The disciples are experiencing a pretty incredible roller coaster by the time they get to Acts 1. From spending 3 and a half years with the radical Jesus, to His gruesome crucifixion, to having Him alive again, and walking among them for 40 days. Finally, He ascends into heaven, with a promise to return.
The passage I really zone into starts at 15, when Peter addresses the group (numbering about 120). He quotes the Psalms, and determines that their immediate responsibility is to fill Judas' role in the 12. Usually when I read this story, I just take it for what it is, the next part of the story. But then I stopped to wonder why. I came up with a few things, and a moral of the story. Its all speculation and my understanding of the text. Feel free to offer input, share thoughts, and further look into this matter.
Perhaps one thing on Peter's mind is the role of treasurer is empty. Perhaps he thought that the 12 apostles would continue to function in ministry as a group of 12, and they were responsible to fill the last spot.
During Peter's time with Jesus, Jesus frequently quoted scripture for many purposes. From defending Himself against the Pharisees, for instruction, and many other instances. Was Peter trying to follow that example here, trying to piece together applicable scripture? How do these Psalms tie to Judas?
I am sure the disciples would agree that Judas was chief amongst evildoers, as he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Still, I am having a hard time connecting him to the evildoers described in the Psalms. It seems like the evildoers David (I think he is the author of both quotes, not 100% sure) was describing are pretty specific to his situation.
Continuing in the passage, feeling a bit shaky on Peter's justification of his missive, Peter describes the qualifications of the next disciple. Someone who has been there from John baptizing Jesus to His ascension. Where did he find this necessary qualifications? No argument is recorded, and the disciples cast lots to appoint Matthias.
Since we know the whole story, we know that Paul considers himself an apostle of Jesus. Could it be that God had a plan all along, and didn't need Peter to fill the hole? From a lack of evidence, I conclude that Peter's actions didn't anger the Lord. But this is the only time I hear Matthias mentioned. He didn't author a majority of the New Testament.
I wonder if Peter's zeal lead to him stepping out of a place of seeking the Lords guidance to doing things on his own. Did he find scripture to justify his agenda? Or was he humbly seeking the Lord's plans for the disciples? They were told to go wait in Jerusalem.
I don't want to point fingers and say that Peter was definitely wrong in this instance. But I do want to observe that Peter's efforts, while they made it into scripture, did not have a huge impact on the early church.
The next chapter begins the story of the Holy Spirit coming. For me in this study, Peter's actions have shown me that it is important to wait on the Spirit, to humbly seek His guidance, and know that His plans are better than mine. I don't want to quelch my zeal for the Lord, but I don't want to pursue action on any other authority.
Last Political Post Ever
8 years ago
