What?

5:38pm I am asked to lead the bible study this evening and as I got into preparing it, I ran into a big problem. How am I going to lead a study when a big portion of the study material is seriously out of context? I am at a loss. I don't know what to do. How am I going to say that Acts 9:15-19, 26-28 is not about Paul being made into a disciple? This is not a discipleship lesson. I have about 3 hours before the bible study begins. I have to think of something.

5:56pm Ahhhh! The material is so seriously out of context I want to scream! Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Saul with him (Acts 11:25-26). Together they stayed for a year, during which Saul learned from Barnabas? Where in the world did this guy got this information from?! Ahhhhhh!!!


7:07pm I am going to see if I can do a simple exegesis study on the other 2 passages in the book: Matt 28:18-20 and 1 Pet 2:2-3. Lord, please help me.

11.32pm It actually went well. Maybe because since most of them are away in South Korea, only three of us turned up, well ... if you also count my son who was busy reading his Sure-to-Win Science Fair Projects!

During the study, I was asked how can discipling be done. I think it is quite clear in Matthew 28:19-20:

Having gone
First, one must go and it is the duty of every believer to go. It is not only a coming to church, but also a going out to bring precious tidings to others - to all nations.

Make disciples
This constitute the main verb. It does not indicate how but designates an activity that will result in disciples. The how's I believe are in the two following present tense partiples, i.e. the continuing tasks of the church: baptising and teaching.

Baptising them
The action of baptising I believe, even though carried by the pastor or priest, does not involve the pastor or priest and the new believer alone. It involves the whole church as a body of Christ. While it is the public declaration of a person's commitment to Christ and to his corporate body and it is also the duty, responsibility and love of the church to embrace the person within, so that the body of Christ as a church lives as one and encourages one another in the Spirit. Discipling is everybody's work.

Teaching them
Even though the English translation includes a connecting participle "and" between baptising and teaching, there is none in the Greek, which means that teaching is strictly not coordinated with baptising. It is carried out as long as a person becomes a disciple. It is the teaching to obey everything that God has commanded. Therefore, in order to do so, one would first need to be grounded in the word of God to teach, though it is a sad thing that in these days, these "teachers" are the ones that needs to be taught. We first need to be discipled before we can disciple.

pearlie

Finally!

Finally, I have completed the Acts assignment and sent it out to the lecturer just moments ago.

The paper content is as follows:

Introduction

1. What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Acts?
1.1. The Driving Force of Salvation History
1.2. The Spirit of Prophecy
1.3. Baptism and the Holy Spirit

2. The Spirit in Acts and the Rest of Scripture
2.1. The Old Testament
2.2. John
2.3. Paul

3. What does it mean to us today?
3.1. Pneumatology, Ecclesiology and Eschatology
3.2. The Powerful Presence of the Holy Spirit

4. Conclusion

Some of you did indicate that you would like to have a look at it. Do send me a mail and I will forward you a copy. Do comment but please be kind :)

pearlie

Acts Assignment 2

I have started to gear up for my Acts Assignment 2. I have these 3 questions to choose from.

1. What were the issues facing the Council of Jerusalem and how were they resolved?
2. What do we learn about Paul’s missionary strategy and the message from the second half of Acts?
3. Discuss the role of the Holy Spirit in Acts.

During class several weeks ago, I had wanted to do the 2nd one but now I think I am quite decided on the 3rd. With only 2,000 words, it will be a challenge to present the points while being thrifty with words. I do not have any good books on the Holy Spirit but I have managed to obtain quite a few relevant journal articles that will be of great help. The recommended book on the Holy Spirit, which the lecturer refers to as the book on the Holy Spirit is really too expensive to be purchased. Max Turner's Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts costs US$79.96 in Amazon.com. Very pricey for a paperback, eh?

Some interesting articles that will be good to dig in:

Arrington, French L. The indwelling, baptism, and infilling with the Holy Spirit : a differentiation of terms.
Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles.
Coffey, David M. A proper mission of the Holy Spirit.
Fee, Gordon D. Baptism in the Holy Spirit : the issue of separability and subsequence.
Hocken, Peter. The meaning and purpose of "baptism in the Spirit"
Hübner, Hans. The Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture.
Jackson, Don. Luke and Paul : a theology of one spirit from two perspectives.
McLean, Mark D. Toward a pentecostal hermeneutic.
O'Neill, J C. The Connection Between Baptism and the Gift of the Spirit in Acts.
Pyne, Robert A. The role of the Holy Spirit in conversion.
Smalley, Stephen S. Spirit, kingdom and prayer in Luke-Acts.
Stronstad, Roger. The influence of the Old Testament on the charismatic theology of St Luke.
Suggit, John N. "The Holy Spirit and we resolved . . ." (Acts 15:28)
Turner, Max. Interpreting the Samaritans of Acts 8: the Waterloo of Pentecostal soteriology and pneumatology?
Turner, Max. The spirit and the power of Jesus' miracles in the Lucan conception.
Turner, Max. The work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. Wall, Robert W. "Purity and Power" According to The Acts of the Apostles.

Maeghan
Picture by Flaviu Lupoian

Acts Assignment 1

I rested but also spent time trying to complete my Acts assignment due this Saturday.

It has to do with the identification of all the main crisis in the book of Acts with a summary of the first episode, Acts 3:1 - 6:7. It is now running at 30 pages long. I have only the social setting of the episode to complete and I am done. Saturday, here I come.

What I would like to highlight here is that the first episode of Acts is about the beginnings of the spread of the gospel in Jerusalem. According to Wenham, it happened only in the span of about a year, which to me is really amazing. I would imagine that things then happened at a much slower rate than now, where a lot of things happen in split seconds. So for the gospel to have spread so fast that “the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7), shows to prove how fervent the apostles were in their belief of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, which prompted them to go all out to spread the gospel.

It is my prayer that in our times of split-seconds, the gospel too would continue to spread.

Maeghan
Picture by Dieter Joel Jagnow

The Book of Acts Day 6

As part of interpreting Acts, the lecturer gave us a short session on biblical interpretation i.e. exegesis and hermeneutics, which was informative and enlightening for me. I have been doing some exegesis and never really did understand what hermeneutics is until now. It is better to have someone explain things to us. The books and materials that I have been referring to would usually regard hermeneutics as the whole process of exegesis, which made me think of it as similar to exegesis anyway.

Here is the definition he gave us:
Biblical interpretation is the study of theoretical principle involved in bringing out the original intended meaning (exegesis) and the contemporary application (hermeneutics) of the bible and its message.

There is a problem in interpreting Acts. It is because it presents something unique to the bible as the only one of its kind in the NT. It is quite similar to the narratives in OT but we do treat it with a certain degree of difference - we do not take most of what is in the OT as normative because we know that it is written specifically for and on the Israelites. But because Acts is written about the early church, we tend to want to treat most of the stuff in there as precedent and hence the norm. The problem is that there is no other narrative or historical book relating to the church in the NT.

Examples are many: who should be baptised? How should we be baptised? Is baby baptism acceptable? How often should we take Holy Communion? What church government should we have? Should we have 2 baptism, water and spirit? And the list goes on.

Obviously, no answers are given the above controversial questions. What we have are some general principles: we have 3 kinds of statements and 2 levels of statements. The 3 kinds are Christian theology, Christian ethics and Christian experience; and the 2 levels are the primary and the secondary. Primary theological statements include: God is one, all Scripture is God-breathed. And secondary statements being the derivative of the primary would include those pertaining to the Trinitarian God and the infallibility of the bible. But we must be mindful that being secondary statements does not undermine their importance. They are just as important. How we interpret the bible is how we deal with it using the guidelines.

I know, it still sounds up in the sky but for whatever it is worth, at least we all could agree on the basic and fundamental primary statements.

In order to interpret Acts, we should have a good idea what the intention of the author is. Fee and Stuart in their How to Read the Bible for all its Worth gives us an idea. Basically, Luke wants to show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, world-wide phenomenon from its origins as a Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers and how the Holy Spirit was directly responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone. Therefore, in dealing with with Acts as to whether the passages are prescriptive or descriptive, we would need to first ascertain the intention of the author. And that is easier said than done.

Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way. (97)
~ Fee and Stuart

Maeghan
Picture by Jesper Noer

The Book of Acts Day 5

Our lecture today covered 2 sections:

1. Mission Practice and Theology (Acts 18-20)

There are 3 phases of ministry: (a) Developmental - Itinerant ministry in starting of churches and moving on, (b) Pinnacle - Extended ministry where Paul stays for extended periods of time and (c) Constrained - Prisoner-witness ministry

Paul was given a two-fold almost conflicting ministry goal - as an apostle to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Initially his strategy was to preach to the Jews first, who will usually rejected his message. He will then shake his garments and move on to the Gentiles.

Theology and practice must go together. Theology must shape our practice, not the other way round though more often than not, we can see that at times we allow practice to shape our theology. Theology must affect life.

2. Peter and Herod (Acts 12:1-24)

We turned back to look at Peter with an amazing account of crisis (James killed, Peter arrested), humour (silly Rhoda not opening the door) and gore (Herod struck down, eaten by worms and died).

This passage falls into type that create more questions than answers. Questions like: why was Peter rescued and James killed? What more can we say other than the fact that God is sovereign and that He has his purpose and plan for everyone of us. With the four guards who died because Peter was saved, does this mean that Peter's life was more important to God? The lecturer commented that this would be a "wrong" question to ask really. And what more, it was Herod who killed the guards. And finally, according to Luke, "an angel of the Lord struck down Herod". How do we decide then God acts in human history? Some we can observed through the prophecies in the bible, where we can't, it will depend on circumstances and discernment on our part. Obviously, the answers creates more questions. But what is important I felt is that, to the very end, it is still the purpose and the sovereignty of God.

Maeghan
Picture by Pawel Roslek

The Book of Acts Day 4

We continued with our Acts classes today. We focused on these 3 sections:

1. Philip and Ethiopian Eunuch 8:25-40
2. Paul's Conversion 9:1-19
3. Paul on Tour 16:1-18

I was pretty fatigued throughout the entire session having so little sleep over the past week, I only managed to drink in the lecture without much contemplation or mullings. But I did pick up these 2 statements from the lecturer, which I found meaningful, and one more, my conclusion of what he said at one point.

In relation to Paul's conversion:
Our upbringing prepares us for our ministry, so look at our lives as an opportunity.

In relation to Paul's actions:
God not only questions what we do but why we do what we do.

John Stott highlights 5 areas where Paul's worldview was transformed: he had his mind changed about Jesus, about the law, about salvation, about the church and about the Gentiles:
Our most fundamental question is, "Why am I a Christian?" Our answer would affect how we live our lives.

Maeghan
Picture by Natalie Souprounovich

Zzzzzz

I do not have the time, the energy nor the content to post anything other than this note today. I will be attending the second part of the Book of Acts classes tomorrow and I have not completed the assignment due - what with the days spent in Bangkok and at work working till the mid of night, I couldn't finish it in time. I hope I will finish it but at 1.45am, I am already half-asleep. God help me.

Acts 18:9-11
And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, "Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people." And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Maeghan
Picture by René Garmider

The Book of Acts Day 3

We discussed on the topic of “Speeches in Acts” today and I’d say that it bordered on being quite technical.

It is important when we need to respond to critics who suggest that the speeches in the book of Acts e.g. the long one by Stephen in Acts 7, are creation of Luke and is not an actual event that took place. Using comparison with ancient historians, the lecturer tried to prove otherwise.

Basically, a lot of ancient historians take the Literary Appropriateness or Artistic Excellence is their methodology in writing history - the historicity of the content do not matter as much as style of writing. Critics in the 19th century had made a sweeping statement saying that since the ancient historians used that methodology and do create speeches, then those found in Acts are creations of Luke as well.

What the critics have missed out however, that there is a continuum between Literary Appropriateness and Historical Appropriateness. There are ancient historians that fall on either ends or even in between the two. In the Historical Appropriateness method, the consistency and faithfulness to the events take precedence over style.

For example:

[-------------------I--------------------]
LA.............................................HA
Timaeus.....Thucydides........Polybius...........(Greeks)
Cicero................................Julius Caesar.....(Romans)

All in all, what is important is that form of speech used by the author is not a criterion for accuracy. It is more important to determine is the account of history is faithful to the actual events, are they consistent with the situation and context.

I can’t really say much more than this, because at this point of time at least, it does not seem so much of an issue to me; though authorship of the books of the bible is an issue that we grapple with, at one time or another, as well as the rejection and skepticism of the words of Jesus being the very words that He actually said.

Maeghan
Picture by kevinzim/sxc

The Book of Acts Day 2

I had wanted to just post what I had felt over the 2 days of lecture, something that meant a lot me but upon reading Codepoke's comment, I must do both because the discussion over Ananias & Saphirra and communal sharing of property is certainly too good to keep quiet about. After class, the lecturer only had one word, "Fun!"

Firstly, what I felt. It has to do with the lecturer. He is a very, very learned person, whose wife is from Greece. Ironically, she teaches English and he teaches Greek. I am not sure what he teaches other than Acts and Greek but I heard him mention Mark, Luke and Revelations as well. He also has a penchant for history and the inter-testmental period literature. And when he lectured over the past 2 days, he does it with a fervour and we can seriously hear it in his voice. He speaks in a normal tone but sometime I thought I hear his voice break, as if one is going to break down and cry. I attributed it at first to his voice, which maybe breaks after prolonged speaking. But at one point, when he was talking about how churches have broken in disunity, his voice broke, we saw his eyes were red and then we saw tears. Oh boy, I thought.

Later, as I thought about it, I was touched. Here, I have a teacher who teaches from his heart. What he is doing is certainly not academic and certainly not just facts and doctrines or dogma, but truth and life. It became so much clearer to me when I brought some Sunday School kids through the topic of the Bread of Life (following our trip to the bread factory recently). When I told them Jesus said, "This is my body, which is broken for you," one of the boys, being boisterous as they all were during the lesson, laughed and said, "Broken?" I asked them, "Who among us have watched the Passion?" A few hands went up. "Do you not know that what had happened to Jesus then could even be worse that what we see in this movie?" At this point of time, I nearly broke down and it was also at this time I remembered our lecturer.

It is a reminder to me that in whatever I do, whether I teach or I sing or I lead or I help, it is the heart that counts. Why did God choose David over all his brothers? His heart what all that matters. It is our heart that matters.

Now onto the interesting parts of the lecture!

He touches just on 2 sections today which took us a long time, with some rather interesting class discussion and disagreements as well as bewilderment as to whether the act of communal property sharing a prescription or a description.

Ananias and Sapphira
Acts 5:1-11

The death of Ananias Sapphira can be regarded a miracle in the negative sense. Its parallel in the OT is Achan in Joshua 7. Both happened in the start of a new era in the life of the Jewish community or church. It shows a consistency of God's character in the OT and NT - he is the same God operating in both. Peter's case against Ananias was that he lied, it was deliberate, there is collusion and it was not a honest mistake.

The question of discussion that he got us into group to ponder upon are these:

1. What is hypocrisy and why is it so dangerous?
Hypocrisy is a behaviour in which a person pretends to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case. Our thoughts on why it is dangerous include the following points:
- there is a deceiving of self and self- justification
- it is work of the human and not the Holy Spirit; it will not cause the spreading of the gospel, and thus putting a halt to mission
- it will cause distrust in the community
- it will cause a precedent or a bad example that others in the community might just as well pick it up
- there is deceit in the community causing the foundation of the community to break
- it will cause more sinning

2. How should we interpret the death of Ananias and Sapphira?
God is still very serious about sin.

3. How should we deal with sin in the Church?
There are several models in the Scriptures that can be use including the counsel of the leaders and the church to the sinful party. But several points were also brought up:
- there will be a tension between different parties in the Church, one group will demand for judgement and ex-communication while another group will call for forgiveness instead, calling on the love of brothers and sisters in the community. It is the handling of these 2 tensions that also need to be worked upon other than the sinful person, who nevertheless needs to be dealt with but until and unless there is an agreement, the matter would stay unresolved
- there will be known sin and unknown ones: sins of people who comes out in light or those that remain hidden e.g. adultery, theft, lies, pornography, etc. that both needs to be dealt differently

The Fellowship of Believers
Acts 2:42-47

The lecturer uses the work of Capper (Reciprocity and the Ethics of Acts) to explain this section. The main concern of this passage is whether what Luke has so enthusiastically and emphatically presented in Acts a description or prescription.

The practice of communal living and the sharing of property is not radical back in that time as it is a practice that is present among some communities - among some of the Jewish and the Essenes. The Greek do not practice but they think it is ideal. So why did Luke include it then? What does he want to communicate to his audience, in this case, the Gentiles and the Diaspora Jews? What does Acts teach us about property?

The communal sharing of property is only mentioned in Acts 2 and 4, and in a modified form in Acts 6, after which there is no more mention but the practice of almsgiving takes place. Much were discussed but here is what I have in conclusion, as according to Capper, which the lecturer felt is the best explanation so far as to why he thinks that this section of Acts is not a prescription but a description:

The act of communal sharing of property were practiced by the Jews at one time, which Luke has picked up and noted it in Acts for his audience in the Gentile world. The Greek of that time has this concept of The Golden Age, very much like our concept of paradise and utopia. Therefore, in that background of the Graeco Roman world, Luke tells them something that is being practiced among the Jews, not expecting them to take it into practice but nevertheless as something important to teach them a heart of sharing and caring for the poor and needy. The people need to share their life and wealth with friends rather than having a patron-client relationship i.e. the rich giving to the poor making the poor in debt.

Certainly not an easy passage to do an exegesis, to understand and explain why we are not called to sell ALL our property and live communally.

Maeghan
Picture by Marinka van Holten

The Book of Acts Day 1

A few friends and I signed for a 3-credit hour course on The Books of Acts, which will bring us through 2 weekends of lectures - a whole day today, half day tomorrow, Monday and again the same schedule 2 weeks from now.

The lecture today was fully packed. It would be actually quite impossible to cover so much in just 2 weekends, but I suppose it is better than nothing. I am not very familiar with Acts to start with. The brief introduction with a broad look into the first 2 chapters today was quite good for me.

It is too much to replicate here and therefore I'll just post these 3 discussion questions, which the lecturer got us into some interesting discoveries in smaller groups, but with more questions raised.

1. Was Paul really an apostle and can there be apostles today?

The criteria for being an apostle are four:
a. they are chosen, not by human decision but divinely by Jesus (all the 12, Paul and Matthias through casting of lots)
b. they are eye-witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus
c. they are commissioned by Jesus
d. they are promised the Holy Spirit

So in my initial opinion ,I have taken the mention of apostles to mean the Apostles. But as we discussed it, I realised I could be wrong, because there are quite some instances in the New Testament that the apostles may also refer to other people other than the 12, who meets the criteria.

For example:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
~ Eph 4:11-12

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
~ 2 Cor 11:13

These surely do not refer to the 12, though Ep 4:11-12 is debatable.

With these criteria, Paul should not be an apostle in their strict terms. But he did witness the risen Christ in a vision. However, would this not open doors to other purported visions making more apostles out of eager men?

The lecturer however did mention that in general we are apostles but not so much as having an apostolic authority but having responsibility of mission and spreading the gospel to the ends of the earth.

2. Has the kingdom of Israel been restored?

Our group concluded that this is really not an issue to us as it was to the first century believers. "So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) Jesus replied that the kingdom that they should be looking for is a spiritual kingdom.

3. Is it important that the ascension really took place?

This question is really interesting to me because I have never asked it before, or rather, never thought to ask it in the first place. To me the ascension was a given, Jesus died, he was raised up and therefore he will be taken up. But when the question was being asked, it raised some other very interesting questions. Why didn't Jesus just vanish? Why does he have to go up? Jesus can go any other way he chose, but why must he ascend up, since heaven is not really up in the skies as such?

To me, I would respond it this way:

a. True enough, heaven is not up in the skies but in the Graeco world and language, the word used for heaven and sky is the same (I may be wrong though). So in their context, heaven is up, as is the same in our context.
b. The disciples must see him go up. There are instances in the gospels that Jesus can vanish. Therefore, he cannot just vanish or the disciples would be set into confusion as to what next and they might as well get back into their fishing business. In seeing that the Lord was ascended after He gave them words through the Holy Spirit, they went back to wait for the Holy Spirit, sparking the next chapter of the mission and the spreading of the Gospel.
c. The lecturer reminded us time and again that Acts should be read as a Part 2 of the whole work of Luke including the Gospel of Luke. There is a chiasm between these 2 books culminating into the ascension as the crux of the matter. The ascension is a division between Jesus' work on earth and Jesus' work from heaven. So He has to be seen to go up to heaven, reassuring the disciples that He has been taken up and will work in them through the Holy Spirit.

Certainly good stuff!

Anyway, during the introduction, the lecturer, whose love for books is evident, was introducing some books and I could feel my wallet getting lighter and lighter as he went along! These are a few of the books I would love to get, but most probably never will:

Barrett, CK. The Acts of the Apostles. 2 Vols, International Critical Commentary (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1994, 1998)

Witherington III B. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998)

Winter & Clark (eds.) Vol 1, The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (1993)

Turner M. Power from High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) - the lecturer said that this is THE book to get if you want to have a book on the Holy Spirit

Maeghan
Painting: John Singleton Copley, The Ascension, 1775, oil on canvas, The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Photograph © 1996 The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

They drew lots

I was on my way home when at the spur of the moment I decided to drop in to SuFes, my favourite Christian bookstore. Noel and I do try to avoid that bookstore because neither one of us can leave without spending a bomb. I thought I have not been there for awhile and left with 3 books:

The Behind Scenes of the New Testament by Paul Barnett
Acts (The Crossway Classic Commentary) by John Calvin
The Atonement, its Meaning and Significance by Leon Morris

I bought Calvin's Acts because of his explanation on casting lots though on closer read he didn't quite answer my question:

They drew lots.
Those who think it is wrong to cast lots are mistaken - partly out of ignorance and partly because they do not understand the meaning of the word. There is nothing that has been corrupted by insolence and deceit; casting lots is no exception. It has been seriously misused and reduced to the level of superstition. Predicting the future by lot is altogether devilish. But it is not wrong for officials to divide provinces by means of lots, or brothers their inheritance. Solomon plainly approves of this (Prov 16:33). This custom is no more invalidated by wrong use that the scientific study of the stars is invalidated by the debased pretense of the astrologers. The astologers claim to study the stars, but is a cover to hide their vile curiousity. Thus they bring a usefuland commendable scientific study into disrepute. The same is true of those who claim to tell people their fortunes by casting lots. It is our duty to distinguish the legitimate from the corrupt.

We do not live in times of much superstition anymore, not that there aren't people who does. The issue with casting lots with me is whether leaving decisions to probability is a good idea to making decisions and attributing the decision to God.

What the disciples did was in practice of using the Urim and Thummin, two sacred stones carried inside the breastplate of the high priest of ancient Israel and used as oracular media to divine the will of God. What can be said about the practice then is that the main obvious reason for casting lots was the impartiality of decision, to be sure there is not politics, nepotism, cronyism or favouritism involved. But as what Bruce has highlighted, "the disciples did not cast lots haphazardly: they first selected the two men whom they judged worthiest to fill the vacancy. I did a search and found that casting lots are carried out usually for property, land, duties and people; maybe except for two.

Leviticus 16:8
He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat.

Joshua 18:6
After you have written descriptions of the seven parts of the land, bring them here to me and I will cast lots for you in the presence of the LORD our God.

Joshua 18:8
As the men started on their way to map out the land, Joshua instructed them, "Go and make a survey of the land and write a description of it. Then return to me, and I will cast lots for you here at Shiloh in the presence of the LORD."

Joshua 18:10
Joshua then cast lots for them in Shiloh in the presence of the LORD, and there he distributed the land to the Israelites according to their tribal divisions.

1 Chronicles 24:5, 31 (for ministerial duties)
They divided them impartially by drawing lots, for there were officials of the sanctuary and officials of God among the descendants of both Eleazar and Ithamar ... They also cast lots, just as their brothers the descendants of Aaron did, in the presence of King David and of Zadok, Ahimelech, and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites. The families of the oldest brother were treated the same as those of the youngest.

1 Chronicles 25:8
Young and old alike, teacher as well as student, cast lots for their duties.

1 Chronicles 26:13 (to be gate keepers)
Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.

1 Chronicles 26:14 (to be gate keepers)
The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him.

Nehemiah 10:34
"We—the priests, the Levites and the people—have cast lots to determine when each of our families is to bring to the house of our God at set times each year a contribution of wood to burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the Law.

Nehemiah 11:1
[ The New Residents of Jerusalem ] Now the leaders of the people settled in Jerusalem, and the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of every ten to live in Jerusalem, the holy city, while the remaining nine were to stay in their own towns.

Job 6:27
You would even cast lots for the fatherless and barter away your friend.

Psalm 22:18
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Ezekiel 24:6
" 'For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'Woe to the city of bloodshed, to the pot now encrusted, whose deposit will not go away! Empty it piece by piece without casting lots for them.

Joel 3:3
They cast lots for my people and traded boys for prostitutes; they sold girls for wine that they might drink.

Obadiah 1:11
On the day you stood aloof while strangers carried off his wealth and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.

Nahum 3:10
Yet she was taken captive and went into exile. Her infants were dashed to pieces at the head of every street. Lots were cast for her nobles, and all her great men were put in chains.

Matthew 27:35
When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Mark 15:24
And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

John 19:24
"Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did.

Acts 1:26
Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The 2 exceptions:

Ezekiel 21:21
For the king of Babylon will stop at the fork in the road, at the junction of the two roads, to seek an omen: He will cast lots with arrows, he will consult his idols, he will examine the liver.

Jonah 1:7
Then the sailors said to each other, "Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity." They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.

Maeghan
Picture by Seer

Casting lots?

I was commenting in Codepoke's post and we discussed briefly about casting lots.

Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
~ Acts 1:26

I checked FF Bruce's commentary on the Book of Acts where he said that historically speaking, the act of casting lots is very common and acceptable. Nevertheless, a lot of work will be put into the selection process before finally casting lots. Most probably it boils down to context and culture. Nowadays, it is just not acceptable to leave things to chance.

Maeghan
Picture by Anna Maria Lopez Lopez

The Acts of the Apostles

A module on the Study of Book of Acts is coming up this September. I have not yet decided whether to take it up or not. I am still 50-50 about it but knowing myself, I would regret it if I were to miss it. So, here goes.

1. Outline and Content
The book of Acts takes up the story where the Gospel ends with the resurrection of Jesus. It goes on to record his ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit, the rise and the early progress of Christianity. It also covers the dispersal of the Hellenistic members of the church, the execution of Stephen, the evangelisation of distant region as far north as Antioch, the beginning of the Gentile mission, the account of Paul's conversion, Peter's evangelisation of the plain of Sharon that brought about the conversion of the first Gentile household, Paul's arrival in Antioch to take part in the Gentile mission there and Peter's departure from Jerusalem after his escape from Herod Agrippa I, Paul's apostolic ministry with Barnabas, Silas and others. Acts covers mission on the road from Jerusalem to Antioch and thence to Rome.

2. Origin and Purpose
The preface of the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:1-4) applies equally to both books: so that Theophilus would have a consecutive and reliable account of the rise and progress of Christianity. The date of the Book of Acts is not indicated precisely. It could not have been written earlier than the latest event it records. Hence, with Paul spending 2 years in custody in Rome, covering probably AD 60 - 61. If it is dependent on the Antiquities of Josephus, it would not be written earlier than AD 93.

3. Historical Character
The historical trustworthiness of Luke's account has been amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. The characteristics of the book includes being apologetic, the0logical, with detailed accuracy and as a narrative of contemporary history. It is full of references to city magistrates, provincial governors, client kings and the like, allowing just the opportunity to prove the place and time in question.

4. Apologetic Emphasis
Luke in both his work set out to demonstrate that Christianity is not a menace to imperial law and order. He cites judgements of governors, pronounces 3 times that Jesus is not guilty of sedition and that the charges that were brought against his followers in Acts cannot be sustained.

5. Theological Interest
The dominating theme of Acts is the activity of the Holy Spirit. It also covers the inauguration of the new age in which Jesus reigns as Lord and Messiah.

Maeghan
Source: IH Marshall, et al (eds), New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, (Leicester, IVP): 11-3