Acts 1:1-5              

January 17, 2010

Luke wrote Acts.  He wrote it to a man named Theophilus, who was probably a Roman officer of some rank.  He wrote it for the same reason he wrote his first book, to dispel any doubts that this Theophilus fella might have had, or as Luke puts it, so that he "would know the certainty of the things he had been taught" about Jesus in particular and the Christian faith in general.  Essentially that's what I covered last week, for those of you who weren't here.  There was one other thing I touched on last Sunday; it's so important I want to return to it this morning before we move on, and that's Luke's credibility.  What reason did Theophilus have to trust him?  How could he be sure, how can we be sure, that the material in Luke's two books is true and accurate?  After all, Luke wasn't there for most of what he wrote about.  He accompanied Paul on some of his travels; we know that for a fact because several times in Acts Luke switches from the third person plural ('they') to the first person plural ('we'), but other than that, he's reporting on things that he didn't witness with his own eyes.  Luke never met Jesus.  In the spiritual sense he did, but not in the sense that the disciples did.  Luke never shook Jesus hand.  He never shared a meal with him.  He never sat at Jesus' feet and listened to a sermon.  He didn't see Jesus die, come back to life, or ascend into heaven.  How does he know those things actually happened?  Here's how: at the beginning of his gospel, Luke reveals his three sources of information.  The first is written documents.  "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us...".  Luke wasn't the first person to write a book about Jesus.  Most scholars believe that both Luke and Acts were written between 61 and 65 A.D.  Mark had already written his gospel by then, and maybe Matthew.  Paul had also written some of his letters.  So Luke had access to some other reliable documents.  It's not unreasonable to think that one or two of the other disciples put something down on papyrus; just because their biographies of Jesus didn't make into the Bible doesn't mean they didn't exist.  Luke may very well have used those in the writing of his books.   Not only could he pull helpful material from them, but he could use them to verify the accuracy of other information he received. If something he heard conflicted with something an actual eyewitness wrote, be it a disciple or somebody else, he could just dismiss it.

Then there's Luke 1:2.  "....handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."  In addition to other written documents there was oral tradition.  In those days, it's estimated that only 5-10% of people were literate.  So they passed things from one generation to the next orally.  I know what you're thinking, but you're wrong.  Oral transmission didn't work like our deacon prayer chain, which is poorly.  Let's say somebody in the church broke their toe; by the time it got to the end of the prayer chain, that person's whole leg might have been amputated.  I'm exaggerating but you get my point.  Something happens as information is passed from one person to the next.  Certain details get added or omitted.  Sometimes things get exaggerated and embellished.  Back then, people paid much closer attention to the details.  Certain people were charged with keeping stories straight, and it was a responsibility that was taken very seriously.  So we have every reason to believe the oral accounts of Jesus and the early church were well preserved down to the last detail.  

Finally, Luke writes, "I have carefully investigated everything from the beginning." In addition to written documents and oral tradition, Luke did lots of 'hands on' research himself.  Much of it took the form of personal interviews; I can't imagine where he got all the detailed information concerning Jesus' birth and infancy, if not from the Virgin Mary herself.  She wasn't a teenager anymore, of course.  By the time Luke interviewed her for his book, she was probably pushing fifty.  Can't you see him sitting across from her, firing questions left and right?  So Mary, when Gabriel appeared, what was your initial reaction?  What did he say, and be as specific as you can? Was Joseph on board from the beginning, or did he have to warm up to the idea?  Where were you, exactly, when you went into labor?  He didn't ask her that.  I bet he did; after all, he was a doctor. No doubt he interviewed some of the people that Jesus healed.  How long had you been blind when Jesus restored your sight? Can I confirm that with your parents?  Can I see your medical records?  

John Stott writes, "Reverting to the question why Luke wrote his two-volume work on the origins of Christianity, at least three answers may be given.  He wrote as a Christian diplomat and as a theologian/evangelist. But the main hat he wore was that of a historian.  "It seemed good also to me to write an orderly account".  One scholar considered Luke a "historian of the first rank."  Another authority on Greco-Roman history had this to say about Acts: The historical framework is exact.  In terms of time and place the details are precise and correct. The confirmation of its historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject it in matters of detail is absurd."  So, Luke's credibility is one thing I don't think we need to question.  Between those three sources, there's more than sufficient reason to trust him.  But if you need an additional reason to believe him just remember, everything in here is divinely inspired.  Ultimately, these are not the words of a mere man, but the very words of God; if you like, he crossed all the "t's" and dotted all the "i's" Himself.  

Thus concludes my introduction to the book of Acts.  It was by no means comprehensive;  I could have spend another week or two on it if I wanted to, but I didn't want to.  This journey through Acts is going to be a long one and I'm anxious to get started.  As we begin, keep in mind who the main character is; it isn't Peter, it isn't Paul.  It's Jesus.  Like Luke's first book, Acts is all about Him.  Ultimately, it's not about the apostles and their ministry in Judea, Samaria and beyond; it's about Jesus and his ministry.  From day one to the present, he's in charge of the whole operation.  Catholics think that Jesus left Peter and his apostolic successors in charge of the Church until he returns, but that belief is based on a misunderstanding of Matthew 16:18.  When Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church", he wasn't turning control of the church over to Peter(or a long line of Popes); Jesus is clear: I will build MY church.  What he did do was let Peter and the other apostles in on His mission.  By definition an apostle is an envoy or an ambassador who is commissioned to act for, on behalf of, or in place of another.  Further, he is endowed with all the authority he needs to accomplish his task.  The first apostle was Jesus himself; Hebrews 3:1 says, "Therefore, holy brothers, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess."  When Luke uses that term in his two books, he's referring almost exclusively to the twelve original apostles.  In addition to that dozen, there was Paul.  And at the end of Romans he includes two of his relatives, Adronicus and Junias, among the number of apostles.  Generally speaking, if you bear witness to Christ's resurrection, and He sent you to  make disciples of all nations, then you're also an apostle (with a lower case 'A' of course).  

If you're uncomfortable with that title, try this one on. Great Commission Christian.  The last words out of Jesus mouth before he ascended were these; he spoke them to his original ambassadors, but he meant them for us, his modern-day ambassadors, as well.  "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."  That's our single assignment.  That's our sole purpose.  In tough economic times, some organizations and institutions diversify.  They can't stay afloat doing what they started out doing, so they start doing other things, in hopes that those other things will be good for business.  More power to them.  If diversification keeps the doors open, it's a great thing--for businesses.  But what if you're not a business? What if you're a Church?  Unconsciously, or subconsciously, more and more congregations are jumping on the diversification bandwagon every day.  The good news of Jesus Christ just isn't bringing folks in like it used to.  To keep the doors open, they feel like they've got to do something.....or should I say "something else", like give the consumer what he wants.  Excuse me, Joe Prospect...what kind of church would you like?  One with a watered-down gospel? No problem.  One that asks nothing of its members, especially money?  You bet.  One where the cross and everything it represents isn't front and center, but in the background and off to the side?  Why not.  And we'll even throw in a new name.  The First Baptist Church of Have It Your Way. Twoallbeefpattyspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklessonionsonasesemeseedbun.  It worked for Burger King; it ought to work for us.  

Diversity in the church is one thing; I'm all for it.  But diversification?  I'll put it like this.  Before the Church branches out into other things, I'd rather see it "go bust".  We're not in the entertainment business.  We're not a social club or a civic group.  We're the Church of Jesus Christ.  We are, as Peter puts it, " a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, with a very specific job description -- to declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light."   Here's the problem: human nature.  The Light has come into the world... but people have a definite preference for the dark.  John goes on to say that "everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."  To remedy that, a growing number of churches are hiding their light under a bushel; that's what you do if you're not into exposing sin; you simply create an atmosphere where everybody is comfortable.  Those churches are turning down the light, so to speak.  Or they're turning something else up, like the music.  Hard rock with a soft message will draw a young crowd every time.  A friend of mine was telling me about one congregation he visited recently with his daughter. They called it a church service, but it was more like a concert.  That won't work for the over 40 crowd of course.  But the promise of health and wealth will.  Be honest; which message is more inviting: God wants you to be rich and disease free, or "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me."  God knows I would like to preach like "Mr. Positive"; he's motivating 25,000 people right now.  That's alright; I'm pleasing the only one that really matters more than he is.  

The Great Commission.  When we say it in a hurry, we miss something.  It's a Co-mission. It's shared, between Jesus and his Church.  Think of it as a partnership, but not an equal one by any means.  In biblical terms, Jesus is the Potter and we're the clay.  He does the molding and the shaping.  We're just a medium.  In his song, Lord of the Dance, Steven Curtis Chapman describes this co-mission and how it works.  The chorus goes like this: "I am the heart, He is the heartbeat.  I am the eyes, he is the sight.  And I see clearly, I am just a body, He is the Life.  I move my feet, I go through the motions but He gives purpose to chance.  I am the dancer; he is Lord of the Dance."  Or, to use Paul's terminology, we are the body of Christ; he is the head of the Church.  You know how those two things work.  The body doesn't tell the head what to do; the head tells the body what to do. "Go and make disciples.  Baptize them.  Teach them to obey everything I have commanded you."  How are we doing in the disciple-making department? If your answer is "great", the first thing I would say to you is "stop taking drugs; they've messed up your mind." If you answer is "not so good" I would ask you why that is.  Think about it and if you come up with any opinions, I'd like to hear them.  I've already been thinking about it, so I'm going to go ahead and share my opinion.

The Great Commission is an enormous undertaking, and it's getting harder every day.  For one thing, there is unlimited choice in today's religious marketplace.  It's not just the big three anymore.  It used to be Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  Now it's like Baskin & Robbins out there.  Vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry are still available, but so are a hundred other flavors.  If none of them appeal to you, that's O.K., just take a little of this religion, and a little of that one; mix 'em all together and create your own individual faith. That's the beautiful thing about living in a culture where the idea of absolute truth has been discarded.  You can do and believe whatever you want.  Then there's a growing anti-Christian sentiment in this country. In part it's fueled by church leaders who have lost their minds.  Just this week, one of them attributed the earthquake in Haiti to a pact some politicians supposedly made with the devil.  One reporter said it well, "In a world where so many things are unknowable, Pat Robertson always has a ready answer." He's not the only one.    

My point is, Great Commission Christians have their work cut out for them.  As I interpret Acts 1:1-8, our success or failure will largely depend on three things.  In fact all enormous undertakings depend on these things.  The first is personnel.  We've got some business owners in our midst this morning.  I wonder how successful their operations would be without the people known as employees?  As successful as the Church would be without apostles I imagine.  The first twelve did an outstanding job; they took the gospel and ran with it.  Paul grabs the torch in Acts 12 and carries it all the way to Rome.  The Bible doesn't tell us how his life ended, but the book of Acts ends on this note. "For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him.  Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ."   Do you remember what an apostle is? It's anyone sent by God to bear witness to the Resurrection.  By that definition, I'm an apostle.  And if you call yourself a Christian, you're an apostle.  In Paul's case, apostle starts with a capital "A".  And in ours it starts with a lower case 'a'.  But his job and our job is essentially the same.  

There are some other things that all apostles have in common.  I was going to talk about those today, but I never got around to it. I'll talk about them next week.  But I will go ahead and give them to you now.  This is number eleven on your bulletin.  Jesus chose his apostles, he instructed them, he convinced them, and he revealed himself to them.  Those four things haven't changed in two thousand years.  Then, after I talk about personnel, I'll talk about the two other things that any enormous undertaking needs if it's going to succeed: a plan, and power.  Amen.