I had a fella make an argument that I hadn’t heard before…that there were only the 12 apostles in the Upper Room. Here are his points:Acts 1:26is referring to the 12 Apostles, then Acts 2:1says they were all together. His point is that they refers to the verse immediately preceding it, not the they in verse 15.In Acts 2:14, Peter stood up with the eleven and addressed the crowd.In Acts 2:15, Peter said these men are not drunk…there were woman among the 120 (Acts 1:14).There are 16 languages listed in Acts 2:9-11that those who spoke in tongues were speaking.His point: All but the Apostles had to be baptized to receive the Spirit.Any thoughts on how many were in there________________I’m not saved because I’m good. I’m saved because He’s good!My website: www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
I don’t know, Brad. I do remember in a discussion about the general topic that someone (Poimen?) mentioned that the disciples–all, the 12 and the rest–might not have been in
NIV says people rather than men. Men might be generic group of men and women rather than a term to specify a male-only group.
Okay, a little more on the upper room…
Or even by Jesus. Scripture doesn’t say, so it would be an argument from silence either way, but it’s a hit to this dude’s theory, I think.
Or even by Jesus. Scripture doesn’t say, so it would be an argument from silence either way, but it’s a hit to this dude’s theory, I think.Very interesting, Brad. I’ve never heard anyone espouse this either. Is there anything else wonky about his theology? I know baptismal regeneration folks can get wrapped around the axle on topics like this one. I’m not sure. I’m also not sure how the Apostles get a pass on baptism to receive the Spirit in his thinking________________I’m not saved because I’m good. I’m saved because He’s good!My website: http://www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Dave, you make a good point about getting wrapped around the axle.
Let me guess he would reference Peter being asked to be washed from head to toe and Jesus declaring him clean. I’m unaware of any reference to the newly installed Matthias being present when Jesus washed (didn’t immerse) them.Interesting that he wants to refer back to the next previous reference to they to argue that they is only the apostles, but would probably recoil from the notion that baptism in Acts 2:38refers back to next previous reference to baptism in Acts 1:5(not in water, but in the Spirit)________________I’m not saved because I’m good. I’m saved because He’s good!My website: http://www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
my understanding is that they were all probably under the porch called Solomon’s Porch that day. How else can you reasonably understand how soooooo many people all heard them speak in tongues at the same time from soooo many countries. It was the Feast of Weeks/Firstfruits or what we call Pentecost. And every male who could was supposed to trek to Jerusalem for 3 main feasts, Passover, Pentecost & Tabernacles. So, many from all over the world were on the Temple Mount for the festival. The scriptures do not specifically say where they were, in Acts 1they were in an upper room but it doesn’t say there were there in Acts 2
12 or 120 – I see both, but that really messes up some good songs. I guess the number that counts is 1, one Holy Spirit gets you to 3000 saved. It does seem that the promise of the Holy Spirit was beyond just the 12.
I do know one somebody that was there – It was the Holy Ghost. The other numbers are irrelevant (to me). And the results were awesome________________
Or even by Jesus. Scripture doesn’t say, so it would be an argument from silence either way, but it’s a hit to this dude’s theory, I think.Very interesting, Brad. I’ve never heard anyone espouse this either. Is there anything else wonky about his theology? I know baptismal regeneration folks can get wrapped around the axle on topics like this one. As far as Jesus baptizing with water, it seems I recall that He didn’t do any of that.
I think one of you got the argument wrong. The argument is that they in Acts 2must refer to the nearest antecedent (if that is the word) refering to the 11 at the end of the chaper rather than to the 120 earlier on. This is one of many sketchy Greek rules.I used to be on a mailing list with a retired Classics chair ( as in Latin and Greek) who would comment on such ‘rules’ and ‘Baptist aorists’.I asked him about this in Acts 1-2. To the best of my recollection he said he’d say it was about 75% chance of referring to the 120 and 25% chance of referring to the apostles________________
Scripture doesn’t say. John 4:1-2makes it clear baptism was a part of how He made disciples, and that He made (and baptized) more than John. However, verse 2 specifies that it was His disciples who actually performed the baptisms.There’s also Matthew 3:14in which John says that he needs to be baptized by Jesus, however, there’s no indication that Jesus baptized John or that John was saying that because he had seen Jesus baptizing others.I’m inclined to think Jesus didn’t personally baptize anyone, perhaps to maintain a distinction between John’s baptism for repentance and Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire that John talks about in Matthew 3:11(which I would probably interpret in this context as referring to regeneration and new birth), or perhaps because anyone baptized by Jesus might have been tempted to boast about who had baptized them. We see a similar concern in 1 Cor 1:13-14
I asked my buddy why the Apostles weren’t baptized. He didn’t have an explanation for that. He sort of veered off into a belief that they were special an tied the end of miracles to the end of their lives. He actually said their power was like a power of attorney, Jesus could give it to them, but they couldn’t give it to anyone else. That was also a new one for me. He is in the Christian Church.Baptism is important. And reading through the books of Acts, it appeared urgent and immediate for those who believed________________I’m not saved because I’m good. I’m saved because He’s good!My website: http://www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Our church’s pastors have been endeavoring to move toward this. They used to do the standard baptize a bunch every six months or so — but a journey through Acts led them to the same conclusion, and they started trying to shorten the time between professed conversion and baptism. Within the last month and a half, they did two baptisms during service, each time baptizing only one person. The order of service had a couple of songs, then a baptism, then right back to singing. I can’t tell you how refreshing and encouraging this has been! The view among the elders is that if someone professes faith, the church should say ok great, here’s some water! just like you observed.