Dec 15, 2013
Acts 1:12-26
Download Audio:
Outline:
For comments, questions, and interaction use the #ActionsofJesus @Calvary316 on Twitter.
Acts 1:12-14, “Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James, Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
Set the Scene
This is an interesting time period of history.... Jesus has ascended to heaven officially ending His public earthly ministry; however, the “acts of Jesus through His church” hadn’t begun because the Holy Spirit had yet to be poured out on the disciples.
During this time we see the followers of Christ doing 3 important things:
1. They were obeying Jesus’ Word.
Following the ascension and with a little prompting of two angels, the disciples return from the Mount of Olives to “the Upper Room” in Jerusalem to wait for the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit as Jesus had commanded. “The Upper Room” indicates this was an “Upper Room” already introduced by Luke to his audience. (It seems likely this was the same room Jesus shared the Passover Seder with His disciples.)
2. They were existing in community.
Though we’ll see 120 gathered, Luke notes that Jesus’ closest disciples were present: the remaining 11 apostles, the women, Mary His mother, and His brothers (James, Jude, Joseph, and Simon) were all together.
Luke tells us “these all continued with one accord....” As we mentioned last Sunday this word “one accord” is used to describe the unique musical result when many different notes are combined together to harmonize in both pitch and tone. 10 of the 12 times we find this word in the NT it is being used by Luke in Acts to describe the first-century Christian community. They were in harmony.
3. They were spending time in prayer.
Luke tells us “these all continued.... in prayer and supplication.” “Prayer” indicates they were communicating to God. “Supplication” implies their prayer was centered on making a request of both desperation and earnestness. No doubt this multitude of disciples were asking God to baptize with the Holy Spirit.
Observation: These 3 characteristics (obedience to the Word, harmony in community, and a dedication to prayer) are foundational to the church.
We will see a few verses later Acts 2:42 that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
What comes next in the narrative of Acts has been the subject of much debate.... on one aspect the controversy is in many ways trivial; however.... I am convinced the subject matter was included by Luke for an entirely different set of very important reasons.
Acts 1:15-20, “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.” (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, and let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.”
Unpack the Text
The topic of concern that Peter brings to everyone’s attention was what they should do with the Apostolic position left vacant by the death of Judas Iscariot. Following his betrayal of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver Scripture tells us Judas recognized the severity of his sins.
Matthew 27:3, Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.”
Peter tells us Judas “falling headlong, burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.” It could be that Peter is describing what ultimately happened to the body of Judas, or he could be telling us his hanging was actually an impaling.
Either way what we do know is that Judas was a lost soul who was not saved. Acts 1:25, “Judas by transgression fell” is one Greek word “parabainô” meaning “to make a decision to turn aside from.” The text is clear that Judas’ decision to betray Christ and kill himself was intentional and deliberate.
Peter correctly concludes from Scripture that it was God’s will for Judas to be replaced.
Scripturally, Peter reasoned that “Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas.... For it is written in the Book of Psalms: (Psalms 69:25) ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, and let no one live in it’; and (Psalms 109:8), ‘Let another take his office.” Note: This is the first time in the Bible you read of Peter quoting Scripture.
It also seems consistent that there had to be 12 Apostles.
One scholar commented, “The People of God had been arranged into 12 tribes. In choosing 12 disciples, Jesus was claiming the authority to reorganize the People of God—something that presumably only God could do. In choosing 12 disciples, he was also reorganizing the People of God around Himself. The 12 tribes were organized, in a sense, around the Patriarchs. In choosing 12 disciples, Jesus reorganized the People of God not around anyone or anything else but Himself. This is why for the Jewish disciples, there had to be 12 of them, which meant Judas needed to be replaced. With less than 12, the Jewish mind would have seen the People of God as being incomplete, because they understood the parallel Jesus was making when He Himself chose 12 disciples.”
In regards to future prophecy we also know there would be 12 recognized Apostles. Revelation 21:14 tells us that in the New Jerusalem “the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles.”
Note: Replacing Judas seems to be a unique occurrence since there would be no attempt to later replace any of the other 11 that would eventually die.
Observation: Peter statement illustrates how these men viewed Scripture.
1. They believed Scripture was inherent.
Peter opens his dialogue by saying “Scripture must be fulfilled” which is one Greek word “plêroô” meaning “to render full, to complete.” Inherency refers to the belief in the permanent nature of Scripture. In explaining the actions of Judas, Peter implies that his deed was foretold by Scripture and thus replacing him would be the fulfilling of Scripture. Though Judas acted on his own accord, his actions didn’t spoil God’s plan.... rather he was actually fulfilling God’s plan.
2. They believed Scripture was inspired.
Peter continues, “the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David.” Inspiration doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit sparked a creative impulse within the authors of Scripture. Instead, it means “that which is breathed in.”
2 Peter 1:19-21, “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
“As they were moved” - Greek word “pherô” which describes a “person carried in a ship over the sea.” Though David uttered these words, it was the Holy Spirit moving him to say the things he said.... “the Holy Spirit spoke.”
3. They believed Scripture was literal.
The early church believed Scripture was not only inherent and inspired, but was to be taken literally by the church and obeyed as such. Peter was indeed correct that Scripture required a replacement to fill the betrayer’s Apostolic position; however, what comes next is where I believe Peter begins to slip-up.
Acts 1:21-26, “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
First mistake: Where did Scripture dictate they were to choose the replacement?
Though Peter correctly assessed a replacement was Scripturally necessary, it would appear the decision would be God’s to make not the remaining Apostles.
Second mistake: When had Jesus asked them to choose the replacement?
Before ascending Jesus had been quite clear in regards to His instructions.... return to Jerusalem - wait for the Holy Spirit - then go out and be witnesses to the world. Jesus had not command them to pick out Judas’ replacement while they waited for the Holy Spirit. Not to mention, we never find a record of Jesus ever telling them to concern themselves with this particular task. If what made the Apostles unique is the fact they were hand picked by Jesus, then wasn’t it logical Jesus would shoulder the responsibility of choosing a replacement?
Third mistake: Where had Scripture established the Apostolic criteria?
Peter overextended his interpretation of Scripture when he decided it was their job to choose the replacement. Now, in establishing criteria for choosing the replacement, he proceeds by giving no Biblical justification. Peter concludes, “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Peter decides there were 2 criteria to be Judas’ replacement:
1. The candidate had to have been with Jesus from the beginning. “Beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us.”
2. The candidate had to have been an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection. “One of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
Fourth mistake: Where had they been taught to pray like this?
Luke tells us in making the decision “they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell.”
On one hand you can give them credit for praying; however, look at the substance of their prayer.... They had determined the only two men who fit their criteria were “Justus and Matthias” now they’re asking God to choose between these two men. Their prayer provided God two choices: (A) Justus or (B) Matthias, but never once did they think to provide God a third option (C) none of the above.
Jesus had instructed them in Matthew 6, “In this manner, pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.”
Fifth mistake: Where had Jesus taught them to decipher God’s will by casting lots?
It would appear God doesn’t respond to their prayer which is why “they then cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias.” They literally threw dice to figure it out. Some have defended their action by saying they were simply following the OT priestly model for deciphering God’s will: The High Priest would on occasion use what was called the “Urim and Thummim.” In certain instances these two instruments were used to determine God’s specific will.
Problem: When choosing them Jesus only mechanism for deciding was that He prayed before making the decision. Jesus never once cast lots, not to mention, He had been clear He had come to institute a New Covenant. No longer would humanity need to approach God using the old methods of the Mosaic Law.
The question then remains.... was Matthias the 12th Apostle?
Those who say yes would argue that Scripture affirms that Matthias replaced Judas.
Acts 2:14, “Peter, standing up with the eleven....”
Acts 6:2, “Then the twelve summoned the multitude....”
These scholars will also correctly defend Matthias’ apostleship by pointing out that though he’s never mentioned again in Scripture neither are 9 of the other Apostles.
Rebuttal: Luke is presenting a historical document to Theophilus. Whether or not God recognized Matthias as the replacement for Judas was not Luke’s primary concern.
The fact of history is that the 11 remaining Apostles choose Matthias and he was considered the 12th apostles during the apostolic church. I am of the opinion that Paul was instead God’s replacement for Judas.
In Galatians 1:1 Paul says that he is “an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.”
In his greetings in Romans, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1st & 2nd Timothy Paul refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.”
Paul seems to indicate that Jesus specifically choose him to be an Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:8 when, “last of all Jesus was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” Paul was called 15 years after the fact.
Note: Paul was from the Tribe of Benjamin (the final son of Jacob born of Rachel).
In both Romans 11:13 and 2 Timothy 1:11 Paul mentions he was distinct from the other Apostles in that he was called to be an “Apostle to the Gentiles.”
Discover the Meaning
There is an important lesson on how we should make decisions.
I hope it’s obvious that it will be difficult for you to make the correct decisions when it comes to life if you are (A) guided by fleeting emotions or (B) driven by stoic logic.... if you (C) react to difficult circumstances or (D) follow your carnal desires.... if you (E) rely solely on the advice of counselors or (F) succumb to the pressures of society! But, as demonstrated by this mornings text, please understand it will be as equally difficult to follow God’s will if you (G) reinterpret God’s Word, (H) impatiently act to a silent response to prayer, or (I) roll a dice (also known as throwing a fleece).
I am convinced that God included this story in Acts 1 to illustrate that there is no replacement in the life of the believer to the power of the Holy Spirit. The big lesson: The primary key to making Godly decisions is to first make sure your life is in step with the Spirit of God. This means before you do anything it is crucial to get your life in sync with the Spirit of God.
There is an important lesson on the appropriate use of natural gifts. It’s interesting this entire story begins with Peter taking the lead, but as a student of Scripture you have to ask.... who made Peter the leader of the disciples?
You see the reality is that Peter was using a natural gift.... leadership! Though Peter had a tendency to act foolishly, his natural leadership gifting was always evident in the Gospels. Note: Whenever there is a list of the disciples Peter is always listed first and we’ll see his leadership demonstrated throughout Acts.
The reality is that in Acts 1 Peter is leading in the flesh (under the power of his natural gifting), whereas in Acts 2 he will surrender this natural gifting to the power of the Holy Spirit! The results will be radically different!
It is a fact that when an individual experiences the indwelling Spirit of God a radicle transformation takes place within the individual.... the natural passions and desires of the old man are replaced with the heavenly passions and desires of the new! As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”
Though the Spirit can work however He sees fit, I believe the majority of the time the Spirit equips us not with supernatural gifts foreign to our physiological makeup, but by providing a supernatural infusing of the gifts God has already equipped us with from birth. Though we are a new creation filled with a Holy Spirit, we are still very much a manifestation of what our genetics have dictated us to be.
Throughout much of the 20th century “The Blank Slate Theory” was a popular idea in behavioral sciences that denied the Biblical concept of “human nature” and instead theorized that people are born without mental content and that a person’s brain structure is developed from birth by socialization, parenting, culture, and experience.
This was popular because the political and social results were appealing: If humans begin as a blank slate, then every human is intrinsically equal making it theoretically possible to perfect mankind through social engineering.
Recently a chorus of notable detractors have emerged.... in 2001, geneticists successfully unravelled the entire text of the human genome. Since then scientists have been able to show that our genetic code directly influences our traits, conditions, and actions.
The implications were radicle.... Scientists began to ask, “Do humans begin with a blank slate only to be shaped by nurture, or are we actually shaped by nature? Are people born aggressive, violent, and greedy or do they become that way from environment and experience? Are individuals what they are because that's what their genes programmed them to be or is it because of their influences and choices?”
In 2002 Harvard Professor Steve Pinker wrote a controversial book called “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” in which he argues that all humans are not born absent of a human nature (The Blank Slate) but are instead genetically quipped with some innate biological traits that make them who they are and dictate what they are capable of accomplishing.
Pinker wrote, “Of course genes can’t pull the levers of our behavior directly. But they affect the wiring and workings of the brain, and the brain is the seat of our drives, temperaments and patterns of thought. Each of us is dealt a unique hand of tastes and aptitudes, like curiosity, ambition, empathy, a thirst for novelty or for security, a comfort level with the social or the mechanical or the abstract. Some opportunities we come across click with our constitutions and set us along a path in life.”
As one review stated, “Pinker urges us to accept realistically that much of our conduct and feelings are indeed rooted in the physical nature that is given to us, rather than coming from a mysterious entity called society or appearing from nowhere. That nature is a rich and legitimate heritage, not an extraneous tyrant. Pinker asserts that not only are human minds predisposed to certain kinds of learning, such as language, but that from birth our minds -- the patterns in which our brain cells fire -- predispose us each to think and behave differently.”
Judith Rich Harries wrote a book titled, “The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.” In this book she challenges the idea that the personality of adults is determined chiefly by the way they were raised by their parents. She believes that nature or genetics determines more about a person that nurture or environment.
To substantiate her position she points out that the studies which claim to show the influence of the parental environment fail to control for genetic influences. For example, if aggressive parents are more likely to have aggressive children, this is not necessarily evidence of a parental example..... The result may also be attributed to the reality that aggressiveness has been passed down through the genes.
Recent studies have shown that many adopted children show little correlation with the personality of their adoptive parents, and instead demonstrate a significant correlation with the natural parents who had no part in their upbringing.
While her findings suggest the powerful role of nature, other studies focusing on identical twins who share the same genes have shown that even people with identical genetics (nature) don’t end up exactly alike. This implies that inheritance is not the only determinant of personality. It could be Nature + Nurture (loosely defined).
A great example of this combination is leadership. “The best estimates offered by research suggest that leadership is about 1/3 born (nature) and 2/3 made (nurtured). Scientist claim that there are raw materials people are born with that predispose them to be and become leaders. Inborn characteristics like extraversion, boldness, assertiveness, risk-taking, empathy, and intelligence.”
Peter was a born leader, but it was essential that he was influenced by following Jesus (nurture / environment) and that he submit this natural gifting to the power of the Holy Spirit (nature) for God to accomplish His will through him.
What natural gifts has God given you? Understand, the manifestation of that gift surrendered to the power of the Holy Spirit will look radically different then if you only operate that gifting in the strength of your own human flesh!