Views: 1<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The question of the title above is actually asking: \u201cAre Bible Examples Binding on Mankind Today<\/strong>?\u201d This question suggests at least the following additional questions:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cExamples\u201d of words spoken or deeds done are only one category of Biblical \u201cstatements.\u201d The same questions are appropriate concerning all other types of statements in the Bible (e.g., direct statements, whether imperative, declarative, or interrogative) that include various commands (whether directly from Deity or indirectly from Him through an inspired spokesman).<\/span><\/p>\n Surely, none would assert that all <\/strong>statements in the Bible (of whatever type) are binding upon men today, for this assertion is easily falsified (as I will illustrate below). Likewise, it would be foolish to argue that no <\/strong>statements in the Bible (including examples) are binding (if this were so, the atheist would be correct in his evaluation of the Bible as a mere nonauthoritative curiosity piece and relic). We must therefore conclude that some <\/strong>statements (including Bible \u201cexamples\u201d) are binding upon men today.<\/span><\/p>\n The fuller and truly vital question that the title of this MS implies, therefore, is, \u201cHow does one determine which <\/strong>Bible examples are binding today?\u201d This question takes us immediately to the subject of Biblical hermeneutics\u2014the principles of interpretation that must be employed in order to \u201chandle aright the word of truth\u201d <\/em>(2 Tim. 2:15).1<\/sup>\u00a0Only by correct application of correct hermeneutics have men ever been able, in whatever age, to properly apply the Scriptures to themselves. Space limitations will not permit an exhaustive treatment of this subject, but I hope to provide some significant guidelines.<\/span><\/p>\n Before proceeding, let me clarify the meaning of Bible examples <\/em>in our title. The word example <\/em>is somewhat ambiguous since it is capable of various shades of meaning (e.g., one part representing the whole, a pattern of behavior, punishment designed to warn others, a precedent, et al.). The phrases, account of action <\/em>and record of behavior, <\/em>are far more precise terms than example<\/em>, and I will therefore employ them throughout this study. The MS title embraces the records of behavior of human beings in both the Old and New Testaments.<\/span><\/p>\n Some Historical Background<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The question before us is likely one that sincere Bible students have grappled with for centuries. However, among brethren the question of \u201cbinding examples\u201d was dramatically thrust to the forefront in modern times at the turn of the twentieth century in the anti-cooperation and anti-orphan home controversy. Those who opposed congregational cooperation in evangelism and support of orphan homes from church treasuries asserted that there were \u201cexclusive patterns\u201d (by which they meant \u201cexamples\u201d or records of behavior) in Scripture that forbade these actions.<\/span><\/p>\n The numerous debates that occurred on these subjects forced brethren to devote serious study to this facet of hermeneutics, which (though unconvincing to the \u201canti\u201d brethren) proved to be a healthy exercise.2<\/sup>\u00a0This study led to much greater precision in thinking, expression, and interpretation. While the \u201canti\u201d issue is not the inflammatory one it was for more than a decade (though we must remain ever vigilant concerning that mentality), the hermeneutical principles that were forged in that furnace of controversy relative to Scriptural accounts of action are helpful to us in application to other issues.<\/span><\/p>\n The late Thomas B. Warren was somewhat of a trailblazer in this area of study, and the principles he hammered out in the course of meeting the threat of \u201canti-ism\u201d have stood the test of time. He both served as moderator for others who debated the \u201canti\u201d issues (e.g., Guy N. Woods vs. Roy E. Cogdill, 1957) and debated them himself (e.g., with Ira Douthitt). Unfortunately, His work in these debates is not in print. However, we do have two works from him from that era that bear on our subject:<\/span><\/p>\n First<\/strong> is his book (still in print at this writing), Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes<\/em>, which consists of transcribed sermons delivered at the Burbank Gardens Church of Christ, Grand Prairie, Texas, in 1958.<\/span><\/p>\n Second<\/strong> is his chapter, \u201cExamples in Pattern Authority,\u201d in the 1960 Abilene Christian College Lectureship book. However, the maturity of his thinking on the subject before us is in a later (1975) book, originally titled, When Is an \u201cExample\u201d Binding? <\/em>but in its latest reprint (2001), titled, When Is a Bible Example Binding? <\/em>Much of what I have learned on this subject will reflect the good work he did and left with us in this important field of study.<\/span><\/p>\n What About Old Testament Accounts of Action?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Man\u2019s amenability or non-amenability to the Old Testament remains a major hermeneutical stumbling block to practically all the Protestant and Catholic world. This issue is relevant to the subject before us. What about the records of Old Testament behavior\u2014are they binding upon us? According to Paul, the entire Bible is applicable in some sense to Christians (2 Tim. 3:16\u201317). Further, we should \u201clearn\u201d from the Old Testament accounts of behavior and teaching: \u201cFor whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.\u201d (Rom. 15:4).<\/span><\/p>\n While these passages tell us that the Old Testament is applicable to Christians in some sense, numerous passages teach that no one who has lived since the cross has been subject to the authority <\/strong>of the Old Testament. Jesus took the old law out of the way, symbolically \u201cnailing it to the cross\u201d when He died thereon (Col. 2:14). He took away the first covenant that He might establish His new covenant (Heb. 10:9\u201310), which was prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31\u201334; Heb. 8:8\u201312; 10:16\u201317). Many other passages thus teach (e.g., Rom. 7:1\u20136; Gal. 3:23\u201325; Eph. 2:14\u201316; et al.). To seek salvation by keeping that law sunders one from Christ and from God\u2019s grace (Gal. 5:4), thus we not only are not obligated <\/strong>to keep its specific ordinances, we are forbidden <\/strong>to do so. Between the cross and the Lord\u2019s return, God exercises His authority solely through His Son by means of the New Testament (Mat. 17:5; 28:18; Heb 1:1\u20134; et al.), not by means of any earlier covenants.<\/span><\/p>\n It is apparent from the above that no man living today is bound by the specific stipulations <\/strong>of the Old Testament (e.g., the offering of the blood of bulls and goats), including the accounts of behavior of those who lived under it (e.g., building an ark). Although inspired by the same Holy Spirit and just as much the Word of God as the New Testament is, its authority <\/strong>over men as a legal system ended at the cross. Since we are not under its authority, including its records of behavior, in what sense might those records be relevant to us? Their relevance lies in the fact that God never changes (Jam. 1:17). Therefore, the principles <\/strong>by which He deals with men and even His basic requirements of men in response (e.g., humility, faith, and obedience, et al.) have remained constant through the ages. Thus He acted in the Old Testament upon the same basic principles upon which He acts in the New Testament era.<\/span><\/p>\n Paul illustrated at least one way in which we are to \u201clearn\u201d from the Old Testament. He rehearsed some of the sins of Israel and then stated specifically that their behavior should serve as a model <\/strong>of the way Christians should not <\/strong>behave:<\/span><\/p>\n Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted…. Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come (1 Cor. 10:6, 11).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul clearly used these Old Testament accounts of action to bind upon Christians how not <\/strong>to behave. James cited the behavior of the prophet Elijah:<\/span><\/p>\n Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit (Jam. 5:17\u2013 18).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Surely, even a novice in the Scriptures can see that it was not James\u2019s intent to bind upon his Christian readers a duty to pray for a three-and one-half-year drought, after which we would pray for a downpour. Rather, he emphasized the principle <\/strong>of the need for fervency and persistence in prayer, which numerous passages emphasize by direct statement (Mat. 7:7\u201311; Eph. 6:18; 1 The. 5:17).<\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament mentions a host of Old Testament events and characters for the specific purpose of variously:<\/span><\/p>\n Since we have seen (1) that the Old Testament was \u201cwritten for our learning,\u201d but (2) that the specific details of neither the practices recorded in the Old Testament nor the Old Testament law itself are bound upon us, we must conclude (3) that the way in which the Old Testament records of behavior apply to us is by the enduring principles <\/strong>they teach.<\/span><\/p>\n In application, then, the lesson from the record of Noah\u2019s behavior in Genesis 6 is not that anyone living today (or any other one who ever lived, for that matter) must build an ark. Rather, his behavior demonstrates (among other things) these enduring and binding principles: <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, the account of Abraham\u2019s offering Isaac (Gen. 22:1\u201314) does not bind anyone to offer his son as a burnt offering, but it does bind the principles of an unwavering faith and a totally unreserved obedience. The account of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1\u20132) binds the principle of doing only that which is authorized by God, which applies directly to such things as the kind of music we can employ in worship, the elements we can use in the Lord\u2019s supper, and such like. The reader can multiply these examples with little difficulty.<\/span><\/p>\n In summary, Old Testament accounts of action are relevant to us today only in principle, but never in specific details, because the Old Testament has been repealed as a body of law. Whether or not an Old Testament account of action is binding on us today in principle <\/strong>must be determined by:<\/span><\/p>\n What About New Testament Accounts of Action?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, \u201cexamples\u201d or accounts of action constitute only one of several ways in which the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) imparts information. Just as not every account of action places us under obligation to act in a certain way, so it is with other types of statements in the New Testament (including imperative statements issued in the form of commands). As already demonstrated, all who have lived since the cross are accountable to the New Testament of Christ. But this does not imply that we are thereby obligated to carry out every command or emulate every account of action it contains. Has anyone ever suggested that the Lord\u2019s command to Saul, \u201cBut rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do\u201d (Acts 9:6) applies directly to everyone? Does Paul\u2019s imperative statement (command) concerning the gift of prophecy and other miraculous gifts apply to us? \u201cFollow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy\u201d (1 Cor. 14:1).<\/span><\/p>\n We conclude, then, that we are not obligated to obey these and other direct imperative statements by employing the same hermeneutical formula iterated at the close of the section on Old Testament accounts of action:<\/span><\/p>\n Scores of such commands are found in the New Testament that relate to details that were either unique and\/or merely incidental and that therefore exclude them from being universal obligations.<\/span><\/p>\n When we analyze the various records of behavior in the New Testament, we can observe two major categories:<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, only the accounts of action that indicate behavior that is authorized by God could serve as binding accounts of action. However, it should be noted that the mere fact that a record of behavior is authorized does not imply that it is obligatory. It may be optional. Just as obviously, those accounts of action that represent unauthorized behavior are excluded from being obligatory.<\/span><\/p>\n Detailed List and Illustrations of Classifications of Actions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n An even more detailed analysis of various kinds of actions recorded in the New Testament will perhaps be helpful. It includes the following:<\/span><\/p>\n Below I will present an illustration of each of the kinds of accounts of actions listed in the previous section. Bear in mind that these may include not only activities, but words spoken as well. Among other things, Paul exhorted Timothy to be \u201can ensample to them that believe, in word,\u201d as well as \u201cin manner of life\u201d (1 Tim. 4:12). The Greek word rendered \u201censample\u201d refers to a pattern or a model to be emulated, so Timothy\u2019s very words could serve as accounts of action. Now we will consider illustrations of the various kinds of actions.<\/span><\/p>\n Sinful and Permanent Actions <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Actions of this sort were sinful in the first century and will never cease to be sinful till time is no more. Such actions would thus be sinful for us today. Acts 5:40 illustrates this classification of action, which account of the action <\/strong>states: \u201cAnd…when they had called the apostles unto them, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.\u201d These words describe the last part of a trial of the apostles before the Jewish Sanhedrin court. These judges physically assaulted the apostles, commanded them not to preach the Gospel any more in Jerusalem, and then released them.<\/span><\/p>\n The immediate context <\/strong>indicates that this was the third time some or all of the apostles had been arrested in the initial outbreak of opposition against the infant church. Peter and John had earlier been arrested, imprisoned, and tried before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1\u201317). Upon being charged not to preach in the name of Jesus, Peter replied that they must hearken unto God rather than to men and that they would continue to preach (vv. 18\u201320). The council then threatened them and let them go, fearing the people if they punished them (v. 21).<\/span><\/p>\n The second arrest involved several, if not all of the apostles, and from this imprisonment an angel of the Lord miraculously freed them before they could be tried (5:17\u201319). When the council came together to try them, the officers that were sent for them reported that the prisoners were missing (vv. 21b\u201324). When one reported that they were in the temple teaching, the court had them arrested a third time (vv. 26\u201328). When asked why they had ignored the order to cease preaching, Peter spoke his courageous words,\u201dWe must obey God rather men\u201d (v. 29). There was strong sentiment in favor of killing the apostles (v. 33), but upon the counsel of Gamaliel, one of the judges, they decided not to (vv. 34\u201339). Instead, they beat them, commanded them to preach the Gospel no more in Jerusalem, and then released them (v. 40).<\/span><\/p>\n The remote context <\/strong>reveals many passages concerning God\u2019s attitude toward those who persecute His faithful servants. God\u2019s prophets in the Old Testament were constantly persecuted, and the persecutors are always depicted as evil men and enemies of God. Jesus said that those thus mistreated would be \u201cblessed\u201d and would have a great reward in Heaven (Mat. 5:10\u201312). When He chose His apostles, the Lord warned them that they would be arrested, tried, and scourged (as Acts 4\u20135 records they were), and their own families would deliver them to their enemies (Mat. 10:16\u201339). He scathingly denounced the Jewish persecutors of the faithful (23:39\u201337).<\/span><\/p>\n The deduction from the analysis <\/strong>is that the behavior of the Sanhedrin in arresting, trying, and beating the apostles was action that is permanently sinful <\/strong>and that this account of action demonstrates unauthorized behavior for all men. For additional accounts of action in this category, see Matthew 26:47 (Judas\u2019 betrayal kiss of Jesus), Matthew 26:69\u201370 (Peter\u2019s denial of Jesus), Acts 7:54\u201360 (the Jews\u2019 stoning of Stephen), Acts 12:1\u20132 (Herod\u2019s killing of James the apostle), and Galatians 2:12 (Peter\u2019s hypocritical behavior toward Gentile brethren in Antioch). Numerous other such instances illustrate permanently sinful accounts of action, all of which are binding on us today in a prohibitory way.<\/span><\/p>\n Optional and Temporary Actions <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n These accounts of actions were optional for first-century brethren, but they would not be optional for us today. In fact, they would be sinful if we practiced them. They are therefore only temporarily <\/strong>optional. Acts 10:27\u201328 illustrates this classification of action, which account of the action <\/strong>states:<\/span><\/p>\n And as he talked with him, he went in, and findeth many come together: and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter spoke these words in the house of Cornelius, the Gentile, indicating that he had, until this time, labored under the conviction that Gentiles were \u201cunclean,\u201d that Jews were to have no social intercourse with them, and that they were therefore unworthy of the Gospel of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n The immediate context <\/strong>indicates that Peter had been in the town of Joppa, not far from Caesarea, the home of Cornelius (Acts 9:43\u201310:1). Luke describes this Roman soldier, a Gentile, as sincerely religious and doing his best to worship and serve God (perhaps as a Jewish proselyte) (vv. 1\u20132). An angel of God appeared to him, telling him that God had taken note of his devotion and that he was to send to Joppa for Simon Peter (vv. 3\u20137). While the servants were on their way, Peter was praying while awaiting preparation of the noon meal. As he prayed, he saw a vision of a container descending, containing a variety of clean and unclean forms of life, as classified by the law of Moses (vv. 8\u201312). Since Peter was hungry, the voice that accompanied the vision told him to kill and eat some of these, but Peter, even though he perceived the voice to be the Lord\u2019s, refused on the ground that some of them were unclean. This conversation between the apostle and the Lord was repeated twice more before the vision ceased (vv. 13\u201316).<\/span><\/p>\n As Peter pondered the meaning of the vision, the servants of Cornelius arrived and inquired for him. At this moment, the Holy Spirit told him that he was to go with these men without hesitation (although they were Gentiles) because He had sent them (vv. 17\u201320). When Peter asked the purpose of their seeking him, they told him of Cornelius\u2019 devoutness, of his conversation with the angel, and of the angel\u2019s instruction to bring Peter back to Caesarea to teach him (vv. 21\u201322).<\/span><\/p>\n After lodging that night in Joppa, the servants of Cornelius, Peter, and six brethren journeyed to Caesarea the next day to find that Cornelius had gathered several others in his house in eager anticipation of Peter\u2019s arrival (vv. 23\u201324). The Gentile centurion first fell at Peter\u2019s feet to worship him, which Peter immediately forbade on the ground that he was also a mere man (wholly out of character with the Roman Catholic popes, Peter\u2019s alleged \u201csuccessors\u201d) (vv. 25\u201326).<\/span><\/p>\n Peter reminded this Gentile that association with him was \u201cunlawful\u201d for a Jew but told him that God had demonstrated to him that he was no longer to make such distinctions (Peter now understood the purpose of the vision in Joppa) (vv. 27\u201328). Peter also stated to Cornelius that he now <\/strong>perceived, contrary to his previous perception, that God is \u201cno respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him\u201d (vv. 34\u201335).<\/span><\/p>\n Peter then began the first Gospel sermon ever preached to Gentiles of which we have a record, but did not get very far until his words were interrupted by a miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit that fell on the listeners, enabling them to speak in various languages (vv. 36\u201346). Upon this amazing phenomenon, later identified by Peter as baptism in the Holy Spirit (11:15\u201316), Peter commanded those Gentiles to be baptized in water in the name of Christ, by implication, unto the remission of the sins, as he had preached to the people on Pentecost (10:47\u201348; 2:38). Additional and supplementary details relating to this extremely significant occurrence are recorded in Acts 11:1\u201318, and constitute part of the immediate context.<\/span><\/p>\n To summarize, we learn from the immediate context that, between Pentecost and the events in Cornelius\u2019 house (perhaps 8\u201310 years), Jewish Christians (including the apostles) had apparently consciously refused to preach the Gospel to Gentiles. They thus refused because they labored under the perception that Gentiles were \u201cunclean\u201d and were to be avoided in every way by Jews (a traditional misconception likely founded upon God\u2019s requirement that they were not to make treaties or intermarry with Gentiles [Exo. 23:32\u201333; Deu. 7:1\u20136; et al.]). Now, by means of several miraculous manifestations (viz., the angel appearing to Cornelius, the three-fold vision of Peter, the Holy Spirit\u2019s direct instruction to Peter to go to the house of a Gentile, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles), God has demonstrated to the Jews that the Gentiles are included in His Gospel of redemption.<\/span><\/p>\n The remote context <\/strong>furnishes a multitude of statements that relate to God\u2019s inclusion of the Gentiles in his redemptive plan. The promises God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob included blessing all nations <\/strong>through the promised Seed (Gen. 12:3; 26:4; 28:14), which was Christ (Gal. 3:8, 16). Isaiah prophesied that all nations <\/strong>would be a part of the church (2:2\u20133). Jesus taught that he had other sheep <\/strong>(i.e., besides the Jews) whom He would bring into His fold (John 10:16). He ordered the apostles to take the Gospel to all nations <\/strong>and to all the world <\/strong>and the whole creation <\/strong>(Mat. 28:19\u201320; Mark 16:15\u201316).<\/span><\/p>\n Numerous other statements indicate clearly that the Gentiles were included in the Gospel plan of salvation (e.g., Luke 24:45\u201347; John 3:16; Acts 1:8; Eph. 2:11\u201319; 1 Tim. 2:5\u20136; Tit. 2:11; et al.). Peter had doubtless read the Old Testament statements about and had heard the Lord\u2019s references to the inclusion of the Gentiles in His plans, but he still failed to apply them properly. He had even declared on Pentecost that the Gentiles were included in God\u2019s plan: \u201cFor to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him\u201d (Acts 2:39). Those afar-off <\/strong>ones who were to receive salvation were the Gentiles.<\/span><\/p>\n In spite of all of this, the Jews had not preached the Gospel to Gentiles in the period recorded in Acts 2\u20139. They had simply failed to understand that the Gospel was for Gentiles as well as for Jews, as the records of Acts 10 and 11 demonstrate. It took several miracles (as listed earlier) to make it unmistakably clear that God included the Gentiles in His plan before Peter would take the Gospel to Cornelius. From the statements Peter made at this Gentile\u2019s house (noted above) and to the brethren at Jerusalem who questioned him about it (Acts 11:15\u201317), it is evident that Peter was now completely convinced that they should go to the Gentiles.<\/span><\/p>\n My deduction <\/strong>from the foregoing analysis includes the observation that there is no hint in the Scriptures that the Jews\u2019 neglect of the Gentiles in those early days of the church was sinful. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide <\/strong>the apostles into all the Truth, rather than dump the entire load of it on them at once (John 16:13). There was apparently a gradual unfolding of the Truth to the inspired men, thus Paul wrote: \u201cFor we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away\u201d (1 Cor. 13:9\u201310). Thus, there were some things that were revealed to them, the significance and implication of which they did not fully grasp immediately. The inclusion of the Gentiles in the plan of redemption was one of those things. To associate with Gentiles in such a way as to take the Gospel to them was contrary to centuries of cultural and doctrinal influences among the Jews. God gave them time to come to an understanding of His will in this matter on their own. However, when he saw that they were likely never going to overcome their deep prejudice through correct application of Scripture alone, He stepped in with powerful and irrefutable evidence that convinced them. Of course, He does not so operate today, and has not since the miraculous age ceased to exist (1 Cor. 13:8\u201313; Eph. 4:8\u201314).<\/span><\/p>\n God was longsuffering with them in that time of spiritual immaturity and in what must have been a most difficult transition for those first-century Jewish Christians. We therefore conclude that their failure to preach to the Gentiles in that interim was counted as temporarily optional. However, after the events at Cornelius\u2019 house, no Jew ever had an excuse thus to behave toward Gentiles. Thus, ever since the significant events recorded in Acts 10 and 11, no one has had the option to refuse to take the Gospel to those of other races besides his own, and it is sinful to do so. The case of Paul\u2019s offering the sacrifice in the temple possibly belongs in this same class of accounts of action (Acts 21:20\u201326).<\/span><\/p>\n Optional and Permanent Actions <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Actions of this class were optional for first century brethren and they remain optional for us today. Therefore, there is no sin involved in either doing or in not doing such things. We often refer to these accounts of action as involving the realm of \u201cexpediency.\u201d Acts 2:14 illustrates this classification of action, which account of the action <\/strong>states: \u201cBut Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.\u201d This statement tells us that all of the apostles stood up <\/strong>together, and that from among them, Peter spoke up and beckoned for the attention of those assembled. The assembly was made up of Jews and the setting was the city of Jerusalem.<\/span><\/p>\n The immediate context <\/strong>indicates that the apostles were in Jerusalem, waiting, as the Lord had charged them to do, until He would baptize them in the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:48\u201349; Acts 1:4\u20138, 12). They were thus baptized on the day of Pentecost, which baptism was accompanied by spectacular signs and wonders (2:1\u20134). These miraculous manifestations drew a multitude of people (which included Jews from many nations who were in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost) to the presence of the apostles (vv. 5\u20136). The crowd marveled at the things they saw and heard, and were perplexed at the meaning of them (vv. 7\u201313). Finally, the apostles stood up <\/strong>and began preaching the first sermon in history that would tell men how to be saved through the blood of Christ, whom those Jews had crucified some seven weeks earlier (vv. 14\u201340). The preaching on Pentecost resulted in about three thousand baptisms and the establishment of the church (vv. 41\u201347).<\/span><\/p>\n As in many cases, more than one detail is included in this one account recorded in verse 14 (e.g., the presence of twelve men, Peter\u2019s leadership, and the very words he said). The one detail to which we call attention is their action in standing up<\/strong>. Does this account of action bind upon us only a standing posture as we teach or preach the Gospel?<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n