Originally Posted by sojourner
... I realize that we are not to add to the scriptures ,but it just seems that there should be if not a theological answer then certainly a historical one.
My understanding has always been that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem because they tenaciously embraced the reality of their position as the core administrators of the Church. Looking through several commentaries on my shelves, I noticed that J.A. Alexander takes basically the same view. I'll quote him in full:

Quote
Except the apostles seems to be a variance with our Lord's express command to them, "When they persecute you in this city, flee into another" (Matt. 10:23.) This has been variously explained by supposing that the twelve, from the awe with which they were regarded, or for some other reason now unknown, escaped the persecution; or, which is the simplest and most obvious solution, that the general rule, laid down in Matthew, was suspended or qualified by special revelation. Apart from the command in question, it is easy to imagine reasons why they should remain at the centre of operations, as the constituted organizers and administrators of the system which had just been set in motion, and as such imparting to the one church of Jerusalem a representative and normal character, in consequence of which its acts were binding on the whole body, when extended even into other countries.
Methinks this is a much more reasonable explanation than the one suggested in your Bible Study. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]