Session 2.8: November 17, 2023
Scripture Reading: Acts 2:37 - 2:47
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.
42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.
Main Themes
THE RESPONSE
Repentance
The crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus’ name in a baptism involving such repentance. God’s promise to them is the Holy Spirit. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Similarly, in Acts 2 individuals need to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.
The crowd is described as having a deep emotional response to Peter’s message (“struck to the heart”), producing a favorable behavioral response. We need not assume exaggeration on Luke’s part. He provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54).
I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one’s previous religious experience.
Because God’s “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.
Baptism
Just as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing repentance, so now does Peter. Jewish people traditionally applied immersion baptism only to Gentiles (more on this later). Peter here demands a conversion no less radical than that of a Gentile converting to Judaism, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel’s God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus.
After reading this passage in acts, we might ask: Is forgiveness tied to baptism or repentance? Are both required? “Forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus’ final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49
One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is hardly dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.
As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus’ followers used baptism as the initiation rite is actually quite unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Christian baptism seems a bit different, though. John’s baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many.
The closest Jewish parallel to John the Baptist’s and early Christian baptism was proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Proselyte baptism provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte’s Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.
In Jesus Name
Peter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus’ name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord’s name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus’s name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert’s new allegiance.
We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus’s name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer’s calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke’s writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms.
The Promise of the Spirit
Luke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.” By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus’s name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah’s language, Luke also reiterates the promise of the Spirit for the Gentile mission.
By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.
It will so happen that
everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,
just as the Lord has promised;
the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.
SUMMARY AND EXHORTATION
Verse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke’s narrative moves quickly to the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech’s central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord’s name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God’s eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ.
For Peter’s hearers to save themselves from the generation’s wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.
Peter’s term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter’s point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.
Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.
3,000
We discussed baptism earlier, so I will not discuss the religious significance of 3,000 people being baptized. Nevertheless, we should briefly consider the mechanics of this. Could so many people even be baptized in a day? (The text could easily be understood to mean that 3,000 came to believe in Jesus, regardless of whether the actual baptisms would have taken several days to perform. But let’s assume the harder, albeit simpler reading of the text.) To accommodate the thousands of worshipers the temple hosted daily, the Temple Mount had plenty of baptismal pools. Even the Roman historian Tacitus was familiar with the claim that the temple held many pools.
“Baptizing” in this period involved mainly supervision while the people coming for purification immersed themselves. Like John the Baptist, the disciples could have supervised mass baptisms, without having to physically lay hands on each person. Once verbal instructions were issued, mass immersions in response to Peter’s command could have occurred.
One more question: is 3,000 converts in one day a believable number? At feast times such as Pentecost, Jerusalem could host as many as half a million people, with an estimated thirty thousand from the Diaspora. The Temple Mount was large enough to hold tens of thousands at one time, perhaps up to four hundred thousand (according to some of the larger estimates). Even if some of these estimates are too high (although they might be correct), thousands of hearers and a rapid mass movement of three thousand conversions are not at all implausible.
Another reason to believe Luke’s account of converts is that Luke seems quite honest about audiences’ reactions to hearing the gospel. After each sermon in Acts, Luke reports people’s acceptance or rejection (2:41; 4:4; 5:33; 7:54; 8:6, 36;10:44; 13:44, 48-50; 17:32; 22:22; 28:24, 29). Reporting rejections does not seem to fit a false narrative of ineffable success.
The First Church
Verse 42 begins a summary section describing the Jerusalem community of disciples, or what I may refer to as the first church. Before we discuss whether this first church is meant as a model for the rest of us, let’s just focus on the text. What is the community engaged in? Prayer, learning from the apostles, signs, eating together, and sharing of possessions. Let’s discuss these in further detail.
Summaries
As a quick side note, what do I mean by a summary section? Speaking of situations in broad terms (i.e., summarizing) is typical of ancient historiographical works that were based on research and the use of sources. In other words, here Luke condenses a wider collection of information than he can afford space to narrate.
The Ideal Community
In the ancient world, just like today, tales and dreams of ideal communities that shared all possessions were not unusual. The language employed by Luke is reminiscent of Hellenistic language for the ideal community. However, Luke and his audience are probably not thinking of Gentile sources. Instead, there is a nearly unmistakable connection between this first church and the Old and New Testament emphases on caring for the poor. For example, recall a passage like Deuteronomy 15:7-11:
If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart or be insensitive to his impoverished condition. Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs. Be careful lest you entertain the wicked thought that the seventh year, the year of cancellation of debts, has almost arrived, and your attitude be wrong toward your impoverished fellow Israelite and you do not lend him anything; he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be regarded as having sinned. You must by all means lend to him and not be upset by doing it, for because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you attempt. There will never cease to be some poor people in the land; therefore, I am commanding you to make sure you open your hand to your fellow Israelites who are needy and poor in your land. Deuteronomy 15:7-11
Consider also the following verses in Deuteronomy:
One must not take either lower or upper millstones as security on a loan, for that is like taking a life itself as security. Deuteronomy 24:6
When you make any kind of loan to your neighbor, you may not go into his house to claim what he is offering as security. You must stand outside and the person to whom you are making the loan will bring out to you what he is offering as security. If the person is poor you may not use what he gives you as security for a covering. You must by all means return to him at sunset the item he gave you as security so that he may sleep in his outer garment and bless you for it; it will be considered a just deed by the Lord your God.
You must not oppress a lowly and poor servant, whether one from among your fellow Israelites or from the resident foreigners who are living in your land and villages. You must pay his wage that very day before the sun sets, for he is poor and his life depends on it. Otherwise he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin. Deuteronomy 24:10-15
There are countless verses about helping the poor in the Psalms. Broadly speaking, the psalmists express the idea that the one who helps the poor will be blessed (e.g., Psalm 41:1-2). Jesus spoke repeatedly about helping the poor and about their blessings to come.
So, this first church is surprising and unsurprising. Surprisingly, it describes a nearly unbelievable setting filled with love and generosity. Unsurprisingly, this has been the goal Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus spoke about. One could hardly expect otherwise.
If one believes that Pentecost was a sort of reversal of the curse at Babel, then the church’s unity in these verses builds upon that reversal.
Teaching
The apostles’ teaching provides a crucially important link to Jesus’ ministry. The early church devoted itself to the apostles’ teachings, which is to say they devoted themselves to Jesus’ teachings passed on by the apostles. Luke is emphasizing the continuity between the mission of Jesus and his church.
What might this teaching have looked like? Moral teaching was not unusual in the ancient world. For example, we could picture the lectures in a philosophic schools. However, considering the Jewish background of the apostles and other (approximately 120) Jesus’ followers that received the Spirit during the Pentecost miracle, the teaching probably looked like the Midrashic exposition familiar in the synagogues. Or, put even more simply, it would have looked like Peter’s speech: lessons and admonitions expanding on scriptures.
Fellowship (Koinōnia)
The first church engaged in “fellowship,” the Greek word being koinōnia (κοινωνία). I mention this bit of Greek trivia because the Greek word often appears in churches and Christian college campuses to describe events and meeting places. It has become part of the modern Christian lingo. The word means exactly that, a partnership, community, or “sharing in” something. The term can refer to the sort of harmony created by shared purpose and working together. In a commercial context, the word could mean sharing profits.
In light of early Christian teaching, much like sharing possessions, fellowship is not a surprising fruit of Pentecost. Remember what we read in the Gospel of John when Jesus prays for the believers:
“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one—I in them and you in me—that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me. John 17:20-23
In verse 46, we read the believers met by common consent. The term translated as such is rare (appearing nowhere else in the New Testament or Septuagint). Although I do not want to read too much into it, I think it does show a strong form of unity.
Breaking Bread
In the text, breaking bread and fellowship are side by side, giving the impression that fellowship included sharing meals. We may surmise that these common meals were at the expense of those who were sharing their possessions—those who could afford the food. More importantly, what do we mean by breaking bread? Certainly our modern experiences with the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper (the wording will change depending on the Christian tradition) affects how we read this passage. We should, however, keep in mind that, as the most basic staple, “bread” could easily stand for food in general. The passage is probably conveying the idea of eating together, not exclusively the breaking of literal bread. Recall the original Lord’s Supper (Luke 22), in which bread and wine were shared, but just like they were shared at other meals. They were notable components in a meal involving many other components. If anything, the bread and wine were special in the fact that they were not—they were the most basic and always-present elements of Jewish meals.
One could read the text to say that the early Christians were simply taking bread together, like the sacrament with which we are so familiar. That is not the most likely reading. (I am not trying to make a broader point about the sacraments. I am simply trying to clarify what the text means.)
As we read this text, we should remember that a host who shared a meal with guests was thought to have formed a bond of relationship that was not taken lightly. Providing food and partaking of what was provided were important social obligations. To eat with someone was, at least to some extent, to befriend them. Considering that this early church was made up of people from all over the known world, and rich and poor, this sharing of meals was nothing short of revolutionary.
Prayer and Worship
Prayer was the prelude to Pentecost, but it did not stop there. At the end of chapter 2, we see that prayer is a continuing part of the Christian community life.
On a related note, we find that they praise God together. The word Luke uses for praise is found many times in the Septuagint. It is almost always associated with praise carried out in the temple. Consider, for example:
They brought the ark of God and put it in the middle of the tent David had pitched for it. Then they offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings before God. When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord’s name. He then handed out to each Israelite man and woman a loaf of bread, a date cake, and a raisin cake. He appointed some of the Levites to serve before the ark of the Lord, to offer prayers, songs of thanks, and hymns to the Lord God of Israel. 1 Chronicles 16:1-4
What did that early worship look like? Again, considering the background of most of the people involved, it probably looked like (not necessarily the same as) the Jewish liturgy and reading of the Psalms. Nevertheless, early Christians would have rejected the idea that the Jewish liturgy in the temple was the required or even best way to pray and worship.
Signs
In verse 43, we have one of many miracle summaries in Acts (e.g., 5:12; 8:7; 19:11-12; 28:9). We are also told how people reacted. “Reverential awe came over everyone . . . .” In the Greek, the imperfect tense is used. Awe (or fear) was coming over everyone. This suggests a continued phenomenon rather than a one time event.
What is this “awe” or, literally, “fear” that they felt? The text suggests a newfound attitude of paying attention to God, his work, his commandments, and his very person (i.e., who he is).
Meeting at the Temple
Undeniably, homes became the dominant meeting places for Christians. Yet, notice that in this first church, they meet both in the temple and in homes. Some suggest that Christians used public meeting places to evangelize, but houses to disciple the converts. That very well could be the case, but in the case of Acts 2, worshipping at the Temple does not seem like a tactic. Instead, at this point, the temple serves a positive function—it right and proper to worship at the temple.
The revival of spiritual temple worship here would evoke for Luke’s biblically informed audience grand precedents. In the Old Testament, renewal of temple or tabernacle worship accompanied revivals in Israel’s history. The early Christians thus had good reason to expect (and experience) a renewal of temple worship, whether or not the authorities saw fit to cooperate with their agenda. (Many Jewish people expected a new or renewed temple in this period.)
Lessons for Today
I am going to do something a little unusual for this Bible study. Generally, I try to stay close to the text—focusing on the cultural and linguistic issues. My goal is to explain what the text really says—what it meant to the author and original audience. The implications of the text, particularly for our lives, I touch on lightly and briefly. As some have let me know (and there is nothing wrong with that), this has the effect of hiding the forest for the trees. I spend much of the time discussing details like grammar, and I never get to the “good stuff.”
Well, today, I do want to pause for a brief moment and consider some questions. In particular, I have three in mind. First, does charity matter? Second, should we preach like “Acts 2 Peter”? Third, should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?
Does Charity Matter?
I do not wish to repeat myself, but the Old Testament and Jesus’ ministry have a heavy emphasis on charity. Helping the poor is part of the Jewish law. The Psalms say that helping the poor will result in blessings. Jesus says that helping the poor will result in exaltation.
Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. He said to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, don’t invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors so you can be invited by them in return and get repaid. But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. Then you will be blessed because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:7-14
It is this Bible-wide emphasis on caring for the poor that climaxes in the depiction of the first church. And, I think the undeniable truth is that this emphasis on the poor has been crucial for the vitality and expansion of the church. Listen how Craig Keener describes how early thinkers, Christian and pagan alike, noticed the early church’s attitude towards the poor:
Justin claims that former pagans, converted to Christianity, continue to share their resources in common and with the needy (Justin 1 Apol. 14). In the late second century, Tertullian remarks wittily that Christians readily share everything in common except their wives—the one thing, he complains, pagans were most willing to share (Tert. Apol. 39.11– 12). In antithetical contrast to the apologists’ idealized portraits, Lucian ridicules worshipers of “the crucified sophist” as despising “all things indiscriminately” and reckoning everything as “common property,” hence easily cheated. Celsus critiqued Christians for their effective appeal to “the socially objectionable classes” as well as to “the unhappy and sinful.” Other sources also attest to Christians’ continuing commitment to share their resources in the second century and beyond.
In short, I think charity is both a means of blessing in this life (I mean for the giver, not the recipient) and one of the primary means by which we show the kingdom of God in this world. Regarding blessings, allow me to make a wildly inflammatory statement: the answer to many of our personal problems is a lack of charity. Are you experiencing depression? Go help the poor. Are you having trouble with your wife? Go help the poor. Are you dissatisfied with your job? Go help the poor. No, I am not saying that helping the poor will make your problems go away, but I am saying that helping the poor will provide you with a certain perspective and patience that will help solve them. Charity is simply that crucial and life-changing. And, do we want our churches to be lively and vibrant? We must help and welcome the poor. What are the limits to charity? Yes, a line must be drawn. My suggestion is we discuss that once we think we are getting close to the line.
Should We Preach Like Acts 2 Peter?
In Acts 2, Peter makes a perfect presentation of what we generally call “the gospel.”
Peter stood up and told them (paraphrased), “Listen! The scriptures spoke of a day when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all people. As you can see and hear (because of the Pentecost miracle), that day is today. That also means that the end is near, call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Who is the Lord? Jesus. How do we know? He did miracles among you. Also, you killed him using dirty tactics but God raised him from the dead. The scriptures spoke of one who would not see decay—that’s Jesus! The scriptures also spoke of a king who would reign forever, who would be exalted. That’s Jesus! He has been taken up to heaven as King and Savior. He will not lose. Save yourselves! Repent!”
Obviously, I do not disagree with Peter one bit. My question is not whether Peter is right. I believe he speaks of true things. My question is whether we should present that truth the same way, and whether his argument would be compelling today.
If you are thinking I am about to start a discussion about how sensitive people are today, and how offended they would be by Peter’s speech, do not worry. I am not convinced people have ever been different (e.g., more or less sensitive), but be that as it may, I am more interested in the argument itself.
Peter’s argument depends partly on the audience’s personal experience with Jesus. It depends much more, though, on scripture that the audience believes to be true. Peter does not even need to argue that scripture is truthful.
Would we find a similar audience today? In my opinion, yes and no. In the United States, we live in a time of great apostasy (or at least of many people leaving the churches). People are leaving the Christian faith by the hundreds of thousands. In 2007, religious “nones” were only about 16%. Now that number has nearly doubled (29%). Perhaps many of these people still believe the Bible to be true, much like Peter’s audience, and we can call them back to God based on that. But about a third of Americans (coincidentally, also 29%) believe that the Bible is simply fables. What then?
I have two suggestions. First, like we will read of Paul preaching in Athens, we must meet them where they (the audience) are. We must explain why the gospel is true and good. Second, and this will lead into my question of the early church, we must help them experience Jesus. How? The church is the body of Christ. I think that unbelievers should truly encounter Jesus in the community of his followers.
Should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?
Why do I ask this question? Partly because many churches claim to be Acts 2 churches. This is particularly common with nondenominational churches (this is not an attack, simply a statement of fact), but even some more traditional, denominational churches advocate for this.
We must begin by asking what do we mean by an Acts 2 church. Here are some answers I found to get us started:
Their Four Keys
The church in Acts 2 has four priorities: studying good teaching, hanging out, sharing meals, and praying (verse 42). That’s a great start, but many churches today don’t even do that, not really.
Their Miracles
Amazing supernatural things occur. People are amazed (verse 43). Today, most churches don’t encounter miracles or anything supernatural. They forgot how or never learned. And for many who do walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, their focus is on the experience, not on people’s reaction. Their emphasis is backwards. The purpose of “signs and wonders” isn’t to gratify themselves. It’s to show God’s power, pointing outsiders to him, not delighting insiders.
Their Finances
The kicker is that they pool their resources; they even sell their possessions to give to everyone in need. The church takes care of their own (verses 44 and 45). Too many churches today do not even care for the needs of their members; they expect government or some other organization to. And I’ve never encountered a church that shares all their material possessions. That’s just un-American!
Their Pattern
They continue to hang out—every day—and share food. They are delighted (verse 46). I don’t know of any church family that meets every day, but the Acts 2 church did.
Their Results
Because of all this, others esteem them and they grow (verse 47). Too often today’s churches don’t have the respect of society but quite the opposite. Too many churches aren’t growing; they’re not even maintaining; they’re dying. However, none of the things the church did in Acts 2 are commands for us to follow. The passage is descriptive; it shows what the church did and the outcome they enjoyed. It may be a viable model for us to follow.
Unfortunately, many churches today don’t even practice these four key actions; supernatural results are rare; and sharing everything is virtually nonexistent. Is it any wonder why churches aren’t respected by society or growing? Perhaps they’re doing church wrong and not more closely following the Acts 2 model.
Being an Acts 2 Church in the 21st Century
Some churches are known for their music programs, others for their children or youth ministries, while yet others for some sort of “niche” that appeals to a large audience. While all such ministries can be good and helpful for both reaching your community and encouraging the church, it’s interesting to look back at what the first church devoted themselves to. In Acts 2, after Peter’s Jewish audience heard the gospel proclaimed, they responded with repentance and faith, were incorporated into the church through baptism, and they devoted themselves to a common faith and a common life.
It’s no accident that the first devotion mentioned was to the apostles’ teaching. We too should be devoted to the apostles’ teaching. But what is their teaching? In Acts 2:22-26, Peter preaches the good news concerning Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and exaltation as Lord and King. In Acts 4, Peter and John annoy the Jewish leaders because they were “teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (v.2). Then the Jewish leaders charged them not “to teach at all in the name of Jesus” (v.18). Then in Acts 5, the apostles’ teaching is referred to as “the words of life” (v.20-21). But again, the Jewish leaders “strictly charged them not to teach in this name” (v.28). Nevertheless, after they were released, Luke says of the apostles:
And every day in the temple and from house to house they did not cease teaching and preaching that Jesus is the Christ. (v.42)
I trust you get the idea of what the apostles’ teaching entails.
Still, there is a little more going on in Acts 2:42 then first meets the eye. You see, faithful Jews were to be devoted to Moses’ teaching. By devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, the early church understood that they were under a new authority—King Jesus, the new and better prophet than Moses. The apostles’ teaching is nothing other than all of Scripture, now interpreted through the lens of Jesus. This is, after all, how Jesus himself viewed all of Scripture (Luke 24:44-49). All Scripture is inspired by God and points to Jesus.
For this reason, we should want what we do together as a church to be Word-saturated (all of Scripture) and gospel-centered (interpreted through the lens of Jesus). In light of this gospel commitment, here are four areas in which we should encourage our church to be devoted to the apostles’ teaching.
Personal Devotions
If our churches are to be devoted to the apostles’ teaching, then our members need to be personally devoted to the apostles’ teaching. . . .
Sunday School
Your church may or may not have Sunday school. At High Pointe, we call it Life Classes, and we offer topic specific classes. . . .
Small Groups
Perhaps your church has small groups that meet throughout the week. These groups should also be Word-saturated and gospel-centered. . . .
Worship Gatherings
It is a great joy when God’s people gather to declare our joint allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . .
Church As It Was Meant To Be
In many respects, the contemporary church in America looks more like a large corporation than like anything described in the New Testament. Even church leaders sometimes bear a closer resemblance to CEOs and corporate executives than to humble, tender shepherds. Sadly, the good news — that a sinner can find forgiveness for sins before a holy God by placing his trust in and committing his whole life to Jesus Christ—is often eclipsed by “success”-oriented programs and an interest in the bottom line.
As a result, many churches have become nothing more than entertainment centers, employing tactics that effectively draw people into the church, but are incapable of truly ministering to them once they come.
…
So, what’s the blueprint? A logical place to start is at the beginning with the first church—the church at Jerusalem. It began on the Day of Pentecost . . . .
Back to the Blueprint: Bible Study, Fellowship, and Prayer
Acts 2:42 gives the blueprint they followed: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Those are the vital elements that make up the actual function and life of the church— and all of that in just one verse!
Here’s an obvious starting point: A church built to the Master’s plan will begin with the right raw material—a saved congregation. Verse 41 identifies the church as being made up of “those who had received [Peter’s] word,” and “were continually devoting themselves.” The church at Jerusalem was filled with true Christians — those who continually adhered to apostolic teaching.
…
While the early church didn’t have a New Testament, they had God’s Word in the form of the “apostles’ teaching.” The church at Jerusalem was committed to receiving that Word. Doctrine is the basis of the church—you can’t live out what you don’t know or understand. . . . Don’t ever allow anyone to stand in the pulpit who isn’t committed to leading the congregation through a deep, penetrating study of God’s Word.
The central focus of the early church’s fellowship was the breaking of bread — the Lord’s Table. It was the most fitting symbol of their fellowship since it reminded them of the basis for their unity—salvation in Christ and adherence to apostolic doctrine. . . .
We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ’s self-sacrificing love that took Him to the cross. In your fellowship, make it your habit to practice the same kind of love Christ demonstrated toward you. Practically speaking, you can always give your life to those God brings across your path. Do you habitually pray for fellow believers? Are you encouraging them, edifying them, meeting their physical needs? Do you love them enough to confront them when they are sinning? Those are the marks of true Christian fellowship. It is church as it was meant to be.
Acts 2:42 says the believers continually devoted themselves to prayer. Sadly, the same devotion to prayer is often neglected today. Churches can pack pews by offering entertainment, but when a prayer meeting is held, only a faithful few trickle in. . . .
Built to Scale: Wonder, Love, and Joy
What happens when true believers remain under biblical teaching, in a spiritual fellowship, and in devotion to prayer? Acts 2:43 says, “Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe.” “Awe,” the Greek word for fear, speaks of a sense of reverence. It is reserved for special times when people are struck with wonder because of something divine or powerful that defies human explanation.
Your church ought to be able to instill awe in your community. . . .
I think we can pick up on a couple of things. First, everyone picks and chooses. Some emphasize signs, some leave them out. (Of course, there are theological reasons for this.) In the second example I quoted, we see a nearly exclusive emphasis on learning—on words. Is that what we see in Acts 2?
The community of believers in Acts 2 is the culmination of the salvation story, at least in this life. It has learning but it has has doing; it has giving and receiving; it has love and generosity. Whatever we decide we should carry forward to today’s church, I think we cannot forget that the first church was like family.