Questions (01/17/26-01/18/26)

I will start with something of a side matter.  How much time has passed between the crucifixion and the events of Acts 2?  Okay, Fausset identifies seven weeks between the two.  I was thinking five weeks.  But the term is actually indicating fifty days, so yes, seven weeks.  So, if we piece this together, Jesus is crucified on the day prior to the Passover, and rises from death the third day, so one day into the fifty.  Remember that in Jewish accounting for time, any portion of the day is effectively a day, so died Friday, dead Saturday, arisen Sunday is three days.  Here, we read that He was in repeated contact with His disciples for a period of forty days.  That would leave 8 days of the fifty, or perhaps 7 if we assume fifty days is a rounding up of seven weeks.  So, to answer my question upon reading through these verses, there is no reason to suppose an additional year between these events.

John’s account gives us some curious things to consider in regard to this period of waiting.  We learn that Jesus had appeared to Mary on that first Sunday (Jn 20:14-17), and later that same day, at evening, to the disciples gathered in hiding (Jn 20:19-23), though Thomas was absent.  It was on this occasion that He breathed on them and commissioned them with that first impartation of the Holy Spirit.  Eight days later, we still have the disciples in Jerusalem, as Jesus returns with Thomas present (Jn 20:26-29).  But after all of this, or in spite of all this, it seems everybody went back home to Galilee, for we find Peter and friends gone fishing, which presumably means we’re back in Capernaum (Jn 21:3).  Okay, so if He arose on the first day, and meets them again eight days later, we’re nine days out.  Add a day, at least, for travel from Jerusalem to Capernaum.

So far so good, we have plenty of time to account for that forty days.  The question that comes to mind now is where they were when commanded not to leave Jerusalem?  Going back to the Luke 24, it seems like the instruction was delivered back on day one.  There He is, appearing in their midst, and giving solid evidence of His solid, non-ghostly form (Lk 24:38-43).  He can be touched.  He can consume food.  He is real.  There follows the ‘opening of their minds to understand’, and then the commissioning, and the command to which he refers here in our passage.  “You are witnesses.  I am sending the promise of My Father.  Stay put in the city until that comes about” (Lk 24:49).  So, how is it that everybody went home to Capernaum?

Luke, it seems, jumps immediately to the end of those forty says, when Jesus leads them to Bethany and then ascends to the throne of heaven, after which, he informs us, they returned to Jerusalem and remained (Lk 24:50-53).  I would have to conclude that there is another time jump between that first encounter, which concludes at Luke 24:43, and the commissioning that begins in the next verse.  So, while it reads as though it was one continuous interaction, I think maybe we’re seeing three separate encounters, with the trip to Capernaum and back presumably fit between verses 43 and 44.

One could devise reasons for deciding to go home and come back.  My first thought was that having seen Jesus restored to life that very first day, the despondency we might think we see in Peter’s decision to go fishing becomes unthinkable.  But John’s account doesn’t really tell us what was going on with Peter.  It’s a bare statement.  “I am going fishing.”  It could have simply been that he knew full well that this would be the last time.  Or, given the events of that fishing trip, he is still troubled by his failures.

Okay, so possibility number one:  Peter has seen the risen Christ, as have the others, but cannot shake the feeling that he has forfeited his place among the disciples, given how roundly he denied association in the midst of crisis.  Others may have felt similarly disqualified by their abandoning of Jesus at the critical moment.  It is Peter upon whom John focuses attention, his restoration.  Yet it’s quite possible, probable even, that others in that team felt doubtful as to their standing with Jesus.  So, this is, as I say, one possibility for why everybody went home in spite of the excitement.  They saw that He was alive, but could not convince themselves they still had part in His mission.  They had failed.  May as well go home.

But there’s another possibility.  This does not preclude the presence of doubts as to their individual fitness, but it sets these a bit lower in their calculations.  If Jesus was alive, this was big.  This was earth shattering big.  Everything changes, starting now.  But still, their departure to join Jesus as disciples a few years back had not fully settled matters back home.  Earthly obligations remained.  Peter, for one, was married.  We don’t really hear much about his wife subsequent to the healing of her mother in Capernaum, but some of Paul’s comments to the Corinthians give cause to suppose she was still alive and well, and traveled together with Peter as he went about his ministry duties.  James and John had, the least, their parents to consider.  If they really felt the impact of what had just happened, it must have occurred to them that there would in fact be no going back to life as it had been.  They would not be rejoining the family business.  They had a new family business in the ministry of the Gospel.  In that light, this trip to Capernaum may have been a matter of proper care for their earthly relationships.  Peter would have gone to pick up his wife, perhaps with additional need of selling house and boat.  James and John would have matters to settle with Zebedee.  Others now doubt had their own matters to take care of before they returned to Jerusalem to stay.

If this is the story, then Peter’s choice to go fishing really is a goodbye to that former life.  The three years these men had spent with Jesus could yet have proven just a stage of life which might yet conclude with a return to home and habit.  Yes, they were experiencing wonders and learning things they had not known.  But it’s also abundantly clear that they did not fully comprehend what they had been part of.  They sort of knew who Jesus was.  Peter, after all, had confessed it and his confession had been confirmed by Jesus Himself.  And they had witnessed His transformation on the mountain.  They had reason to believe, but still, the radical nature of what they were called to believe left it, in the end, unbelievable.  It was too far beyond them to comprehend really, and the mind being what it is, they developed alternate explanations that kept things fitting with experience.  Until that moment Luke brings to us, when Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Lk 24:45). To understand the Scriptures was to finally understand their experience with this Jesus, and to truly understand what it meant that He was the Son of God.Scriptures was to finally understand their experience with this Jesus, and to truly understand what it meant that He was the Son of God.

Okay, I have one other question which, while it is interesting to me, may yet turn out to be nothing but a curiosity.  Yet, I cannot help but wonder at the significance of there being 40 days during which Jesus was meeting with His disciples in risen but unascended form.  This is clearly a number of some significance.  It has to be more than a convenient rounding.  Observe that the Flood transpired over a period of forty days (Ge 7:4).  Forty days were required for the embalming of Israel, upon the instruction of Joseph (Ge 50:2).  Then, of course, there are the forty years of wandering in the desert (Ex 16:35), and Moses spending forty days on the mountain at the giving of the Law (Ex 24:18).  There were forty silver sockets to hold the boards of the south side of the temple (Ex 26:19).  Prior to the wilderness wanderings, Joshua, Caleb, and the others spent forty days spying out the land of promise (Nu 13:25).  Joshua was forty years old at the time (Josh 14:7).  We see three occasions during the period of the Judges when, “The land had rest forty years” (Jdg 3:11, Jdg 5:31, Jdg 8:28), but also a period of subjugation to the Philistines for forty years (Jdg 13:1).

More.  Saul was forty when he became king (1Sa 13:1).  Goliath challenged the camp of Israel for forty days before David was sent from home to bring food to his brothers (1Sa 17:16).  David was king for forty years (2Sa 5:4).  In Solomon’s temple, forties make their appearance as well, in the forty cubit length of the inner sanctuary, and the forty bath basins (1Ki 6:17, 1Ki 7:38), and he, too, reigned for forty years (1Ki 11:42).  The food supplied to Elijah by the angels sufficed to maintain him for forty days as he went to Mount Horeb (1Ki 19:8).  Ezekiel announces forty years of desolation for Egypt (Eze 29:10-12), and the temple he sees in vision has once again measurements of forty cubits in the nave (Eze 41:2).  Jonah gives Ninevah a forty day warning (Jnh 3:4).  Jesus fasts in the wilderness for forty days prior to facing Satan’s temptations (Mt 4:2).  Interestingly, it is forty men who form the plot against Paul (Ac 23:13).

So, then, what is the significance of this number, that so many things center on forty?  Per Fausset’s the primary significance is a period of probation, punishment, or chastisement.  That’s certainly to be seen in many of the examples here.  I suppose we might count those periods of rest in Judges as probationary periods, especially given the seemingly inevitable reversion to form that followed.  Should we consider this forty day period as again something probationary?  For forty days, Jesus appears repeatedly, and as I have considered somewhat, there’s some ambiguity as to the state of mind amongst His closest followers, the Apostles.  But it seems they were able, finally, to persist, to pass through probation and enter into office.  Alternately, we might view it rather like those forty years so often preceding ascending the throne of authority.  They were taking up authority, though not as kings.  And there is that sense that much of Jesus’ life is a recapitulation of Israel’s history.  Thus, his 40 days in the wilderness echo after a fashion the 40 years of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness.  Perhaps, then, this 40 days before taking up Apostolic authority are similarly an echo of the forty years of age before becoming king.  Granted, that was hardly a fixed requirement, just an observation on the part of certain of the kings.  I’m inclined to find it more a period of testing, of examination.  Would these remain faithful?  Of course, God already knew, as He had known back on Mount Sinai.  But maybe they needed to know.  Maybe they needed to know the strength of that faith within them, especially on the heels of such emotional extremes as they had experienced in recent weeks.  Praise God, though, they passed, and the end result is that indeed, they did return to Jerusalem, they did wait for the promise, and they did obey as God gave them instruction.  May we do likewise.

The Intersection of God and Man (01/19/26-01/20/26)

We have looked, if briefly, at the way in which these events between Passover and Pentecost reflect, or recapitulate in some ways the experience of Israel in the desert.  The correspondence of forty days to forty years is one aspect of that connection.  I might suggest that the repeated occasion of the risen Christ meeting with His apostles could be viewed as corresponding to the pillar of smoke by day and fire by night.  Here was a visible, visceral evidence that God Himself was with them in their midst.  Luke perhaps hints at this with his notice of ‘many convincing proofs’ in verse 3.  But I suspect he is more in mind of making it clear that as shocking and truly marvelous as the resurrection of Jesus is, it was in fact a real event in real time and space.  Considering how critical that particular point was to the preaching of the Gospel (and should still be), it would surely be the point most needful to establish as fact rather than mere vision or myth.

I could further posit the instruction to wait on God’s promised sending of the Spirit as corresponding to the leading of Israel in the desert.  Where the pillar stopped, they stayed.  When the pillar moved, they moved.  So we find it throughout this book of Acts.  Where the Spirit directs, the Apostles go, where He parks them, they stay parked.  But in this section of my study I am particularly interested in what I have labeled the intersection of God and Man.  That is to say, we are being focused in on the things that transpire when the Holy Spirit, God Himself, is truly and fully in our midst.

The first thing we must recognize is that this is not some experience reserved for the New Testament church only.  The quality, or perhaps the duration has changed, certainly the extent.  But the experience goes farther back, arguably to the beginning.  As I am considering these parallels to that desert wandering, though, let me go back there, where we find what is I believe the first notice of the Holy Spirit coming upon a particular individual.  Nehemiah reflects on that event in his prayer, saying, “You gave Your good Spirit to instruct them.  You fed them manna and supplied them with water” (Neh 9:20).  Observe, then, that His instruction was as needful to life as food and water.  And I might note that this provision of water was through the Rock whom Moses struck, the Rock which followed them, as Paul observes (1Co 10:4).  No ordinary desert feature, this.  No.  He says explicitly, “The rock was Christ.”  And note, as well, “all drank the same spiritual drink.”  We think of the Spirit’s presence being confined to Moses, Aaron, Joshua, perhaps Caleb, and then Bezalel son of Uri.

Certainly, Bezalel is the first to be noticed as having received a particular anointing of the Spirit.  Moses records that God, “filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and craftsmanship” (Ex 31:2-3).  Why?  Because to him was assigned the oversight and manufacture of all the components of the tabernacle.  And in this, yet another parallel should be observed, for Peter informs us that even now, God is fashioning us as living stones to be built into the temple of the living God, the tabernacle in which He will abide amongst His people (1Pe 2:5).  There comes a greater fulfillment, to be sure, when our Lord returns.  But even now, this is our story.  He tabernacles with us, presently in the Person of the Holy Spirit.

Let me return to Nehemiah’s prayer.  Someday, Lord willing, I shall have to make proper study of that book.  To keep it a bit colloquial, “You put up with them for many years” (Neh 9:30-31).  “You admonished them by the Spirit through Your prophets.”  Parallel:  We are admonished, in this word of the New Testament, by the Spirit through His Apostles.  How much are the epistles occupied with admonishing error and encouraging obedience, after all?  He continues.  “Yet they would not listen.  So You gave them over to foreigners as exiles.”  God’s patience, it might seem, runs out.  But this is not the end of it.  “Nevertheless, in Your great compassion You did not make and end of them or forsake them, for You are a gracious and compassionate God.”  Indeed, God is a faithful God, faithful to His covenant even when we prove faithless, and that is compassion indeed!

Now, in this we should observe the activity of the Holy Spirit who now abides with us as He did with them.  He instructs.  He admonishes.  When He sees us gone off in directions we ought not to go, He doesn’t just say, “Good riddance.”  No!  He comes after us, brings us back.  It’s not so much punishment for our crimes, though consequences may well be felt – probably will be.  It’s the correction of a loving guardian or parent.  We’ll leave the parental role to the Father, but as our Helper, our Tutor, the same caring correction is reasonable to expect from the Spirit.  Whom the Father loves He chastises (Heb 12:6).  If He did not, we would continue on our errant way and be lost to Him.

I don’t know as it’s an entirely apt analogy, but it puts me in mind of the businessman’s perspective on shoplifting.  A certain amount is simply to be expected, nothing you can do about it.  You take inventory, and if the numbers for a particular product aren’t as expected, it’s just written off.  Can you imagine our condition were God to take a like view to Satan’s shoplifting in His church?  But no!  Even His giving them over into captivity in Babylon did not, in fact, constitute abandonment, which is Nehemiah’s point, and quite evident in that he himself is in Jerusalem tasked with rebuilding the temple of the living God on orders from Cyrus, the ruler of the Babylonian empire, or if you prefer, its successor.  And don’t lose sight of the fact that the Holy Spirit, through His prophets, had made known this Cyrus as a messiah to God’s people long before the man was ever born.  The promise holds.

And here is that same promise, still somewhat in abeyance, yet just as certain.  Not many days now, and He will come.  He will come to instruct and admonish, as He did through the Prophets, and you, if you will listen and respond, will be led by Him on level ground.  Here was the prayer of David answered.  “Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God.  Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground.  Revive me for the sake of Your name, O Adonai!  In Your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble” (Ps 143:10-11).  Yes, Lord!  Even so, teach me, guide me, revive me.  I am ever in need of Your voice to guide, Your hand to take the reins and draw me back to You.  Let me be listening and responsive as You direct.

I cannot pray that without awareness.  Peter has told us the reality of our situation.  His divine power has granted us everything pertaining to life and godliness.  He has supplied us with true knowledge, the life changing knowledge that is epignosis, God; that He called us by His own glory and excellence, granting us His great and precious promises so as to make of us partakers of the divine nature ourselves, thus escaping the corruption of worldly lust (2Pe 1:3-4).  This is God’s promise.  It is conditioned not upon our merit, but upon the finished work of Christ.  Escape is provided, the very power of God set at our disposal, though not, I must insist, to be exercised willy-nilly, however we may see fit to fling it about.  No!  God remains in control.  He is not a fool.  But we have what we need.  We are revived, entered into this resurrection life in part, with the Holy Spirit present and active, the seal upon our certain future inheritance of life in full.

As to the power of God and His firm control of same, let us simply observe the case of Balaam.  Balaam could hardly, based on his actions, be construed as a man of God, let alone a true prophet of God.  One would not wish to shape his course by the doctrines this man declared, nor shape one’s worship by his practices.  And yet, in spite of his abject corruption, he found himself compelled to serve God’s purposes.  As wrong as his approaches were, he was claiming to speak for God, and as such, God would see to it that he spoke accurately, like it or not.  He could not curse God’s people.  God would not permit it.  Now, I have little doubt that, had he spoken merely from his own opinion, or had he pronounced such curses in the name of Baal or some other false god, God would have let him say as he pleased.  After all, his words had no power to really do anything, nor could the word of a false god.  And his lies would not in any way attach to God.  But he chose to make the claim, and so, God felt it necessary to validate the claim by compelling him to prophesy truly.

 I must stress that this is no cause to take the word of every self-proclaimed spokesman for God as necessarily true.  I might, however, propose that by one means or another, every false prophet shall be identified and discredited.  It may not be evident in the moment, and they may be left to go about their false pronouncements to the misguiding of many.  I think, for example, of the period in which Jeremiah was active.  There were myriad claimants to the prophetic office, and most of them spouted false confidences and lies.  They would be exposed as false by the unfolding of events, and I am quite certain they paid the due penalty for falsely claiming to speak for God.  Oh!  How that ought rightly to put the fear of God in us when we incline to insist we know what God is saying or doing in this or that circumstance!  One wants to be quite certain of one’s calling, and of one’s understanding of his commission, before undertaking to make such claims.  And let me just say, that holds every bit as much for our more casual claims of divine inspiration.  Be certain.  Do not make false claims to godly knowledge.  God takes such things every seriously, and the penalty is steep indeed!

If we consider the Holy Spirit and what we are told of His work in man, we will find in Him a model for our own ministrations.  Observe well what Jesus spoke of Him as He prepared His disciples for the change to come.  This Holy Spirit, He says, would teach them all things, and how?  By bringing to remembrance what Jesus had said to them (Jn 14:26).  Further, He does so by testifying not about Himself in His own Person, but about Jesus (Jn 15:27).  It’s not about Him.  It’s about Christ.  That may be rather a fine distinction, given that Father, Son, and Spirit are truly One.  Yet we see clearly a distinction of Persons amongst them, an individuality within the unity of the Godhead, such that, as I have often enough observed, even as to fellowship God is perfect and complete in Himself.

I say that this is a model for us to follow.  When we minister, it’s not about us.  It’s not about promulgating our own ideas or demonstrating our achievements.  It’s about presenting Christ, teaching what He said, testifying of His life, His ministry, His presence, His Lordship.  And even in doing so, if it is done as we see fit to do it, or on whatever occasions happen to stir us to action, it’s not yet done according to the pattern given.  Go back to those same verses.  The Holy Spirit comes because the Father sends, and the Father sends at the bequest of, or in response to the promise made by the Son (Jn 14:26 – The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name.)  And again, “The Helper I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father” (Jn 15:26).  He comes to testify, and Jesus gives His apostles explicit instruction, “You will also testify.”

This is not for entertainment, nor is it for goosebumps and excitement of the emotions.  It’s for purpose, and the purpose is to testify of Christ.  That this is particularly applied to the Apostles is evident, given the basis of their testimony:  “Because you have been with Me from the beginning.”  This is not a testimony we can bear.  But it is upon this testimony and this promise that we can account the Scriptures, and particularly the New Testament, to be the valid source of Truth.  Here is the testimony of these Apostles expounded and defended.  Any discussion that seeks to undermine the authority of the Scriptures is, in plain point of fact, an attempt to destroy the very possibility of true knowledge.

So, as I observed in preparation I observe again here.  The Holy Spirit, being sent by Father and Son, functions among us with a degree of submission.  Understand that He comes of His own volition, even though sent.  God ever acts in harmonious concert with Himself, demonstrating the unity of His being.  Yet, in His Persons, there is, if you will, orchestration.  There is organization.  There is a perfect expression of authority, of chain of command.  The Father commands.  The Son speaks as authorized agent, if you will.  His word is indeed binding upon the government of heaven (the Spirit is sent in His name, in response to His promise of action.)  The Spirit, being commanded, comes.  But He does not speak of His own volition any more than did the Son, as authorized agent.  The Son spoke only what He was given to speak.  The Spirit speaks only as He hears.  There is submission on both their parts.  And again we come to the full perfection of God, who, even in this matter of authority and submission to authority, is perfect and complete in Himself.

But let us turn to the implications for us.  The Spirit comes to point us to the Son.  He is absolutely worthy of worship in Himself.  He is God!  Yet this is not His concern in being with us.  Though He infills the temple of our being, yet He does so more as might a Levite or a general priest in the house of God.  I hope I do not overstress the point.  It seems to me valid, but may God correct my perceptions if I am wrong.  No, the Spirit does not come seeking our worship and attention.  He comes to point us to Jesus.  He comes to remind us of that which Jesus did, and that which He is.

Again, we are looking at this place where God and man intersect.  To be sure, that is at its apex in Christ Jesus, the God-man.  But as the Holy Spirit comes to be our Helper, we are ourselves standing at this intersection.  The promise we have looked at, while clearly of unique and particular application to the Apostles, those who had been with Jesus from the outset of His ministry and were factual eye-witnesses both to His very real death on a very real cross, and to His very real continuance of life in resurrection.  But we carry on that work, not entirely unlike how the Holy Spirit carries on the work of Christ among us.  We are not eyewitnesses to those events, no.  But we can testify.  We can present the truth of the Gospel, expounding on the word once for all delivered to the saints.  We can testify to that which God has done in our own lives.  We can testify by our own submission to the authority of Christ in His Word, as the Spirit gives utterance.  No, we are not, as were the Apostles in their special gifting, inerrant.  But we are witnesses, and our witness must be about Him.

We see much to urge us to personal testimony, and there is a place for that, to be sure.  We cannot well testify to that of which we have no experience.  We would, in that case, be no better than these internet experts who suddenly claim authoritative knowledge on the basis of nothing more than impassioned interest.  We must testify in submission to the authority of our Lord.  We testify not by word alone, but by our seriously considered and implemented allegiance to this One Who saved us, Who abides with us, Who commands us.  We don’t seek fame for ourselves.  We don’t seek accolades for our carefully developed philosophies, nor for the depths of our learning.  We seek to make Christ known, and to make man’s need for Him known.  We seek to be obedient to the calling which He has placed upon us, to reveal to others, this Truth once for all revealed to us.

So, let us now come back to our passage, as Jesus observes the intersection ahead for His chosen agents.  “He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised.”  And note where this goes.  We hear Jesus Himself say, “Which you heard from Me.”  This is pointing us right back to those verses from John.  What did they hear?  “The Father will send the Spirit in My name…  I will send Him.”  Now we must recognize the nature of such a promise.  This was not something the Apostles had negotiated with Jesus, having learned on His coming departure.  In fairness, it was not even something they had asked for, unless maybe we consider that request of Mrs. Zebedee on behalf of her sons; that they might have the places of honor in the kingdom.  No, this was promised.  This is a gift given at the sole discretion of the giver.  What, then, was to be given?  Well, we have seen it somewhat in those verses just addressed.  But Jesus makes it clear in what follows.  Here is the gift:  “You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Okay, this could readily take us into an in-depth discussion as to the significance of baptism.  We understand somewhat this formula that is so central to Christianity.  Yet, we don’t really understand it well, I don’t think.  There is, of course, the idea of ablution, of washing away the sins that have sullied our form.  There is also, at least in the forms of water baptism, in its present practice, the identification with Christ, with His death as we are immersed, and with His resurrection as we arise once more from the waters.  And this is intended as a very public identification, a proclamation not merely of our salvation but of His lordship.  It is, then, a pledge.  I am His, and all should know this.

It is also an act taken in submission to His lordship, for He commanded the Apostles to go make disciples, and [then] to baptize them in the name (on or into the authority) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19), which is to say, into the Triunity of God Who is One.  There is something in this which is not so far off from those Israelites at the base of Mount Sinai receiving for the first time the written commandments of God.  Moses declares to them what God requires in this covenanted relationship, and they bind themselves to that contract.  “This we will do.”  Baptism is, in a sense, our signature on God’s covenant.  I am Yours.  I will do as You command.  And sadly, as with the Israelites, our record of compliance is shakier than straw in the wind.  But the covenant stands, because God does not change.

The question must arise, though, as to whether this baptism carries the same significance of submission and pledge.  I don’t see how it could, being a promise rather than a command.  When we are baptized in the church, we do so of our own volition as a statement and evidence of obedience to what God requires.  This is different.  This is a promise, a gift received.  If I go back to the varied significances given this word and its use, there can be a sense of initiation to it.  You will be initiated into the Holy Spirit.  But, for what it’s worth, we do not have preposition of entry here, but rather one of resting in the Holy Spirit.  There is, I think, something of introduction or initiation to it, but there’s more of remaining.  The Amplified Bible offers us the idea of being placed in, or introduced into the Holy Spirit.  Of course, if we are placed into something, there must be that moment of being introduced into that condition.  But to my thinking, the focus is more on the permanence of that condition.  The CJB takes a slightly different course with its translation, offering that, “in a few days, you will be immersed in the Ruash HaKodesh,” the Holy Spirit.  Yes, baptism has this idea of immersion, so that would hold.

But there is so much more to this matter of baptism.  As I noted before, in our act of water baptism, we are consciously binding ourselves to being a follower of God in Whose name we are baptized.  But there is also symbolism of our present reality involved.  This is an act of uniting, of declared and realized fellowship.  We are declaring for all to see and hear that we are united with the body of believers, and more importantly, united in fellowship with Christ the Head.  We are united with Him in His death.  Each time we partake of Communion we do the same (1Co 11:26).  We set ourselves to speak His Truth, to live His Truth, to be His truly.  We also declare our fellowship in His resurrection, which is to say, that we proclaim the efficacy of His death, and of His victory over death.  This, I would note, is absent from that celebration of Communion, at least as Paul explains it.

To my thinking, entering into unity, placed in fellowship with the Holy Spirit is far more what is in view here.  And this, we must note, is a fellowship that far exceeds those temporary impartations we see in the Old Testament.  This is permanent.  He hasn’t come upon us.  He has come into us, to abide with us.  God has tabernacled with His people, and we are ourselves the tabernacle in which He has come to abide.  Behold the full marvel of salvation!  Behold the wonder of this transformation God has achieved in us here, now!  And to think that this is but the down-payment!  What lies ahead for those who hold fast to the end?  Wonders beyond our grandest imaginings.

For now, though, we abide at the intersection of God and man.  We are not left to make our way as best we can in our own strength and perception.  Neither are we pushed about from position to position like pawns in some cosmic chess game.  We continue to have volition, but have willingly, voluntarily submitted our volition to the guidance, instruction, and command of our Lord, as conveyed to us by His authorized agent, the Holy Spirit.  Ours is to live, deo volente, as the Lord wills.  Ours is to live in the awareness that we live coram deo, before the watchful face of God.  Ours is to be as He has fashioned us to be, that He may be made known, that He may be seen, that He may be worshiped.  We go forth, then, not to make a name for ourselves, but to proclaim the name which is above all names, Jesus Christ, Lord of all Creation now and forevermore, amen.

Appointing (01/21/26-01/22/26)

We are still at this intersection.  While the narrative before us speaks of an event not yet come to pass as it looks to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, yet, we see that it was also by the Holy Spirit that Jesus gave orders to His chosen Apostles.  This is, then, before that promised event.  But what is meant by this?  Is it that these commands were given in some sort of dream or vision?  I don’t see why that would be when we’re looking at a period in which He presented Himself to them alive on repeated occasions.  Why dreams or visions when He can speak directly?  Is it that He would not have known what to command except the Holy Spirit told Him?  That seems at least a bit more probable.  After all, we can look back to His own baptism, and the Holy Spirit descending and remaining upon Him.  By that same argument, we would then have to conclude that all which He did and taught was likewise by the Holy Spirit.

The word we are wrestling with here is dia.  In the genitive, as it is here, it has the sense of through, indicating the instrumental means by service of which the deed is done.  Wuest is, then, not far off in offering us the translation as Jesus giving “a commandment to the apostles through the intermediate agency of the Holy Spirit.”  I’m still not satisfied, though, that we have the proper sense of Luke’s intent.  Let me suggest this.  When we read through the Scriptures, how is it that they become efficacious in conveying God’s Truth to our thoughts?  I mean, we can hear and understand the words well enough in our own capacity.  It is no different, in that regard, than reading a novel or a newspaper.  We read what’s there.  We parse the language, though I doubt we give it much thought that we are doing so.  And we take whatever meaning from it.  But, a novel we recognize as entertainment rather than some text which ought to be the basis of our thinking.  When we read the newspaper, especially in the present age, we recognize that there is not a straight, unbiased presentation of data before us, but a narrative shaped to suit whatever editorial goals the paper or the author may have.  We must delve beneath the printed word, if you will, or compare and contrast with other sources, to arrive at any idea of truth.  And then, of course, we must recognize that our own editorial goals have shaped those conclusions.

We can likely recall many times when we read something of Scripture and found it either entirely inconsequential, or as significant as any other mythology.  Be clear.  I am not equating Scripture with mythology.  But why?  Here is where I find the channel of action, the means by which understanding has come.  The words are, for the most part, readily comprehensible, and where they are not, there are dictionaries and lexicons to utilize.  But what shifts this from entertaining curiosity to Truth in our perception of it?  This comes about, to borrow Wuest’s reading, “through the intermediate agency of the Holy Spirit.”  It is as if He interposes Himself between those sense receptors and the opinion filters of our prior worldview, such that what hits our thought centers is not filtered opinion, but rather, the unfiltered Truth of God.  Alternately viewed, He so works upon our thought processes that real understanding finally comes.  The real implications, the real power, the real significance of what has been said and done and commanded register with us as they ought, and our response is therefore conditioned to be as it ought to be.

I want to touch back on that first verse.  Jesus began to do and to teach.  Whether or not His doing was intended as such, this, too, was a form of teaching.  He taught by His example.  I do think this was largely intentional, but I would also observe that intentional or not, our example teaches.  What our children pick up from life with us is far more from our example than from our intentional teaching.  Unless we have been particularly intentional in living before our children, it’s quite likely that we’ve seen the results turn out to be rather to our dismay.  Jesus, of course, had no such cause for dismay.  But I do wonder to what degree He was being intentionally the teacher in His example, and to what degree He was, in His own mind, simply doing what He does.  Come to the teaching, though, and this is clearly intentional.  This is didactic teaching that is in view.  It seems to me that modern discussion such as seeks to find a dividing line between Greek and Hebrew practice in teaching would reserve this sort of teaching to the Greeks, and then dismiss it as inferior.  But Jesus began to do and to teach.  Both by example, and by verbal communication of knowledge.

Zhodiates observes that this sort of verbal teaching is absolutely intentional.  Again, our actions teach, but more often than not as an unintentional, uncontrolled side effect of our doing.  We do because it needs doing, or because it’s what we do.  If I incline to respond kindly to requests for my action, it is not because I hope maybe my child will see this in me and learn to do likewise.  Nor, I trust, is it in hope of manipulating that one to whom I am being kindly responsive.  It is because this is who I am.  Mind you, if I respond harshly and express resentment at the need for action, this, too, is who I am.  But when I teach, when I set myself to convey some truth to another, to make something known, this is always intentional.  When it comes to discussions of Christian faith, the goal is clear.  “The thing aimed at when one teaches is to shape the will of the one taught by communication of the knowledge.”  I take that from Zhodiates.  Now, here we are considering Jesus, and perhaps by expansion, of the Apostles in their capacity as teachers and witnesses of the Gospel, and then, too, of ourselves in that same capacity.  I must point out, though, that this same defining feature fits the case of those teachers to whom we may entrust our children for their education.  This becomes ever more evident.  They, too, are seeking to shape the will of those children in their classroom.  And that may or may not be in keeping with God’s will for those children. 

I am thankful, to be honest, that I am past the age of having to concern myself with choices for educating my children, but I also find a degree of regret for some of the decisions we made when choosing was necessary.  The world, and more, those powers of darkness which currently, and ever more clearly, drive and direct the course of this world, have long made use of the classroom to alter and undermine the influence of parents upon their children, to shape those children after the world’s preferences rather than those of family.  I can readily imagine cases where this could be to the benefit of the child, one who has grown up in a household devoid of morals and sound character.  But that is, to be frank, a far less likely outcome in the current climate, given that the whole structure behind the production and licensing of teachers is geared towards destroying any sound character, and nearly, if not wholly amoral, even immoral.  But that is perhaps something more for a political opinion page than for a consideration of Jesus preparing His Apostles and His Church.

Okay.  The point of this section is supposed to be about matters of appointing, and to that end, let us observe clearly that the Apostles, to a man, were individuals chosen by Christ.  It is there quite explicitly in verse 2.  Those to whom He appeared repeatedly, and to whom He gave orders were those whom He had chosen.  He chose.  He commanded.  This is the language of appointment.  I am putting you in office and in that office thus you shall do.  We’ll hear it again as Peter bears the Gospel into the household of Cornelius, the first expansion into the populace of Gentiles.  Peter looks back at this same period, beginning on that third day, a day one might expect Cornelius was well aware of.  “On that third day, God raised Him up, granting that He should become visible to witnesses chosen beforehand by God – not to all people, but to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.  And He ordered us to preach to the people, solemnly testifying that He is the One appointed by God to judge the living and the dead” (Ac 10:40-42).  We have a job to do, Cornelius, as do you.  We have a commission to this office, as you do to yours.

In this, Jesus again led by His own example.  Go back to that earlier scene when He was making known what lay ahead for these, His chosen officers.  “Peace be with you!  As the Father has sent Me, I send you.” (Jn 20:21).  There is that first touch of the Holy Spirit, breathed out upon them, and this assurance of the authority delegated into their hands.  “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.  If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”  This was no power set in their hands to use as they pleased.  This was not power for tyranny.  It was assurance that they would indeed judge rightly, delivering the decision of their Lord, not their own opinions.  Here is a basis for understanding the inerrancy of Scripture, I think.  And I would suggest that it is on this basis that we find the impartation of the Holy Spirit so central to the scene.  “Receive the Holy Spirit,” whom He has told us will guide us into all truth, reminding them of all Jesus said and did.  There is your assurance of accuracy.  There is not only the appointing to this office of unique authority, but the empowering of these young men, untrained by worldly standards, to speak the Truth fully, accurately, and fearlessly – authoritatively.

Understand therefore that those who are accounted as Apostles, and as I so often do, I choose to capitalize that term in reference to these specific individuals, the Twelve plus Paul, are officers by appointment of Christ Himself.  It is His authority that is delegated to them, and in such degree that their word was as His own word.  Whom you forgive, it shall be because heaven (Christ) has already forgiven them.  Whom you do not, it shall be because heaven (Christ) has not.  You shall not speak of your own volition, any more than the Holy Spirit shall make separate declarations to you.  He speaks as He hears and sees in heaven, as Christ Himself spoke and did as He saw His Father doing.  You shall likewise say and do as you have seen Christ doing, as the Spirit reminds you, guides you, and keeps you firmly in the bounds of Your office.

Now, I must, I suppose, touch on the other sense of this label of apostle.  An apostle is, at base, one sent with a message.  This still indicates a sending authority.  The apostle, even in this lower-case sense, does not head out of his own accord.  He is sent.  He does not just say whatever enters his mind.  He has a message to deliver, a specific mission to a specific place, perhaps for a specific duration.  He is an ambassador, as the Apostles were ambassadors of Christ, authorized by Him to speak a specific message to the people to whom He sent them.  These other apostles might lay claim to Christ as their ultimate authority, but their commission was indirect.  If I look at Paul and Barnabas back at the start of their activities, they were sent by the Antioch church.  To be sure, it must be accepted that this church, in sending them, did so by the direction of Christ via the Holy Spirit.  But it’s a level of indirection which does not apply to the office.  They had no authority to establish doctrine or lay down the definitive explanation of Christ and His message.  But they still represented, still proclaimed the kingdom and its King.  They had, I think, no particular power to appoint officers in the churches they might visit.  Theirs was a different assignment, and one I think we can reasonably say we all share in some degree.  We are all of us encompassed by the Great Commission, and as such have a duty upon us to go and make disciples, to tell them of all that Jesus commanded, and to encourage in them a joyful obedience to same.  But we have no authority to compel actions.  We have no authority to bind the conscience, if you will.  The Apostles did.  Scripture, being authored by the Apostles, or the Apostle-adjacent, so far as the New Testament portion is concerned, does have that same authority to bind conscience.  It is the Word of God, uttered by His appointed, authorized agents, the Apostles, under the firm guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Let it also be understood that, as with the Prophets who stood in similar position as regards the Old Testament, many claim the title without having been appointed.  The claim is not enough.  We have been reading through Hebrews in our men’s gathering on Tuesday mornings, and there, in Hebrews 5, we find the point made that Jesus did not appoint Himself as high priest, but was appointed by the Father.  Ever, apart from the Father, Who is Authority, authority comes by appointment.  There is a chain of command, and there is One Who is the originating source of authority down through every link in that chain.  The link cannot assign itself to inclusion in that chain.  A loop of metal on the bench may have the appearance of being a link, but unless authorized, it can never be truly part of the chain.

The significance of this office, as with the Old Testament office of Prophet, requires that we keep it distinct from any lesser variant that may be presented.  We see, for example, that there were schools of prophecy in ancient Israel.  Yet, we see nothing of any note from these individuals, no record of them ever acting as spokesmen for God.  We see, as well, that as Israel drew nearer the time of exile, there were many who claimed the office of prophet but were never appointed such.  They spoke their own thoughts, and insisted that these were the declarations of God Himself.  But they lied.  Their prophecies proved false.  And lying, they misled many, for many chose to hear their hopeful message rather than to test and see if indeed they were authorized to speak for God.  But they said they were prophets!  Isn’t that enough?  They spoke in the language of prophets, claimed dreams and visions, whatever else might convince the masses that they should be heeded.  They wrote books that are selling like hotcakes, and they keep talking about parallels to the past.  They quote Scriptures to back their points.  Surely they can be trusted.  Well, honestly, what charlatan would hope to mislead you by operating in ways completely divorced from those of the real prophet?

The same things were happening throughout the early years of the Church.  We have plentiful evidence of it from the Epistles.  Men claimed to be apostles.  Men claimed to have revelations which superseded the message of the Apostles, would even accuse them of erroneous teaching.  After all, how could one promote himself without first undermining the authority of those who came before?  But they could not point back to any appointment by Christ.  Had they tried, there were those who had been with Him from the beginning, who would know full well that this person had never been among them, could not be as they claim.  I mean, look how hard even Paul had to labor to establish his true credentials.  But he did, and those of the Twelve in Jerusalem confirmed it.

We come to the end of the Apostolic age, John alone left extent, and to him comes the revealing of events to come.  If ever there was a prophetic movement in the Apostles, this would be it.  He speaks for Christ, the message coming in a period of intense visions as he was alone on the isle of Patmos.  And Christ speaks, in this case to the church in Ephesus, observing, “I know your deeds…  You put to the test those who call themselves apostles, but are not, and you recognized that they were false” (Rev 2:2).  Not all who claim to speak truth do so.  What liar would claim to be lying?  Or what lie would be so blatant as to be obvious to all?  Be careful, then, as to who gains your ear.  Let not your ways be those of this leader or that, let not your faith be in the writings of this or that theologian, or would-be theologian.  Scripture alone bears the authority of the Apostolic message into our age.  Revisions, excisions, or additions have no place.  There is an appointed word, given once for all to the saints.  Do not expect further.  Do not accept further.  Abide by that which is written, relying upon the Spirit who abides with you, to give you full and necessary understanding of its meaning.  Don’t play with it as if it were some sort of magic talisman, or something to shake and receive instruction by random words on the page.  No!  It is God’s revelation of Himself, the authorized and authoritative Truth.  This is bedrock because it rests on God Himself.  Let nothing else, no preacher, no partner, no spirit, gain such a foothold with you as to convince you to rely on or submit to them instead.  Here is Truth.  Walk in it.

Affirming (01/23/26)

I want to zero in, this morning, on the first portion of verse 3.  He presented Himself alive, after His sufferings, by many convincing proofs.  There are several things to consider as we look at this.  First, there is the question of just what it means to have these convincing proofs.  While it comes to us as two words in English, it is but one word in Greek, and it is far more than merely convincing.  I would instead emphasize the idea of proofs.  This was indisputable evidence, to take from Thayer’s lexical definition, clear proof of factualness.  And the fact in question is that Jesus is alive.

We were discussing this, in a somewhat different context, in men’s group a week or two back.  We are presented with these occasions when Jesus, having clearly been crucified, dead, and buried – they had seen this for themselves – was there with them.  And you see the lengths to which He goes to make clear that this is no spirit or ghost in the room, but a physical being with physical flesh, able to partake of physical food.  Luke in particular takes note of the response.  He showed them His hands and His feet.  The wounds were apparently still there and evident, and we read this.  “And they still could not believe it” (Lk 24:40-41).  In fact, His asking for food hinged on this inability to accept the evidence of their eyes.  Face it.  Such a matter as resurrection requires many convincing proofs.  It needed more than a claim of, “No really, it’s Me!”  And even with that much accepted, it took significant proof, as Strong says, a ‘criterion of certainty,’ to establish that this was not a ghost, not a vision, but the very present, very real evidence of Christ resurrected from death.  No wonder, then, that it took many convincing proofs, and praise God that He was glad to provide as many as it took.

Now we, with our perfect hindsight, may find it incredible that they didn’t immediately grab hold of the reality of what was happening.  But if we are honest in our assessments, I think we shall find we would do no better in such a situation.  Honestly, if somebody came to you claiming to be your child who you know full well died and was buried, or some friend of longstanding who had passed on, whose funeral you had attended, whose dead body you had seen in the casket, how readily would you accept it as real?  Even with all the years of Christian training, and the theoretical knowledge of resurrection, the reality would be rejected.  It just doesn’t happen.  It never has in your experience, and therefore, your natural assessment is that it never will.  Like Mary, we can grasp the theory and believe.  Oh yes.  I know that way out there at the end of the age we shall all be resurrected.  Understood.  But this is here.  This is now.  It just doesn’t happen that way on this planet.  And then it did.  Just this once, it did.  And it was so utterly unprecedented that it was fundamentally unbelievable.  The mind would not accept it, and being unable to accept the evidence before their eyes, the mind devised explanations.  It must be a ghost.  But you can’t touch a ghost.  A ghost can’t eat.  And even when you’ve experienced these things, while amazement may be rising up, as with those Apostles seeing the risen Jesus, still you can’t believe it.  This is not some shocking lack of understanding on their part.  It is a very human reaction to something so entirely beyond explanation that the mind starts making things up to explain what it can’t explain.

Is it any wonder, really, that we find AIs ‘hallucinating’?  You ask them something beyond their training set, something outside the scope of whatever would equate to experience, and an answer must be generated.  So it spins something up.  Close enough.  Seems to fit the parameters.  And if the user buys it, job done.  This is more alike to the way our brains function when faced with something so far outside of experience than one might like to believe.  Fortunately, we have more than a language library to work with.  We have true reason.  And more, we have the Holy Spirit.  These men did, as well, if not yet in that fullness which was to come.  As we have seen, the Holy Spirit has ever been willing and able to come upon individuals as God directs, in order to bring wisdom and understanding.  But even with that, as we ought to recognize from our own experience, it will take significant evidence to establish the reality of things in our thinking.

Look at these events again.  I know I have considered John’s coverage of the disciples’ return to Galilee, but let me just touch on it again.  He writes that Jesus “manifested Himself again to them at the Sea of Tiberias” (Jn 21:14), this being the third such manifestation.  Was it just the three?  I don’t know.  John’s final words in his gospel are that there was much more that Jesus did which he has not chosen to record (Jn 21:25).  Certainly, there remains the occasion of His ascension to consider.  But three times, two or three witnesses, there is a congruity to this.  It should suffice.  And what has been established?  This resurrection was a real event.  It happened to a real man living in a real place in the real course of real history.

Listen.  This event was no more believable to the average man in the first century than it is for men today.  You see it as events unfold even in this coverage of those early years.  You see it in Paul’s letters, as he seeks to strengthen the faith of the church among the Gentiles.  Never mind the Gentiles.  This was hard for the Jews.  “For we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness” (1Co 1:24).  There, in a nutshell, is the world’s reaction to news of some being who died and rose again.  Add the factor that this was actually a god in human flesh, born to a woman found pregnant and yet a virgin, and yeah, the world is going to laugh at best.  It smacks to much of the stuff of Greek and Roman mythology, doesn’t it?  Yes, it does.  But why?  Is it because this is another myth, or is it because those mythologies, the product of idolatries which were in fact the worship of demons, sought to discredit in advance the plan of God?

It seems the standard response, even amongst believers, to discount as corruption of God’s truth anything in church practice which shows any vague resemblance to pagan practices.  I know of those who reject the very idea of church buildings because they have too much in common with the temples built by, for example, the Babylonians.  But then, so did the temple in Jerusalem, or the tabernacle in the wilderness, for all that.  The question is, did the Church copy these pagan practices, or were those pagan practices intentionally shaped to be similar to the real works of real God?  I think we are too quick to assume the Church is at fault, and discount the nature of the counterfeit.  Counterfeits only work by resembling the real.  And demons, being in the employ of Satan, labor with instruction that knows quite a bit about God’s nature and God’s plan.  We read of a true temple in heaven.  If this is so, then Satan has seen it, though he is now excluded from it.  It stands to reason that he would shape his false models in resemblance to the real.  It stands to reason that he would tend to make the forms of his imposter religions in such a way as to resemble those of the true Church to such degree as he could.  Even if it failed to make converts and keep them, it would muddy the water enough to increase unbelief.

Let me get back to my main thread.  Don’t be surprised that the world needs many convincing proofs of the validity of Christ.  You did, too, more than likely.  I did.  There were years of church training as a child.  There were any number of individuals testifying of God’s involvement in their lives.  There were plentiful occasions for having read Scripture, sat under sermons, sung the songs, and so on.  And still, belief was not present with me.  It wasn’t proof.  It was just custom.  It wasn’t belief in truth.  It was societal practice.  For me, at least, it took encounter with the unbelievable, the unprecedented, the inexplicable, backed by ‘several convincing proofs,’ to finally come to the place of faith.  Yes, it took the Holy Spirit being sent ahead to prepare this thick head to accept the evidence.  But my point is that convincing proofs are the norm, not the exception.  The reactions of the Apostles to those first appearances are the norm, not the exception.  They were not so very different than you and me.  Nor are we particularly more advanced than they.

Let me get back to my main thread.  Don’t be surprised that the world needs many convincing proofs of the validity of Christ.  You did, too, more than likely.  I did.  There were years of church training as a child.  There were any number of individuals testifying of God’s involvement in their lives.  There were plentiful occasions for having read Scripture, sat under sermons, sung the songs, and so on.  And still, belief was not present with me.  It wasn’t proof.  It was just custom.  It wasn’t belief in truth.  It was societal practice.  For me, at least, it took encounter with the unbelievable, the unprecedented, the inexplicable, backed by ‘several convincing proofs,’ to finally come to the place of faith.  Yes, it took the Holy Spirit being sent ahead to prepare this thick head to accept the evidence.  But my point is that convincing proofs are the norm, not the exception.  The reactions of the Apostles to those first appearances are the norm, not the exception.  They were not so very different than you and me.  Nor are we particularly more advanced than they.

But then, physical reality in its harsh, physical normality had come crashing in.  This One Who had done such wonders was captured, beaten, mocked, and nailed to a cross to hang and die.  They had seen the blood from His side when He was pierced.  There was no doubt that He was quite dead.  They had watched Him be carried away and entombed.  And they knew the verdict.  Three days.  He was quite dead, thank you.  Hope was gone.  Whatever the excitement they had known while with Him, that stage of their lives was over.  What remained in life after all this?  And recall that these were primarily younger men.  Put them in a modern setting and they would almost certainly have been suicidal at this point.  Just as well that Jesus did not waste time in coming to see them.

And seeing them, proving to them repeatedly, until it registered and was settled with them that yes, He was alive, and would be with them even to the end of the age, He was to them an assurance.  The promise hadn’t failed.  God’s plan hadn’t been derailed, nor even delayed.  The command came.  Wait for the promise.  It’s coming, and soon.  Look, they were not the first to see what seemed like the collapse of hope.  Israel as a nation had faced it repeatedly, was arguably facing it again even in that period.  But go back further.  Go back to Haggai, prophesying in the midst of Israel’s exile.  What was his message to Israel?  “As for the promise which I made you when you came out of Egypt, My Spirit is abiding in your midst.  Do not fear!” (Hag 2:5).  Yes, things look bleak.  But the promise stands.  The Spirit is abiding in your midst.  Even here, in this place of punishment, or if you prefer, discipline, He is abiding.  He has not abandoned you.  Don’t you abandon Him.

That same message is being presented to the Apostles here.  Things looked bleak.  Temple and palace had conspired, so it seems, to destroy this work that God was doing.  They killed the Son of God!  I can imagine Peter’s reaction to this.  He was, after all, the first to confess this Jesus as the Son of God.  But, if Son, then God, and could God die?  And He was dead.  He must have been questioning that confession in his deepest thoughts, wondering just how foolish his last three years had been, after all.  The whole experience begins to come into question.  It begins to defy explanation yet again.  How long do you suppose faith would have held out with them, except Christ had come with this hard evidence that God’s promise still has not failed, that indeed all was going perfectly according to plan?

How often do you and I feel this same need for some sign of hope?  It’s well and good to believe in that eventual victory.  Much like the matter of resurrection, though, it remains rather more theoretical.  I mean, we know it will happen eventually, but even amongst those who look for His return with a sense of immediacy, I don’t think there’s real expectation of it.  If there is, than too many of their actions and decisions become wholly irrational in light of such belief.  Not that that would exclude the possibility of belief.  We are sadly adept at being irrational, of believing one thing, and acting upon another.  Were it not so, sin would be no issue.  But know this.  The promise holds.  Hope is not God, and God is not dead.  Death could not hold Him, for He is greater than death.  Indeed, He conquered death on our behalf, in order that the greatest weapon of Satan against us, the fear of death and its finality, might be destroyed from his arsenal.  Hold fast!  God’s promise does not fail!  We may, perhaps, perceive promises that were not in fact made, but what He has truly promised, He will truly deliver.  Life!  Life eternal in His presence.  This is the promise to all who believe with saving faith, with a faith not worked up in themselves, but gifted them by the grace of God.  He called, and everything changed.  Just as it was for these Apostles, so it is with us.  He called and everything changed.  And there shall be no turning back.

Abiding (01/24/26)

The Holy Spirit is so central to this passage, to this book, and to our life in Christ.  Fitting, then, to consider what is going on in this relationship we have with Him.  As has been observed, He has always been present in the work of Creation, even from the very first moments.  And we can be certain that He was involved in the earlier deliberations in the Godhead, as Father, Son, and Spirit discussed the course of Creation and the plan of Redemption, covenanting among God’s Persons to this great work.  But we have seen how, in times prior to the advent of Christ as man, the Spirit’s involvement with any particular man or people was, shall we say, intermittent.  He would come upon an individual for a specific purpose or season, but it wasn’t steady state.

When we come to the dawn of Christ’s ministry, however, there is a sea change.  John the Baptist speaks of it.  “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.  I didn’t recognize Him at the outset, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’  I have seen it, and bear witness that this is indeed the Son of God” (Jn 1:32-34).  Now, to be sure, John is motivated in his presentation of this event, as there were still those about who thought John to have been the one.  But motivation does not render his testimony untrustworthy.  He was there, after all.  He would know what had been said.  And it impressed him enough to follow this Jesus, as he proceeds to relate to us in the verses following.

There is a significant matter here.  The Spirit remained.  It was no longer a visitation, it was an abiding presence.  And already there was this promise of which Jesus reminds His Apostles now.  He baptizes in this same Holy Spirit.  He is authorized to do so.  That baptism, as we have discussed, was more than a momentary excitation of spirited, emotional response.  It was more than a brief outburst of speaking in tongues, although we find that in evidence at certain key points in the story ahead of us.  There were and are clear evidences of the Spirit’s presence among those whom the Father has called.  They are not always, in fact rarely are the spectacularly visible or audible events that we see in those critical moments.  But, just as the Apostles needed repeated convincing, undeniable evidences of Jesus alive from the dead, so those to whom they bore the Gospel would need repeated convincing, undeniable evidence that these rather insignificant men were in fact the spokesman for a radically new covenant extended by infinite God.

And we observe, later in this text, that the Apostles were likewise granted to impart this same baptism of the Holy Spirit unto those whom God pointed out to them.  It could not be bought, but it could be given.  There remains something of an open question in the Church considered in total as to whether any provision was made to continue such impartation beyond the life of the last Apostle.  I doubt that many consider it an open question.  Those on one side of the point would insist that no, these gifts ceased with the passing of the Apostles, or at the latest, with the passing of those who knew them personally.  Those on the other would point to personal experience of those gifts and rather naturally insist on the reality and the validity of them.  The validity may, in all fairness, be in question, but the reality that something transpired would be as impossible to meaningfully dispute as one’s own experience of salvation.

This is, however, a secondary concern.  Whether the gifts, such as we see them here, or hear of them in Corinth, remain actively in play in the church or not, the Spirit remains.  Baptism into the Holy Spirit is as central to steadfast faith as is confession of Christ as Lord and Savior.  If He is Lord and He sent the Holy Spirit to ensure the truth was received by His chosen, on what basis would He restrict this to just those twelve or thirteen men present at the start?  Yes, they would be in need of particular guidance from Him, and particular attentiveness to Him, as they went about both establishing churches throughout the world as they knew it, and providing, in both oral and written form, the definitive record of what, as Luke says, Jesus began to say and to do.  Here is more than bare history, although it is indeed historical.  Here is what it all means.  Here is why you must respond, and how.

The key factor I see, then, is twofold.  First, there is this most stunning change in that the Spirit was visibly evident, at least to those given eyes to see it.  John saw the Spirit descend, in appearance being like a dove.  Now, that is obviously not a declaration that the Holy Spirit has this singular bodily form, or that He has any true bodily form as we understand bodies.  Further, the implication is that probably nobody apart from John saw this.  But he did.  This was a marker, an evidence, a convincing proof.  God was at work in this moment.  Something big was happening.  We see that same significance in each of those scenes Luke sets before us, where the Spirit’s baptism is so viscerally evident.  Again, though, this is not to suggest that the Spirit’s baptism was absent from all those other occasions when believers came to belief.  No!  I would argue rather insistently that, had the Spirit’s baptism not come upon those myriad other believers, there could be no belief, not in more than the bare historical reality that this Jesus was a man who walked the earth and had a following before he died at the hands of Rome and Israel.

The second, and more thrilling matter, though, is that this remaining continues.  “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever” (Jn 14:16).  That, my friends, has got to be seen as something beyond the life of the Apostles.  Forever is rather longer than so long as you live in this life.  The Spirit abides.  He doesn’t come for a brief moment at conversion, and then wander off to pursue other business.  He is with us forever!  And how needful this is!  We are not sufficient to this renewed life in ourselves.  We are not sufficient to the battle against the lust of the flesh, let alone the lust of the world.  We would not, on that basis, hold onto faith for long.  It needs the Spirit indwelling, the Spirit abiding, the Spirit guiding, advising, chastising, protecting, and directing.  And Jesus, our Lord, has arranged the very thing.

This, then, is our great assurance.  The Holy Spirit, sent by the Father at the behest of the Son, abides with us.  He Who first worked upon our hearts and minds so as to render us able to receive this gospel efficaciously continues his work in us.  This is what Paul points us to in his letter to Philippi.  “It is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Php 2:13).  This is the abiding Holy Spirit, present and active in your life, in my life, so long as life remains in us.  He is with us forever, a true abiding, and a true basis for confident assurance that indeed, He who began this good work in us will perfect it (Php 1:6).  That is the message of Philippians.  That is the message of Acts.  That is the message of the Gospel.  God is very much present and at work.  Whatever it may look like out there, or for that matter, whatever it may look like in our most inward thoughts, this fact remains.  He began the work, and He does not fail.  He does not quit.  He achieves all that He has purposed, and for us who are the called, that purpose, determined before the beginning, is for salvation, for sanctification, for glorification. 

Remember the glorious chain of faith.  Whom God foreknew, He predestined to conformity to the Son’s image, He called, He justified, He glorified (Ro 8:29-30).  You may not feel particularly glorified at present, perhaps not even justified, and yet, it is the work of God, who said, “It is finished.”  We, from our place in the created realm of time and space, still see it as a work in progress, and being a work in progress, we know concern that something might disrupt the work.  God, Who dwells outside this created realm, and is as such outside of time, sees completion.  He has glorified.  For Him, I think, the work was done even at is it was started.  He pervades the whole of time, and all of it at once.  The Spirit abides with us for all of time.  How He perceives that must remain a mystery for us while we remain here in the midst.  It’s as far beyond us, if not farther, as the reality of resurrection was to the Apostles.  Yet it is reality.  What the flesh cannot achieve, He has achieved.  What muscle and sinew can never provide, nor even strongest character, He has provided.  There is hope.  The promise stands.  God is with us.

Responding (01/25/26)

We have looked at the necessity for these many convincing proofs, given the unprecedented nature of Christ’s resurrection.  Here was the stuff of myth transpiring in real life!  The Greeks had their tales of gods come down to have their way with humans.  But find somebody who had actually been there to witness these things.  It wasn’t going to happen.  But with Jesus, it was different.  There were witnesses, many of them.  Paul would appeal to their testimony later in his epistles.  They’re still alive.  Go talk to them.  They will confirm what I have been telling you.  This was real.  This man really did exist, and He really was born to a virgin.  He really did do all those things of which we read in the Gospels.  They are tied to real history.

More, He really did die upon a cross, crucified by the Roman authorities at the behest of the Jewish authorities.  There are names attached to this event.  It can be placed in time and space.  We know who was involved.  And then, a few days later, long enough to meet the criteria for certainty of death, the sealed tomb was opened, in the presence of military guards assigned to prevent any nonsense from this man’s disciples, and He who had been wrapped and placed inside was found to be absent, though His grave-clothes remained, rather neatly stowed on the shelf where His pierced body had lain.

Understand.  There was evidence.  There would have been evidence of Mary’s virgin state at His birth.  There would have been evidence that this man who had been nailed through hands and feet, pierced in His side, had been on this bench in the cave.  And it was clear that He was there no more.  Those who had arranged for His death took steps to paint things in a different light.  Oh, they came and stole Him.  Those guards would be punished.  But seriously.  Tombs were not designed to be readily opened.  The stone which was rolled across the entry was no small thing.  It would need tools and effort and noise to remove.  And Roman guards were not known for putting up with such nonsense from the locals, nor were they likely to have slept through such an occurrence.

Now, add His ascension, though that lies ahead in the next verses.  Here was an event witnessed by hundreds.  If His appearances to eat and speak with His chosen few were for that select few, this event was true spectacle.  And again, it was an event which transpired in real time and space, attested to by those hundreds who saw it happen.  As Peter says in his epistle, these were no clever tales devised by man.  These were not like the myths of Greece and Rome.  These were real happenings.  This is not story-telling time.  This is history.  And the question must be asked.  How do you respond to such a record?

Such historical events demand a response.  If all of this is true of the Man, Jesus Christ, then there is solid cause to acknowledge that He is Who He claimed to be.  He was not just a great teacher.  He was not just a prophet.  He was not just a man.  Here was God incarnate, made flesh to live among us as a man among men, and yet, still wholly God.  For how could He not be?  If God, then ever God.  I think of the issues raised at the scene of the riots in Ephesus, as Luke relates them to us later in this book.  Here was the temple of the goddess Artemis, whose renown, they insist was known to the world.  And yet, what was their express concern?  If people stop buying her idols, stop worshiping her, she might cease to be.  Well, then, she is no god, is she?  God, to be god, is of necessity unchangeably so.  He does not change.  He does not depend upon the belief of man for existence.  No, no, no!  It is in Him that we have life, and breath, and being.  Thus does Paul answer the great and abiding questions of philosophy.  And those answers still stand.  Here is the why of your existence.  Here is the point of life.  As the Westminster Confession sets it, your intended function is to worship God and enjoy Him forever.

He has made this possible.  The whole exercise of the New Testament is to make this clear.  You and I were in an impossible position, required to obey this God, know Him or not, and to do so perfectly.  We long since failed.  Like David, I expect we should have to confess that from birth it has been the case.  Truly, we were all born dead, already condemned by divine law for our own transgressions.  So much for the innocence of childhood.  So much, as well, for any hope of eternal being.  But God had a plan.  The whole of existence as we have known it, from the dawn of the universe, has been the unfolding of this plan.  Man would come to be.  Man would know God.  Man would fail God, and come under the condemnation of His perfect Justice.  But God would Himself pay the penalty due His court, taking upon Himself the guilt for sins of His creation and paying in full the eternal penalty due for crimes against eternal God.  He would do so in such fashion as would not disrupt His perfect Justness, and yet would justify the many.  Be clear on this:  not all, but the many.

This happened.  The things we read in Scripture are historical realities.  Men have sought to discredit so many of those events, but physical evidence keeps showing up to counter their dismissiveness.  Just last week, I think it was, there were reports of cuneiform tablets recovered which gave evidence of Israel’s presence in Egypt, and also of their passage through the wilderness of Sinai.  Face it.  That many people mobilized or encamped were not going to go unnoticed, certainly not with that pillar of fire glowing in the camp by night.  The defeat of various tribal kings would not go unnoted.  People tend to keep records, and contrary to popular fantasy, these were not illiterate peoples.  Writing may have been reserved to the few, but it was known art.

So, then, these things must be met, dealt with, internalized, accepted.  They cannot reasonably be denied.  They will be, but to one degree or another, reason must be disregarded in order to do so.  We are accused of acting on blind faith, of believing without cause.  I would have to argue that the opposite is actually the case, that the atheist or the adherent of some other belief system is in fact disbelieving the claim of Christ without due cause, rejecting evidence that would be more than sufficient to establish the historicity of any other event in the record of human existence.  We don’t find any who doubt the existence, for example, of Nero, nor the reality of his persecution of the Christians during his reign.  Yet these things are no better attested than is the life of Jesus.  Our evidence is no different, really.

So, how do you respond?  How did those who saw these things unfold first-hand respond?  We see it clearly.  They committed to this Jesus.  They may not have understood fully.  They certainly don’t seem to have really grasped the enormity of events when He was with them.  Certainly, they recognized that they were seeing things unheard of transpire.  That night on the water amidst the storm; Jesus walking across the waves to reach them, hours out from shore, speaking to the storm and ending it, transporting them ‘immediately’ to the shore thereafter.  These were not events one could explain by nature or science.  His providing food for thousands when the available provisions were laughable could not be explained by nature or science.  He could not be explained by nature or science.  How did He know what He knew?  How did He heal as He healed?  Who was He?  “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” (Mt 16:16).  A true confession.  The confession, not just of Peter, not just of the Apostles, but of the Church in all ages.  Did he understand his own confession?  Not fully, no.  “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17).  But now, in this interim period, He spoke in regard to the kingdom of God.  Now, having breathed upon them the impartation of the Holy Spirit, they could indeed understand.  And understanding, what had been meant with that confession, they committed.  How could they not?

Here was the One they had followed, the One they thought taken from them, back among them clearly alive from death.  What place for wavering now?  As I observed elsewhere, that trip back to Galilee which John records was not disillusionment.  Nor was it disobedience to the command given here, to remain in Jerusalem.  No.  I am convinced this was taking care of business, settling matters back home in the knowledge that there could be no going back.  It was not giving up.  It was getting ready.

We, too, must respond.  It will not do to simply acknowledge the historical reality of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.  It will not do to try and shape His teaching to match our agenda.  If He truly existed, and these events truly transpired, then we must go farther.  We must recognize that indeed, He is Lord, and if He is Lord, then He has real claim upon our allegiance.  It will not suffice to confess His Lordship and then just get on with what we were doing.  It will not do to give a nod to His reign and then ignore it.  We can, to some degree, get away with that as regards civil government.  By and large, many of its dictates and authorities are far enough removed as to bear no particular weight as regards our day to day.  But here is One Who is very much present with us.  He is here.  As we read in Hebrews 4 last week in men’s group, no creature is hidden from His sight.  All things are open and exposed to His sight, and we shall give account for our deeds to Him Who has seen (Heb 4:13).  We have a responsibility to respond, and to respond with not merely obedience given of necessity, but obedience given joyfully, in acknowledgement of His great and abiding love for us.

The Apostles committed, and so must we.  They committed with far more than just words, and so must we.  They faced an impossible task, defying their own religious leaders, their own training and upbringing, bearing this unbelievable message into an unbelieving world, speaking Truth to ears conditioned to lies.  But they did not face the impossible alone.  They did not face it by main strength.  They faced it as Jesus had commanded them to do, clothed with power from on high, having been baptized, immersed into the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.  And so must we, who continue the work they began.  We need not be involved in grand programs of mass evangelization.  We need not be church planters one and all.  But we each have our role in the ongoing life of the Church.  We all stand as ambassadors of Christ, lower-case apostles with a mission and a message.  May we be found faithful to both deliver that message and to live by it, such that the world may know and find in our lived example sufficient evidence to believe the unbelievable truth.  He lives!  And in Him, we too may live.