Acts of the Apostles 3

Okay, so after much more study into commentaries, etc., I find that my initial observation does fall in line with what the general published scholars believe regarding Acts 1:11; that this is most likely referring to the 'second coming'. Heh....I suppose I got ahead of myself. Yet another surprise.

However, what has been a perspective shift for me, summarized in my first post, continues. In fact, the shift could be said in another way: I'm being given the 'opportunity' to dive deeper into the text through my class at HIU. I probably wouldn't consort the wide variety of texts that I am now, unless directed to do so by a professor. I wouldn't read text over and over, noting differences between common translations. I wouldn't strive for a deeper understanding. I'd like to say that I would, but I just don't. My reading and treatment of scripture has been somewhat shallow, overall. I have not developed the habits that I think make scripture actually worth reading. With historical and textual contexts available, the words start to jump off the page...said yet another way, I desire to begin studying the Bible, not just simply reading it. So class is good for something other than taking your $, I suppose? I digress....

So....Moses and Elijah, in Acts...why the reference? What can we learn from their inclusion?

Let's look at the similar events in these three mens' lives: the end of their ministry. How did Moses and Elijah depart? What happened just before, and just after?

Their work here on earth physically ended at some point, as Jesus' has here in the beginning of Acts. These three were considered prophets, each with his own unique attributes, with of course Jesus being much more than a prophet. However, as a prophet, his teaching and leading in a physical sense comes to a close. The first readers of Acts would have seen the parallels Luke was getting at here, because of the knowledge and reverence they had for their spiritual forefathers. Unfortunately, not being Jewish, I again don't share this.

Moses:

The end of the reign of Moses as patriarch of the Jews is accounted in Deut. 34:1-12.

1.	Now Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan,
2.	and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the western sea,
3.	and the Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar.
4.	Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, `I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there."
5.	So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6.	And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day.
7.	Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.
8.	So the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end.
9.	Now Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him; and the sons of Israel listened to him and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.
10.	Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
11.	for all the signs and wonders which the LORD sent him to perform in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land,
12.	and for all the mighty power and for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.

One could gather from certain clues (i.e. the order of events), that Moses' departure was necessary for Joshua to receive the spirit of wisdom. This is of course not explicitly stated. However, verse 9 gives the impression that there was a transfer of power, and that the people now took orders from Joshua, as they had once done from Moses.

Earlier in Deuteronomy, also shows this transition of power, from Moses to Joshua (3:21-29):

21.	"I commanded Joshua at that time, saying, `Your eyes have seen all that the LORD your God has done to these two kings; so the LORD shall do to all the kingdoms into which you are about to cross.
22.	`Do not fear them, for the LORD your God is the one fighting for you.'
23.	"I also pleaded with the LORD at that time, saying,
24.	`O Lord GOD, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as Yours?
25.	`Let me, I pray, cross over and see the fair land that is beyond the Jordan, that good hill country and Lebanon.'
26.	"But the LORD was angry with me on your account, and would not listen to me; and the LORD said to me, `Enough! Speak to Me no more of this matter.
27.	`Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes to the west and north and south and east, and see it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over this Jordan.
28.	`But charge Joshua and encourage him and strengthen him, for he shall go across at the head of this people, and he will give them as an inheritance the land which you will see.'
29.	"So we remained in the valley opposite Beth-peor.

So perhaps at this point we won't go as far as to say that Moses' departure was the deciding factor of Joshua receiving the 'spirit of wisdom', but we could say that this office is only meant to be held by one person at a time. Moses exits, Joshua enters.

For my long winded-ness, Elijah will have to be saved for the next post. It may be a more natural connection, as Elijah was taken into heaven much like Christ was.

Acts of the Apostles 2

I'm going to continue the theme from my previous post: a perspective shift, when reading Acts. Looking at the following verses, as an example:

Acts 1:9-11

9.	And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10.	And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.
11.	They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Upon first glance of this I would think that the 'return' mentioned here is no doubt referencing the second coming of Jesus. (Maybe you would have read it the same way? Let me know! Maybe I'm the only crazy one). After some studying, though, that seems less likely.

The trick here, seems to rest in the two visiting 'men'. Where have we seen this before? A couple of places:


Luke 24:4-7

4.	While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing;
5.	and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead?
6.	"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,
7.	saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

Luke 9:28-32

28.	Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.
29.	And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming.
30.	And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah,
31.	who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
32.	Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.

(NASB)

It is widely held that Luke is the author of both Luke and Acts. He is therefore undoubtedly drawing parallels between these three events, and even suggesting that the two men are the same characters. Any good author would know that if he had three accounts that mirrored each other in so many ways, but the coincidence was not intentional, he would indeed have to mention how they delineate.

Based on this argument lets take it that Acts 1:10 is meant to suggest Moses and Elijah. So the next question would be "What do Moses and Elijah signify, that they were included in this way?" One of the reasons for asking this, is that Luke is so succinct in describing this event; this event that must have been glorious or at the very least frightful. He must be relying on his readers' immediate connection and knowledge of Moses and Elijah. One that I do not readily draw upon, and one that I'll save for the next post.

Acts of the Apostles 1

I'd like to enrich my study of Acts by posting my findings and musings here. I'm not sure what will come of this, but I figure it couldn't hurt to open these things up to my community for discussion.

These thoughts come from my initial perusing of 2 commentaries, and 1 book on historical context.

I believe that my previous readings of Acts may have been through the lenses of an incorrect approach to the text. (big surprise) The reason is this: for good and ill, my approach to the Bible as a whole has been formed by the community that brought me into faith when that faith began to become my own. As I grew into Christianity, or it grew into me, I viewed Acts indirectly as the section that is to show 'how' to do church.

Perhaps this transition into deeper, contextual study is natural. Since I was taught to read the Bible as much as possible, (and not necessarily as deeply as possible) what appeared on the surface caused me to draw initial conclusions as to what the text meant. Therefore because this is the first account of Christian community, least affected by long expanses of time that may have caused misinterpretations of Jesus' actions and commands, I naturally concluded this as the 'ideal' or 'virgin' church. Therefore, if culture could allow it, we would be mimicking as closely as possible the actions and directives therein.

An excerpt from one commentary, The Gospel of the Spirit, by Justo L. Gonzalez, sums up a perspective shift:

"Traditionally, we have read this book as a sort of first book of discipline of the early Church, where the apostles and others set the procedures and practices to be followed throughout the ages. Thus, for instance, the election of the Seven in chapter 6 has become the paradigm and the biblical basis for the election and role of deacons at later times. If, on the other hand , the main character of the book is the Holy Spirit, we should be free to see cases in which the Spirit seems to correct, and perhaps even slightly to mock what the apostles and other leaders of the Church do and decide.....When read in this manner, the Book of Acts becomes a call to Christians to be open to the action of the Spirit, not only leading them to confront values and practices in society that may need to be subverted, but perhaps even leading them to subvert or question practices and values within the Church itself."

So if it is not to be read in this way, then how shall we approach it? What is the 'purpose' of Acts, from our perspective, nearly two Millennia down the road?

Two primary purposes of Acts emerge: 1) To defend and explain God's most recent actions, in apologetic form, to Theophilus (possibly either a single person or meant to signify the Christian community as a whole), and 2) to provide assurance to both Jew and Gentile that God intends to extend redemption to 'the ends of the earth' (Acts 1:8)

If this is correct, the burden of referring to a manual from which to model our church, is lifted. The book can more easily be enjoyed as a historical narrative, and not scrutinized for liturgical scientific method. For me, this is both exciting and challenging news. The excitement is the lift of restriction. The challenge is that when you lift restriction, you allow the messy and the undefined in. But such is the picture of the early church more clearly: riddled with debate, discussion, and disagreement (Acts 10 -15).