience called the baptism
in the Holy Spirit. Note also
the word “promise” again. The
promise refers to the gift of the Spirit, not an experience as some might
suggest. So
here in this one verse we have what I call, “salvation as a package”.
Salvation is a combination of 3 things.
They are, repenting, believing, and receiving the Holy Spirit. One
must repent to truly believe. One
must repent and believe before receiving the Spirit.
It appears from life experience that all 3 can happen in a moment
of time, or it can happen over a period of time.
We will see this later. Still,
one is not fully saved until all 3 aspects of salvation have come true in
a person’s life. If you fall
short, only God knows where you stand.
You may make it to heaven by only repenting and believing, but you
are in an awkward position, because the Christian life cannot really be
lived outside of God’s Spirit. Peter
continues to say that this salvation is not only for you, but also for
your children and “all those who are far off – for all whom the Lord
our God will call”. What
does it mean when Peter uses the words “whom the Lord our God will
call”? Does it mean that He
does not call everyone to salvation? Does
He only call some and not others? Some
hold to this position, but I don’t.
There are too many verses that say “whosoever will believe, will
be saved”. If you believe
that God only calls some, then these “whosoever will” verses are
meaningless. God calls all
men, in one way or another. Yet
He only saves those who respond in a positive way to His call.
Peter
uses the words “in the name of Jesus Christ”
when referring to repentance and water baptizing. Some
denominations have gone overboard in their doctrine concerning the name of
Jesus and baptizing in His name. Jesus
Himself said to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit. To me it is simple.
The name of the Father, Son and Spirit is the same as the name of
Jesus. No other distinction
needs to be made. The
disciples did everything in the name of Jesus.
This means that they were representatives of Jesus.
They acted in His place on earth.
When they baptized people in water, they baptized them with the
authority that Jesus gave them to be His representatives. Verse
40 says, “with many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with
them, ‘save yourself from this corrupt generation”.
Peter obviously carried on his dialogue, or his message with these
people. He spoke to them by
“warning” them. He
actually “pleaded with them”. The
use of the word “pleaded” suggests that Peter was emotional and even
forceful in his presentation. He
told them to save themselves from the generation in which they lived.
Peter, and the rest of the New Testament writers
did not think much of the generation in which they lived. Note
the use of the word “save” in this verse.
As Christians we are not only saved from hell, from our sins, from
God’s wrath, but we are also saved from the world and its influence on
our lives. Peter believed that
we needed to be rescued from the corrupt surroundings that we all live in.
Rescue is a good word to use because the way of the world only
leads us to death. We all need
to be saved, or rescued from the world. About
3000 people believed what Peter had to say and were water baptized.
I often wonder if the same Pentecostal event happened to these 3000
as did to the 120. Somehow I
think that there experience might have been different, might have been
less dramatic, yet still dramatic on a personal level.
What really took place at this huge baptismal meeting, we really
don’t know. Luke decided not
to tell us. Some experts
suggest that this baptism was not done by immersion, but by pouring water
on the head of the believer. There
has been much debate over how water baptism is performed.
The very nature of the word means to totally immerse. Yet there are
many experts that show from external sources, for example drawings, that
baptism was most likely a pouring out on the most part.
I'd
like to close this section by saying that this is quite a sermon by an
uneducated fisherman, but of course, he had help from the Holy Spirit.
The
Fellowship Of The Believers (ch.2:42 - 47) This
section of Acts gives us the very first picture of church life in New
Testament times. The first
thing we see is that “they”, as in the 3000 new converts, “devoted
themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship”.
Teaching by the apostles and fellowship with them and the rest of
the church were primary. Two
other things are mentioned, and that is the “breaking of bread and
prayer”. Does “breaking of
bread” mean eating a meal, or does it mean, what we would call
“communion” or “the
Lord’s supper”. I lean to
the idea that breaking of bread means communion. It appears that communion
was part of a common meal that these people may have eaten together,
something like the Last Supper in John 13 and 14.
That being said, I can't see this meal being as ritualized as it is
in today's church. The
other thing these people did was to meet for prayer.
Did these prayer time accompany the apostolic teaching or were they
separate? We don’t really
know, but it does appear that teaching may have took priority over prayer.
Not that prayer was not important, but there seems to be more
emphases on teaching in the early church, although not to the exclusion of
prayer. In
verse 43 Luke says that “everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders
and miraculous signs were done by the apostles”.
Note that there are 2 groups of people mentioned in this verse.
They are, “everyone” and “the apostles”.
Note also that the apostles were the ones that did the miraculous
signs, not the group called “everyone”.
Everyone, most likely meaning the 3000 converts and maybe the rest
of the 120 did not appear to perform the miracles, only the apostles.
Sometimes we view the first generation church as having miracles
performed by everyone. This
does not appear to be the case. The reason why everyone was “filled with
awe” is because of the power the apostles had. This
power from the apostles, was it because of the reception of the Spirit in
Acts 2? If so, what about
everyone else? Did they not
experience what the apostles and the 120 experienced?
If they did, why did they not perform miracles?
If they did have the same experience, why did Luke not mention it?
Why is there this distinction between “everyone” and the
“apostles”? At the moment
I cannot answer these questions. I only present them for further thought. Luke
says that “all the believers were together and had everything in
common”. (ch. 2:44) I
can’t see that this verse means that there were 3000 plus people living
in one big commune somewhere in They
held “all things in common”, to me suggests more of a way of thinking.
Once again, I can’t see that 3000 plus people brought all of
their possessions and piled
them altogether in some big field. The
attitude of the first generation Christians was generosity.
If someone needed something, they got it. The next verse seems to
imply this when it says, “selling their possessions and goods, they gave
to anyone who had need”. If
there was a need among them, and if the sale of an item would help that
person, the sale was made. Concerning
the believers “being together” (verse 44), here in verse 46 it says
that the believers met in the Luke
also says that “they broke bread together in their homes and ate
together…” Note here the
distinction between “breaking bread” and “eating together”. Most
would suggest this as proof that “breaking bread” means
communion, while eating means eating of a meal.
Thus it appears the first generation church partook of the Lord’s
Supper in their homes and on a regular basis.
Once
again, note the use of the You
see Peter and John in the Luke
says that these new Christians were praising God and as a result were in
“good favour with everybody”. “Everybody”
would refer to the non-Christian Jews who would have seen these people in
the Chapter
2 ends by these words, “and the Lord added to their number daily, those
who were being saved”. Note
that the Lord added to the church. Note
also that this happened on a daily basis.
So
to sum things up. This infant
church was a praising church. They
were always getting together to be taught, to pray, to break bread, and to
have fellowship. When needed,
they would give what they could to those in need because they didn’t
think that what they had belonged strictly to them.
They had favour with those around them, at least for the time
being, and their numbers increased daily.
This is a pretty nice picture of the early church. At
this point you might want to ask, “is the growth of the church
evolutionary”? By this I
mean. This church was young.
It was an infant church. As it
grew, it changed. Was the
change meant to stop after the first generation church members died off?
Is the church still evolving, or should we copy the way it was in
the book of Acts? These are
hard questions. If
you ask these questions to those who think about such things, you probably
get many answers. Yet the
answers you get determine what kind of church you will
have. If the church is totally evolutionary, meaning it is in
constant change, then we don’t have to look like the first generation
church at all. Yet if we are
not to be evolutionary, then what was formed as the church in its early
stages is to be what we should have today.
There
is a third possibility, that is neither totally evolutionary nor an exact
replica of the first church. This
possibility would be a combination of both.
That is to say, use the principles and the structure of the first
church as much as possible but with present day updates. For example, the
early church had a group of elders as its leaders.
We could do the same today, yet the duties of these elders may
differ since we are in a modern age. Back
then they did not have worship teams as we do today.
One of our elders could be a worship team elder, something they did
not have. Whatever
the case, as we walk our way through the book of Acts you will see the
change this early church goes through.
It should be obvious and clear as you read. One
final point here. I strongly
believe that we should follow New Testament thinking concerning church.
Whatever we do, should not be outside what the New Testament
teaches. I say follow New
Testament teaching, not necessary all that New Testament Christians did,
for they did not also follow their own teaching at times.
|