Douglas P.
Puritan Board Freshman
Would it be fair to see the choice of a new Apostle as even further evidence towards a redemptive-historical reading of the book of Acts and Acts 1:8 in particular? In other words, Christ tells his Apostles to be his “witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” In order to do this the office of the twelfth Apostle must be filled, and thus, the office of Apostle expires upon completion of Christ command in 1:8 with Paul preaching the Gospel to Rome in Acts 28?
I also don’t fully understand Peter’s use of Ps. 69 and Ps. 109 in Acts 1:20. Obviously Apostolic succession can be refuted from other aspects of scripture, (Eph 2:20) so he couldn’t mean anything such as that. So what’s the Apostles immediate rationale for filling the office?
If it’s helpful, I am asking this question after reading Dr. Gaffin’s Perspectives on Pentecost and with a Charismatic/Pentecostal context in mind. Or more pointedly, the New Testament nostalgia (i.e. Why doesn’t the church look like Acts) that is present in many circles (even reformed) today.
I also don’t fully understand Peter’s use of Ps. 69 and Ps. 109 in Acts 1:20. Obviously Apostolic succession can be refuted from other aspects of scripture, (Eph 2:20) so he couldn’t mean anything such as that. So what’s the Apostles immediate rationale for filling the office?
If it’s helpful, I am asking this question after reading Dr. Gaffin’s Perspectives on Pentecost and with a Charismatic/Pentecostal context in mind. Or more pointedly, the New Testament nostalgia (i.e. Why doesn’t the church look like Acts) that is present in many circles (even reformed) today.
Last edited: