Introduction to the Study
Generally the introduction night to the Acts study went well. Materials were distributed and explained. The group was enthusiastic to be held accountable for studying and answering questions each week. All agreed with the guideline that only those with written answers would verbally participate in discussion of questions. The pastor was very pleased with the idea of “having the floor” for the last 5-10 minutes of each evening in order to comment on things learned from “a denominational perspective”.
After introducing the materials and the format for the study we considered a two and a half page overview of Acts. This material was read out loud, and around, each person reading one paragraph in turn. Although this method was selected in order to help reinforce and review what was being learned, it turned out that one participant had great difficulty in reading out loud. The overview was perhaps a bit scholarly in composition, and one lady in the group stumbled and stumbled over words such as “ethnocentric”, “prologue”, “prosaic” and “Theophilus”. Although she did her best with the aid of her husband, it was pretty rough. I assured the group after we had finished reading the overview that the upcoming topical weekly selections are written in a manner that is not quite so scholarly and “stuffy”.
However, as with most Messianic resources, the weekly topical selections incorporate Hebrew names, words, and phraseology. I did provide the group with a vocabulary list so they can look up unfamiliar words. But now I’m wondering, as the format of the study includes reading the topical commentary out loud and around each week, if stumbling and hesitancy over unfamiliar words will hinder the goal of this method. I could pipe in and “help” others as they read, if there is hesitancy with the Hebrew names/words, at least at first. Hopefully, as weeks go by the Hebrew words will become more familiar, and learning these things will be a challenge and not a discouragement.
Otherwise, the pastor made one “off the cuff” comment regarding the book of James and the fact that it is not “well-liked” by some theologians because it is “works focused”. He explained that to reconcile this discomfort with James one needs to recognize that it was written to Jews, to the twelve tribes in the Diaspora. He added that it was written to the Diaspora Jews “through the Apostles”, understanding that the “twelve tribes” also alludes to the “twelve Apostles”, (as if the Apostles understanding of faith in Yeshua is the filter through which Jewish works theology is being presented by James, in order to move it in the “right” direction). I simply commented that this was an interesting perspective, which I was not aware of, although, all the Apostles were practicing religious Jews in a first century context. To which he agreed.
This upcoming Sunday, November 13 the group will consider two topics from Acts 1-2. The first is Pentecost; including the place of Pentecost as being in the Temple and not the Upper Room, and the miracles of Pentecost as related to Jewish tradition regarding the giving of Torah on Sinai at Shavuot. Second will be considered the four devotions of the Jerusalem Assembly and how they compare to the priorities of Christian/believing communities today (Acts 2:42).
