Those Present (02/20/26-02/21/26)

I would suppose that any time one makes a list there is some significance to the order in which things are listed.  Why one chooses that order may not be evident to another, and what the order suggests to another may not be quite what the originator of the list had in mind.  For example, when I make a list of groceries for the week, it might tend to sort based on which meal a particular item will be used for, or it might reflect what I plan to cook on a given day of the week, or it might be organized based on where things are in the grocery store.  Of course, it might just tumble out as things come to mind and any appearance of intentional ordering be entirely accidental.

Here, however, we are dealing with Scripture, and Scripture being God breathed, we would expect intention behind its wording.  Is every list in Scripture an ordered list with placement indicating priority?  That is a harder question.  But I suspect that as we come to the several listings of the Apostles that yes, there is order to it, and perhaps priority as well.  We have four such lists that we can compare, this being the last one.  Each of the Synoptic Gospels also has its list.  Perhaps there is some small value in laying these out next to each other so as to see what is the same and what differs.  Forgive the shortened names, but I want these to fit on a line.

Mt | Peter & Andrew, James & John, Phil & Bart, Tom & Matt, James A, Thad, Simon Z, Judas
Mk | Peter,   James,    John, Andrew, Phil,    Bart,  Matt,  Tom,  James A, Thad, Simon Z, Judas
Lk |  Peter, Andrew,  James & John,   Phil & Bart, Matt & Tom, James A & Simon Z, Jude, Judas
Ac | Peter,  John,   James & Andrew, Phil & Tom, Bart & Matt, James A,     Simon Z, Jude

Okay, so in each list there appear the same groupings of four, which several articles see as tiers.  Certainly, looking at those first four, we could find cause to suppose a certain primacy in the group.  Peter, James, and John formed the inner circle, if you will, the ones Jesus took with Him when nobody else was invited.  And Peter, who always presents as the leading voice among the Apostles, is always first in the list, just as Judas, the betrayer, is always last.  That the two ends are so clearly associated with standing certainly suggests there could be a question of standing to those in between.  But we see that in two cases, the associations amongst the first four are more familial, perhaps giving slight priority to age.  Thus, Andrew always comes after Peter, John after James.  Mark, at minimum, pairs the older brothers before pairing the younger, though it’s not entirely clear that age and kinship guide the ordering.  Then, in Acts we see John moved to second in line, fitting with his growing role.  John is with Peter in the race to see the empty tomb.  He and Peter are a clear team as the work in Jerusalem grows.  And certainly, in terms of influence on the Church as she grew, these two have had far greater impact than their brothers.

Coming to the second group, the association of Philip and Nathanael Bartholomew is natural, given how these two connected even in their first contact with Jesus.  We see a similar pairing of Thomas and Matthew, though we have no clear connection given.  And that leads to further confusion given certain suggestions that Matthew was somehow related to James the Less, and Jude / Thaddeus.  It would seem marginally more reasonable to suppose he may have been related to Thomas the Twin.  One article made note of Matthew’s coming last in the middle four in the gospel that bears his name as a mark of his own humility.  I would say it’s likewise a bit of backing as regards his authorship of that text.  It seems something of a common trait among the Apostles, post-resurrection, that they tended to minimize their place in the record in favor of keeping the spotlight on Christ.  Come to Acts, and this group is truly shuffled, Thomas now paired with Philip, leaving Nathanael Bartholomew and Matthew as the second pair.  Fausset sees this as reflecting the strengthening faith of Thomas subsequent to Christ’s post-resurrection appearances.  As I have come to accept, given Pastor Mathew’s sermon on Thomas, that faith was in evidence long beforehand.  The fact that he felt the need for clear evidence of Jesus being once more alive does not bely such faith, only grounds it, in my opinion.  Once we accept that his comments about the group’s return to Jerusalem expressed devotion rather than cynical acceptance of the inevitable, we see that there is no lack of faith, only an unwillingness to blithely accept unproven claims.

Coming to the last group, it’s hard to see an order, other than that it’s the same four, and obviously, Judas Iscariot places last where he is mentioned at all.  James of Alphaeus is always listed first, leaving only the question of order between Thaddeus, whom we must conclude is Jude of James, and Simon the Zealot.  Twice, Jude is listed immediately after James, perhaps indicating kinship.  That being said, it’s left unclear whether he is son of James the Less, brother of James the Less, or son or brother of yet another James.  I tend to exclude the latter option simply because we have then no point of reference, and no reason to mention the fact at all.  If it was simply to keep him separate in mind from Judas Iscariot, simply retaining his Greek name Thaddeus would have served.  And I do incline to follow the idea of son rather than brother.  As noted in my word listings, the ‘of’ part is entirely implied by case, there is no mention of just what the relationship is, only that there is this genitive, possessive case association.

Adding to our challenge is the fact that for most of these men, we have very little to go on from the scriptural evidence.  What do we really know of those beyond the first four?  And really, even of Andrew we learn very little.  We have snippets of Philip and Nathanael, primarily as regards their first encounters with Jesus.  Philip also fields the question of how to feed the crowds there on the outskirts of Bethsaida.  That these are also locals of that area seems evident.  But otherwise, we don’t learn much about them.  As to the last three, apart from them being named, we know approximately nothing.  We have one thing known in each case.  James was related to Alphaeus, presumably his son, Jude is related to James in like fashion, and Simon apparently belonged to that group known as the Zealots, fiercely patriotic, and inclined toward guerilla actions, prior to joining Jesus.  Is he somehow connected with Judas Iscariot?  If so, we are given no real indication as to what that connection would be.

I don’t know as there’s any much more to be gained by examining this.  These were the twelve, or the eleven at this point.  They were, to a man, hand-selected by Jesus to satisfy His purpose.  And they served that purpose.  Of this we can be assured, even though so little is known or suggested of their later lives.  There are, however, a few odds and ends I want to glance at before leaving the topic entirely.  These are not issues of deep spiritual significance; more interesting curiosities, I suppose.  But they caught my attention for one reason or another.

First, I found it interesting to observe that the New Testament authors utilize a different form of the name in referencing James of the New Testament, as over against referring to Jacob of the Old Testament.  In both cases, we have multiple possible referents, but the usage is consistent.  If it’s Old testament, it’s Iakob, if it’s New, it’s Iakabus.  The only distinction is how Grecian the form, the latter being more Greek in flavor.  This, to me at least, stands to reason, given that all of the Jameses we meet in the New Testament originate from Galilee ‘of the Gentiles,’ as does Jesus, of course.  As for Jesus, the Greek Iesus is used both for Him and in reference to Joshua, so I don’t know as my long-standing perspective that He was specifically given a Greek name holds water.  But it does remain significant, to my thinking, that God chose this region, with its Hellenistic influences and its mix of cultural backgrounds, in which to begin His magnificent work, both His own ministry and that of the Church He established.

As a further indicator of that mix of influences, we might observe that two of the Apostles (and only two) have Greek names, Philip and Andrew.  Observe that Andrew is Peter’s brother, and both, it seems, were clearly keen on seeking Messiah.  Both were out listening to John the Baptist, wondering at his significance.  The larger point is that these were sons of the same parents, and yet, one receives a Jewish name, the other a Greek one.  Now, let’s add an interesting observation from Fausset.  These two were first to hear Jesus’ call.  Andrew, you recall, went to find Simon after hearing that call, just as Philip goes immediately to Nathanael.  The response is immediate and of full conviction.  In Andrew’s case, we might take that as the enthusiasm of youth.  As to Philip, I don’t know that we have cause to take such a view.  But perhaps these two were familiar to one another.  It’s interesting, though, that we find these two involved towards the end, when Greek proselytes in the city for Passover are looking to meet Jesus.  Who do they approach?  Philip with the Greek name, and he in turn seeks out Andrew for advice as to what they should do.  It is striking, though, how these things point to global nature of Jesus’ mission from the outset.

Of course, we could look at the entire group of Apostles and see just how striking His choice of representatives was.  What an unlikely collection!  Four fishermen, and it seems others in the group were of that same trade.  A tool of the Romans in Matthew Levi, and a would-be murderer of Romans in Simon Zealote.  Add a devoted man of faith in Nathanael, and then this collection of relatives.  None of these were men likely to gain the attention of others, let alone their respect on matters of theological import.  None were trained, as the temple authorities observed.  Shoot.  They were from Galilee, and even amongst themselves it seems that they could see the unlikeliness of anything significant coming from that quarter.  "Can anything good come from Nazareth?”

Okay, so as to that mention of relatives, I am pointing to the last group, particularly to James the Less and Jude.  I am led to believe that Alphaeus is the same individual as Cleopas, and Cleopas was related to Mary, making James the Less a cousin of Jesus, and Jude of like relation.  One of the articles seeks to associate this James with the James who led the Jerusalem Church and also with the authorship of the epistle of James, which would indicate him being that James spoken of as brother of Jesus.  To this end, it is observed that in Greek, brother may indicate cousins as well as true brothers.  If this is the case, then we can also suppose Jude aka Thaddeus to be the author of Jude.  But this all feels a tad conjectural to me.  The primary basis is the one list we have of Jesus’ brothers, which includes a James, a Simon, and a Jude.  So, do we suppose Simon the Zealot is another cousin?  Perhaps.  But when I come to this passage, I see the subsequent verse that observes that Mary, His mother was with the Apostles praying, as were ‘his brothers.’  If His brothers were these three Apostles, then that clause means approximately nothing.  It seems to me that Luke’s inclusion of this mention would tend to argue that those three listed as Apostles are other than His brothers, even if it holds that James the Less and his son were kin.

I see suggestions that Peter and Andrew may have been related to James and John by more than trade as well.  One article offered the idea that Zebedee may have taken Peter and Andrew in after the death of their father, although on what basis this is posited, I don’t know.  Certainly, it’s nothing stated directly in Scripture.  But it’s interesting to see the connections in this little group alongside the distinctions.  Honestly, if the articles are right in suggesting Matthew is likewise related to Alphaeus, all sorts of curious ideas crop up.  But again, I find little to nothing that would suggest this is correct.

I want to turn back to Thomas once more before leaving this topic.  As I noted, Fausset takes his refusal to take the mere claim of the risen Christ as sufficient reason to believe as a lack of faith, and proceeds to suggest that the delay of a week between Jesus appearing to the others and His return with Thomas present came as punishment for that lack of faith.  I’m sorry, but that makes God sound perverse.  I can’t rule out that this is indeed what was happening, but I incline to read the event in an entirely different light, especially given Thomas’ response when finally met with Jesus in the flesh.  "My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:27-29).  Now, looking back at that passage, I shall have to acknowledge that Jesus Himself speaks of Thomas as needing to move from unbelieving to believing.  Still, I think I would put Thomas more in the place of that man whose son Jesus had healed.  "I believe!  Help my unbelief” (Mk 9:24).  And note that nothing here suggests Thomas availed himself of that offer of physically exploring the wounds.  Hear Jesus’ reaction.  "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?”  The sight of Him was enough.  It was all the evidence Thomas needed.

This speaks far more to God’s accommodating love for man than of any idea that He feels it necessary to punish those who require reason to believe.  Honestly, had Jesus walked in the moment that Thomas made his point regarding that need for proof, it would have led to no different an outcome, I suspect.  But God knows what’s needed, and He knows when is best.  He acts as accords with His wisdom, and His wisdom is perfect.  It follows that His actions are equally perfect.  But what would it say of Him that, as Fausset suggests, He felt it needful to punish this need for evidence?  Is this not the same God who calls to His people, "Come, let us reason together” (Isa 1:18)?  Does He not go out of His way to present the evidence of His true nature to Job?  Is not the very arrival of Jesus into life the first time, and His willing choice to offer Himself as the atonement for the sins of man a reasoned argument for faith?

What I wish to suggest is that quite frankly we could stand to be just a bit more like Thomas ourselves.  Too many are ready to take the slightest hint of an idea as proof positive.  You know, I glanced at something yesterday describing an interaction somebody had with one of those making such a fuss up in Minnesota.  Their actions, to a watching populace that has been made aware of the bigger picture of events, seems unfathomable.  But in this instance, it became clear that much of those actions understandable.  It doesn’t make them right or sensible, but it does make them understandable.  They had minimal information, and that, from a source with an agenda.  That information was intended to stir a particular response, omitting any reasoned explanation for what was happening, and just claiming a moral outrage.  And moral outrage demands emotional outrage in the morally offended.  So, this person responded from emotion without any real reasoning involved.  The news said this was the deal, and so it must be.  Presented with not merely claims of just cause, but some evidence to back those claims, this person was aghast, and rightly so.

Now, play that same mindset into the wider experience of the Church.  Throughout the ages, right from the start, really, there have been those who come with some agenda, present some case for their claimed truths which aim to short-circuit reason and appeal direct to emotion.  Stir the emotional response, and keep it going, and you can lead people into most anything, honestly.  And there are plenty of unscrupulous individuals ready to do just that.  What easier way to earn a living, after all?  Stir them up and take their money.  It’s a game as old as time.  But now, the stakes are eternal.  The con man doesn’t care a whit.  It’s all about the money for him or her.  But the impact on those taken in by these ministers of false hope is devastating.  Eternal life is truly at stake.  Do you wonder that the Apostles, when we see them encounter such misleading teachers, become so vehement in their addressing of the matter?  Life is at stake, and not the fleeting stuff of this realm.

Back to Thomas.  He needed proof.  He needed reason to believe.  So do we.  Yes, it stands that we who believe without having seen are blessed, as per Jesus’ declaration.  Yet, it is not a blind faith, or it ought not to be.  It is not belief without reason.  It is an utterly reasonable faith, and stronger for being reasoned.  Perhaps it’s just that Thomas’ mindset resonates with my own.  I can look back upon my own conversion experience and find something similar.  I was not consciously looking for reason.  But God came not with some flash of lightning, not some drive him to the floor display of power, only a whisper in the mind, a call to weigh the evidence.  He took me down a path familiar from high school geometry.  Here are your two base theorems.  See how the proof for faith builds from here.  Every step is capable of measure.  And those two theorems are shown to hold fast in the face of all that follows.  God is, and coincidence isn’t.  Two simple points.  And upon those points, the unfolding of that weekend, and the unfolding of life since has stood.  Upon those two points, various past events became part of the pattern, no longer just random happenstance. 

And so, as Fausset writes of Thomas, "From the overwhelming proofs before him […] Thomas believes in His Divinity.”  Now, for Thomas the critical matter was evidence of His humanity, per Fausset.  I might choose differently, and suggest it was evidence of His continued physical life, but I suppose that amounts to the same thing.  "He lives!” is an astounding claim.  The more so for one who had seen His agonizing death, who had known Him laid in the grave, game over.  Of course, he had also witnessed Lazarus returned from the grave, so not entirely unprecedented.  Still, it’s one thing to believe your Teacher can raise others from death, but to raise Himself is quite another thing, isn’t it?  Even in Romans, Paul’s great theological treatise, that raising is assigned not to Jesus Himself, but to the Holy Spirit.  Dead men don’t self-resurrect, and Jesus was no exception.  I suppose it must be so, given that as to His Divinity, death could not possibly be an experience.  But I tread into unfathomable waters there.

Come back to the point.  From overwhelming proofs he believed.  I would hope that for every believer there are those things which constituted overwhelming proof, things examined, tested, confirmed, and established.  Faith that rests solely on a sense of wonder, only on some emotionally fraught experience, will not weather the trials of life.  I don’t know as I can even call it belief.  After all, if you have no idea what it is you have believed or why, how is it belief at all?  It’s barely even opinion.  I’ll go back to an old song that comes often to my mind in spite of its background of rebellion and unbelief.  "If you’re a believer, what do you believe?  Why do you believe it?  Don’t you ever wonder if it’s really true?  Do you?  Really?”  If you haven’t wondered if it was true, perhaps it’s time.  Perhaps a bit of exploration into why you have believed what you do is in order.  I don’t suggest it, as this song did, as cause for doubt.  I suggest it for the simple reason that the proof is there for you to find, and having found it, faith will have reason to exist.  Faith that has reason is resilient faith.  Faith that has reason is active, living faith, convinced of God, convinced of God’s love, aware of God’s power, and submitted to God’s purposes.  Let us, then, learn from Thomas and consider the proof upon which faith stands.  Let us, like Thomas, become men and women of active faith, acting upon that which has become our firm foundation.

Recapitulation (02/21/26-02/22/26)

So, having started in the middle, let’s move back now to the beginning, the scene in which those present are operating.  They have been back in Bethany, as we learn from coverage of the event in Luke.  But it seems that for the occasion of His ascension, Jesus had led them back out to the open areas of Mount Olivet.  It seems unlikely that they were on the summit, for in that place, the ascension would have been far more widely seen.  Perhaps they had returned to Gethsemane, the place so familiar to them of late.  But wherever it is exactly that they start their return, Luke makes it clear that it was but a Sabbath day’s journey back to their place in Jerusalem.  And there, too, we find them returned to the familiar, to the upper room, "where they were staying.”  It may not be a thing we can say with absolute certainty, but I would venture that this is the same upper room in which they had, together with Jesus, celebrated the Passover a month or so back.

Something about this really sticks in my thinking.  This return to Jerusalem, rather obviously, I suppose, traces the same course that they had followed with Jesus on the day of His triumphal entry.  No, there are no crowds now to wave their palm branches and shout their hosannas.  Of course, that crowd had proven rather fickle anyway, by all appearances.  But this was again a triumphal entry, we might say a celebratory entry, for the King who had ridden into the city that Friday has now ascended to His throne, taken up His rightful reign.  Yes, this continues to be occupied territory, but the conclusion has now been determined.  The King from David’s line is upon the throne, and He shall reign forevermore.  And it is not just Israel that shall form His kingdom, but all the earth!  Observe Luke’s description of their return.  "They returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Lk 24:52).  This is an excited group, a purposeful group that is returning.  No longer are they the moping, rag tag survivors of a failed movement.  They are ambassadors of the Living King!  And here they are, retracing that triumphal entry, ushering in that triumph in power, in action!  The Church is, after all, His embassy, the beachhead of His kingdom reclaiming the territory stolen by Satan, slowly but surely.  It oftentimes seems to be in retreat, but no!  God knows His own, and He sees to it that every last one of those whom He has chosen shall indeed perceive the King, receive the King, love the King, and serve Him.  And He shall make them whole.  The Church, after all, is established by our Lord, and He remains its only Head.  Yes, the Church, composed as it is of sinful men, has its failings.  Yes, it often goes off course for a season.  But God.  Again, this is His story.  All Creation is His story.  And He shall see to it that this story runs true.  He brings correction.  He brings reformation.  He brings repentance and forgiveness, and His sheep hear His voice and follow.

If indeed this return of the Apostles is a recapitulation of the triumphal entry, it is, after its fashion, a recapitulation of a recapitulation.  Jesus’ entire life was something of a recapitulation of Israel’s history.  But there is an aspect of this which I don’t recall hearing before; something Fausset takes note of in his article on Mount Olivet.  This points back to the period prior to the exile, when the Shekinah glory had departed the temple.  Mind you, our source here is not biblical, but rather a matter of rabbinical tradition.  They say that the glory, having departed the Temple, remained on Mount Olivet for three and a half years, looking to see if the Jews would repent, and only then did it fully depart.  Now we observe that Jesus ministered for three and a half years before departing into heaven.  There is a parallel here, and we can add the observation that the place of His departure is indeed spoken of as the place of His return.  We see that He already entered the city as king.  That is what the triumphal entry is all about.  Let Israel receive her king.  But she would not.  And the glory of the Lord departed.

I cannot speak as to the final state of the Jewish nation.  I do know that there are those among that people, as with every other people group, who have received God’s call and answered unto faith.  But as to that system of worship which centered on the Temple, no.  It is done away with.  The sacrifices are no more, for One has come and offered in Himself the perfect sacrifice, one which, as Hebrews 10 (which we happen to be reading this week in men’s group) makes clear, is actually effectual in eradicating the guilt of sin.  Goats and bulls couldn’t do it.  They could never do it, and thus the repeated offerings.  But Christ died once for all, sinless man for the sins of a fallen humanity.  And, as the preceding chapter made clear, where this new priesthood in Christ has come, there must be a new law which supersedes the old.  The old order is done away.  There will be no restoration of its ways.

Whatever the resemblance of the tabernacle to the heavenly temple, that tabernacle has long since been dismantled.  Whatever the resemblance of Solomon’s temple, or Nehemiah’s rebuilt temple to that heavenly temple, it remains but a type, a depiction at best.  And given its failures, as also Jesus’ pronouncements, fulfilled in the sacking of Rome by Trajan barely forty years later, it is done away.  The ceremonies, the feasts, the sacrifices, none of it sufficed to make so much as a single individual holy.  Nor, we must conclude, was it ever intended to do so.  The Law’s design was not to perfect, but to expose.  Here is the standard.  Here is the character of God.  And there are you, the supposed image of God.  Do you see the problem?  The image is distorted, beyond repair, really.  The mission assigned to man by God has been disregarded and God is righteous in His anger at the result.  But He is determined that there shall be a right result, and so, He has determined that by His own right arm, so to speak, He will do it.

This was not some radical shift of position.  He had announced it ages ago.  "I am God.  There is no other.  There is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning; from ancient times speaking of things that have not been done.  I say, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’  I call forth a bird of prey from the east.  I send the man of My purpose from a far country.  I have spoken, and truly, I will bring it to pass.  I have planned it and I will do it.  Listen to Me, you stubborn minded ones who are far from righteousness.  I bring My righteousness near.  It is not far off, and My salvation will not delay.  I will grant salvation in Zion, My glory for Israel” (Isa 46:9-13).  Kind of a long quote, but I couldn’t break it up.  My man will come.  I will bring it to pass.  I will save.  I will do it.  And so He did.  He came to His own, but His own would not receive Him (Jn 1:11).

So, I observed that this Mount Olivet is to be the place of His return as it was His place of departure.  But in fairness, I cannot tell you whether this is to be taken as a literal return to location.  It can’t be ruled out, certainly, but He speaks of His return being of such a nature that none on earth shall have need of another to tell them it has come about.  His departure may have been seen only by a few hundred, but His return will be known to all.  The Church is, of course, understood as the true Israel, children of Abraham in spirit and truth, not merely chasing out genetic linkages.  It is the nation of the reborn, truly a renewed humanity reborn in the Spirit, redeemed in the blood of Christ.  Jerusalem, as we see in the Revelation, is to be restored as the city come down from heaven.  That which John describes to us cannot be this same city in the Middle East.  Size alone would preclude such a direct correlation.  Likewise, I would expect that the Mount of Olives stands as a figure for the reality of His return.  What Fausset speaks of that mountain could as readily be said of earth in general.  "The scene of His agony shall be that of His glory.”  How exactly that shall play out we shall have to wait and see, but the assurance of His glory come in full is ours, signed and sealed by God Himself, and certain to be delivered in full.

Representation (02/22/26-02/24/26)

Let us now look to what this group undertook to do upon returning to the upper room.  Again, we cannot say with certainty that this is the same room in which they had partaken of the Passover meal together with Jesus, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable that it would be so.  If in fact this was the home of John Mark’s family, and if in fact they had been followers of Jesus as well, it would be quite natural for them to have opened this room to the use of the Apostles.  I’m not sure how much weight we should put on that notice that this room was where they were staying, but the Greek term does speak of something more like a permanent residence, an abiding presence.  And given that these would remain in Jerusalem in establishing the church there, it would seem at least possible that this became a rather permanent base of operations for them.  After all, there was no church building, no parsonage to which they could relocate.

But they came back into the city in a certain state and for a certain purpose.  As to their state, I mentioned it earlier, but we can reiterate here.  "They returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Lk 24:52b).  You know, that’s a point worth dwelling on.  One might think they had sufficient cause and more to mourn.  Certainly, they had felt it to be so in the days following the Passover.  Their leader was dead and buried, their movement apparently no longer moving; three years seemingly gone to waste.  Here again there might have been cause for a sense of loss, as their resurrected Lord did not move to immediately establish His kingdom on earth, but instead took Himself away into heaven and left them to it.  One could reasonably expect a rudderless crew here, tossed about by so much uncertainty just as their boat had been tossed about by the winds that night so long ago.  But no!  They returned with great joy!

Here is a first lesson for us to take, although it comes from outside our present passage.  Where, in all of Scripture, do you find a prescription for the people of God to be stern scolds and sourpusses?  Where do we arrive at this dreadfully serious, oh so burdened persona for the Christian?  We of all people have reason to be joyful.  We ought to be joyful.  God loves us!  I think of this brother in Christ we met in hospital, whose joy was quite evident and contagious.  Listen.  The hospital experience is hardly a thing to stir feelings of joy.  Honestly, it’s a stressful, stress-inducing environment, full of suffering, full of need, full of tears.  But here is a man overflowing with joy in spite of it all.  Is he high?  Is he delirious?  No!  He is a child of God and he knows it.  The first thing he wanted to talk about was his faith, and the joy simply grew in meeting others of like faith.  Yes, mine would tend to be far more quiet, but then we had my wife there, and she was as ready as he to make every conversation a bit of a church service, a celebration of Christ and His work.

Now, we can all have our moments, of course.  We can all find ourselves bristling at this event or that.  And, as one who still spends too much time reviewing news articles, I must remind myself that nothing, not even the hospital, is more intentionally designed and effectively deployed to destroy joy and hope than the news.  How can one be joyful with this as their input?  I think of the woman with whom my wife shared her hospital room.  As if her situation were not bad enough, she spends her waking hours, such as they are, watching true crime television; murder after murder in gory detail and all the awfulness described in detail, all these lives ruined.  And she wonders that she can’t forgive!  Well, no.  You feed on this kind of awfulness and it’s going to tend to create an awful perspective.

But what does Scripture say?  "Count it all joy, brothers, when you encounter various trials” (Jas 1:2).  Look, whatever comes does so by God’s providential determination.  He speaks and it is.  There is a corollary.  If He does not speak, it is not.  Does that sound too much like irresistible fate, and man left a puppet?  I tell you, this is not the case.  A man does as his heart and mind direct.  But God stands over all, perfect in knowledge, perfect in awareness, perfect in planning, and perfect in power.  And He has declared His love for you.  You know I’m going to quote it.  How could I not?  "I have called you by name.  You are Mine” (Isa 43:1).  This is not fate.  This is assurance.  Whatever it is I am going through, whatever trials I face, they are of God’s plan and purpose.

Some out there will cringe to hear me use it, but I do think it applies more widely than the immediate context of its setting.  "I know the plans that I have for you, plans for welfare and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer 29:11).  Let’s go farther.  "You will call upon Me and pray to Me, and I will listen.  You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart, and I will be found by you” (Jer 29:12-14a).  How would you not find Him when He has called you by name?  And for those who still don’t think this applies to the Christian more generally, let us consider Paul’s assertion.  "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (Ro 8:28).  I can’t get over how often this verse is remembered as indicating those who are working in His purpose, but that simply is not there.  No, it’s His call, His purpose that makes the critical difference.  And then, as one who has been called, we have this assurance:  He is working all things for our good.  Whatever comes my way, I can rest in the assurance of this truth.  I can count it all joy.  These Apostles, left once again without their leader, returning to a city vehemently opposed to their message, could count it all joy.  They could walk right into the temple, proclaiming Jesus, be arrested, imprisoned, beaten, threatened, and still count it all joy.  Paul could spend years imprisoned, facing all the uncertainty of an unstable emperor, and count it all joy.  We can surely face the rather more mundane trials of life and count it all joy.  It’s not a question of ability.  It’s a question of willingness, and a question of relying not on our own strength, but on the infilling presence of the Holy Spirit, who reminds us Whose we are and what that means for us.  You are Mine.  What greater comfort could you ask?

So, then, joyfulness is to be a developed characteristic of one who knows he belongs to this Christ Jesus.  It is fueled by devotion.  They were, Luke tells us, continuously devoting themselves to prayer.  Let me explain something.  The way this is described, praying was not so much an action as a state.  It is presented as a participle, a verbal adjective.  What does an adjective do?  It describes something about the noun, the subject.  They were a people devoted to prayer, and not just the Apostles, you note, but all who were there.  I’ll come back to that later, because this drives us more towards a third application.  But stick with the devotion for now.  And this devotion is specific.  It is focused on being a prayerful people.  Why?  Because prayer puts us in contact with this one we love, the source of our joy.

There is this as well, prayer is our means of seeking further instruction. Yes, we have the Word of God revealed in Scripture, and we do well to devote ourselves to the study of it.  We will see the Apostles commit to just such a devotion in a few chapters, but not by way of abandoning prayerfulness.  I have often contended, and still do, that study of the Word of God is in itself a sort of prayer.  I might better suggest it is the counterpoint to prayer.  Prayer, by its nature, tends to become a one-way communication, as I express my heart and mind to God.  Study gives opportunity for God to speak to me.  I should expect that study will lead to perceiving the answers to my prayers.  I should also expect that study, by which I hopefully come to know God more fully and more deeply, will lead to greater desire to communicate myself to Him.  He is the One I have trusted.  And how would I not allow that trust to express itself in open discussion with Him.  Yes, discussion works differently in this realm, as it must.  Yet, it remains truly discussion.  God does not just listen passively, nodding now and again to convince us of His attention.  He responds.  He answers.  It may not be in the immediate way that we expect talking one on one with our spouse, or with our friends.  It may not have that instantaneous back and forth of texting – and thank God for that!  But answer, He does, and we are wise to be attentively waiting for His answers.

This, I think, plays into the continuous nature of this state of prayerfulness.  Recall that these men have first, just seen a wonder such as would stun anybody.  For all our study of Scripture, and familiarity with the miraculous events it portrays, I dare say, were we to see Jesus appear amongst us, were we to see Him ascending from our midst, we would still be utterly stunned by the event, thoroughly taken aback.  They were also issued instructions; instructions which they have undertaken to obey by returning to this place.  Yet, those instructions left much unsaid.  We are here to wait, but for what exactly?  Until power has come upon us, but how?  How long?  What are we to be doing in the meantime, Lord?

You know, I watch my wife with her insistence on asking God about every least action of the day, what to eat, whether to go for a walk.  It seems nothing is too insignificant, nothing is to be trusted to one’s own thinking.  Honestly, I find my reaction to this is often quite negative.  And yet, there is something to this mindset.  If I am His, then certainly I ought to be seeking that my actions are as accord with His will, my words are as reflect His Lordship.  The distinction lies, I suppose, in how this is to be done.  To my mind, if He is building or rebuilding character in me, then I should be maturing into a man whose words and actions incline to reflecting His Lordship and His instruction, and as such, this other approach looks to my eyes like immaturity.  Yet, I would have to confess that I am far too ready to just follow my own lead and suppose it must be good.  Even though I know myself too well to suppose any such thing.  But in both cases, there is an underlying principle to be seen, and that is the simple point that Jesus has chosen us, as He chose these men and women, to be His representatives.  In this present time, Jesus is best seen in His people.

He set the example in this, did He not?  We have considered some of the particulars of these Apostles.  Consider this one.  Philip asks of Jesus, "Show us the Father, Lord, and that will be sufficient for us” (Jn 14:8-9).  And how does Jesus respond?  "He who as seen Me has seen the Father.”  Yes, there’s more said, but this is the point I am trying to make.  He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father.  Does that mean Jesus is the Father?  No.  It means He and the Father are One, so fully One that His actions are as the Father’s actions, His words are as the Father’s words.  And He calls us, prays for us, that we might know this same depth of unity with Him.  The world needs to see Jesus, not just read about Him.  Yes, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, but faith needs concrete reason to believe, and a bare book will not suffice.  It needs the evidence of God alive and active in the lives of those who lay claim to faith.  The world needs to see that faith is more than wishful thinking, but the result of very present God active and attractive in the lives of His people.  I don’t suggest that we should go about telling one and all that if they have seen us, they have seen Jesus.  For one, such a claim would too readily stir pridefulness in us.  For another, our consistency of example simply isn’t there.  If to see us is truly to see Jesus, we will inevitably supply the onlooker with the understanding that Jesus is entirely inconsistent and unreliable, because we will fail.  God does not.  We will make mistakes.  God does not.  The flesh will on occasion rise up and get us saying and doing things we will regret.  God has no reason for regret.  But we can, with practice and devoted effort, arrive at a place where we can join Paul in saying, "follow my example.”  That is advice that must be expressed in utmost humility, and must be followed with a willingness to own up to our mistakes and let those, too, become learning opportunities.  Here is how a child of God handles failure.  It’s a lesson at least as useful as how a believer seeks to discern Truth.

So, yes, these devoted themselves to prayer, became a people of prayer.  Prayer was as much a part of their nature as their eye color.  That is what this stative description conveys.  It wasn’t a prayer meeting as such.  It wasn’t, we’re going to pray until we get more direction.  It was following the example of their Lord, who, however busy ministry got to be, found occasion to pull Himself aside to be alone with the Father, to pray and be in communion with His Father and ours.

Now, if you think this is just a concern for those in leadership, think again.  Yes, we are looking in on a foundational grouping here.  But it’s not just the leaders.  There are also the women present, and not as onlookers.  They are together in this, and that little word, as it expresses in Greek, is strong.  They are sun, closely united, as the Message expresses it, they were ‘completely together.’  Likewise, Jesus’ earthly family is there, Mary and His brothers.  This is quite a change from what we have seen of them in the past, at least so far as his brothers are concerned.  But God chose, and here they are.  And the evidence of Scripture says that two of them, at least, James and Jude, were clearly fully onboard.  They are all together in this prayerful lifestyle.

I observed in preparation that this is something far different than how I could describe myself.  Devoted to prayer?  Hardly!  I am devoted to study, I suppose.  The day simply doesn’t feel right without this time spent at the outset.  Something’s missing.  Something’s off.  But to sit down in prayer with another?  I don’t know.  I’m fine with offering a prayer for you in your need, or praying over the meal, or what have you, but a half hour?  An hour?  It just doesn’t settle with me, especially if my role is to just sit and listen.  I don’t understand it, and I don’t suppose it to be as it ought to be.  I just know it is.  And I suspect that this current mindfulness of it is evidence of a sort that God is seeking change in this regard.

Well, Lord, if that is the case, I must confess I am going to need a great deal of assistance from You.  Of course, You know that.  You know me, and that, far better than I know myself.  Would that I could be a more devoted man of prayer, but the record shows that if that is to be, it’s going to take Your changing me, and helping me to be attentive and willing to the change.  Let it be so, then.  As you will.  I am Yours, to be sure, Yours not only in love, not only in hope, but in service and obedience.  Bring me, then, to the place where I, too, am continually devoted to keeping communications open with You, both sending and receiving.

Prayerfulness, it seems, is both an act of obedience in itself, a following of instruction and example alike, and also our means of receiving instruction as to what to do next.  When facing challenges or trials – it seems to be our natural inclination – perhaps it’s down to our manhood, is to take matters in hand and seek to resolve them.  Prayer, if it comes up at all, tends to be the tool of last resort.  But we know – and this is the terrible part – that it ought rightly to be our first concern.  How much better would things go if we went first to prayer, in order that we might know from God how He would have us to react or respond?  How much would things improve were we to ask Him to provide our words, instead of just shooting off our mouths and spouting our impassioned opinions?  Can I guarantee great change, should we choose this course?  On the personal level, yes, I think I can.  I cannot, of course, guarantee a fallen world will respond positively to the change.  We’ve seen that it is not guaranteed, perhaps not even likely.  The prayerful life will be taken as offense to the one still committed to remaining in darkness.  It exposes too much about them by contrast.

Joyful hope, persevering devotion, and now, let us add fellowship as another identifier of our Christian faith.  These Apostles did not hold themselves aloof, but joined with all who would join, praying together, seeking God together.  Consider just how unlikely a group this was.  Amongst the Apostles themselves there is already variety of backgrounds that would, by earthly measures, have rendered fellowship not merely improbable, but impossible.  I mean, look at this crew.  You have Matthew who, as a tax-collector, was the worst of the worst in society’s eyes, collaborating with the enemy.  And next to him, you find Simon, former member of a group dedicated to the overthrow of that same enemy by any means necessary.  Think Antifa, and you wouldn’t be far off.  It wouldn’t surprise me if some of these men would have taken offense at Philip and Andrew on the simple basis of their having Greek names, rather than Jewish.  Now, add Mary, and Jesus’ brothers.  These had, not so long ago, been looking to save Jesus from Himself, concerned that he had maybe gone off His rocker with this Messiah stuff.  Jesus had all but disowned them on that occasion.  But here they are, and we must presume they had been here prior to His death and resurrection as well.  And they believe.  And they are accepted.  And they are one, together with the Apostles.

Finally, consider the departure from societal practice in this notice that the women were praying together with them; in close union.  No more was it women to this side, men to that.  They were as one.  There is no sexual tension involved here.  There is no rejection of anybody for their past, no sorting by social strata.  All are one, and all are in one accord, ‘with one mind constantly devoted to prayer.’  When’s the last time you went to a prayer meeting at your church?  When’s the last time your church even had one?  How hard it is to get folks to turn out for the purpose of prayer!  You may get a devoted few, but even with that, it is likely to dwindle in time.  Perhaps some crisis has caused an urgency to prayer for a season, but crises pass, urgency wanes, and with it, the concern for prayer fades.  But here?  All are together; the whole church, such as it is.  And not just for a quick meeting, but continuously joining together to this end.  Yes, life went on.  I don’t know what these folks were doing for food, or to repay their host for use of this upper room.  One supposes some of them, at least, must have had income of some sort coming in, else this would be a very short-lived venture.  But so far as it was possible for them to do so, they came together as one.  They had fellowship together, and that fellowship, it seems, was primarily in the sharing of times of prayer together.

This is striking.  Even when we have been overseas for ministry, just the four of us, it has proven vanishingly rare that we would come together to pray.  Yes, days of ministry make for tired evenings, and we have family to contact, preparations for tomorrow, what have you.  But still.  Ought this not to be as much a priority as supper?  Ought this not to be priority one?  To be sure, we pray our separate prayers.  But in separateness, we lose focus, don’t we?  Distractions are too readily had, not least being that the room has little to sit upon other than the bed, and the bed calls us to rest from our labors.  How is it we have time for everything else, but not this?  How is it that praying with others seems such a chore?

These are set as an example for us.  They came together constantly, with one purpose in mind.  That purpose consisted in seeking direction from their mutual Lord.  We call Him Lord, and He calls us to pray.  If He is Lord, how is it that we feel so free to disregard that call?  What is wrong with us?  Look.  This isn’t just about getting the Apostles on their feet, setting things in motion for the planting of the first church.  This is about vitality, life in our faith.  This is about living as witnesses of the Living Christ, about providing evidence for the hope that is in us, evidence of the Holy Spirit abiding in us.  When Paul turns to practical matters in the life of the church, there in his letter to the Romans, as he lays out the design for believers, we find this triad of character traits encouraged.  "Rejoice in hope, persevere in tribulation, be devoted to prayer” (Ro 12:12).  Now, I have changed the tense there from the stative descriptors given by Paul’s use of present participles to something more like an imperative.  But, if we don’t sense the imperative and obey it, how shall we ever arrive at such a state?  If we don’t testify to our faith, how shall we ever be witnesses?

I hear this repeatedly, that it’s not about doing, it’s about being.  But honestly, one cannot be without doing.  If this is who I am, I cannot but act accordingly.  The matter of being is not one of passive stasis.  I would suggest to you that it comes back to developed character, to the doing coming naturally to one whose thought life, vocabulary, worldview, and manner have been renewed and refashioned by the inner working of the Holy Spirit, bringing us into the place of walking humbly with our Lord.  It comes of not merely calling Him Lord, but receiving Him as Lord.  The radio in our car receives the broadcast of any number of stations at all times.  The airwaves are full, and the antenna pulls them all in.  But it only receives the one to which it is attuned, only emits the sounds of that one which is received.  In like fashion, what we emit by our words and actions are the evidence of whom we have received.  To receive Jesus as Lord is to acknowledge His right to command and direct.  It is to set oneself in the place of loyal servant rather than in the place of royal prerogative.  The heart of man wants nothing so much as its rights.  The heart of a servant knows no rights, only the pride of serving well, the good feeling that comes of a job well done.  It’s not about currying favor.  It’s not about laboring to avoid punishment for slacking.  It’s a joyful service entered into willingly, and employed in love for the one we serve.

We were reading, my wife and I, of those who perceive love most readily in acts of service.  It is a place in which we must exercise a certain care, both in desiring such acts, and desiring to perform such acts.  Either participant can become manipulative in pursuit of this goal.  I suppose in any aspect of seeking to experience love, or to convince another of our love, that danger is present.  Is this real, or is this just seeking advantage in the relationship?  Am I doing this out of love, or out of a desire to gain something for myself?  I found myself reacting rather negatively to many of the suggestions given as to how one could express love to such a person.  There was too much of drawing attention to one’s actions.  Look!  I did this because I love you!  To my thinking, that call for attention obviates the act.  It’s rather like loudly declaiming to one and all about how humble you are.  If it’s true that you are humble, there will be no need to tell anybody.  They will know by your actions and your manner.  If it’s true that you are doing these things because you love the one for whom you do them, they will know.  There will be no need for banners and neon signs to get their attention.  I find this same perspective informing my walk with God.  It doesn’t need showmanship.  It certainly doesn’t need me finishing each day by coming before Him and listing off all that I did for Him today.  Yet, it also doesn’t consist in keeping everything inside.  Here is a place where I need balance.  All within, and nothing without is not the call.  As I said above, we can’t very well claim to be a witness if we never testify.

Let us, then, consider these marks of Christian faith.  Prayer, obedience, fellowship; joy, perseverance, devotion.  How are they evident in us?  And where are they lacking?  Listen.  I have added this new item to my list of exploratory questions by which to examine a passage:  Where is Jesus in this?  If all of Scripture is about Him, then I ought to expect to see Him in some fashion in all its pages.  Here, as in life, Jesus is seen in His people.  It’s something of a trite slogan, but contains a nugget of truth, when we say that you are the only Jesus people will see today.  So, again, a call I’ve been hearing repeatedly in these times of study:  Represent!  This doesn’t require being obnoxiously in your face with it.  Represent by your character.  Represent in how you process your failings.  When you offend, represent by your repentance and seeking to make things right.  Don’t give me formulas.  Give me realities.  Don’t rattle off your memorized list of prayerful clauses, carefully rehearsed words.  Just mean it.  And I, for my part, must take pains to recognize that for others, the words are important.  Hearing the right phrase really does matter.  Humility of character must then accept this reality and seek to accommodate, rather than belittling the need.

Well, let us praise God, in all this mess of human interactions, that God, Who is to be evident in us, is within us, present and active.  His presence is given evidence by our unity, and our unity is best found by devoting ourselves to prayer together.  You know, my wife has made this point repeatedly, that she gets to know people by praying with them.  Perhaps it’s time I took that point to heart, and got to know her better, and gave her opportunity to know me better.

Lord, God, help me with this.  You know even more than I do just how easily I can find such occasions more a frustration than a coming together.  Would You, please, work in me, work in us, that our lives together can be truly together, that we might come together in prayer not as seeking to correct or change one another, but as hearing hearts exposed to You.  And, in my case, I must add, would You continue to work upon me that I would incline more to prayer than has been my history to date?  I need You, and I fear I make too many excuses to just get on with what I’m doing.  Remind me of my need.  Guide me to those moments when I can be with You, and let me set aside every distraction.  You know all too well how much I’ve been focused on distractions.  Help me in this, that I may know my time redeemed, and available to You and to those I love.