Explore the Bible: Acts 9:10-19

Occasionally as we read through the historical narratives of the Bible we come across a person who enters the story for just a brief mention, then is never heard of again in Scripture. Some of these are figures of far more importance to redemptive history than their short notice indicates. One of these is found in Acts 9, right in the middle of the narrative of Saul’s conversion.

Ananias was a follower of Jesus who lived in Damascus. Later church tradition counts him as one of the 72 disciples Jesus sent out during His ministry, but the Bible tells us nothing of his background. We don’t even know if he was in Damascus due to the dispersion of the church due to persecution or whether he had already been a resident of the city, who had perhaps visited Jerusalem around Pentecost. What the Bible does tell us, in Paul’s later retelling of his conversion in Acts 22, is that Ananias was “a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by the Jews who lived there” (verse 12).

Jesus appeared to Ananias in a vision; this one was less dramatic than Saul’s, perhaps because Ananias was prepared to listen to his Lord. Jesus’ instructions are straightforward, but Ananias pauses when he hears them. While he may never have seen Saul personally, he certainly has heard a lot about him, even understanding that Saul could have him arrested and brought back to Jerusalem. Ananias may not have been balking at his assignment, but trying to make sure he was hearing correctly. Jesus was sending him to the church’s chief adversary? And he was supposed to perform a miraculous healing on that man? I think it safe to say no one else in the history of the church has been given a mission like that!

Jesus not only confirmed His call, He added a message that Ananias would pass on to Saul (see Acts 22:14-16). Saul, the devout Jew and rabbinic scholar, was to become the Lord’s choice to take His gospel to the Gentiles. In addition, Jesus added that Saul, who had caused so much suffering to the church, would himself suffer much for the sake of the Lord.

Ananias went and fulfilled his divine commission. He went to the place Saul was staying and found him fasting, probably along with prayer. Ananias announced the Lord’s message and laid his hands on Saul, which restored his sight. While we aren’t told details of Saul’s response, he apparently was immediately baptized, even before he broke his fast. Ananias was convinced that Saul was a genuine believer and follower of Jesus.

While God is in control of all of history, and our human efforts cannot thwart His will, it is interesting to think about what the short mission of Ananias to Saul, who later became known as Paul, meant to the history of the church. Sixteen of the 27 books of the New Testament owe their writing to Paul: his own 13 epistles, plus three book penned by writers influenced by Paul (Hebrews, Luke, and Acts). A large number of churches were directly planted by Paul, and others were strengthened by his ministry among them. Paul’s writings changed the lives of many later Christians who became powerful influences for Christ in their own times and beyond. Paul is viewed as perhaps the Christian with the greatest influence of anyone after Jesus Himself, yet it was Ananias who brought Paul the gospel message he needed to hear and who helped him understand the changes Jesus would bring to his life.

Sometimes when we look at the great figures of the Bible, we can be overwhelmed. Even though we understand that all of those heroes had their weaknesses (even Paul), we look at their powerful influence and wonder how we could ever be like them. When we think like this, we need to remember that we are not all called to be Pauls. For many of us, our call is more like that to Ananias: listen to Jesus, then go and minister in His name where we are placed. No matter what you are called to do by Christ, you can have a profound influence on the world through your faithful obedience.

Explore the Bible: Acts 8:9-24

The character of Simon the magician (called Simon Magus in early Christian literature) appears suddenly on the scene here in Acts 8, and just as quickly exits the Biblical narrative. Yet Simon gained a wide reputation among the early Christian writers as the father of Gnosticism and indeed many (if not all) heresies. We see a description of him in Rome attempting to lead people astray as early as the First Apology of Justin Martyr (chapter 26), where he is described as a wonder worker followed by many Samaritans and others. The early church father Irenaeus devotes several chapters of his Against Heresies to addressing Simon and his followers. Some apocryphal works describe multiple confrontations between Peter and Simon in Rome, with Peter always coming out on top. But how much of this early church tradition is true?

There is no doubt that writers like Justin and Irenaeus believed that they were reporting true accounts of Simon’s life and teaching. By the time of Irenaeus, a work purportedly by Simon, called The Great Declaration, was circulating among the Gnostics. Scholars who have studied this work see it as a precursor to what later became the school of the Gnostic teacher Valentinus, so it may have roots that go back much earlier. It seems likely that there was ahistorical Simon who was indeed a teacher of an early form of what later became known as Gnosticism. The question is, was this Simon the same as the Simon of the book of Acts?

As with many questions of this type, there is much debate, and some disagreement. Some believe that Simon, given his background and even his nickname, could certainly have become a leader of a heretical sect that took some of the teachings of Christianity and merged them with magical and philosophical ideas to create a new religion. Such a religion may well have prided itself on its own secret gnosis (from the Greek word for knowledge, and the term which gives us the name Gnotiscism), and attempted to promote itself as the true knowledge passed on by Jesus. The willingness of some scholars even today to find in Gnosticism a legitimate alternate form of Christianity shows us how powerful this draw can be.

Other scholars believe that the Simon who wrote and taught what we see in Justin and Irenaeus was a different person who probably lived somewhat later than the Simon of Acts. The story in Acts 8 led Christians to think of the two as the same person, so the later Simon was thought to be the one that Luke wrote about. Even with this idea, there is still thought to be an actual historical Simon. It is interesting that scholars who are skeptical that the teaching of the Gospels tells us anything true about Jesus are often willing to accept the 2^nd century Great Declaration as the actual teaching of Simon!

I think it quite possible that Simon, whose belief in the apostles’ teaching appears in Acts to be little more than a belief in a more powerful magic than he knew, could well have taken a few elements of what Philip, Peter, and John taught and merged them with his own magical beliefs to form a religion of his own, perhaps even one that claimed to follow secret teachings of this Jesus. Such teaching could have been developed by his followers (and I don’t rule out that one could even have been a later Simon) and merged with the growing Gnostic trends that came from Greek philosophy, Christian terminology, and other first and second century influences.

The story of Simon in Acts 8 isn’t so much about who he was as it is about what he was: a man who failed to grasp the truth of the grace of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the power of the Spirit. Simon had some kind of belief, even going so far as to be baptized, but he clearly didn’t understand the core of the gospel, the free gift of salvation through Jesus and the free gift of the indwelling Spirit. Peter warned him, and gave him the opportunity to repent, but we never read that Simon did. The stories that rose about him in later Christian tradition suggest he never came to repentance. We must be sure that our “belief” isn’t just an outward show in church or in some habitual practices, but that we have truly come to know the life-giving freedom that comes in Christ through the message of the gospel.

Explore the Bible: Acts 5:35-39

Luke introduces us in this passage to Gamaliel, the great rabbi who flourished around the time of Jesus and the early church. Gamaliel had a reputation for piety and was recognized as one of the ablest teachers of the Law in his day. He was a grandson of Hillel, one of the two great rabbis (along with Shammai) whose opinions framed much Jewish theological debate. The respect in which he was held is seen in this passage, as the Sadducees stop the proceedings, send the apostles out of the room, and listen as he speaks. His advice about the apostles is followed, although with the addition of a severe flogging.

Some scholars have questioned the historicity of this passage. They present two basic objections. The first is questioning how Luke could have gained knowledge of these proceedings, given that the apostles were not present. It is not difficult to see how Luke could have gotten information about this, however, First, it is possible that Saul (later Paul), a student of Gamliel, was present at this time. He may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin, since he speaks in Acts 26:10 of casting a vote to condemn Christians. Even if Paul was not there, in Acts 6:7 we are told a large number of priests became Christians, and among them may well have been someone who was either present at this trial or who heard the story of it from someone who was. Luke was a careful researcher, so presuming he had a source for this account is entirely in line with what we know of his work.

The second, more serious, issue is Gamliel’s use of the examples of Theudas and Judas. Josephus mentions an uprising led by Theudas in about AD 46 in his Antiquities (XX.5.1). This would be well after the time Gamaliel gave the speech recorded here in Acts 5. In Josephus’ account, the sons of Judas are mentioned as creating trouble after Theudas’ revolt, so some scholars believe Luke misread what Josephus wrote and had Gamaliel commit an anachronism by speaking of a revolt that had not yet occurred.

The difficulty with that interpretation is that Josephus’ Antiquities was not published until AD 94.  Luke was probably written around AD 62 (since Paul is still in prison in Rome at then end of the book), more than 30 years earlier. Even most liberal critical scholars date Luke to around 80-90, still too early for him to have read Josephus.

The most likely solution to this issue is that Gamaliel refers to an otherwise unknown Theudas, who led a revolt around the time of the death of Herod the Great. There were many disturbances during this time, and we know the names of only a few who led revolts. Theudas was not an uncommon name in the early first century, so it could well be that Gamaliel knew something we have lost. While this solution is not absolutely certain, it makes more sense than assuming Luke used a book he couldn’t have read.

One other question about this passage that is sometimes raised is how a tolerant and patient man like Gamaliel could have been the teacher of the zealous persecutor Saul. Yet teachers today know that their students don’t always accept everything they are taught, but often make up their own minds based on information or ideas they have gained elsewhere. We will see Gamaliel’s student confront Christians in a much more hostile way (if he was present at this trial, I’m sure he approved of the flogging). Yet it is the violent Saul rather than the peaceful Gamaliel who will become one of God’s great instruments in the spread of the Gospel throughout the Roman world.

Explore the Bible: Acts 4:32-37

Squeezed in between the account of the onset of persecution and the story of Ananias and Sapphira is this short description of life in the early church. Given that many of early Christiands living in Jerusalem were not from the city or its environs, there was a need to find a way to take care of their physical needs. The powerful work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts, minds, and lives of the believers led them to treat each other as extended family. (It is possible, though not stated here, that some who followed Jesus may have become ostracized from their more traditionally Jewish families.) The members of the fledgling church took care of each other by sharing what they had with those who had need.

This picture of the early church is often used to promote a political system. Some say the church pioneered a form of communism; others call it socialism. In truth, it is neither of these, nor any other political system. This passage describes the voluntary sharing of wealth with fellow believers who had needs under the influence of the Holy Spirit due to a commitment to the teaching of the apostles about Jesus. There is no government involvement here, not even a church government. There is not only no hint of coercion, which is required by a political system, we don’t even read of a suggestion by the apostles or anyone else that this be done. It was apparently a spontaneous reaction to the joy found in coming to Jesus through the preaching of the gospel,

While this isn’t something that was forced, the example of the early Christians should serve to show us the kind of generosity believers ought to be known for. Nothing that we own belongs to us in any ultimate sense. Everything we own is a gift from God, and we need to see it that way. Christians should not have to wait for a secular government or a church body to tell us to share what we have with others and to have compassion on those in need.

One generous giver is highlighted in these verses. Joseph, who had been born in Cyprus and was from the tribe of Levi, now resided in Jerusalem or its vicinity. He was wealthy enough to own land, and well-known enough that the disciples gave him another name: Barnabas, the “son of encouragement.” As we will see later in the book of Acts, he was a man who was highly respected and who had the ability to see the best in other people. Here Barnabas brings the proceeds of his land sale to the apostles and gives it to them completely and freely for use in the care of those in need. There was no requirement that he sell the field, nor that he give everything he received for the field to the church. This was an act of compassion, love, and grace by one who had been touched by Christ.

It may seem like just a passing mention, but this passage sets up the encounter between Peter and Ananias and Sapphira. It is the display of generosity by Barnabas (and, presumably, others like him) that tempts Ananias and Sapphira to gain credit for themselves by pretending to do the same thing. Again, they were under no compulsion to sell their land, nor did they have to give all of it to the apostles. Yet the desire to be seen to be as spiritual as Barnabas led them to misrepresent themselves before Peter and the church, and to attempt to lie even to the Holy Spirit.

Both Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira served as examples to the early church. As we live our own Christian lives out before others, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ, we should watch carefully what kind of example we set. Not only is God watching all that we do, but often others are as well. We might even be the example someone who is new to the faith is looking at to see how someone who claims to be a Christian lives. While we won’t be perfect in this life, we can seek to be sons and daughters of encouragement for those around us by living out grace, compassion, and truth every day.

Explore the Bible: Acts 3:1-2

Chapters 3 and 4 of Acts center on a miracle performed in the name of Jesus in the Temple. We don’t know exactly how long after the events of Acts 2 this took place, but the impression left by the Biblical account is that it wasn’t long after Pentecost. This is particularly true if the number 5000 mentioned in 4:4 is the total number of believers, rather than a new group of 5000. (I lean toward the first interpretation, for reasons I won’t expand on here.) Thus, it comes at a time when the city of Jerusalem is still widely aware of the events of Jesus’ crucifixion and people are beginning to hear that this Jesus is still alive. Many have believed, but God also used miracles to bring opportunities to preach the Gospel and to validate the message of the apostles.

One question raised about this miracle is exactly where it took place. It was definitely in the Temple precincts, but the specifics given in the text aren’t as obvious to us as we might like. Luke tells us that the lame beggar was carried to the “Beautiful Gate” of the Temple. However, no gate had as its given name “Beautiful.” The name was probably a popular nickname for one of the gates of the Temple. Knowing which gate Luke meant gives us some insight into both the possible audience for the miracle and how the events following the lame man’s healing flowed.

The prime candidate for the “Beautiful Gate” is the gate that led from the outer Court of the Gentiles to the Court of Women, which was the beginning of the actual sacred space of the Temple. Gentiles were not allowed to progress beyond this gate, and warning signs were posted threatening death to any who dared. This was the Nicanor Gate, which was unusual in that it was covered with Corinthians bronze instead of gold or silver. While scholars aren’t certain, this is likely the gate Josephus refers to in “The Jewish War” as being more valuable than the other gates covered in silver or bronze (5.5.3). If this were the case, it must have been a beautiful gate indeed, and to have earned that designation from those who attended at the Temple. It would also explain why the lame man chose that location to beg; if it was at the entrance to the Temple proper, he would encounter many Jews going in to worship who might be more inclined to bestow alms on a poor man as a good deed.

If this was the gate, the narrative flow would look like this:

1) Peter and John, entering the Temple from the Court of the Gentiles, see the beggar there and heal him in the name of Jesus.

2) The man joins Peter and John in entering the Temple, where they would have participated in the afternoon prayers. For the lame man, this might have been his first time to go into the actual Temple.

3) As they left, the people, who recognized the man and had seen him enter the Temple praising God, crowd around Peter, John, and the man in one of the exterior porticos, Solomon’s Colonnade. As this crowd gathers, Peter begins to preach.

4) Given that they were still within the outer courts of the Temple, word would spread to someone who would report to the priests, who sent our representatives to stop Peter’s sermon, which was accomplished by arresting Peter and John.

While this is not the only possible solution to the location of the healing of the lame man, it does make sense and provide a reasonable flow of events. If Peter was preaching in Solomon’s Colonnade, a significant crowd could have gathered, resulting in another large response to the Gospel message. The church continued to grow, but now began to face serious opposition from the leaders of the Temple. This account also shows us the Spirit-filled boldness of Peter, which should inspire us to be bold as we face opposition to the Gospel in our own witness.

NOTE: There is a nice schematic plan of Herod’s Temple on the Bible History Online web site. 

Explore the Bible: Acts 2:41-42

There are many functions that are carried out by a church that is following Jesus Christ. You can find many lists of what these functions are, as classified by whomever is making the list. If you read enough church studies literature, you see that these lists tend to emphasize the same few functions, although they may use different terminology for them.

When we look at Acts 2:41-47, we see a number of these functions practiced by the very first “church” (even before they called themselves a church). Fellowship, worship (including Communion), prayer, ministry, and evangelism were all practiced by the first believers. Some of these practices continued in their Jewish tradition, since the followers of Jesus would have still considered themselves Jews at this point. Others were new practices instituted by the Lord Himself, or encouraged by the situation of these new believers.

I find it interesting that the first function, however, is devotion to the apostles’ teaching. In the first days of the church, there would be little understanding of just what had happened to convince the disciples that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The early followers of Jesus were Jews, and knew to at least some degree what the Scriptures taught. Their Bible was what we call the Old Testament, for the New Testament was years away from being written. I believe that the apostles did with the Jewish Scriptures just what Jesus had done on the road to Emmaus, opening the Scriptures and showing how they spoke of Him.

The apostles could add another element to their teaching. They had travelled with Jesus, sat at His feet, seen His great miracles, and ultimately witnessed His death, resurrection, and ascension. They could give eyewitness testimony to the life, ministry, and Passion of Jesus. Even at this early date, their stories and teaching probably started to take on the form that would later be written in the Gospels as they taught the life of Christ over and over as new converts joined the church.

We do not have the apostles around to teach us about Jesus in person anymore. Yet we still have their teaching available through the inspired writings they gave us through the Holy Spirit. This is vitally important, because without this teaching we would know little to nothing about Jesus. One hymn tells us that “the Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord,” but without the Gospel accounts left by the apostles and their associates we would not know the truth about Him, nor would we know what He had done to save us.

A healthy church will balance all of the functions laid out for us in Scripture, but without a devotion to the truth taught in God’s Word we will simply be a group that is busy doing things without understanding why we do them. All that we do must be founded on truth-ultimately the essential truth of the Triune Godhead, but a truth that is mediated to us through the inspired Word given to us by God. May everything we do as Christians and as churches be built on this God-given foundation so we may honor our Lord and see His truth in action through us.

Explore the Bible: Acts 2:1-12

One of the questions raised as you read Acts 2 is just where the followers of Jesus were when the Holy Spirit descended. Traditionally, most scholars have held that they were in a room together, most likely the same room mentioned in Acts 1:13. Such a room must have been large (it held 120 people) and located in Jerusalem somewhere not far from the Temple area. It has been speculated that it would have been in the poorer part of town, since most of the followers of Jesus were from the working class and were visitors who had been in the city for almost two months.

A few scholars, however, argue that the coming of the Holy Spirit happened in the Temple itself. They point out that the word “house” is sometimes applied to the Temple, and that there was certainly room in the Temple courts for 120 people to gather. The time given in verse 15, 9:00 AM, suggests that the disciples would have already have gone to the Temple to observe the festival. If this is the case, then the coming of the Spirit would have been heard and seen by a huge throng at the Temple and in its vicinity, which could explain the amazement of the crowd and the powerful response to Peter’s preaching.

As attractive as this idea is, I think there are two facts in the text that make it unlikely. The first is that the group is described as “sitting” in the house where they were. Worshippers would not have been sitting in the Temple on a feast day; they would have been standing amidst a mass of people gathered for the feast. The Greek word translated “sitting” does have a secondary meaning of “staying” or “dwelling,” but the more common translation seems to be appropriate here.

The second factor that tells against the Temple theory is that we do not read that the crowd was amazed by the visible and audible phenomena that surrounded the descent of the Holy Spirit. Rather, they were amazed by the fact that the followers of Jesus, although distinctly Galilean, were speaking in their own native languages, and this all at the same time. Those who derided them as drunk may have been natives who, of course, only heard them speaking Aramaic or Hebrew, the common languages of Israel. It was this phenomenon that drew the crowd and attracted their attention.

I think the most likely scenario goes like this: The followers of Jesus were gathered in an upper room not far from the Temple. Sometime before 9:00 AM, perhaps as they were preparing to leave to go to the Temple, the Holy Spirit came with audible and visible signs, and as they began to talk about what was happening they were intelligible to all people in their native languages. (This is often seen as a reversal of Babel.) As they went out in the street and moved toward the Temple, they began to attract a crowd of amazed onlookers, Jews from all over the Roman and Parthian empires. Peter rose to the occasion, and the Spirit moved the crowd through Peter’s preaching so that 3000 people responded and were saved.

Whatever the facts are, we can see that the power of the Holy Spirit, coming at Pentecost, brought about conviction of sin and conversion of hearts. The same Spirit is still at work today, and we should not be surprised when, in any place and at any time, we see Him working in power today to draw people to Jesus and to bring salvation to any who yield to Him.

Explore the Bible: Acts 1:15-25

In the period between the Ascension of Jesus and Pentecost, we have one action taken by the early church recorded in Acts. Peter called the gathered followers of Jesus to select an apostolic replacement for Judas. This little incident has caused quite a bit of controversy, and there are a number of opinions about just what this episode means.

There are some who think the early church jumped the gun. They point to Paul’s call as an apostle, and claim that he was meant to be Judas’ replacement. However, this argument rests on the faulty assumption that Paul’s apostleship was the same thing as that of the disciples. When we look at the qualifications Peter laid out for Judas’ successor, we see that Paul met neither of them. Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ came well after He had ascended into heaven. Therefore Paul, while legitimately an apostle, was an apostle in a different sense than the Twelve.

Some questions are raised about the way the church chose the new apostle. Given the qualifications stated by Peter, there would have been a number of men qualified to take Judas’ place. It is likely (though not explicitly stated in Scripture) that Joseph and Matthias were both  part of the larger group of disciples (70 or 72) sent out by Jesus, as recorded by Luke in Luke 10. That means there were probably several dozen others who met the minimum criteria! Something about these two stood out, however, as the group gathered together examined all of the men. If the “they” of verse 23 is the entire group, which I think is likely, the decision probably came down to these final two men.

Once the final candidates were chosen, the church decided to make the selection not by a vote or a decree of the apostles, but by lot. This seems odd to us today; would you call a pastor based on the flip of a coin? But the church wanted this decision, which had tremendous consequences for these men and for the new congregation forming, to be the Lord’s choice. The use of lots may reflect the way the high priest would seek the Lord’s counsel through the use of the Urim and Thummim (whose precise function we don’t know). It also reflected their belief that even what seems to be chance to us is in fact controlled by God. They cast the lot, and Matthias was chosen.

While Judas was replaced among the Twelve, this is the last time that this happens. When James is executed by Herod, there is no replacement sought for him. Nor do we see any of the other apostles replaced after their deaths. Why, then, did Peter call for a successor to Judas? First, he cites prophecy, but I think more significant is the statement in verse 25: “to take the place in this apostolic service that Judas left to go to his own place.” Taken together, there was a sense that Judas had abandoned his place among the apostles, and that there was a need to complete the number Jesus had chosen. When the apostles later died, they died still in their place, having remained faithful until the end.

This leaves us with the question of what this scenario means to us today. Certainly decision making in the church has changed since the coming of the Holy Spirit, something they did not yet have. I think that the choices made, and even the procedure used, show us that the earliest followers of Jesus did not want to put their own thinking and wisdom ahead of God’s will when making choices. There was a dependence on the Lord and His wisdom that we in the church can sometimes neglect in favor of our own ideas. While I certainly don’t advocate tossing dice to solve church problems, I do think we need to keep a constant awareness of God’s will and wisdom, and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us into His truth, not ours.

30 Days in the Bible, Day 26: Acts 17:10-12

Personal Bible study and corporate Bible study are both important parts of our discipleship journey. We need to spend time in the Word ourselves, and we need to spend time learning from qualified teachers. There is a balance we need to strike between these two elements of discipleship, and there also seems to be a little tension between the two.

On the one hand, we want to find those who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit to guide us along with the Spirit in understanding and applying the Word to our lives. If we sit under teachers and just pick them apart, using our own judgment to decide when we agree with them and when we don’t, we will not benefit from their teaching. We need to trust the pastors and teachers we have found to be faithfully and reliably grounded in God’s Word. They may tell us things we don’t want to hear, but which we may need to hear for our spiritual growth.

On the other hand, the responsibility for our spiritual growth from a human perspective rests with each one of us. We need to examine what our teachers say in light of the Bible to ensure that what they are teaching is what God is saying. While the Bible clearly teaches that those who teach are held responsible for what they teach, each Christian is responsible for what they have learned and how it is put into practice.

Ronald Reagan used to use the phrase “Trust, but verify” of those with whom he dealt on a political level. While discipleship involves spiritual rather than political concepts, it’s not a bad way to think about how we approach the teaching we receive. Once we have found pastors and teachers we have sounded out and found to be good, we need to have a level of trust that what they are presenting is what the Word of God teaches. However, we also need to dig into the Word to verify that they are remaining true to the Lord and His Word.

The fact they we may find disagreements between teachers, or between teachers and ourselves, doesn’t mean that one or the other is unfaithful to the Lord. There are many teachings in the Bible on which Christians disagree while remaining true to a commitment to follow Jesus Christ. There are two things we should look at when we find a disagreement. First, is this on a fundamental truth that is at the core of our Christian faith, like the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and salvation through faith in Jesus alone? Second, is what is being taught backed by a thorough and careful study of the Bible and based on what the Word says? We want our teachers to be true to Jesus Christ and to the basic truths of our faith, and we want them to base all of their Christian teaching on God’s revealed Word.

I hope that as you have been studying along with these devotionals that you have made sure that what I write has been consistent with the Word. A teacher who feels they are above examination is a teacher who isn’t worthy of trust. Find a teacher who follows Jesus, is led by the Spirit, and teaches from God’s Word, and you’ll find a teacher who can help you grow more like Jesus as you make your discipleship journey.

30 Days in the Bible, Day 23: Acts 2:40-47

When Luke described the practices of the early church in Acts 2:42-47, the first thing he mentions is that “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” I don’t think this is an accident. When we look at what the church did in these verses, we see actions that arise out of an understanding of God’s Word. The fellowship, worship, and outreach of the first century church are built on the foundation of God’s revelation of truth to them.

What was the content of the apostles’ teaching? It began with the proclamation that Jesus was the fulfillment of the hope of the Old Testament. The Law, Prophets, and Writings of the Jewish Scriptures looked forward to the coming of the promised Messiah and to a salvation that would reverse the curse of sin. The apostles believed and taught that this Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bible of the early church was what we call the Old Testament today. The earliest books of the New Testament wouldn’t be written for another 15-20 years, although some of the gospel accounts probably started circulating almost immediately. Since they still considered themselves faithful Jews, the apostles would have gone to their Scriptures to teach about the meaning of the coming of Jesus. Jesus Himself had gone to those Scriptures to explain to the two on the road to Emmaus the OT teaching about the Messiah.

Over about the next 60 years, the apostles’ teaching was written down in the recognized Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse we now call the New Testament. This teaching explained and filled in the details about the person and work of Jesus and about the role of the Holy Spirit. As a result, we are able to read and study the apostles’ teaching today. When we read and study the Bible, both Old and New Testament, we find ourselves in the same place as those early Christians who based everything they did on that teaching.

If we want our modern Christian fellowship, worship, and outreach to have power and lasting effects, we need to follow the example of the first Christians. What we do in the name of Jesus must be founded and built upon what He reveals to us in His Word. A church may meet together, go through some defined worship practices, and speak a message, but if those are done in human power and wisdom rather than in the power of God’s Word the results will not have eternal value.

Christians and churches today must worship the Lord in Spirit and truth, fellowship with and build up each other, and reach out to our world with the good news of Jesus Christ. We can’t do this unless we hear what God says in His revelation, and put what we learn there into practice. As we continue to dig into the Word individually and as a group, we will find that all we do as Christians will be honoring to Jesus and will draw us closer to Him.