8 August 1999
Mike Tueller
1. The apostles receive their mission.
Last week, in our last lesson on the gospels, we talked about Jesus's ascension to heaven and His commission to the apostles. Acts begins by reviewing this material. Although the account is abbreviated, some aspects of it are worth looking at. Jesus is saying things that clearly indicate He is about to leave. This prompts a question from the apostles:
Read Acts 1:6.
The apostles were not unfamiliar with the way this whole Messiah thing was supposed to go: even if the Messiah was supposed to suffer, He still was supposed to come in glory and restore the kingdom. Jesus looked pretty glorified to them, so they expected the restoration. But Jesus tells them what the next step was to be:
Read Acts 1:7-8.
Now, I should clarify that, unlike the commission in Matthew (28:19-20), this does not clearly say that the gospel is to be taken to non-Jews. It lists a number of places, including Samaria and the ends of the earth, but there were Jews living in those places, so the apostles need not have understood that the gospel message was now open to all (more on that in the next two weeks).
So Jesus commanded them to be witnesses. What is a witness? (Someone who has seen or otherwise perceived something, who then tells what he has seen/perceived in order to validate the truth of its happening.)
The apostles, then, were witnesses of Jesus, of His power, ministry, and Messiahship. It so happens that later on in the chapter, we have the first statement of the minimal requirements for being an apostle. This is in the context of the selection of a new apostle to replace Judas. Matthias was eventually chosen, but he was chosen from a select group. Peter states the qualifications:
Read Acts 1:21-22.
Those are pretty all-encompassing requirements! The new apostle must have been present for Jesus's whole ministry, from His baptism all the way to the resurrection. Why? (Because that's what it means to be a witness--he must have seen what happened in order to tell other people about it.)
We often make much of calling our own apostles witnesses of Christ, but I think we don't often realize that that really is the definition of their mission, according to Peter. Now, you might wonder how such a narrow definition could possibly work. After all, if an apostle has to be someone who has seen Christ's whole ministry, how could there ever be apostles after that generation? Well, admittedly, the "whole ministry" part would be impossible, but Joseph Smith emphasized that the apostles were supposed to be genuine witnesses of Christ, in a very literal sense. When the twelve apostles of the latter days were first ordained, they were not asked if they had actually seen Christ, but Joseph Smith told them that real seeing was part of their calling:
You have been indebted to other men, in the first instance, for evidence; on that you have acted; but it is necessary that you recieve a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God.... Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off your doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days? (HC 2:195-96)
Now, the ancient apostles did not actually go out and start preaching immediately. Jesus had told them to wait (Acts 1:4). And so they did:
Read Acts 1:14.
Jesus may have attracted large crowds in His lifetime, but now His disciples number only about 120 (as we see in the next verse.) This description of some of His disciples has some interesting characteristics, though. To digress briefly, two things seem most interesting to me: 1) This is the first appearance we have of Jesus's brothers as among His followers. Previously they had opposed His work. Something must have happened to bring them around, because we even see an epistle attributed to one of them (James). 2) The appearance of "the women" is noteworthy. Who are these women that are mentioned so casually that it appears Luke thinks we already know them? Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that these are the women who have been following Jesus for some time, who underwrote His ministry (Luke 8:1-3). The other is that the word should not be translated "women" at all: the same word meant "wives." Used with a definite article after a list of men (in the preceding verse, Acts 1:13), it is customary to translate this phrase "with their wives"--customary, that is, except here (curious, no?).
Let's return now to the main thread of the story. The apostles are waiting before they begin their missions to preach. You may note that, when we send missionaries out today, we, too, have them wait. Even after they leave home, they don't immediately begin spreading the gospel. What do they do? (The go to the Missionary Training Center. They spend time there learning what they are going to teach and [if they are going on foreign-language missions] learning a foreign language.)
Now, the apostles know their message, but they haven't yet received the ability to communicate effectively. They speak only one language, and don't yet have the convincing power of the Holy Ghost on their side. And so they wait. A couple months later, they find what they were waiting for.
Read Acts 2:1-4.
We see in these verses that they have received precisely what they need as missionaries: the Holy Ghost to witness to their words, and the ability to speak those words in many languages. As the next few verses recount, they are understood by people speaking a wide variety of languages, all of whom wonder, and many of whom doubt.
And what is the message? Peter gives a long speech here to make the message clear. He quotes and interprets a lot of scripture; we won't go over that part. Let's just cut to the heart of his message and see what it is:
Read Acts 2:22-24, 32-33, 36.
This is a very clear message: they have given the story of Jesus, they have borne their witness. We tend to call this sort of thing "testimony" instead of "witness." I can think of no stronger testimony than what Peter has just said.
Let us see the effect of Peter's testimony, accompanied by the Holy Ghost.
Read Acts 2:37-39, 41.
3. The community of the saints.
There follows a great description of the community of the early saints. We could certainly do worse than have this description apply to ourselves:
Read Acts 2:42-47.
What were the elements of the early saints' behavior? (Write the answers on the board. They will probably be something like those below.)
 | Hold to doctrine of the apostles (Acts 2:42).
| Keep fellowship with the apostles (Acts 2:42).
| Fear (perhaps better "respect" or "awe") (Acts 2:43).
| Wonders and signs done among them (Acts 2:43).
| Community of property (Acts 2:44).
| Care for the needy (Acts 2:45).
| Temple worship (Acts 2:46).
| Partaking of the sacrament (Acts 2:46).
| Singleness of heart (Acts 2:46).
| Praising God (Acts 2:47).
| Favor with the people (Acts 2:47).
| Church growth (Acts 2:47).
| |
One of these elements stands out, if for no other reason than our failure to accomplish it in the latter days, and that is community of property. This is the subject of a story a little later on, so let's turn there and see what happens.
This story crosses the boundaries between chapters 4 and 5. Let's read the description of this practice among the saints:
Read Acts 4:32, 34-35.
There follows a positive example, a man named Joses Barnabas, who contributed his land for the well-being of the church. Then, in chapter five, we get a negative example, which is much more memorable. (Doesn't that always seem to be the case? Who remembers Dante's Paradiso?)
As the story goes, Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, sell a piece of property and commit to bring the proceeds to the apostles. However, they bring only part of the price, keeping the rest secretly for themselves. As a result of their disobedience, both are struck dead.
But what precisely was their disobedience? We get clues in these two passages:
Read Acts 5:3-4, 8.
What is the problem? (From these verses, it appears that they had the choice not to sell, and they had the choice not to bring the money when they did sell. They may also have had the choice to say they were remitting only part of the price of the property. But instead, they said the property sold for a lower price.)
It seems that Peter, and the Lord, were upset not so much because Ananias and Sapphira wanted to keep the money for themselves, but because they wanted to put forward a facade of complete obedience while doing so.
Now, there's no doubt that having a community of property was difficult for the ancient saints--it has certainly has proven so in every other age of time. However, what is the proper reaction to a difficult commandment? Should we admit our disobedience, and then work on becoming obedient, or should we cover the problem and profess total compliance? I think the answer is obvious. This is the type of hypocrisy many of us are guilty of daily: Acts 5 tells us the penalty is dire.
Let's return now to Peter and John, and the results of their continued preaching. As they are preaching in--or at least very near--the temple precinct (Solomon's porch, where they preached, was on the east side of the temple mount; whether it was considered sacred ground itself was a matter of some dispute even anciently), they excite the indignation of those who controlled the temple and the city--the Sadducees and the council. They are arrested three times and face the council twice in two chapters (4:1-22; 5:17-20 [arrested, then escape]; 5:26-41). Peter's two speeches to the council are pretty short, so let's read them both in their entirety. You'll get a feeling for the sorts of things Peter was likely to say to people in positions of authority. Here's the first speech:
Read Acts 4:7-12.
After this, the council took no action, but told Peter and John to stop mentioning Jesus. Of course, they disobeyed. This resulted in their second encounter with the council. When asked why he has disobeyed, Peter gives this speech:
Read Acts 5:29-32.
What impressions do you get from these speeches? (I have two very strong impressions: the first is that Peter is a powerful and unwavering witness for Jesus, the reality of His resurrection, and the salvation He brings. The second is that he is speaking in a pretty unrestrained fashion to his social superiors.)
Let's read the council's first reaction:
Read Acts 4:13.
A great many words in this verse are interesting. First, who were Peter and John? According to the verse, they were "unlearned and ignorant men." The word "unlearned" is agrammatos, literally "illiterate," but sometimes used of people who had not received advanced education, such as rabbinical training (Jesus faced the same charge in John 7:15). The word "ignorant" is idiôtês, not "idiot," but "commoner"--although it, too, can have a more religiously-focused meaning, like "layman." So there are Peter and John, either illiterate commoners or uneducated laymen, daring to browbeat the council about Jesus and the salvation He offers. The council calls this "boldness."
This "boldness" is another word that deserves investigation. It is parrêsiâ, which is literally "frankness of speech." We may like plain-talkers nowadays, but speaking frankly to people in positions of power was something that was allowed only to a few anciently (of course, this social rule has only faded, not disappeared, in our day--it is the violation of modern rules about parrêsiâ that makes Bart Simpson funnier for kids than for their parents). A person of lower social rank who exercised parrêsiâ could be labeled "insolent"--another meaning for the word parrêsiâ itself. The council is amazed that these common people, who don't know what they're talking about, have had the audacity to speak to them in this way.
This boldness or audacity of speech was a clear characteristic of Peter's ministry in Jerusalem. He emphasizes it, and even has the saints pray for more of it:
Read Acts 4:29.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of boldness--of frank speech about our beliefs? (Much can be said; the advantage is, it seems to me, that the message gets out, and no-one can mistake it. The disadvantage is that the recipient of the message can focus more on the manner than the content.)
Peter's frank speech, as is often the case, had two results. The first is that many thousands joined the saints in a very short time. They were excited by the message they heard so plainly. The second is the result with the council. They clearly only heard one part of Peter's message. Which part is that? Let's read and see:
Read Acts 5:28.
Was that the key part of the message that you heard--that the council was to blame for Jesus's death? It wasn't what I heard: I heard mostly the part about Jesus bringing salvation. But the council was so irked by this component of Peter's teaching (if you missed it, see Acts 4:10, "whom ye crucified," and Acts 5:30, "whom ye slew"), that they couldn't bear to hear any more.
There are two positions in which we can put ourselves in this situation. If we put ourselves in the position of Peter, we can consider the difficult question of when boldness is required and when diplomacy would be better. (Plus, do we choose one over the other based on what the situation requires, or on our own comfort levels?) If we put ourselves in the position of the council, we can consider what we are to do when faced with a frank and perhaps uncomfortably public airing of our sins. Any thoughts?
Sources consulted for this lesson include:
Smith, Joseph. 1948. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd edition, vol. 2. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News.
Last update: 13 July 1999