Acts #1 – Final Preparations

Some Background
Although not explicitly stated, the writer of this book is Luke, who also wrote the Gospel according to Luke. Both books are also written to the same person, Theophilus. Now there are some speculations as to who Theophilus was. His name means ‘lover of God,’ but this may have been a nickname. One speculation states that both Luke volume 1 (the Gospel) and Luke volume 2 (Acts) were written as official documentation for Paul’s appeal to Rome. As a Roman citizen Paul was allowed to hand in written documentation in defense of his arrest. Considering the title of Theophilus (most excellent – which is a title generally used for a Roman official), he could have been the official who prepared the necessary appeal documentation. In defense of this speculation it is said that the book of Acts never shows Paul as an instigator of the riots (not even with Stephen’s murder) and that also throughout the book the Romans are never portrayed as the bad guys. So, both the gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts are written by the same person, to the same person, but also with the same subject, namely Jesus Christ. Yes, the Holy Spirit is very prominent, but as is consistent with His mission He bears only testimony of the Son, Jesus Christ (John 15:26). The book of Acts is the transition between the Kingdom message and the Church. The Kingdom was offered to Israel first, but they rejected it, which opened the door to the Gentiles. The book of Acts is the continuing story of God’s plan and promise to all flesh, not just Israel or the Church. If the book of Acts is the transition between the Kingdom and the Church, then the book of Revelation is the transition between the Church and the Kingdom.

Forty Days of Ministry
The book of Acts is the only place where it mentions the exact number of days between the resurrection and the ascension, namely 40 days (Acts 1:3). In those days Jesus was talking to His disciples about the Kingdom of God. Some of these accounts are recorded in the Bible, such as the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18) and the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), but I can only imagine how great it must have been to sit in on those private Bible studies where Jesus is explaining the Kingdom of God.

Jesus also told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit to come. It is not that the Holy Spirit is making His first appearance in Acts for He is already there from the beginning in Genesis 1:2. But there are some special considerations regarding the Holy Spirit’s appearance in Acts 1:2 besides the fact that He will baptize (indwell) the Body of Christ (not just those who happen to be there!) on Pentecost. This has to do with what Jesus said to His disciples in John 16:7, where He says: “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.“. Here Jesus implies that He and the Holy Spirit basically cannot be there at the same time (which has nothing to do with His omnipresence, for at Jesus’ baptism the Holy Spirit is there), but this is maybe a topic for another blog.

The Ascension
At the ascension the disciples ask Jesus whether He is going to restore the Kingdom to Israel, which was a natural question to ask as a lot of the Old Testament prophesies were pertaining the restoration of the Kingdom. The Jews however were thinking about a political kingdom and that Jesus would overthrow the Roman oppression and rule Israel. Yet Jesus was talking about a totally different Kingdom. The Jews did not know of His plans, nor where they really equipped for what was coming. Jesus’ answer was that it was not for them “to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:7-8). Notice the small difference between what Jesus says here and in Matthew 24:34 or Mark 13:32 where He says: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). The verses in both Matthew and Mark say that no one knows, not even the Son (Jesus). Yet here in Acts, Jesus does not mention Himself to not know. Was Jesus informed by the Father between then and now, in the three days maybe between His death and resurrection? It could be accidental, but I don’t think that anything in God’s plan is accidental. Still, it is conjecture.

Notice also that Jesus does not cancel the Kingdom of Israel. It is about timing, not an event. In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus sends His disciples on a small field trip with the following instruction: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This is in complete contrast to the mission He is about to send them on in Acts, which is to go not only go to Jerusalem and Judea, but then also to Samaria and to the end of the world, which are the Gentiles. The Kingdom message was first exclusively for Israel. John 1:11 says that Jesus “came to His own, and His own people did not receive him.“. Israel rejected Him, and Jesus “drew near and saw the city, He wept over it, saying, ‘Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.’” (Luke 19:41-44). Because of this Israel has been set aside for a time, for Romans 11:25 says that “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” The Book of Acts is a transition between the Kingdom message, which is the primary thing we see in the Gospels, and that mystery which is called the Church. Then the book of Revelation is going to be a transition from the Church (chapters 2-3) back to the Kingdom.

The Two Men
Who are the two men? A topic of wide debate. Are they Moses and Elijah (like with the transfiguration)? Are they the same two men who accompanied the Lord in Genesis 18 with Abraham? Are they the two witnesses in Revelation 11? In any case they give an interesting prophecy that Jesus will come back the same way as He went, of which Zechariah 14:4-9 says, “On that day His feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light. On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to o the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.

The Upper Room
The rest of the chapter deals with the disciples going back to the upper room to pray, and to find a replacement for Judas to complete the eleven remaining apostles. After casting lots (which is a biblical principle – see Proverbs 16:33) they chose Matthias as the new twelfth apostle. There are scholars who say that choosing Matthias was a big mistake, and that Peter (like in the Gospels) was speaking to quickly here. The reason being that Paul (Saul) would be the twelfth apostle, and that’s the reason why Paul in nine of his fourteen epistles is beginning with defending his apostleship.

Advertisements

The Charge!

He who carries the Sword.

May you wield it with grace and mercy.

May your heart be filled with the power and love of God so that you have the strength to love and serve all.

May the Lord be your wisdom.
May He be your leader and teacher.
May your heart be humble and contrite, trembling at His Word and fearfully obeying His decrees.

Let the glory of the Lord ring forth from Jerusalem, that all may declare His praises.

In Christ our Lord.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.’” (Isaiah 52:7)

Five Points #1 – Preface

This will be the first post in what is quite likely going to be a very long series…

Over the last couple of months the topic of Calvinism versus Arminianism has become an item in many conversations both in personal as well as church settings. Those that have invested some time in reading up on either of them will quickly come to the conclusion that this has been a hot and debated topic for the last couple hundred years, and still is. And although the seems to be that lately the Calvinists are “winning” (do a Google search on “New Calvinism”) this doesn’t mean they are right (although I am not saying that they are wrong either). In order to get a basic feel for the debate I have read some documents and studies, listened to some teachings, and I can say that from what I have read and heard and from personal knowledge of the Bible you could say I am a Calvinist. But, this doesn’t mean that I am one hundred percent convinced of this, nor that I understand fully why (and/or could argue against). At first I thought I would call this series “Calminianism,” for it is quite certain that neither John Calvin nor Jacob Arminius was one hundred percent right in their statements and so the truth is to some extent a mixture of the two, but I want to avoid the assumption as a starting point.

In any case, it is always good to come to your own convictions on any teaching in the Bible, and thus this is also the case here. But I must admit that I was, and maybe still am, hesitant to study this one for it is a doctrine that is not only spread throughout the whole Bible (which means I have to read through the whole Bible from the angle of this doctrine), but is also often implicit in the text (meaning that many if not all of the verses which are used to defend either side always have to been seen in the context of the Bible as a whole, and cannot be viewed isolated). So, this is quite the study, but I have decided to take it on nonetheless.

My Approach
My approach is going to be a bit unusual maybe, hence my statement that this will be a very long series over a very long time. In my studies and subsequent blogs I am not going to defend or attack either Calvinism or Arminianism. I am also not going to study the verses which are commonly listed in their defense and build my conviction from that. I am also not going to do biographical studies on the two main characters (although maybe I will do that at the end). But here is what I am going to do: I will start off this series with just a generic study on these five points and whether these doctrines are central or peripheral; then I will take a look at the Bible as a whole in light of these five points; then I will study out each individual book of the Bible in light of these five points; and then at the very end I will start drawing conclusions on what the Bible says about these five points.

So, I am looking forward to this series, but please don’t expect a new blog post on this every couple of days as most of this study will take a long time.