Replies

I do find this exercise to be beneficial. I did struggle with question 5, in that I wanted my answers to come from Acts 1. I selected Act 1:2, which is supported by Matthew 28:20 (Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you) and John 16:13 (Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.)

With regard to Judas’ replacement, it never occurred to me to question Peter’s actions. In either case, the replacement would be different from the others, Matthias was not chosen by Jesus and Paul, as he himself wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, was as of one born out of due time and not meet to be called an apostle. As to how many were qualified, Luke was silent; he only tells us that two were chosen.

If there was any dispute as to whether the apostles were right to replace Judas, it seems to me that Luke would have mentioned it, as he did in reporting on the Council of Jerusalem in Chapter 15. James and John were strong personalities, as I am sure several others of the some 120 were. But just before Peter stood up, Luke says they all continued in one accord. So if Peter was wrong, they were all in on it together. I do not believe that to have been the case.

Peace,
Rich

Sorry to have caused you any fretting over #5! In 1:3, though, we do have a hint as to what these witnesses might testify to:

"To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days..."

But beyond that, we just have to let Luke tell the story himself, watching as it unfolds, and letting this Spirit-inspired story make its impressions upon us.

On a related note, Luke's method is interesting in itself. He claims, both in his gospel and in Acts, to be doing the work of an historian, reporting to Theophilus both what he has discovered and what he himself witnessed. (Sir William Ramsay, the notable archaeologist and scholoar, who set out to discredit Luke as an historian, was in the end persuaded to give him the very highest marks, calling him (IIRC) "an historian of the first rank.")

So as to the selection of Judas' replacement, what we have is Luke simply telling us what happened. Those who want to take Peter on, and charge him with such grievous sins as have been lodged against him in this thread...let'em give this apostle their best shot. The Lord will deal with them. Apparently Luke and the Holy Spirit didn't see any need to defend the apostles against such charges. This book was written to a different audience and for a different purpose.