Acts chapter 2

vs 37

Notice that the jews call each other 'brothers'. I find that interesting.

More importantly, though, this group of people (or at least a portion of them) has been convinced by the truth of Peter's words - he has been convincing, he has proved his words from Scripture, his words have been Christ-focussed, they have spoken to the immediate needs of the listeners, and they have been backed up by a miraculous sign. I mean, can it get any better?

vs 38

I think if we were to take a single verse to represent how we preach the gospel in the modern world, it would be this one. The reason I say that is because it is meaningless on its own. In the context of vs 1-36 (14-36 being Peter's sermon), it is meaningful - it is the correct answer telling the audience how to respond to the rest of the information they have been given. But if you just read verse 38, it falls on dumb eyes. We've got to start understanding and preaching the gospel in a 1-36 style (or at least a 14-36 style).

vs 39

That's a great part of the message, too - that you don't need to have been one of the 3000 people there at the time of Peter's sermon to accept the message. I wonder if Luke didn't slip this in so that people reading Acts had a serious challenge about faith within the first 2 chapters.

vs 40

This verse lets us know that Luke has not given us the full words of Peter. Instead, he has given us the jist of his message. Of course there were lots of other words. Probably a bit of back-and-forth too. I am not one of those people who thinks that Peter's and Paul's sermons are great models for full 30 minute messages - I do think that Luke records salient points, though. Perhaps the climactic parts of the talks.

vs 41

The word 'souls' isn't used in the NIV or TNIV, although apparently it does exist in the greek. I don't know that it's a big deal. The big deal is that 3000 people were added to the church that day. That's a pretty good day's worth of preaching.

There's so many points to be made about this, but I'll just make two. The first, simple one is to point out the allusion to the giving of the Law at Sinai, where 3000 people were slaughtered because of their disobedience. This time, with the new covenant, 3000 people are brought to life in the new community.

The second point to note is that while Peter's preaching model might be worth adopting, we shouldn't have an expectation of such success from it. These 3000 people were all Jews, who knew and accepted the truth of the Torah, who believed in God, believed in the coming of the Messiah, who had been pretty much direct witnesses to Christ's activities... do you see my point here? The inculturation of the gospel information was so massive that they were just sitting there waiting for the message of a Messiah to come. They were ripe for the picking. This is not what modern day Australia is like! Ok, there might be some little pockets of people who are super-seekers and eager to hear the word, but even that's not the same - they haven't grown up with an inculturation of the Bible overall.

I just think that's an important point to make, because we can easily get discouraged by not seeing the same kind of fruit that Acts does.

vs 42

In other words, they became full members of the church. They didn't just get baptised and then go back to their normal lives. That's another big problem with our churches (or perhaps with the confessions of faith of so many) - that they don't stick to it. They return to their normal life, instead of departing from it.

In the same way that these people were inculturated, they were also required to become separate from their culture to join. They were inculturated Jews, not Christians. The Christian message was new and different. To join the Christians was a big sacrifice, a big change. That's something the church has struggled with since 400AD - the inclusiveness of state religion, and the half-faith that comes from enforcement of that religion by the state, means that you end up with the faithful few mixed with the mediocre majority.

I'm not necessarily saying that we shut our doors to all non-Christians or anything - just making the point that we have a different historical background.

vs 43

They were so wonderful and noteworthy that they aren't even recorded.

vs 44

This doesn't mean that they all had the same hair colour, or liked the same bands. It means that they had a communal form of ownership.

vs 45

This practice, while utterly sacrificial and noble, many do not see as sustainable. It's an incredibly political question. Was this the correct model for church life for all time - a communal, almost socialist utopic ideal? Or is the individualistic capitalist 'sustainable' model of the more modern church the way to go? Is it that easy a deliniation? I don't think it is, or at least I don't think a lot of people will let it be.

vs 46

Where else were they going to meet? They're still all Jews, and the Temple is where you do your God stuff. But they also met in homes to share in that most important sacrament that Jesus had left behind for them - the breaking of bread.

Or did they? Does 'breaking of bread' here refer to the Lord's supper? Or does it just mean they shared meals together? I think verse 42 is the answer - look at the list, and I think you'll see a list of church-body practices.

vs 47

This verse makes it sound like they all live happily ever after. Note the whole thing about the numerical growth of the church. This is one of many verses like this. They are flag verses - they show that we are moving into another section of Acts. These pop up every now and again - look out for them!