Study of Acts

[job 1:21]

From: https://torahclass.com/ 

Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 1, Introduction
Today we cross a bridge; the name of that bridge is the Book of Acts.
The  dictionary  definition  of  a  bridge  is:  "A  structure  carrying  a  road  or  a  path
across an obstacle such as a river or a ravine." The obstacle we are crossing
over is the ravine (a gulf really) that has historically separated the Old and New
Testaments. The needed structure that spans that gulf is the Book of Acts.
A reasonable question would be: "How can Acts be the bridge between the Old
Testament and the New when the first book of the New Testament is the Gospel
of  Matthew,  followed  by  three  more  Gospels"?  And  the  answer  is  that  the
purpose  of  the  Gospels  is  to  reveal  the  nature,  life  and  times  of  Yeshua  the
Messiah. But the Book of Acts delves into how the followers of a Jewish Messiah,
whose  messianic  office  is  derived  only  from  a  Jewish/Israelite  religion  and  a
Jewish/Israelite  holy  book,  somehow  came  to  purposely  include  the  gentile
world. 
A valued friend of mine who lives in Jerusalem, Messianic Rabbi Joseph Shulam,
says  this  about  the  New  Testament  in  general:  "The  New  Testament  is  a
Jewish document from the 1st century A.D., reflective of the lifestyle and
theology of the Jewish community of the Second Temple period. Produced
mainly  by  Jews  interested  in  promoting  a  Jewish  understanding  of  the
messianic  promises  made  by  Israel's  prophets,  the  New  Testament  texts
constitute  an  inalienable  part  of  Second  Temple  Judaism  and  can  only
properly  be  understood  in  their  original  Jewish  cultural  and  religious
milieu."
                             1 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
There is no better NT book to help us understand 1st century, Second Temple
Judaism than the Book of Acts. Yet the Book of Acts is still not sufficient in itself
to  help  modern  Western  Christians  truly  understand  the  Jewish  culture  and
religion of Yeshua's day, and so I will take us on a number of detours and spend
the time necessary to construct the needed context. I will admit up front that if
you  have  not  studied  the  Torah  and  the  Tanach  with  Seed  of  Abraham  Torah
Class, you will be at a disadvantage. The Old Testament will play a significant
background role in our study of the Book of Acts.  And this is because (as I have
stated on numerous occasions) the Old Testament is the foundation for the New.
Trying to study the New Testament without first knowing the Old Testament is
like walking into the third act of a three act play after missing the first two acts.
You  may  well  get  something  out  of  it;  but  you  will  have  missed  the  character
development and the context for the plot. How the play got from here to there you
don't know, so you fill in the blanks with your imagination and suppositions. In
fact, when the play ends and the curtain drops, your conclusions about the play's
meaning and purpose will be at best incomplete; at worst, it might be far off the
mark.
The  reason  that  I  have  decided  to  teach  the  New  Testament  Book  of  Acts  is
because Christianity, and in many cases Messianic Judaism, has indeed arrived
to the play late and missed, or dismisses, the first two acts as not relevant to a
modern  Believer.    The  result  has  been  some  doctrinal  conclusions  that  are
substantially off the mark. Even worse, these dubious doctrines have fomented
misunderstanding,  if  not  hatred,  between  Jews  and  Christians,  and  also  the
alienation of Jews from their own Jewish Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. So, let's
get started.
As is our custom we will have an introduction to the Book of Acts today as our
first step onto the bridge that spans the gulf between the testaments. And the
best  place  to  start  is  with  the  author  of  the  book.  While  it  is  not  universally
accepted, all but the most ardent skeptics from both the Liberal and Conservative
sides of Christianity agree that the author is Luke; the same Luke who penned
the Gospel of Luke. There are several reasons for this conclusion. The first is that
both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are addressed to the same person:
Theophilos. The second is that the literary style of both the Gospel of Luke and
the Book of Acts are very similar. And third it is clear by the author's own words
that the Book of Acts is essentially the sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Let's look at
the opening paragraphs of both Luke and Acts.
                             2 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
Luke 1:1-4 CJB Dear Theophilos: Concerning the matters that have taken
place    among    us,    many    people    have    undertaken    to    draw    up
accounts 2 based on what was handed down to us by those who from the
start were eyewitnesses and proclaimers of the message. 3 Therefore, Your
Excellency,  since  I  have  carefully  investigated  all  these  things  from  the
beginning, it seemed good to me that I too should write you an accurate
and ordered narrative, 4 so that you might know how well-founded are the
things about which you have been taught.
Let's compare that with the opening of the Book of Acts.
Acts 1:1-3 CJB Dear Theophilos: In the first book, I wrote about everything
Yeshua  set  out  to  do  and  teach,  2  until  the  day  when,  after  giving
instructions through the Ruach HaKodesh to the emissaries whom he had
chosen, he was taken up into heaven. 3 After his death he showed himself
to  them  and  gave  many  convincing  proofs  that  he  was  alive.  During  a
period  of  forty  days  they  saw  him,  and  he  spoke  with  them  about  the
Kingdom of God.
So  according  to  Luke  the  first  book  (the  Gospel  of  Luke)  was  written  about
everything Yeshua set out to do and to teach. But the second book (the Book of
Acts) is about what happened after Christ's death and resurrection. 
What has been forgotten, but was clearly known by the earliest Church Fathers,
is that these two works (or books) written by Luke were essentially two volumes
of a single original work called the "History of Christian Origins"; the contents of
the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  volume  1,  and  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  Acts  was
volume 2. And because it was originally one work (not two separate books as we
commonly  think  of  it),  it  began  to  circulate  among  both  Jewish  and  gentile
Believers as a single work under the single title of "History of Christian Origins".
It was only later that it got separated into two works, with each volume given its
own separate name and identity; that is, it was no longer used as one continuous
book. So only after Luke's original work was divided into two was each volume
given its own name: one became the Gospel of Luke, and the other became the
Acts of the Apostles.
Most of the New Testament books as we call them today were at first in the form
of  letters  or  collections  of  letters,  or  lengthy  monographs  written  for  a  specific
purpose (the Gospels for instance). These letters and monographs were seen as
                             3 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
informative, accurate and helpful documents that circulated among the Believers.
Some letters, especially Paul's, were taken as instructional. The important point
is that they were not at all taken as Scripture or as inspired of God (at least not
on  the  level  of  inspiration  as  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament).  The  first
"Christian" Bible, the one that Christ and all of His disciples used and that was
used all throughout the first 150 years after Christ's death, was the Hebrew Bible
also known to us as the Tanach or the Old Testament. Only around 200 A.D.
would the call come from among some in the Church for the need for a unique
Christian Bible, which would add to the Old Testament what we today call the
New Testament. We'll talk about that more shortly. 
The next usual question about the Book of Acts is when it was created. As you
can imagine there is little agreement about this with the earliest suggested date
being  around  65  A.D.,  and  the  latest  around  115  A.D.  or  even  a  bit  later.
Generally speaking that late date of 115 A.D. is accepted by very few, and mostly
by  those  who  don't  hold  much  stock  in  the  reliability  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  The
majority  of  Bible  scholars  and  Bible  historians  settle  closer  to  sometime  just
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as an early date and 90 A.D. as
the latest date.  My opinion is that Luke completed his work sometime before 70
A.D. For one reason, all of the events and people depicted in the Book of Acts
(such as the reigns of various governors, procurators, and Caesars) happened
not  later  than  68  A.D.  This  is  verified  by  extra-Biblical  Roman  and  Jewish
documents (and by the way, the term extra-Biblical simply means that the source
is not the Bible, it is something else). And even though in the Book of Acts some
of  the  central  activity  takes  place  in  Jerusalem,  there  is  no  mention  of  its
destruction by the Romans. Since that destruction in 70 A.D. was so monumental
and catastrophic for the Jewish people and their way of life it is unimaginable that
Luke would simply skip right over it since was such a game-changer. The only
way to reconcile a much later date with that self-evident reality is that some say
that Luke wrote his book 30 or more years after the destruction of Jerusalem and
so its impact had softened by then and wasn't worth mentioning. That is a major
stretch that seems highly unlikely.
Then  there  is  the  issue  of  what  Bible  scholars  call  the  "we"  sections  of  Acts,
found in chapters 16, 20, 21, 27 and 28. Rather than explain it let me give you an
example of what I mean.
Acts 16:10-17 CJB 10  As soon as he had seen the vision, we lost no time
getting ready to leave for Macedonia; for we concluded that God had called
                             4 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
us to proclaim the Good News to them. 11 Sailing from Troas, we made a
straight run to Samothrace; the next day we went to Neapolis; 12 and from
there, we went on to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that
part of Macedonia. We spent a few days in this city; 13 then on Shabbat, we
went outside the gate to the riverside, where we understood a minyan met.
We  sat  down  and  began  speaking  to  the  women  who  had  gathered
there.  14  One  of  those  listening  was  a  woman  from  the  city  of  Thyatira
named Lydia, a dealer in fine purple cloth. She was already a "God-fearer,"
and   the   Lord   opened   up   her   heart   to   respond   to   what   Sha'ul   was
saying. 15 After she and the members of her household had been immersed,
she gave us this invitation: "If you consider me to be faithful to the Lord,
come and stay in my house." And she insisted till we went. 16 Once, when
we were going to the place where the minyan gathered, we were met by a
slave  girl  who  had  in  her  a  snake-spirit  that  enabled  her  to  predict  the
future. She earned a lot of money for her owners by telling fortunes. 17 This
girl followed behind Sha'ul and the rest of us and kept screaming, "These
men are servants of God Ha'Elyon! They're telling you how to be saved!"
Notice how the narrative in this section speaks about "we" and "us". We know
that one-half of the "we" is Paul because it says so. Who is the other half? The
plain reading of it along with the context makes it clear that the other party of
"we"  is  the  writer  Luke  himself.  In  fact  in  some  of  Paul's  letters  he  refers  to  a
man named Luke who accompanied him at times, and it is difficult to find cause
not to conclude that this is the same Luke who is the writer of Acts. Here is but
one example of finding Luke in Paul's Epistles:
Colossians 4:12-14 CJB 12 Epaphras sends greetings; he is one of you, a
slave  of  the  Messiah  Yeshua  who  always  agonizes  in  his  prayer  on  your
behalf, praying that you may stand firm, mature and fully confident, as you
devote yourselves completely to God's will. 13 For I can testify to him that
he works hard for you and for those in Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14 Our dear
friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send you greetings.
Luke is also mentioned by Paul in 2Timothy 4 and in Philemon 24. The point is
that  while  most  of  Acts  is  Luke  writing  about  things  he  had  been  told  in  his
investigations,  and  taken  from  interviews  with  eyewitnesses,  and  information
extracted from other documents he deemed as reliable, some of what he wrote
about  was  first  hand  knowledge  as  he  actually  personally  knew  Paul  and
participated with him on some of his mission trips. Why is that fact so important?
                             5 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
It is because we first learn of Paul in the Book of Acts, not in his several Epistles.
And it is in Acts that we see the new Believer Paul in his Jewish context, and
learn how it is that he came to be a follower and an Apostle of Christ. Let me say
this another way; Acts gives us the foundational background for understanding
who Paul is, and without Acts we don't quite see Paul as the committed Jew that
he is. It is Luke who knows Paul intimately, and so Luke can speak knowledgably
about  Paul's  devotion  to  his  Jewishness  and  Torah  observance  that  never
waned as a result of his newly found belief that Yeshua was the Messiah Israel
had been waiting for.
I want to explore this fact about Paul as depicted in the Book of Acts because,
frankly, it had much to do with me coming to understand the Hebrew Roots of my
Christian faith many years ago. Without doubt the Apostle Paul can be an enigma
if  not  downright  frustrating.  In  fact  his  fellow  Apostle,  Peter,  found  Paul  very
difficult to understand some times.
2Peter 3:15-16 CJB 15 And think of our Lord's patience as deliverance, just
as our dear brother Sha'ul also wrote you, following the wisdom God gave
him. 16 Indeed, he speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain
some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and
unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
I  readily  stipulate  that  Paul  says  many  things  in  his  Epistles  that  in  one  letter
seems to say one thing, and in another letter seems to say nearly the opposite.
Since Paul was an excellent speaker, well educated and quite articulate by all
accounts,  Peter  can  only  be  referring  to  the  same  issue  that  many  laymen,
Pastors, Bible Scholars and Bible Teachers encounter with Paul: he seems to be
contradictory  on  some  subjects.  Nevertheless,  it  is  unequivocally  so  that  the
modern Church's doctrinal differences hinge on the teachings of Paul. In fact for
at  least  a  couple  of  centuries,  now,  many  intellectually  honest  Bible  scholars
freely admit that we are far more the Church of Paul than we are the Church of
Christ. That is, it is the doctrines extracted from Paul's teachings that form the
bulk of Church doctrine; and the fact that Paul can be (as Peter said) "hard to
understand" is perhaps the primary reason that the Body of Christ has broken
into  about  3000  denominations  because  the  tendency  is  to  pick  and  choose
which statements of Paul suit the denominational authority the best. But another
of  the  main  culprits  for  this  fracturing  of  Christianity  also  has  to  do  with  an
institutional unwillingness to take the Book of Acts at its word as concerns Paul.
Yet another is a reluctance to research what the early Church Fathers had to say
                             6 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
as concerns Paul and the Book of Acts (we'll get into that later).
Let's continue to follow this line of thought a little further because it highlights the
reason that the Book of Acts is critical to our faith, and thus why we're going to
take close to a year to study it. So the issue of how to interpret Paul and where to
place him in a hierarchy of Scriptural authority goes all the way back to around 48
A.D.  with  Peter  (who  was  one  of  Yeshua's  12  original  disciples  who  heard
Messiah's  teachings  directly  from  the  Lord's  own  lips;  teachings  on  the  very
subjects that Paul later expounded upon). One can only imagine how hard it must
have  been  to  hear  Paul  say  words  that  Peter  at  times  couldn't  exactly  square
with what He heard Yeshua say. But about 100 years later, the issue of Paul's
difficult sayings became even more problematic when a fellow by the name of
Marcion decided that it was time to have a Christian Bible, containing teachings
only  from  Christ  Believers.  He  also  decided  that  the  only  reliable  Apostle  was
Paul.
Marcion  of  Sinope  was  a  devotee  to  Paul's  writings;  nevertheless  this  gentile
shipping magnate had a very unbalanced view of Christianity and Paul. In 144
A.D. in Rome (one of the several growing centers of Christianity), he proposed to
the Bishop of Rome a new Bible based upon his belief that the world had entered
a  new  age  because  of  Christ.  Marcion  felt  that  Jesus  was  the  founder  of  an
entirely new religion that had no connection to anything previous to it. For him
Yeshua was Jewish only due to an accident of birth, and that the Hebrew Bible
(the Old Testament) and its prophecies about a Messiah had no bearing on who
Jesus was. Thus, as is the true case in many Christian denominations today, for
Marcion the Old Testament had no place in a Christian Bible or in the Christian
faith. And by the way; let me clear by what I just said. I've been a member of the
Body of Christ for a long time, carefully studied several of the modern Christian
commentators  Liberal  and  Conservative,  and  served  in  enough  Churches  at
various levels to know that while the Old Testament may remain in a particular
denomination's    authorized    Bible,    it    is    considered    somewhere    between
unimportant and irrelevant and would be removed in a heartbeat if congregation
members would stand for it. But it is too sensitive of an issue to tackle quite that
boldly, so it is not touched. Rather the Old Testament is simply ignored. Or in
some cases congregations are warned that it is dangerous and to stay out of it as
studying it might lead them to question or even abandon their faith in Christ.
Now  Marcion,  who  indeed  saw  Christ  as  God,  also  saw  Him  as  the  new  God
while  God  the  Father  was  the  old  God.  And  since  God  the  Father  had  never
                             7 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
appeared on earth before and directly ministered to people, then Christ was the
superior God. Thus we have God the Father as the God of Israel, and we have
superior Jesus Christ as the God of Christianity, thus making Christianity superior
to  the  religion  of  the  Israelites.  And  according  to  Marcion  it  was  Paul  who
faithfully taught this supposed truth. It was Paul alone of all the Apostolic writers
who  kept  the  true  witness  of  Christ;  the  rest  were  too  Jewish  and  therefore
heretics. Thus Marcion proposed a new Bible consisting of two parts: the first part
was to be called The Gospel and the second part was to be called The Apostle.
The Gospel was to be only Luke's Gospel; one that had been suitably edited by
Marcion.  The  Apostle  would  consist  of  nine  letters  (Epistles)  written  by  Paul.
They too had been edited. And that's it.
Marcion  published  his  new  Christian  Bible  canon  and  it  of  course  immediately
caused  a  tremendous  uproar.  One  has  to  ask  a  question  at  this  point:  if
only  one  of  the  four  Gospels  in  circulation  that  Marcion  found  suitable  was
Luke's,  why  did  he  find  Luke's  Book  of  Acts  unfit  for  his  new  Christian  Bible?
First we have to recall something I told you a few minutes ago; Luke's Gospel
and the Book of Acts were originally one unified work produced by Luke, but it did
consist of two volumes. At first it circulated as a book called History of Christian
Origins. But some years later it was divided and made into two separate books:
the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. By now the Gospel of Luke had gained
wide  acceptance  but  the  Book  of  Acts  was  not  viewed  with  the  same  favor  in
some  corners  of  Christianity,  and  certainly  not  in  Marcion's  eyes.  And  those
corners that had disdain for the Book of Acts were generally those who wanted
Christianity to be a gentiles-only religion.
Because Marcion's view was seen as so radical the Bishop of Rome and other
Church Bishops took up the challenge and officially looked at the issue of just
how  authoritative  certain  of  the  circulating  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  to  be
considered. They were not deciding on a new Biblical canon, but rather they were
responding to Marcion's outrageous views. The result was that they gave equal
weight to four particular Gospels chosen from among the several more that were
in circulation around the Church at that time (some Gnostic Gospels were also
part  of  that  mix).  And  the  chosen  four  were  the  ones  we're  familiar  with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They also declared that 10 letters (not 9) written
by Paul were authoritative (not inspired Scripture, just authoritative for instructing
the  Church),  as  well  as  some  of  Peter's  writings.  And  to  Marcion's  greatest
disdain,  the  Book  of  Acts  was  included  as  authoritative.  In  fact,  the  Church
renamed this work of Luke to "The Book of the Acts of the Apostles" (Apostles,
                             8 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
plural),  so  that  it  was  understood  that  the  Church  Bishops  considered  more
writers than only Paul as both authoritative and as Apostles.  Due to the Book of
Acts  being  re-validated,  Yeshua's  Jewishness  was  returned  to  Him  and  Paul
was  given  back  the  context  of  his  own  Hebrew  heritage  and  his  continued
dedication to the Jewish religion.
Now let's talk about the early Church Fathers for a moment because their view
of Paul is a bit different than the modern Church view of Paul (a modern view that
is   actually   closer   to   Marcion's).   While   many   modern   Bible   scholars,   and
language experts, and Bible historians honestly believe that they have a better
idea  of  who  the  various  New  Testament  Bible  characters  were,  and  how  they
lived,  and  what  they  meant  by  what  they  said  2000  years  ago,  they  must
necessarily  also  question  and  at  times  shun  some  of  the  writings  of  the  early
Church Fathers; some who were but a generation or two removed from Paul and
in  some  cases  knew  people  who  had  known  Paul  personally.  I  believe  their
premise is upside down. Rather I contend that those people who are closest in
time to any particular historical event, and especially those who lived within the
social   and   cultural   context   of   that   same   cultural   event,   have   the   better
perspective on how to interpret and understand the meaning and intent of that
event.  So  I'm  quite  at  odds  with  many  post-modern  Bible  scholars  on  that
account.  But  it  also  explains  why  modern  historians  feel  so  confident  in  their
opinions as to easily and often rewrite history to conform to their viewpoint.
So what did the Early Church Fathers have to say about Paul and the Book of
Acts?  Well,  fragments  of  various  works  from  about  40  different  authors  who
commented on the Book of Acts from about 100 A.D. to as late as 800 A.D. have
been   found.   However   there   are   only   3   ancient   works   that   are   complete
commentaries (or very nearly complete) on the Book of Acts that have survived
over the centuries. The oldest is by John Chrysostom from 407 A.D.  The next
oldest  was  written  by  Arator  about  550  A.D.  And  after  that  the  one  written  by
Venerable  Bede  in  735  A.D.  Any  commentaries  written  after  that  time  are
considered too late to be categorized as "ancient Christian commentary".
One  fragment  that  was  found  written  by  the  early  Church  Father  Tertullian  is
especially  insightful  because  he  is  responding  to  Marcion's  heresy,  which  50
years later in 200 A.D. was still unsettling many Bishops (I think the reason for
this  is  that  the  Bishops  were  at  that  time  beginning  to  seriously  address  the
possibility  of  creating  a  New  Testament,  and  if  so  what  documents  might  it
contain). In Tertullian's work appropriately titled "Against Marcion", he says this
                             9 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
(and I quote him):  "You must show us first of all who Paul was. What was he
before he became an Apostle? How did he become an Apostle?" In other
words, since Luke's Acts of the Apostles was where this information about Paul
was  contained,  Tertullian  was  an  advocate  for  this  book's  validity  and  its
importance  for  understanding  Paul  (remember  that  a  key  issue  with  Marcion
concerned Paul and Marcion's characterization of him).
Who Paul is and what he believes and teaches in his religious Jewish context is
found primarily in the Book of Acts. Remove the Book of Acts from the scene (as
Marcion insisted upon) and the Paul of the Epistles becomes a different Paul who
will necessarily be understood differently. That is the magnitude of what we are
dealing with when we decide to undertake a study of the Book of Acts.
Every  Bible  character,  and  every  human  for  that  matter,  has  a  foundational
context  for  knowing  them  and  understanding  them  (and  when  it  comes  to  the
Bible,  for  interpreting  them).  When  we  lift  anyone  out  of  their  foundational
context,  we  get  it  wrong.  This  issue  of  using  the  Book  of  Acts  to  provide  the
foundational  context  for  understanding  Paul  compares  favorably  with  what  I've
taught  you  about  the  importance  of  establishing  the  foundational  context  for
understanding the person and purpose of Yeshua HaMashiach. When we discard
this  well  known,  pivotal  statement  by  Jesus  explaining  His  identify  and  His
purpose   in   His   own   words,   then   we   lose   the   foundational   context   for
understanding who Yeshua is.
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah
or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I
tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others  to  do  so  will  be  called  the  least  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  But
whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
When we read this, we hear our Messiah insist that He did NOT do the very thing
that  the  gentile  Christian  Church  insists  that  He  did:  abolish  the  Law  and  the
Prophets.  And  of  course,  as  most  of  you  are  well  aware,  there  is  an  equal
insistence within Christianity that it is Paul who says Christ DID abolish the Torah
and the Prophets. Truth be told, the position that Christ DID abolish the Law and
the Prophets is precisely what led Marcion to his heresy, and the early Church
                            10 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
Bishops and Church Fathers renounced Marcion for it. And it is also true that if
you read sections of some of Paul's Epistles it is hard NOT to take it that way.
But,  just  as  there  is  a  pivotal  foundational  context  for  understanding  Christ  in
Matthew chapter 5, so there is a pivotal foundational context for understanding
Paul that we will dissect in depth in the Book of Acts.
We've  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  talking  about  Paul,  so  now  I'd  like  change
gears and discuss this central issue: what is the Book of Acts about, and who is
the central character? The answer to this is not easy because Acts covers a lot of
territory. We meet a number of people in Acts such as Barnabas, Peter, James,
Stephen and of course Paul. However I believe I can say with confidence that
you will soon see that the central character in Acts is God; and especially in His
attribute as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit takes central stage in Luke's sequel.
In fact when we count up the number of times in the entire New Testament that
the Holy Spirit is mentioned by name, we find this interesting spread:  Matthew 5
times, Mark 4, Luke 13, John 3, all of Paul's Epistles in total 16, Hebrews 5, and
Peter 2. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in Revelation. But in the Book of
Acts  we  find  the  Holy  Spirit  mentioned  40  times.  When  we  add  together  both
books written by Luke that means that out of a total of 88 times the Holy Spirit is
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  Luke  speaks  of  Him  53  of  those  times.
Obviously the Holy Spirit was at the forefront of Luke's mind as he contemplated
the  work  of  God  especially  after  Christ  ascended.  We  will  also  find  that  Luke
equates  the  terms  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Spirit  of  Yeshua  (we'll  cover  that  more
when we encounter it in Acts 16).
Further  our  writer  Luke  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  for  him  the  God  of  the
Church is the God of Israel (quite the opposite of Marcion). And that everything
that Christ did and who He was is confirmed and it fulfilled the Old Testament
Prophets. As we progress through the Book of Acts you will notice that Israel's
history is made central to redemption history in speeches by the martyr Stephen
and by Paul.
Therefore in summation I think I can say that while each of the Epistles of the
New  Testament  was  written  to  address  some  specific  issues  taking  place  at
specific congregations of Believers, the Book of Acts was written to accomplish
the dual tasks of defining and reconciling the relationship between Jewish and
gentile  Believers  in  the  1st  century  Body  of  Believers;  and  also  to  put  Peter's
ministry and Paul's ministry in their proper perspectives and on somewhat equal
footing. As Rabbi Joseph Shulam so aptly points out, as we read about Peter and
                            11 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
Paul  in  Acts,  Luke  advises  us  that,  1)  the  first  healing  of  both  men  were  of
cripples; 2) Peter healed by merely casting his shadow while Paul healed from
someone touching a cloth he had touched; 3) they both encountered and dealt
with witchcraft; 4) they were both supernaturally released from being imprisoned;
and 5) through all their trials and troubles still they both were able to spread the
Word of God and the truth of the Good News.
Let's  finish  up  today  with  this  thought.  One  of  the  themes  that  is  woven
throughout  the  Book  of  Acts  is  that  what  happens  on  earth  either  is  being
established  on  another  level  in  Heaven  or  has  already  been  established  in
Heaven and is only now happening on earth. And that many earthly events have
a real tangible meaning, consequence, and outcome as they happen (such as
the  death  of  Christ);  but  these  same  events  can  also  simultaneously  have  a
mysterious quality to them that somehow advances God's plan and purpose in
ways that we can't see or measure.
Gregory the Great, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 590 – 604 A.D.
said  this:    "Holy  Scripture,  in  its  way  of  speaking,  transcends  all  other
sciences because in one and the same statement while it narrates a real
event, it also sets forth the mystery". I have tried to characterize and illustrate
this  impossible  to  explain  divine  phenomena  by  using  the  term  the  Reality  of
Duality.
Next week we shall open our Bibles to Acts chapter one.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            12 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 2, Chapter 1
In our introduction to the Book of Acts last week, one of the several reasons that I
highlighted for deciding to teach this New Testament book (besides the fact that
the Holy Spirit led me to do so), was because it forms the foundational context for
understanding  who  Paul  is.  And  while  much  more  goes  on  in  Acts  than  only
concerns  Paul,  and  we're  going  to  spend  a  great  deal  of  our  study  on  those
things, there is no greater influence on the modern institutional Christian Church
than  Paul's  Epistles.  So  I  can't  help  but  focus  on  Paul,  especially  once  he
enters the scene in the Book of Acts.
Paul was perceived as problematic within the Messianic movement as early as
48  or  49  A.D.  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  claiming  that  Paul  could  be  quite  hard  to
understand. Without doubt this is the same issue that led to James summoning
Paul to Jerusalem for a meeting in 49 A.D. because of things he had heard about
Paul. So what did Peter mean in 2 Peter 3:16 by 'hard to understand'? Did Paul
mumble? Was he a poor Hebrew and Aramaic speaker? Did he speak in circles
or  in  unsolvable  riddles?  Obviously  that  is  not  Peter's  issue  with  Paul  as  Paul
was  always  depicted  throughout  the  NT  as  an  elite  intellectual;  articulate,  a
walking Encyclopedia Judaica, and a persuasive orator even in front of heads of
state. So what was so hard to understand about Paul's words? Since Peter was
an original disciple of Yeshua, who was there with Him as a constant companion
from the beginning of Yeshua's ministry and through the time of His crucifixion
and resurrection; and he had personally witnessed Messiah's ascension into the
clouds,  Peter  had  been  trained  at  the  feet  of  the  Master.  But  when  he  heard
some of the things that the relative new-comer Paul said about various subjects
regarding  the  meaning  and  consequences  of  Yeshua's  advent  as  Savior,  and
what Jewish and gentile followers ought to do as a result, at times they must not
                             1 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
have sounded too much like the instructions that Peter had heard directly from
the lips of Christ.
I can tell you frankly that I have similar issues. There are things that Paul says in
his  many  letters  that  are  at  times  hard  to  square  with  what  Christ  says  in  the
Gospels. Quite recently I had a lively dinner conversation with a long time dear
friend who is one of the most respected, prolific and widely read Christian fiction
writers of our time (I don't need to reveal his name as he is doing well enough
without free advertising from me). And as I discussed with him some of the things
I'm  going  to  discuss  with  you,  he  paused  and  said  that  (and  I  paraphrase)  as
much as Paul has taught him and been a spiritual guide to him, he's not sure
how  much  he  likes  Paul  (on  a  personal  and  gut  level).  That  Paul  could  be
infuriating, arrogant, and sometimes contradictive if not sounding outright double-
minded  on  some  important  theological  matters  that  concern  every  Believer,
gentile or Jew. And I if you don't feel some of that, then you haven't really read
Paul.
Now, while I'm not sure I could be quite as disapproving as my friend, I have had
similar  reactions  as  I've  studied  Paul's  Epistles.  So  do  I  think  there's  a
problem? Yes I do; but the problem is not with Paul, it's with us. Unless and until
we,  and  Christianity  in  totality,  take  Paul  in  his  Jewish  cultural  and  religious
context, and understand that all of his words naturally, reflexively, flow from who
he is in his Jewish context both before and after He met the resurrected Yeshua,
then we will misunderstand his words and their intent. His 13 Epistles (some say
it is 14 if you assume he wrote the Book of Hebrews, which most scholars say he
didn't, and I am in agreement that he did not), Paul's letters do not explain who
Paul is or delve deeply into his cultural and religious background. Rather they
explain what Paul did and said to a wide variety of people, in a wide variety of
circumstances and cultural settings, after his confrontation with the risen Messiah
and his conversion on the road to Damascus. So where do find out who Paul
really is? Where do we find out how we are to understand that the very structure
of  Paul's  sentences  and  the  terms  he  chooses  obviously  reflects  his  Jewish
cultural background and dedication to, and understanding of, his Jewish religion?
We find it in the Book of Acts.
As the gentile Church formed and progressed in the years following the death of
Christ, and then the eventual demise of all of his Apostles, we find a tug-of-war
developing between Church leaders to determine how much Jewishness should
be allowed into gentile Christianity, and how much the Church's doctrines ought
                             2 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
to be influenced by the Jewish context of the Holy Scriptures (not to mention the
Jewishness of nearly all its characters and writers). And as an aside: let me be
clear that while the best technically correct term that I ought to use is Hebrew
rather  than  Jewish,  I  will  use  "Jewish"  more  often  because  it  is  the  more
commonly used term in our day even if from a scholarly standpoint Hebrew is
more nuanced. This issue of Paul's Jewishness is why we talked about Marcion
last week who about 40 years or so after the last of the original Apostles died,
decided that NO Jewishness should follow into Christianity. And to try and assure
that it didn't he fought against using the Book of Acts as instructional or historical
material  for  Christians,  and  only  wanted  to  include  9  of  Paul's  13  letters,  and
even then only versions that Marcion heavily edited. He wasn't entirely alone in
this viewpoint, and his arguments obviously had their long term effect.
One  of  the  things  I  do  to  prepare  my  lessons  is  to  research  several  of  the
scholarly commentaries that Jewish and Christian sources generally agree are
the best; clearly rising above the many other good ones. And as I studied the
various commentaries on Acts, and as I noted the many reference sources used
by these excellent commentators, I found it strange that almost no mention was
made of the comments written by the earliest Church Fathers. Being a natural-
born  skeptic  I  wondered  why  that  was.  Finding  just  what  these  early  Church
Fathers had to say was quite a challenge for me because so much of what they
had  to  say  were  in  languages  (such  as  Latin)  that  I  was  unfamiliar  with.  But,
thanks be to God, by chance I stumbled across a little-known work accomplished
by Francis Martin who not only translated but also collated and correlated what
many of the early Church Fathers had to say about Luke's Book of Acts. And it
has greatly added to and colored what I now understand about this pivotal New
Testament book as it filled in some critical blanks.
Before we read Acts chapter one together, I want to give you a quote from John
Chrysostom,  who  wrote  a  rather  complete  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Acts
around
400 A.D. What he says in only a couple of sentences gives us great insight into
the  mindset  of  the  Church  and  Christianity  in  general  towards  this  book  in  his
day, and in the decades leading up to his commentary. He says this about the
Book  of  Acts:  "To  many  people  this  book  (The  Book  of  Acts),  both  its
content  and  its  author,  is  so  little  known  that  they  are  not  even  aware  it
exists. I have therefore taken this narrative for my subject, both to initiate
those who are ignorant and so that such a treasure shall not remain hidden
                             3 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
out of sight".
Why was this Bible book so little known in Christianity that Chrysostom could say
that even its authorship wasn't known, let alone what it contained? After all, the
Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written by the same author, and the
Gospel of Luke was a mainstay for the Christian community long before it and
other books were canonized as God inspired and made part of a new Christian
Bible that included the so-called New Testament. As I told you last week, Luke
originally  created  a  single  unified  work  called  "History  of  Christian  Origins",
which consisted of two volumes: the Gospel and the Apostles. Essentially these 2
volumes  were  part  A  and  part  B  of  a  total  work  developed  by  Luke.  But  even
before   Marcion's   time   (140's   A.D.)   Luke's   work   had   been   divided   and
separated into two individual books, and they circulated separately: The Gospel
of Luke was one book, and the Acts of the Apostles was the second. Once they
became separated, the continuity and connection of Luke's exquisite work was
lost. Each book presented only half the story. And many in the gentile dominated
Church revered the first half, but didn't much care for the second half because,
as Marcion was bold enough to say out loud, it was too Jewish. The Book of Acts
especially presented a much too Jewish Paul who had been re-molded by many
Church  Bishops  into  an  Apostle  to  the  gentiles  who  was  very  nearly  a  gentile
himself; his Jewishness being an unimportant (if not troublesome) formality that
need not be considered or even brought up.  That is why John Chrysostom could
say that few within the Church knew the Book of Acts even existed.
Take note of this as well: since it has long been known that the Book of Acts is
the  direct  sequel  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  why  doesn't  Acts  directly  follow  the
Gospel of Luke in the Bible? Then we'd have the original continuity and flow that
Luke intended. Why did the early Church decide to put the Gospels in the order
of  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  and  then  insert  a  4th  Gospel,  John,  before  then
inserting Acts? Why not Matthew, Mark, John.....then Luke immediately followed
by Acts? After all that is exactly how it is done with Paul, Peter, and others when
there   are   two   parts   to   one   letter   or   one   complete   work   (for   example,
1st Corinthians isn't separated from 2nd Corinthians with other books placed in
between).  Do  you  think  this  was  accidental?  That  the  Church  Fathers  didn't
realize what they were doing when they separated Luke from Acts? Might there
have been an agenda at work, here? Of course there was and the result was
exactly what John Chrysostom revealed at the beginning of the 5th century A.D.;
few Christians knew that the Book of Acts even existed, or that its author was the
Luke of the Gospels, or that Acts was Luke part 2; that's why it was hidden out of
                             4 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
sight. Without the Book of Acts Paul could be more easily recast as a gentile-ish
Jew  who  spoke  against  the  Torah  and  the  Jewish  people,  and  made  gentile
Believers the New and replaced Israel.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter one.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 1 all
We have so many interesting and foundational topics, one after the other, in this
first  chapter,  and  we'll  deal  with  several  of  them.  We've  already  covered
authorship, so we could easily call the Book of Acts, Luke part 2. And like the first
book (the Gospel of Luke) this one is dedicated to the same fellow Theophilos.
Now Theophilos is a Greek word that means "friend of God". There are not just a
few scholars who therefore say that in fact while this is a real name in use at that
time, that it also just as easily could be a general term referring to all of the new
Believers in Christ (as friends of God). We'll not get into the many debates about
this, because most of them in my opinion are specious arguments that ignore the
plain wording before us. Absolute proof of course isn't possible, but there is no
reason to think that Theophilos isn't a rich benefactor who paid Luke to do this
thorough investigation into Yeshua and all that He did and then what happened
to the early movement of Believers after His ascension.
Right   away   in   verse   2   we   see   Luke's   focus   on   the   work   of   God
through the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit, and we'll find the use of this term
Holy Spirit 39 more times in Acts. This means that of all the uses of the term Holy
Spirit in the entire New Testament, the Book of Acts alone contains almost half of
them. In fact the second verse explains that Yeshua gave instructions through
the auspices of the Holy Spirit to the 12 disciples He had originally chosen (11
really  because  Judas  had  committed  suicide).  Thus  Luke  makes  a  strong
connection not just with YHWH and the Holy Spirit, but now with Jesus and the
Holy Spirit. So we see the great unity, the oneness, the echad of God expressed
and understood by Luke.
Luke reminds his readers in verse 3 that after Yeshua arose from the rocky tomb
that He presented Himself to many of His followers and left no doubt that it was
He, and that He was real and alive, not an apparition or a ghost. We find record
of this fact in numerous places in the NT, so here is but one example:
Matthew 28:8-10 CJB
                             5 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
8 So they left the tomb quickly, frightened yet filled with joy; and they ran to
give  the  news  to  his  talmidim.  9  Suddenly  Yeshua  met  them  and  said,
"Shalom!" They came up and took hold of his feet as they fell down in front
of  him.  10  Then  Yeshua  said  to  them,  "Don't  be  afraid!  Go  and  tell  my
brothers to go to the Galil, and they will see me there."
Skip down to verse 16.
16 So the eleven talmidim went to the hill in the Galil where Yeshua had told
them to go. 17 When they saw him, they prostrated themselves before him;
but  some  hesitated.  18  Yeshua  came  and  talked  with  them.  He  said,  "All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore, go and
make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality
of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, 20 and teaching them to
obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with
you always, yes, even until the end of the age."
Then we get a piece of information in verse 3 of chapter 1 that we didn't get in
the Gospels: after His resurrection Yeshua stayed around for a period of 40 days
communing  with  and  instructing  His  disciples.  Why  40  days?  God  instructed
Moses on top of Mt. Sinai for 40 days, and now God (Yeshua) is instructing His
disciples  for  40  days.  40  is  a  Biblical  number  that  symbolizes  testing  and/or
transition.  And  since  we  know  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  arrive  to  dwell  within
humans  on  the  50th  day  after  Passover,  and  we  know  that  Yeshua  arose
on Bikkurim (Firstfruits) and remained on earth for 40 days, then depending on
how one decides to count the days from Passover to Firstfruits (I say it is 3 days)
that it seems probable that 1 week to the day after Christ ascended into Heaven,
Shavuot arrived and with it the Holy Spirit.  One week is 7 days and 7 is the ideal
number and is symbolic of wholeness or divine completion. Makes sense that it
would be exactly 7 days between Christ ascending and the Holy Spirit arriving;
and it follows the Biblical pattern we saw in the Torah and in the Old Testament.
We get one other important piece of information: what was it that Christ mainly
spent His time teaching His disciples about? It was about the Kingdom of God.
And by the way, at times we'll see places in the NT that speaks of the Kingdom
of Heaven; it is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.  And yet as we'll see in a
couple  more  verses,  there  were  aspects  about  the  concept  of  the  Kingdom  of
God that the disciples still couldn't comprehend.
                             6 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
It was during that 40 day period at one of these post-resurrection gatherings that
Yeshua instructed the 11 that they were not to leave Jerusalem but instead to
wait for what the Father promised. So obviously at this particular gathering they
weren't  in  Galilee;  rather  Jesus  met  with  them  in  Jerusalem.  Then  in  verse  4
Christ says something quite interesting that has more depth to it than meets the
eye.  He  says  that  although  His  cousin  Yochanon  (John  the  Baptist)  baptized
people in water, the disciples would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Notice that
with John, the baptizer was the human being, John. But Yeshua didn't say that
they would go out and baptize in the Holy Spirit instead of water, but rather they
would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. One can only imagine what this might
have meant to them; I suspect it was puzzling. So this is where we'll pause and
talk  about  this  because  since  these  11  disciples  are  all  Jews,  and  since  their
cultural  and  religious  context  is  second  Temple  Judaism,  any  talk  among
themselves about baptizing was within the framework of how Jews baptized and
what that act meant to them.
First; the English word baptize comes from the Greek verb baptizeim, and it is a
generic term that means to immerse. So whatever it is meant to symbolize, the
action physically involves immersion of something, usually into a liquid. And the
purpose of being immersed is to take on the qualities of the liquid that person or
object is being immersed into. The term was regularly used as it regards dying
cloth; so a plain cloth is immersed into a vat of dye and it takes on the quality of
that dye, which is to change the cloth to a certain color.
From  the  Jewish  second  Temple  period  perspective,  whereby  Judaism  had
become an amalgam of Traditions that overlapped and intermingled with Torah
commandments  regarding  the  God-ordained  act  of  immersion,  the  purpose  of
immersion  was  generally  to  become  ritually  purified  or  cleansed.    There  were
many ways that ritual purity could be lost, but immersion invariably was the way
to regain that lost purity. In fact, immersion to regain ritual purity was not only for
humans  but  for  inanimate  objects  like  cookware.  The  preferred  place  for
immersion  was  at  a  Mikveh;  a  ritual  bath  that  had  steps  down  into  a  water
reservoir,  and  usually  separate  steps  back  up.  The  water  reservoir  had  to  be
deep enough that the entire body, head to toe, could be enveloped in water. But
when a Mikveh was not available a river or a spring fed lake was acceptable.
I spoke about immersion as a change in status. When someone or something
is    not    ritually    pure    it    is    not    usable    for    God.    When    someone    or
something is ritually clean, it becomes usable for God. And so it was common for
                             7 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
a  person  or  object  to  be  ritually  clean,  then  made  ritually  unclean,  only  to  be
made ritually clean again through immersion. Now to be clear: the water used for
immersion is itself only symbolic and has no magical quality to it. Rather by going
into  the  water  and  immersing  (baptizing),  it  signals  that  you  (or  the  object)  is
willfully changing your status from one condition to another; from being someone
who God is not able to use because you aren't pure enough in God's eyes, to
someone  God  is  able  to  use  because  you  are  now  pure  in  God's  eyes.  As
regards  Believer's  baptism  it  is  symbolic  of  laying  down  our  own  will  and
submitting to God's. It is death and burial of our identity and allegiance to self,
and thus having our status changed such that our new identity and allegiance is
Messiah.
So  whereas  John,  a  physical  human  being,  could  only  immerse  a  person  into
physical water as a show of symbolism, now through Christ, and without the aid
of  a  human,  God  would  immerse  a  person  into  His  Holy  Spirit  and  it  wasn't
symbolic but real. And what did one obtain with immersion into the Holy Spirit?
Power!  Finally, praise the Lord, finally the power to hear God and to obey Him;
to do His will in impossible circumstances. Power to go forth with the Good News
and deliver it to others. And with Christ's disciples at least, power to do miracles
like their Master had done.
To  stay  on  course  let's  talk  about  Yeshua  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit
descended upon Christ. He was the first to receive the Spirit that dwelled within.
And yet, since Yeshua was God the Holy Spirit was as much a part Him as for
His Father. There is only one Holy Spirit, not many. Thus essentially the same
spirit that was within Yeshua, He would share with His 11 disciplines and also
with all who came to faith in Him. I think a good way to look at it is that Yeshua
shared His Holy Spirit with His disciples as the means to empower them to do
what He had done, and what He wanted them to do. This was a first, right? NO!
God  is  a  God  of  patterns;  and  all  that  we  see  happening  in  the  NT,  was  first
patterned in the Old Testament.
Numbers 11:24-26 CJB 24 Moshe went out and told the people what ADONAI
had said. Then he collected seventy of the leaders of the people and placed
them all around the tent. 25 ADONAI came down in the cloud, spoke to him,
took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy leaders.
When  the  Spirit  came  to  rest  on  them,  they  prophesied-  then  but  not
afterwards.  26  There  were  two  men  who  stayed  in  the  camp,  one  named
Eldad and the other Medad, and the Spirit came to rest on them. They were
                             8 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
among those listed to go out to the tent, but they hadn't done so, and they
prophesied in the camp.
How about that? The precedent and pattern had already been set with the first
mediator, Moses, whereby God's spirit that rested upon him was SHARED with
his   "disciples",   the   70   elders.   And   what   did   they   do   as   a   result?   They
prophesied;  meaning  they  spoke  as  God  directed  them.  Two  others  who  had
stayed  in  the  tent  encampment  also  had  the  spirit  rest  upon  them  and  they
prophesied in the camp. But it was short lived. Now we see what we've talked
about time and again; Yeshua, the second and better Mediator, came to bring the
Torah and Prophets to a whole new and higher level of fulfillment. With Yeshua
as Mediator the Holy Spirit didn't just rest upon worshippers, He indwelled. And
the effect wasn't short lived, it was lifelong. When you and I and everyone who
has trusted in Christ were anointed with the Holy Spirit, it was meant to be for a
lifetime. We don't need to occasionally redo it.
We'll move on to verse 6 now, and into another awesome topic, but I don't want
to leave the matter of baptism before telling you this: yes it is symbolic. But it is
also  commanded  by  Yeshua  and  so  that  makes  it  vitally  necessary.  It  is  not
optional. And one of the purposes of baptism is to make a public profession to
fellow  Believers  that  you  have  decided  to  put  down  your  crown,  take  up  the
cross, and join the community of Believers. Will submerging under water change
you? No. Water can't enter into your innermost parts; but the Holy Spirit can and
will. By being obedient to God to follow Messiah's command to immerse and by
being willing to let others around you know of your change of status, you will be
changed.
Since coming to Messiah, have you been immersed? Have you perhaps left a
faith or denomination that was well off the mark and you want to immerse in the
truth of Yeshua, and the truth of the entire Word of God, and not merely in the
image or fantasy of whatever you used to think Him to be? Do you want to boldly
tell the Father and your family and congregation that you now know that through
faith  in  Messiah  you  have  been  grafted  into  the  Covenants  of  Israel;  the
covenants that provide for a Jewish Savior to pay the price for your sins?  Do you
want to declare that the Lord has made you prepared, full of power, and finally
usable by God? Then be immersed (I'll be happy to talk to anyone who wants to
know more at the end of this message).
In verse 6 we see that the disciples still didn't get this Kingdom-of-God thing, not
                             9 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
even  with  God  Himself  (Jesus)  personally  teaching  them  about  it  (one  more
reason  that  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  we  see  in  chapter  two  was  so
necessary). So the disciples ask Yeshua this question: "Lord, are you going to
restore self-rule to Israel?" You see, all of Judaism was breathlessly waiting for a
Deliverer, an anointed one, to come and not only rescue Israel from the hands of
the Romans; but to also restore self-rule. That self rule was to come in the form
of a Davidic King. And the disciples well understood that Yeshua came from one
of the royal lines of David, so He was qualified for the position. And, by the way,
there were many lines that came from David through his many wives. But only
the  line  that  came  through  David's  son  Solomon  was  considered  as  the  royal
line, meaning eligibility to sit on Israel's throne as king. So even though through
all Yeshua had done and taught them the 11 still seemed to harbor the notion
that in His now resurrected body, He would lead Israel in a successful military
rebellion against Rome. This particular expectation of a Messiah was present in
virtually  all  Jews,  whether  they  lived  in  the  Holy  Land  or  in  the  Diaspora.  And
since Christ had proven in every way that He was the Messiah, what would have
been a more logical question that the one the disciples put forward to Him about
Israel and self-rule?
The disciples didn't get it that, at least for this time, Yeshua came only to die as
a ransom for sin. Yeshua's answer to their question is fascinating and important.
He didn't say "no". He essentially said "later".
Acts 1:7-8 CJB  7 He answered, "You don't need to know the dates or the
times;  the  Father  has  kept  these  under  his  own  authority.  8  But  you  will
receive power when the Ruach HaKodesh comes upon you; you will be my
witnesses both in Yerushalayim and in all Y'hudah and Shomron, indeed to
the ends of the earth!"
So  Christ's  answer  to  the  question  'will  Israel  return  to  self-rule'  is  yes  Israel
will. And by the way they had self-rule restored to them in May of 1948 and have
been  under  self-rule  ever  since.  However  that  still  isn't  the  fulfillment  of  what
Yeshua was speaking about; because Yeshua's concern wasn't merely the land
of  Israel  having  independence,  and  being  led  by  a  Jew;  but  rather  that  Israel
would be the core of the Kingdom of God. And that event is still in the future, and
it is what modern Christianity calls the Millennial Kingdom. So while it is going to
come  as  a  surprise  to  many  Believers,  it  shouldn't  surprise  you  to  know  that
Israel  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  will  one  day  be  the  same.  And  Jerusalem  as
capital  of  Israel  will  also  be  the  capital  of  the  worldwide  Kingdom  of  God  with
                            10 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
Jesus Christ ruling on earth as king.
But Yeshua told them that they didn't need to know when this would happen; in
fact the Father is the only one who knows and is keeping it to Himself. So instead
of receiving knowledge of when these events will happen (events they don't yet
fathom), they will (in a matter of days) receive power when the Holy Spirit comes
upon  them.  His  answer  also  completely  blows  away  the  Christian  concept  of
Replacement Theology or that the Jews no longer have a right to the Holy Land;
and instead it now belongs to the gentile Church.
Another important thing that happened here is most instructional for our day, and
it plays into a pet peeve of mine. Jesus refocused them from anxiously staring
into the future and instead told them to concentrate on the now. Whatever lies
ahead in prophecy is important and we can count on it; but we should not live our
lives in waiting mode. Or as with today among too many Believers, constantly
thinking about the coming End Times while the days whiz by and mostly we just
fret and worry about the terrible things we read about the End Times, instead of
our being productive. Folks, there are nearly daily a bevy of false prophets who
send out internet newsletters or write books and try to tell you to watch out for
this month or this blood moon, because the Holy Spirit told them the destruction
of the USA was coming, or the Anti-Christ would appear, or the world would enter
into  war,  or  we'd  have  a  complete  financial  collapse  or  "fill  in  the  blank  with
whatever  catastrophe  is  currently  in  vogue'.    They  sound  so  convincing;  but
when that month or day passes and nothing particularly important happens, they
just move right on to their next false prophecy. Why listen to them? Does it make
you  feel  more  religious,  or  does  it  merely  play  into  your  fears  and  so  you  are
happy you're not alone in those fears? How does it help the Kingdom of God, or
yourself or your family, to be full of fear and trembling about a future no one can
possibly know....because Yeshua Himself said you couldn't? Do you know why
these  false  prophets  continue  doing  this?  Because  they  continue  to  get  an
audience!
Christ  says  that  He  has  told  us  what  we  need  to  know  about  the  outcome  of
God's  plan  of  redemption;  but  the  when  is  not  for  us  to  know.  Rather  as  His
devoted followers we are to get on with the business of doing God's will, living
holy lives, caring for Yeshua's sheep, and doing whatever we can to bring the
lost ones into the Kingdom.
Yeshua telling the disciples to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, in Samaria,
                            11 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
and to the ends of the earth tells us a couple of important things. First it tells us
that Jerusalem is the beginning point, like the epicenter of a massive earthquake,
and the Gospel is to ripple outwards from there. It is to spread next to Samaria (a
place  the  Jews,  including  the  Believers,  simply  despised  even  though  most
Samarians  had  some  Hebrew  blood  in  their  veins).  And  then  after  Samaria  to
every corner of the earth; meaning to the gentile world, but no doubt also to the
Jewish  Diaspora.  In  fact,  I  have  no  doubt  that  since  to  this  point  Yeshua  was
100%  about  being  the  Jewish  Messiah  who  came  for  the  Jewish  people,  that
when  the  disciples  heard  this  instruction  from  Jesus  their  first  thought  was  for
their Jewish brothers of the Diaspora (representing more than 90% of all living
Jews) who lived in far flung cities and towns throughout Northern Africa, Asia,
and  Europe.  Little  did  they  understand  just  yet  that  gentiles  were  to  be  an
important part of their work. And that is why we're going to see so much focus on
Paul, the designated Apostle to the gentiles, in a few more chapters.
But telling His disciples to be a witness for Him was said, and understood, within
the common Jewish legal understanding of the term. A witness was part of the
legal system's process of justice. A witness was more than a casual observer to
an event; rather a witness was important and carried real power and knew things.
A  witness  in  the  Jewish  legal  system  was  often  the  accuser.  A  witness  was
believed  in  their  testimony  because  if  they  weren't  truthful  they  could  be
prosecuted. Two witnesses whose testimony matched was typically sufficient for
conviction. And if the conviction was for a capital offense, the witnesses also led
the execution process. Do you want to be a witness for Christ? Then understand
the seriousness of your office, and that only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can
give you the necessary authority and power to function in that position.
We'll continue in Acts chapter 1 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            12 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 3, Chapter 1 continued
Since  we  are  early  in  our  study  of  the  Book  of  Acts  from  a  Hebrew  Roots
perspective,  I'd  like  to  take  just  a  few  minutes  to  recap  what  we  covered  last
week. We're going to be going quite deep in Acts, and it's going to take time,
and it will help if each week we rehash a few things from the previous lesson.
You are going to find that as we move through Acts we are going to run across a
number of seemingly common and innocent sounding phrases and statements,
but  which  actually  are  important  and  carry  more  weight  than  meets  the  eye.
Some  of  this  is  because  these  statements  often  represent  principles  and
concepts that are uniquely Hebrew, but have been somewhat masked by being
communicated  in  Greek  and  then  translated  into  English  (often  with  a  Latin
translation  in  between).  This  is  not  a  conspiracy;  it's  simply  the  difficulty  of
transliterating  languages  especially  without  the  benefit  of  understanding  the
culture of the original authors and the context of the times in which they lived.
Thus part of the reason for the lengthy time we'll spend in Acts is to regularly
pause to insert some tidbits about the New Testament era in the Holy Land or to
remind  us  of  Torah  principles  that  are  being  played  out  in  the  era  following
Christ's birth.
First, and most importantly, the author of the Book of Acts was Luke; and this
Luke is the same one who penned the Gospel of Luke. In fact those two books of
the Bible that we today read and treat entirely separately were originally a single
unified  work  forming  the  "History  of  Christian  Origins"  that  consisted  of  two
volumes.  At  first  Luke's  work  was  circulated  among  privileged  Christians  in  its
unified form. But at some undetermined point between about 70 A.D. and 140
A.D.,  the  2  volumes  were  separated  and  started  circulating  individually  (most
likely this was just an issue of practicality as the two volumes together formed a
                             1 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
large work). Thus the Gospel of Luke took on a life all its own, as did the Book of
Acts. Each was read and evaluated for its value to Christianity on its own accord.
And as it happened, in some sectors of the Church the Gospel of Luke became
well accepted, but the Book of Acts not so much. In fact some Church authorities
out and out rejected the Book of Acts as "too Jewish" to be of use in this new
gentiles-oriented religion called Christianity.
It needs to be made clear that by the mid 2nd century A.D., Paul's, Peter's, and
John's  letters,  as  well  as  many  Gospels  (several  more  than  only  the  4  that
appear  in  today's  authorized  Bibles)  were  being  used  and  accepted  by  the
Church in its already many branches, but only as instructional and in some cases
authoritative.   However   these   various   documents   were   not   seen   as   Holy
Scripture. Well more than a century after Christ's death and resurrection there
still was no such thing as a New Testament, nor were any of the documents (that
we  now  call  NT  books)  ordained  as  God  inspired  (at  least  not  on  the  level  of
inspiration as to be considered on par with the Hebrew Bible). So the only Bible
in existence at that time for both Christians and Jews, Messianic or Orthodox,
was what we today call the Old Testament.
However in 144 A.D. a wealthy and powerful Christian named Marcion tried to
change  all  that.  He  insisted  it  was  time  to  set  aside  the  Hebrew  Bible  and  to
create a Bible that consisted only of fairly recent documents written exclusively
by Believers in Christ. He accepted only two writers as legitimate: Luke and Paul.
However  he  also  accepted  only  part  of  Luke's  writings;  specifically  Luke's
Gospel. And he accepted only 9 of Paul's letters. He was roundly criticized by
most Church Bishops as a heretic for his stance; yet his insistence on raising the
level of authority for a number of well known documents already in use by the
Church from informative to God-inspired, and thus hoping to create a new and
separate  Christian  Bible,  was  an  idea  that  wouldn't  die.  By  around  200  A.D.
Church councils were meeting to decide whether they ought to create a Christian
Bible and if so, which documents and letters might it include. The rest as they say
is history and so not later than about 220 A.D., a New Testament was added to
the Old Testament and presto! The Christian Bible as we know it was born. It
didn't necessary contain all the same books or have them in the same order that
our modern Bibles use, but it was close.
Last week we also discussed that it seems that the Book of Acts fell out of favor
and became largely unknown to the Church by the start of the 5th century A.D. I
read you a quote by the early Church Father John Chrysostom, who wrote his
                             2 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
commentary on the Book of Acts around 400 A.D., and he attested that the Book
of Acts was not familiar to most Christian leaders. Some of the facts about what
Jesus did after His resurrection are contained only in the Book of Acts (such as
His  remaining  on  earth  and  teaching  His  disciples  for  40  days  before  He
ascended to Heaven). But even more impactful to modern Christianity is that it is
in the Book of Acts that we first meet Paul, and find out who he is and where he
came  from.  We  learn  of  his  conversion  from  militant  religious  persecutor  of
Jewish Believers to devoted follower of Yeshua. And we learn about his Jewish
heritage and his continuing dedication, as a Jew, to the Torah and the Law of
Moses well after his conversion.
We were introduced to the concept of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, which is
different than what John the Baptist offered in water baptism. And that, before
ascending, Jesus told His disciples to remain in Jerusalem to wait for "what the
Father promised". We learned that "what the Father promised" was spoken of in
the Book of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah  31:30-32  CJB    30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,
"when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Isra'el  and  with  the
house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of
Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for
my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant
I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will
put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
What would be the mechanism by which God's Torah would be put within His
people,  and  written  on  their  hearts?  Jeremiah  doesn't  explain  that,  but  the
Prophet Ezekiel does.
Ezekiel  36:26-28  CJB    26  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart  and  put  a  new  spirit
inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart
of flesh. 27 I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live by my laws,
respect my rulings and obey them. 28 You will live in the land I gave to your
ancestors. You will be my people, and I will be your God.
So  "what  the  Father  promised"  centuries  earlier  was,  according  to  Yeshua,
about to happen and the disciples needed to be in Jerusalem in order to receive
                             3 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
it.  Did  they  understand  what  it  was,  exactly,  that  they  were  going  to  receive?
Without doubt, no.
Then in Acts 1 verse 6, the disciples ask Yeshua a question that indicates that
they still did not grasp the purpose of His advent, death and resurrection. They
want to know if He is now going to restore self-rule to Israel. In other words, is
Christ going to lead the Jews in a rebellion against Rome? Yeshua responds to
that question in verse 7. His answer? Not now, but later. He says that the time of
Israel's  emancipation  and  glory  is  not  for  them  to  know.  In  fact,  that  is
information that the Father has not shared and doesn't intend to. We should not
be harsh on the disciples for thinking in these terms; all of Judaism was awaiting
a warrior-Messiah to restore Israel to independence. In fact restoring Israel to self-
rule was thought to be the purpose for a Messiah. So it is no wonder that when
Christ was crucified that the vast majority of Jews, who perhaps hoped it was this
man  from  Nazareth  who  was  the  Messiah,  fell  away  and  were  convinced  he
couldn't  have  been.  After  all,  how  does  a  dead  man  lead  a  military  rebellion
against the Romans?
But in those same words that no doubt caused the disciples to be dismayed (that
Yeshua would not lead a rebellion right now), Messiah also indicated that they
should  take  their  eyes  off  the  unknowable  future  and  concentrate  on  the  now.
They were soon going to get power to become His witnesses not only to Jews in
the Holy Land, but to all people on earth. However to these 11 Galilean men who
heard Christ's words this had to be referring to them being a witness to the Jews
in the Diaspora, not to their gentile enemies!
Why would they think that way? Because Yeshua had earlier set up a prohibition
and specifically told them that they could NOT take the news of the Gospel to
Samaria or to the gentiles.
Matthew  10:5-6  CJB    5  These  twelve  Yeshua  sent  out  with  the  following
instructions: "Don't go into the territory of the Goyim, and don't enter any
town in Shomron, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el.
This meant that essentially up to this point their ministry had been restricted to
Judea and the Galilee. But now, moments before Messiah ascends to Heaven,
He releases the disciples to go everywhere to proclaim the Good News with no
restrictions. This command was more momentous than the 11 had any idea of at
the moment it was uttered. But the commission to do so was predicated on their
                             4 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
FIRST receiving "what the Father promised" that would fill them with power; and
this would happen shortly, in Jerusalem.
Let's continue now starting with verse 9. We'll re-read parts of this chapter as
we go along today.
RE-READ ACTS 1:9 - 11
This first verse alone could be the subject of an entire sermon. But let's put this
all in context to begin. The 11 remaining and original disciples (Judas was dead)
personally witnessed Yeshua ascend. And how did He ascend? Up and into the
clouds. The passage states that they were all staring into the sky, no doubt slack
jawed, when suddenly two men were standing there with them. I think if I had
been  there,  I  too  would  have  been  so  astonished  and  fixated  on  what  was
happening......watching Yeshua visibly and tangibly float up into the clouds.....that a
hundred people could have showed up to watch and I wouldn't have been aware
of their presence. So sudden appearance out of nowhere of these 2 men (angels,
actually)  wouldn't  have  been  noticed  until  those  men  spoke  and  said,  "You
Galileans!" I'll bet they jumped a little bit when those angels spoke. Let's dissect
this passage.
First is the issue of going up into the clouds, which is actually two issues. 1) Did
Yeshua  go  up  bodily,  or  was  it  only  His  spirit  or  if  neither  then  in  what  form,
exactly, did He ascend? And 2), why into the clouds? Was this simply a colloquial
way of saying he went up into the sky or is there a spiritual or prophetic meaning
behind the word "cloud" in this?
This  first  issue  of  how  did  He  go  up  of  course  is  nothing  we'll  ever  prove.
However I believe the evidence says it was bodily; I do not think the disciples
saw  an  apparition  nor  was  it  Jesus  in  spirit.  I  believe  that  Yeshua  was  in  the
body; the SAME body that hung on that cross. What is my evidence for this? It is
from the same author as the writer of the Book of Acts. In Luke's first volume,
the Gospel of Luke, is the proof of my contention.
READ LUKE 24:33 – 44
Yeshua goes to great lengths to prove that it is He, in the flesh that stands before
His  disciples.  He  says  He's  not  a  ghost.  In  fact,  while  some  say  He  was  in  a
glorified body, then if so His glorified body still bore the scars of His horrible trial
                             5 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
on the cross. For he gladly showed the disciples His disfigured hands and feet,
torn apart by the spikes driven through them by the Roman soldiers. But Jesus all
so ate with them as proof He wasn't a spirit or an apparition. He was still human
and still desired food for His body.
The early Church Father Augustine from around 400 A.D. (he lived at the same
time  as  John  Chrysostom  lived)  expressed  his  viewpoint  on  this  subject  in  a
commentary he wrote on the Gospel of John. And before I read it to you, it is
interesting to note that Augustine's home, and where he wrote and officiated as
the Church Bishop, was a place called Hippo. The modern name for that place is
Annaba,  Algiers  (Algeria)  in  northern  Africa.  He  was  a  theologian  and  a
philosopher, a native of Algiers, who came to believe in Christ in his mid-30's.
He says this:
"How did they see him go? In the flesh they touched, which they felt, the
scars of which they even probed by touching; in that body in which he went
in and out with them for 40 days, manifesting himself to them in truth, not
in any falsity. Not as an apparition, not as a shadow not as a spirit, but as
he himself said, not deceiving 'handle and see for a spirit does not have
flesh and bones as you see me to have". 
This is the true definition of bodily resurrection and since Yeshua is said to be the
firstfruits  of  the  resurrection,  and  in  time  we  shall  follow  in  like  kind,  then  this
seems to indicate that we should expect to be resurrected in like manner. Not
necessary still harboring the scars of life or the conditions of old age or disease,
but certainly as real, fleshly bodies and not as disembodied spirits.
The next issue concerns His ascending into the clouds. Without doubt the most
important Biblical association that connects Christ with clouds comes in Daniel
chapter 7. And Yeshua in Matthew 24 connected Himself with coming back in the
clouds.
Matthew 24:25-30 CJB  25 There! I have told you in advance! 26 So if people
say to you, 'Listen! He's out in the desert!' don't go; or, 'Look! He's hidden
away in a secret room!' don't believe it. 27 For when the Son of Man does
come, it will be like lightning that flashes out of the east and fills the sky to
the western horizon. 28 Wherever there's a dead body, that's where you find
the vultures. 29 "But immediately following the trouble of those times, the
sun will grow dark, the moon will stop shining, the stars will fall from the
                             6 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
sky, and the powers in heaven will be shaken. 30 "Then the sign of the Son
of Man will appear in the sky, all the tribes of the Land will mourn, and they
will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with tremendous
power and glory.
So while Matthew deals with his return to earth in the clouds, the Book of Daniel
deals with Him arriving in Heaven in the clouds.
Daniel  7:9-14  CJB    9  "As  I  watched,  thrones  were  set  in  place;  and  the
Ancient One took his seat. His clothing was white as snow, the hair on his
head  was  like  pure  wool.  His  throne  was  fiery  flames,  with  wheels  of
burning fire. 10 A stream of fire flowed from his presence; thousands and
thousands ministered to him, millions and millions stood before him. Then
the court was convened, and the books were opened. 11 "I kept watching.
Then,  because  of  the  arrogant  words  which  the  horn  was  speaking,  I
watched as the animal was killed; its body was destroyed; and it was given
over to be burned up completely. 12 As for the other animals, their rulership
was   taken   away;   but   their   lives   were   prolonged   for   a   time   and   a
season. 13 "I kept watching the night visions, when I saw, coming with the
clouds of heaven, someone like a son of man. He approached the Ancient
One and was led into his presence. 14 To him was given rulership, glory and
a kingdom, so that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.
His  rulership  is  an  eternal  rulership  that  will  not  pass  away;  and  his
kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
So essentially what we read in Acts about Him ascending into the clouds fulfills
what Daniel prophesied. But then we have the two angels that appeared to the
disciples inform them that as He left them so He would return. He left in clouds,
He will return in clouds, just as Messiah said Himself in Matthew 24. Obviously
this is still future to us.
But  there  is  more  to  be  learned.  Because  if  we  take  the  angels'  statement
literally, upon His return He should set His foot upon exactly the same place from
where He left. So where did He ascend from? Let's read a little more of Acts 1.
RE-READ ACTS 1:12 – 14
It says that the disciples returned to the City of Jerusalem from the Mt. of Olives.
So it seems that Yeshua ascended from the Mt. of Olives. This is actually a bit
                             7 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
controversial. Luke, in his other volume, The Gospel, says this is chapter 24:
Luke 24:50-53 CJB  50 He led them out toward Beit-Anyah; then, raising his
hands, he said a b'rakhah over them; 51 and as he was blessing them, he
withdrew  from  them  and  was  carried  up  into  heaven.  52  They  bowed  in
worship to him, then returned to Yerushalayim, overflowing with joy. 53 And
they spent all their time in the Temple courts, praising God.
Here Luke says Christ ascended from Beit-Anyah. Beit-Anyah means house of
dates.  Christians  call  this  place  Bethany.  Do  we  have  a  contradiction,  even
between the two volumes that Luke wrote? No. Bethany is located on the eastern
slope  of  the  Mt.  of  Olives.  So  essentially  both  of  Luke's  accounts  are  in
agreement;  it's  just  that  in  the  Gospel  Luke  tells  where  on  the  Mt.  of  Olives
Christ ascended. And, as an aside, where does Luke say that Christ's disciples
spent all their time? The Temple. So here we see how these Jewish men who
formed the inner circle of Yeshua's followers continued in their Jewish ways and
in their Jewish religion, by spending all their time at Herod's Temple. They didn't
consider themselves as followers of a new religion, and neither did those who
knew them otherwise they certainly wouldn't have been allowed onto the Temple
grounds.
But  there  are  some  Bible  scholars  and  teachers  who  claim  that  Yeshua  didn't
ascend  from  the  Mt.  of  Olives  but  rather  from  an  unknown  hill  in  the  Galilee.
Where might they get that idea from?
Matthew 28:16-20 CJB  16 So the eleven talmidim went to the hill in the Galil
where Yeshua had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they prostrated
themselves before him; but some hesitated. 18 Yeshua came and talked with
them.  He  said,  "All  authority  in  heaven  and  on  earth  has  been  given  to
me.  19  Therefore,  go  and  make  people  from  all  nations  into  talmidim,
immersing  them  into  the  reality  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Ruach
HaKodesh, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded
you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the
age."
I  don't  buy  their  premise  that  Yeshua  ascended  from  the  Galilee.  Notice  that
nothing is said about Christ ascending. So the evidence is pretty clear that He
ascended into the clouds from the Mt. of Olives, near the village of Bethany, and
thus that is exactly where He will be returning. But even the location of His return
                             8 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
was not something that Yeshua thought up and did in a vacuum; rather this place
was prophesied long before His advent. In the Book of Zechariah we read this:
CJB Zechariah 14:1  Look, a day is coming for ADONAI when your plunder,
[Yerushalayim], will be divided right there within you. 2 "For I will gather all
the nations against Yerushalayim for war. The city will be taken, the houses
will be rifled, the women will be raped, and half the city will go into exile;
but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city." 3 Then ADONAI
will  go  out  and  fight  against  those  nations,  fighting  as  on  a  day  of
battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies to
the east of Yerushalayim; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from
east to west, to make a huge valley. Half of the mountain will move toward
the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 You will flee to the valley in the
mountains, for the valley in the mountains will reach to Atzel. You will flee,
just  as  you  fled  before  the  earthquake  in  the  days  of  'Uziyah  king  of
Y'hudah.  Then  ADONAI  my  God  will  come  to  you  with  all  the  holy
ones.   6   On   that   day,   there   will   be   neither   bright   light   nor   thick
darkness; 7 and one day, known to ADONAI, will be neither day nor night,
although by evening there will be light.
So I think we have pretty well proven that Yeshua left from the Mt. of Olives and
that is where He will return. But I can't leave this passage of Zechariah until I
point  out  one  eerie  thing  that  we  see  in  14:2.  There  is  says  that  half  the  city
(Jerusalem) will be exiled, but the rest of the people (meaning Hebrews) will not
be cut off from the other half. That prophesy is in the process of being fulfilled.
Jerusalem,  although  in  Israel's  hands  today,  is  currently  politically  divided  into
east  and  west  Jerusalem  and  has  been  for  some  time.  Arabs  occupy  east
Jerusalem, and Jews occupy west Jerusalem. This doesn't really go for the Old
City, the walled portion of the ancient city of Jerusalem, but rather for the newer
sections  of  the  city  built  up  in  the  last  3  or  4  decades.  The  point  is  that  the
Palestinians insist that east Jerusalem, or all of Jerusalem, shall be their capital
city;  and  naturally  Israel  says  "no  chance"  to  either  option.  However  it  is  clear
that almost the entire world including the present Obama administration of the
USA is, as was the previous Bush administration, intent on splitting Jerusalem
and giving half of it to the Palestinians. I feel justified in saying that Israel will not
agree to this; it will have to be taken from them by force. And according to this
passage, the nations of the world will come together to make that happen. And
as we see Europe staunchly against Israel by policy; and we see the USA pulling
away at lightening speed and instead embracing Israel's enemies, the writing is
                             9 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
on the wall. This calamitous event spoken of in Zechariah 14 cannot be too far off
since  the  stage  is  already  set  and  the  players  are  in  place,  which  means  that
Messiah's return cannot be too far off since the loss of half of Jerusalem and the
return of Messiah are coupled together. That doesn't necessarily mean the two
things will happen simultaneously, nor even within days or weeks of each other.
But they will happen in succession.
Let's  move  on.  Notice  in  Acts  1:12  that  it  says  that  the  disciples  returned  the
Shabbat-walk distance from the Mt. of Olives to Jerusalem. This doesn't mean
that  the  day  Christ  ascended  was  the  Sabbath.  A  Shabbat-walk  distance  is  a
measurement  of  distance.  And  what  we  know  from  Jesus'  day  is  that  the
distance assigned to a maximum Shabbat-walk was around 2/3rd of a mile for
residents  of  Jerusalem,  but  the  distance  varied  from  city  to  city.  The  disciples
immediately went to the upper room where they had been staying. Might this be
the same upper room where Yeshua had His last supper? It is possible; however
upper rooms were common in Jerusalem. Most Middle Eastern houses were built
with rooms on the 2nd floor and that's what this is; this was not a commercial
establishment. Residents of Jerusalem and nearby villages often rented out their
2nd  floor  rooms  that  served  as  profit-making  B&Bs  (Bed  and  Breakfast's)  to
travelers, except during the Feast Days (like the one that was coming up) where
according  to  the  Law  of  Moses  Jews  were  required  to  make  a  journey  to  the
Temple. For those appointed times it was not permitted to charge Jewish pilgrims
for  their  lodging.  But  wherever  exactly  the  disciples  stayed  had  to  be  large
because 120 of Yeshua's followers met there.
Verse  13  gives  us  a  list  of  the  remaining  11  disciples  (and  of  course  the  list
matches with all of lists of the 12 original disciples minus the now dead Judas
Iscariot).  But  here  we  find  that  many  women  also  joined  with  the  men,  and
among  them  was  Yeshua's  mother  Miryam  along  with  his  brothers.  The  term
brothers  in  Hebrew  can  mean  everything  from  a  sibling  to  close  friends  to
members  of  one's  tribe  or  nation.  Of  course  here  we  are  using  Greek,  so  the
word is adelphos. However it also carries the same wide range of meaning as the
Hebrew ach (brother). So are these "brothers"' biological siblings of Jesus' (His
blood family) or does this merely mean other male disciples? It so happens that
Matthew  13:55  refers  directly  to  4  of  Yeshua's  sibling  brothers  Ya'acov,
Shim'on,  Y'hudah  and  Yosef.  And  since  the  wording  of  the  verse  in  Acts  is,
"Including Miryam and his brothers", it is clear that these brothers are Yeshua's
siblings (sons of Miryam). And BTW, other unpublished Gospels from that time
claim that although their names aren't given to us Miryam had daughters as well
                            10 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
as sons, which is believable unless she had 5 or more boys but no girls.
What  I  want  you  to  notice  is  that  as  is  typical  of  both  the  Old  and  New
Testaments women are given respect and position alongside men. There is no
indication that the women were considered second class followers or that they
prayed apart from the men. While it was traditional in synagogues to have the
men separated from the women, there is no Scriptural commandment of God to
do so, and there is no indication here that the Believers followed that example in
an informal setting (although no doubt they did in synagogues since it was the
custom).
Let's read the last few verses of Chapter 1.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 1:15 – end
Here we see an address by Kefa, Peter, to the group of 120 people. It is clear in
these  passages  and  others  that  Peter  was  a  leader  and  no  doubt  this  was
because  Yeshua  more  or  less  publically  declared  him  so  when  He  said:  CJB
Matthew  16:18  I  also  tell  you  this:  you  are  Kefa,"  [which  means  'Rock,']
"and on this rock I will build my Community, and the gates of Sh'ol will not
overcome it.
When the opening words of verse 15 say, "During this period", it means during
the  1  week  period  of  time  between  Yeshua's  ascension  and  the  fulfillment  of
"what the Father promised" that would give power to Yeshua's disciples. It was
a  period  of  time  in  which  none  of  them  were  to  leave  Jerusalem.  The  Biblical
Feast  of  Shavuot  was  due  in  1  week  from  Yeshua's  ascension;  but  did  the
disciples know or think that "what the Father promised" (whatever that might be)
was going to occur on Shavuot (Pentecost in Greek)? There is no evidence that
they knew what it was going to be or when it was going to happen, only where: in
Jerusalem.
Thus  Peter  follows  His  Master's  advice  to  stop  focusing  on  the  unknown  and
deal with the now. And the matter that Peter felt was important at the moment
was to replace Judas and get the number of disciples back up to 12. So Peter
opens  the  discussion  by  telling  the  group  that  what  happened  to  Judas  was
prophesied through David and he quotes passages from 2 Psalms (69 and 109)
to make his case. But first, why was it so important that there were 12 disciples
instead of the current 11? That will be the topic we'll begin our next lesson with.
                            11 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            12 / 12
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 4, Chapters 1 and 2
Today we will complete Acts chapter 1 and move into chapter 2. We ended last
time as Peter emerged as the spokesman of the young Messianic movement. In
fact it is probably fair to say that as of the time of his speech to the 120 fellow
Believers   gathered   at   the   upper   room   in   Jerusalem   shortly   after   Yeshua
ascended into Heaven, Peter was the de facto leader even if not in any official
capacity.
Peter  was  the  logical  choice  as  leader  for  the  time  being;  he  was  one  of  the
original 12 disciples (also known as Apostles) of Christ. Once when Yeshua and
the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi, Yeshua addressed the 12 and
asked them who they thought He was. Peter immediately blurted out: "You are
the Mashiach, the son of the Living God". To which Christ said to Peter: "You
are the Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build my community". That seemed to
be  a  clear  enough  endorsement  by  Yeshua  such  that  the  other  11  disciples
accepted Peter as senior among them after Christ.
Let's re-read part of chapter 1 to ready ourselves for today's lesson.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 1:15 – end
Peter stands up in front of the 120 and brings up a subject that addresses the
here  and  now.  That  is,  just  before  Yeshua's  ascension  He  had  instructed  the
disciples that they shouldn't focus on when or how Israel would throw off their
Roman oppressors and gain independence, because it's not for them to know.
Rather  they  should  put  their  efforts  into  matters  at  hand;  and  one  of  those
matters was to remain in Jerusalem in order to receive some kind of power that
                             1 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
will be given them through the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. This special
power would enable them to obey their prime directive to go to all the Holy Land
and then to every corner of the planet with the Good News of salvation. For Peter
the most important immediate matter was to bring the number of Apostles back
up  to  12,  since  Judas  had  betrayed  the  group  and  subsequently  committed
suicide.
Why  wouldn't  11  do?  What  was  so  critical  about  adding  another  so  that  there
would again be 12? It can be summed up by something Christ instructed them
that we find in Matthew 19.
Matthew  19:28  CJB    28  Yeshua  said  to  them,  "Yes.  I  tell  you  that  in  the
regenerated world, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you
who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve
tribes of Isra'el.
Twelve thrones judging twelve tribes, with one disciple seated upon each throne.
But  as  of  that  moment  they  were  one  disciple  short;  that  would  have  left  one
throne empty. And who knew when this regenerated world that Messiah spoke of
would  begin.  Might  it  begin  very  soon?  Might  this  even  be  part  of  "what  the
Father promised" that Yeshua had spoken of? So for Peter there was a sense of
urgency to hurry to replace Judas.
But first Peter wanted to assure everyone that the treason of Judas was foretold,
and therefore it wasn't an unexpected curve ball thrown at God or at them. He
explains that it was King David who prophesied this event and Judas who was
the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy.  There's  an  issue  in  this  statement  that  needs
some close examination (and it's one of those issues that can be troubling for
Believers). The issue is that Peter says in verse 16: "He (Judas) was a guide for
those who arrested Yeshua; he was one of us and had been assigned part of
our work." Peter confirms that Judas was a legitimate disciple; this man had even
been assigned part of their work. Christ Himself chose Judas. Christ was also the
one who assigned each disciple his work. Judas was (for lack of a better word) a
Believer.  And  yet  this  handpicked  disciple,  one  of  the  original  12,  guided  the
Temple police to come and arrest Yeshua in an infamous betrayal the likes of
which will never be equaled in human history.
So  using  modern  Evangelical  Christian  lingo,  after  His  crime  and  rebellion
against  Yeshua  was  Judas  still  saved?  Had  he  ever  been  saved  in  the  first
                             2 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
place?  Didn't he "believe" in Jesus even though he took money to turn against
Him;  aiding  and  abetting  Christ's  crucifiers?  I  don't  think  I've  ever  heard  of  a
Bible Teacher or Pastor claim that Judas died as a confused but righteous man
whose   ultimate   destiny   was   still   Heaven.   Yet,   it   is   claimed   by   some
denominations that if someone at any time in their life "believed' in Christ then
no  matter  what  happened  from  that  point  forward,  no  matter  how  wicked  that
person  might  become,  regardless  of  lack  of  interest  in  bearing  good  fruit  or
obeying Messiah, no matter if that person completely turned against Yeshua and
openly  renounced  Him,  they  were  still  saved.  Either  that  or  they  had  never
believed   but   were   only   "pretenders".   Judas   was   no   pretender;   He   was
handpicked by the Messiah. As Peter confirmed and could still say after all that
Judas had done: "He was one of us".
The point is this: regardless of whether you adhere to the once-saved-always-
saved doctrine, or simply advocate for Christ, or identify yourself as a follower of
Jesus, that is not sufficient to be delivered from eternal death (Judas checked off
both   of   those   two   boxes).   Rather   we   have   to   understand   and   sincerely
acknowledge WHAT Yeshua is (He is the Son of God and Savior), and we have
to submit to Him fully and sincerely. Judas believed in Yeshua as a Messiah who
would lead the Jews in a rebellion against Rome and reclaim self-rule. But for
Judas that apparently is where his "belief" began and ended. When it became
clear to Judas that Christ wasn't going to lead a rebellion, Judas fell away and
turned against. In fact I suspect that Judas's later treason had a firm and earlier
connection  with  Yeshua  asking  a  famous  question  to  all  12  of  His  disciples
(including to Judas) in Matthew 16, which cuts right to the heart of the matter: 
Matthew  16:13-15  CJB  13  When  Yeshua  came  into  the  territory  around
Caesarea Philippi, he asked his talmidim, "Who are people saying the Son
of Man is?" 14 They said, "Well, some say Yochanan the Immerser, others
Eliyahu,  still  others  Yirmeyahu  or  one  of  the  prophets."  15  "But  you,"  he
said to them, "who do you say I am?"
Believing  in  WHAT  Yeshua  is  must  accompany  WHO  Yeshua  is  for  a  saving
belief to exist. Acknowledging His existence, even His teaching, isn't enough.
James 2:18-20 CJB  18 But someone will say that you have faith and I have
actions. Show me this faith of yours without the actions, and I will show
you my faith by my actions! 19 You believe that "God is one"? Good for you!
The   demons   believe   it   too-   the   thought   makes   them   shudder   with
                             3 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
fear! 20 But, foolish fellow, do you want to be shown that such "faith" apart
from actions is barren?
So  after  Peter  finished  explaining  what  happened  to  Judas  and  that  it  was
prophesied  by  David  and  now  it  was  fulfilled,  what  should  be  done?  So  Peter
issues a quote from Psalm 109:8 as the answer:  "Let someone else take his
place as a supervisor". 
Verse  21  then  outlines  the  qualifications  for  a  replacement  disciple.  First  and
foremost the replacement must have been traveling and living with the original 12
from the earliest times of Yeshua's ministry, even from the day that Christ was
immersed by John the Baptist. This replacement also had to be present when
Yeshua ascended to Heaven. But the focal point of the qualifications was so that
this person could be a witness to Messiah's resurrection. Apparently 2 men fit
the bill: Yosef Bar-Sabba and Mattiyahu. Or in English Joseph Barsabbas and
Matthias. Two qualified men, but only one available position.
Here's  the  thing:  obviously  there  were  others  than  only  the  12  that  followed
Christ wherever He went. But the difference between that 12 and all others was
that Christ had personally chosen and invited those 12 to be His inner circle. So
since Yeshua was no longer here to voice His personal choice, how might the
replacement  be  chosen  in  God's  will?  The  answer?  Casting  lots.  Casting  lots
was a rather common method used to reveal God's choice in a matter.  So the
group prayed to the Lord to reveal His choice and it turned out to be Matthias.
Now the group was back to its full complement of 12.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 2.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 2 all
This  chapter  speaks  of  the  arrival  of  "what  the  Father  promised"  that  Yeshua
had told His followers to wait for in Jerusalem. Because it was probably 1 week to
the  day  from  His  ascension  that  the  day  of  Pentecost  arrived,  their  wait  was
short.
We're going to go deep and get technical for awhile because here at Pentecost
is the starting point of establishing the framework from which we can understand
all that happens from here forward in the Book of Acts; and it also establishes
some important context that will aid us in understanding Peter and Paul.
                             4 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
Pentecost  is  the  English  word  for  the  Greek  pentekostes,  which  means  fifty.
And pentekostes is the Greek translation used for the Hebrew word Shavuot,
which means weeks.  If you've been around Hebrew Roots or Messianic Jewish
teaching for very long, you know that Shavuot is one of the 7 Biblical Feasts as
ordained  by  God  in  the  Book  of  Leviticus.  Let's  not  go  any  further  until  we
understand what Shavuot is both Biblically and traditionally in Judaism because if
ever there was a key to unlock the understanding and context of this chapter, it is
contained in the meaning of Shavuot to Jews of that era.
And before we start that discussion please note: Pentecost is NOT a Christian
holiday created by the Church to commemorate the coming of the Holy Spirit to
indwell  men.  Far  from  it;  Pentecost  (Shavuot)  had  been  celebrated  for  1300
years by Israelites by the time of the event we read about here in Acts. Thus the
amazing events of that day happened on the ancient Jewish holiday of Shavuot.
Let's see if we can understand why the Lord chose that particular appointed time
for the Ruach HaKodesh to come and indwell humans.
First let's understand that Shavuot is part of a system of holy days ordained by
the Lord. The first holy day of that system is Pesach, Passover. The next holy
day is really a holy week called Matza, Unleavened Bread. Matza begins the day
after Passover. Next follows Bikkurim, Firstfruits. Firstfruits takes place the next
day after the Sabbath following Passover. Since the Biblical Sabbath is always
the 7th day of the week, then Firstfruits always falls on 1st day of the week. In
modern times we call the 1st day of the week Sunday.
So the first 3 feasts occur in rapid succession and they happen in the month of
Nissan.  Pesach, Passover, the 1st feast happens on a defined calendar date:
Nissan  14th.  This  is  equivalent  to  our  March-April  timeframe,  so  these  are
springtime  festivals.  To  be  clear  the  assigned  dates,  times  and  progression  of
these 7 Biblical feasts are Scripturally defined; this is not Hebrew tradition. After
the first 3 there is a lull of 7 weeks before the next feast arrives: Shavuot (hence
the alternate name, the Feast of Weeks).
Unlike Passover that always occurs on the 14th of Nissan, the day that Shavuot
arrives is not a fixed calendar date. Rather we are to count 50 days beginning on
the day after Passover. That 50th day is Shavuot.  Let's back up a little. When
we talked about the 3 spring feasts, the 3rd one was called Firstfruits (Bikkurim).
But the reality is that Shavuot is also a firstfruits festival. Thus both the 3rd and
4th Biblical feast days revolve around agriculture and harvesting; the first 2 feasts
                             5 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
(Passover and Unleavened Bread) do not. Rather those two are a remembrance
of Israel's exodus from Egypt.
The 3rd festival, Bikkurim, represents the first of the harvest of the Barley crop.
The  4th  festival,  Shavuot  (Pentecost),  represents  the  first  of  the  harvest  of
the Wheat crop. After Shavuot there is a few month lull until the month of Tishri
arrives, and then the 5th, 6th, and 7th feasts arrive in quick succession. On the
first day of the month of Tishri is the Biblical feast called Yom Teruah; the Feast
of Trumpets. Modern Jews have somewhat changed the nature of this feast day,
formed it into a tradition, and call it Rosh Hashanah; Jewish New Year. Then on
the 10th day of Tishri comes the feast of Yom Kippur; the Day of Atonement.
Then 5 days later on the 15th of the month begins the final feast of the yearly
cycle  of  7  feasts,  Sukkot;  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Tishri  comes  in  the  fall
season.  We won't discuss any of these fall feasts; I only wanted to lay out the
entire cycle, or system, of the 7 Biblical feasts for you.
So let's return now to our discussion of the feast day that concerns Acts chapter
2  and  that  is  Shavuot;  Pentecost.  Besides  its  original  agricultural  motif  and
significance, later it took on a dual meaning as commemorating the giving of the
Law, the Torah, to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Because Exodus 19:1 tells us that the
giving of the Torah occurred in the 3rd month after Israel left Egypt, it is entirely
probable that indeed Moses was given the Torah on a day that the following year,
according  to  a  commandment  of  Yehoveh  that  was  given  in  the  Torah,  would
henceforth be called Shavuot.
The earliest known direct reference to the feast of Shavuot being celebrated as
the day the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai is the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., and it
is found in the Talmud tractates Shabbat and Pesachim. However the Book of
Jubilees  also  alludes  to  Shavuot's  two-fold  nature.  The  Book  of  Jubilees  was
created in the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. What is most important for us to grasp is
that  whether  or  not  God  actually  gave  Moses  the  Torah  at  Mt.  Sinai  on  what
became the day of Shavuot is not the point. The point is that starting well before
the time of Christ Judaism believed that the Torah had been given on Shavuot,
and so the Jewish Bible characters and the Jewish writers of the New Testament
believed  it  and  they  celebrated  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Shavuot,  with  that  dual
purpose in mind. Why does that matter? Because the Book of Acts is written with
this  understanding  as  its  context;  it  was  understood  by  Luke,  Peter,  all  the
disciples and all Jews that in addition to celebrating the firstfruits of the wheat
harvest Shavuot also celebrated the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
                             6 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
And so this fact is naturally reflected in the story of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2
when we know what to look for.
Let me make a Hebrew scholar of you. Midrash is a Hebrew term that means to
discuss  and  interpret  Scripture.  But  there  is  also  a  body  of  ancient  Jewish
literature  called  The  Midrash,  and  in  it  ancient  Sages  and  Rabbis  gave  their
interpretations of many Bible passages (meaning the Hebrew Bible, of course). In
the  Targum  Pseudo  Jonathan  there  is  a  fascinating  interpretation  (midrash)  of
Exodus  20:18  (it  shows  up  as  verse  15  in  the  CJB).  That  verse  in  our  Bibles
reads: 15 All the people experienced the thunder, the lightning, the sound of
the  shofar,  and  the  mountain  smoking.  When  the  people  saw  it,  they
trembled................
This  midrash  sets  up  the  understanding  within  Judaism  that  the  giving  of  the
Torah  on  Mt.  Sinai  came  with  flames  and  with  fire.  Let  me  repeat  that  so  you
understand why I'm taking you where I am: this Midrash I'm about to quote to
you  says  that  the  giving  of  the  Torah  to  Moses  came  with  flames  of  fire.  And
when we see that the Holy Spirit came in the same way, we need to take notice.
"The word that went out of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, was
like  shooting  stars  and  lightening  and  like  flames  and  torches  of  fire,  a
torch of fire to the right and a torch of flame to the left. It flew and winged
swiftly in the air of the heavens and turned around and became visible in all
the camps of Israel and by turning it became engraved on the two tablets of
the covenant". 
Once again, how ever true or fanciful this midrash on the giving of the Torah on
Mt. Sinai might be doesn't matter. The issue is that this was the understanding of
the Jewish people in Jesus's day; it was not questioned. It was as much a part of
regular Judaism then as the cross is for regular Christianity now. But there is yet
another element of this midrash that is every bit as important.
Whereas in almost all Christian Bibles we find the English words "all the people
experienced the thunderings", or "all the people witnessed the thunderings", in
fact  that  is  not  a  correct  translation.  The  Hebrew  says  that  they  SAW  the
thunderings. Thunder is a sound; we see the lightening but we hear the thunder.
This  is  why  instead  of  translating  this  verse  literally,  translators  thought  it
nonsensical  to  write  down  "saw  the  thunderings"  and  instead  wrote  the  words
"experienced" or "witnessed" or some such fairly ambiguous word like that. But
                             7 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
in another ancient Jewish writing called the Mekilta we find another midrash on
this issue of how it could have been possible for the Israelites at Mt. Sinai to SEE
thunder.
"They  saw  what  was  visible  and  heard  what  was  audible.  These  are  the
words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: They saw and heard that which
was  visible.  They  saw  the  fiery  word  coming  out  of  the  mouth  of  the
Almighty as it was struck upon the tablets, as it is said: "The voice of the
Lord hewed out flames of fire" Psalm 29:7. But how many thunderings were
there and how many lightenings were there? It is simply this: They were
heard by each man according to his capacity, as it is said: "The voice of
the Lord was heard according to the power..." Psalm 29:4..........not with His
power,  but  with  power;  i.e.,  with  the  power  of  each  individual,  even  to
pregnant women according to their strength." 
And yet another midrash of the events of Mt. Sinai called Tanhuma, we find this:
"All the people saw the voices. Note that it does not say saw the voice but
saw the voices. Wherefore Rabbi Johanan said: the voice went out and was
divided  into  7  voices  and  from  7  voices  into  70  tongues,  so  that  all  the
nations would hear. And every nation heard the voice in its own tongue and
was amazed. But the people of Israel heard the voice and were not hurt."
Do you understand what you're hearing? The Rabbis taught that when the Torah
was given on Mt. Sinai it was given by means of flames and thundering. And the
thundering was always seen as God's voice since time immemorial. And each
person was able to perceive only as much of God's voice as each was capable.
The  Rabbis  also  taught  that  the  single  voice  that  was  emitted  from  God  and
heard at Mt. Sinai became divided into 7 and then the 7 into 70 languages. Why
70? Because in the Table of Nations in Genesis we are told that God divided the
earth into 70 nations (each, presumably, with its own unique language). So the
idea is that the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai in a way that all the languages of
the earth (considered to be 70) were represented so that all the peoples of the
earth had an opportunity to receive God's Words that formed the Torah.
Once again: whether these Rabbis are right or not is debatable. The important
matter  is  that  this  is  what  people  in  Yeshua's  time  believed.  This  was  the
standard  understanding  within  2nd  Temple  Judaism.  This  is  the  context  for
understanding  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  and  this  is  especially  the
                             8 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
context for the coming of the Holy Spirit on Shavuot. Let me say this more plainly:
Luke  is  portraying  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  Shavuot  as  essentially  the
2nd coming of the Torah on Mt. Sinai. For Luke this awe inspiring happening of
the visible, noisy, coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, complete with flames
and  fire  and  with  many  languages  is  the  second  Mt.  Sinai  event,  only  it's
happening this time on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem.
But more than Luke merely accepting what is happening in this context that is
based on some Jewish traditions that have come from the midrash of Rabbis,
there  is  also  the  fulfillment  of  Biblical  prophesy  that  is  occurring.  Listen  to  this
from the Book of Jeremiah:
Jeremiah  31:30-32  CJB    30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,
"when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Isra'el  and  with  the
house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of
Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for
my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant
I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will
put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
God says that the difference between the new covenant and the older covenant
(Moses' Covenant) is not the content, but rather only the means of giving it. The
older covenant was given out in the desert, on Mt. Sinai, and it was written down
on stone tablets. But the new covenant is that God will write that same Torah
NOT onto stone but rather onto the flesh of human hearts. He will quite literally
insert the Torah into the bodies of His people. But where will this occur? How will
it happen? Part of that answer comes from a prophecy in the Book of Isaiah.
Isaiah 2:3 CJB  3 Many peoples will go and say, "Come, let's go up to the
mountain of ADONAI, to the house of the God of Ya'akov! He will teach us
about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Tziyon will go
forth Torah, the word of ADONAI from Yerushalayim.
Isaiah says that a time will come when the Torah will go forth from Zion, God's
Word from Jerusalem. That is, this next time the Torah (God's Word) comes to
humanity it won't come from Mt. Sinai; instead it will come from Jerusalem. And
where were the disciples when the Holy Spirit came? On Mt. Zion, in Jerusalem.
                             9 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
And how did it come? With flames and fire, noise like a rushing wind, and with
languages from every nation on earth. Just like the Rabbis said it had been at Mt.
Sinai.
It  was  no  coincidence  that  the  Holy  Spirit  came  on  Shavuot.  And  it  was  no
coincidence  that  He  came  in  the  manner  He  did  using  the  same  signs  and
miracles  that  the  Jewish  sages  said  had  occurred  at  Mt.  Sinai  13  centuries
earlier.  The  observers  and  recipients  of  this  amazing,  and  perhaps  terrifying,
aerial  display  were  Jews,  in  Jerusalem,  perceiving  everything  that  happened
within a framework of Jewish cultural customs and thinking.
One  of  the  things  that  God  shows  us  in  His  Holy  Scriptures  (Old  and  New
Testaments) and in our personal experiences with Him, is that He communicates
with each of us, and deals with each of us, in ways we can personally understand
and take meaning from.  The Jews of Yeshua's day had long been taught that
the power of God on Mt. Sinai manifested itself in noise, flames and fire, and in
many languages. This knowledge was a given and every Jewish child grew up
knowing it. So when those same signs and miracles that supposedly happened
on  Mt.  Sinai  also  happened  on  the  first  Shavuot  after  Yeshua  ascended,  then
those who had the eyes to see and ears to hear understood that Jeremiah's and
Isaiah's  prophecies  were  fulfilled  at  that  moment.  For  these  Jews  it  was  the
2nd coming of the Torah. And it was the Holy Spirit who brought the Torah this
time,  and  implanted  it  internally  within  individuals,  rather  than  inscribing  it
externally on stone tablets. Who understood this awesome reality? ONLY Jewish
Believers in Messiah and probably not all of them.
But now you understand it and we all need to be about the work of explaining this
to a gentile Church that has so misunderstood what happened on that particular
Shavuot  in  Jerusalem  that  it  has  caused  a  terrible  rift  between  Jews  and
Christians, as well as the creation of numerous Church doctrines that are well off
the mark. The content of the new covenant was not new, it was only the older
covenant renewed. And it was renewed by means of the Holy Spirit imbedding
that original Torah deep into the hearts of Christ's worshippers to enable a much
deeper devotion to it.
Next  time  we'll  continue  in  Acts  chapter  2  and  explore  other  aspects  of  the
coming of the Holy Spirit.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            10 / 10
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 5, Chapter 2 continued
Before we pick back up with Acts chapter 2 (which we still won't complete today)
and  the  dawn  of  a  new  age  brought  about  by  the  arrival  of  "what  the  Father
promised" (the Ruach HaKodesh), let's summarize what we discussed last time.
The first words of Acts 2 sets the scene: "The festival of Shavuot arrived...." And
we read that because of Shavuot, which required all male Jews to gather at the
Temple, all the Believers (and as of this time that consisted only of Jews) were
together  at  one  place  (on  Mt.  Zion  in  Jerusalem)  where  as  a  group  they
witnessed the astounding arrival of the Holy Spirit. The key to unlock the depth of
this chapter, and later chapters, is to understand what Shavuot is Biblically and
in  Hebrew  Tradition  because  regardless  of  what  we  as  modern  day  Believers
might mentally picture when we read the words of Acts 2, and how it has been
typically presented to us by Christian Bible Teachers and Pastors, Luke told the
story in the context of what the Jews thought and believed in that era.
I demonstrated to you through the writings of several ancient sages and Rabbis
(some  dating  to  more  than  2  centuries  before  the  birth  of  Yeshua),  that
while Shavuot (Pentecost) had retained its original Biblical agricultural meaning
and motif, an additional meaning was eventually added as a Tradition. And that
additional meaning was that Shavuot was when God gave the Torah to Moses
on   Mt.   Sinai.   To   flesh   out   this   additional   meaning   we   read   several
ancient  midrashim  (comments  and  interpretations)  about  the  Mt.  Sinai  event.
These  comments  said  that  the  giving  of  the  Torah  came  with  loud  noises
(thunderings, indicating God's voice), fire and flames, and it came in many (or
better ALL) human languages (which were thought to be 70 languages). To be
clear:  during  Christ's  era,  and  for  at  least  200  years  before,  Shavuot  the  4th
                             1 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Biblical Feast of the annual 7-feast cycle, had a dual meaning within Judaism.
This  dual  meaning  was  not  questioned;  it  was  simply  accepted  as  fact  if  not
common knowledge. For our purposes it doesn't matter whether this additional
meaning added through Tradition is legitimate or not (although I speculate that it
is likely legitimate); because the issue is that the Jewish world of the Holy Land
and  the  Diaspora  DID  believe  it  and  accept  it  as  truth.  Thus  since  the  New
Testament was written by Jews and Jewish proselytes such as Luke, this dual
meaning for Shavuot forms the contextual background for the Pentecost event of
the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2.
Thus when we see that the coming of the Holy Spirit was accompanied with loud
noises, flames and fire, and many human languages, then we see that for the
people of that day it was essentially a replay of the Mt. Sinai event some 1300
years   earlier.   So   to   the   Jewish   Believers   who   comprehended   what   was
happening, the coming of the Holy Spirit was the 2nd coming of the Torah. The
difference  between  the  1st  coming  and  the  2nd  coming  of  the  Torah  was
expressed by the Prophet Jeremiah:
Jeremiah  31:30-32  CJB    30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,
"when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Isra'el  and  with  the
house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of
Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for
my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant
I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will
put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
The first coming of the Torah was on Mt. Sinai and God's Word was written on
stone tablets. The second coming of the Torah was on Mt. Zion, at Pentecost,
and  it  was  written  internally  on  the  heart  of  Believers.  Notice  the  not-so-
coincidental  pattern  of  the  1st  and  2nd  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  1st  and  2nd
coming  of  God's  Word  (the  Torah).  But  I  also  want  you  take  note  of  to  whom
Jeremiah says this "new covenant" shall be given. Does it say to gentiles? Does
it  say  to  anyone  and  everyone?  No;  it  says  to  the  house  of  Israel  and  to  the
house  of  Judah.  So  does  this  mean  only  Hebrews  can  partake  of  the  new
covenant sealed in Yeshua's blood? Yes it does, but with a caveat. Paul explains
how it is that gentiles can be included and what kind of attitude gentiles ought to
have if they are included in the new covenant.
                             2 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Romans 11:13-18 CJB  13 However, to those of you who are Gentiles I say
this: since I myself am an emissary sent to the Gentiles, I make known the
importance of my work 14 in the hope that somehow I may provoke some of
my own people to jealousy and save some of them! 15 For if their casting
Yeshua aside means reconciliation for the world, what will their accepting
him  mean?  It  will  be  life  from  the  dead!  16  Now  if  the  hallah  offered  as
firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the
branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you- a wild
olive- were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the
rich root of the olive tree, 18 then don't boast as if you were better than the
branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting
the root, the root is supporting you.
Yet how much of the Church come to the point that the new covenant was meant
for gentiles, to the exclusion of Jews (the house of Judah)? The New Covenant is
for gentiles, the Old Covenant is for Jews. Or that the Jews are obligated to the
Covenant  of  Moses  for  their  salvation,  while  gentiles  are  obligated  to  the  new
covenant for ours? Clearly both OT prophecies and NT writings say the opposite.
So; since the prophecy of Jeremiah says that the new covenant is for Israel and
the Jews, and that the Torah will now be written on their hearts (by means of
God's Spirit as we learn from Isaiah 2), is that what actually happened.? Let's re-
read Acts chapter 2 in small portions today and then I'll comment on each small,
but greatly significant, segment.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2:1 – 13
We're  told  that  tongues  of  fire  came  from  the  sky  (from  Heaven),  and  then
separated into many more tongues and these tongues came to rest upon each
one of them (meaning the Believers) individually. As a result (vs. 4) each Believer
began to speak in different languages as the Holy Spirit enabled them to. The
Greek word that is translated in English as "tongues" and as "languages" is the
same: glossa. So the passage says that glossa of fire rested upon the Believers
and  then  each  Believer  began  to  speak  a  different  glossa.  Glossa  means
language  and  it  means  the  tongue  organ  as  what  we  all  have  in  our  mouths.
Since the tongue is a necessary part of the anatomy for intelligible speech, then
we see why languages were called tongues. But why did Luke call the separate
branches  of  fire  that  landed  on  each  Believer  "tongues"?  Did  they  look  like
human tongues? Possibly, but I doubt it. Instead I believe that the articulate Luke
                             3 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
no doubt was thinking in terms of the ancient understanding of Shavuot that was
common  knowledge  within  2nd  Temple  Judaism.  Let  me  recall  for  you  the
teaching of Rabbi Tanhuma that helped to shape the standard mental picture that
Jews had for what occurred at Mt. Sinai during Israel's exodus from Egypt.
"All the people saw the voices. Note that it does not say saw the voice but
saw the voices. Wherefore Rabbi Johanan said: the voice went out and was
divided  into  7  voices  and  from  7  voices  into  70  tongues,  so  that  all  the
nations would hear. And every nation heard the voice in its own tongue and
was amazed. But the people of Israel heard the voice and were not hurt."
So Luke was employing the word "tongue" in the same sense as this midrash
that  was  a  cornerstone  of  Jewish  understanding  of  the  giving  of  the  Torah  to
Moses on Mt. Sinai at Shavuot. The voice divided into many tongues, and each
person heard the voice in their own tongue (own language). So not only is Luke
putting this Pentecost happening in the context of the long-ago Mt. Sinai event,
he  is  using  the  same  key  words  (such  as  tongue  and  fire)  to  make  the
connection.
But there is yet another connection that must not be overlooked. At Pentecost we
have  one  Spirit  (God's  Holy  Spirit),  being  sent  by  the  Mediator  Yeshua,  now
arisen, ascended and sitting at the Father's right hand, that separates into many
and rests upon each individual Believer. In the Book of Numbers we read of the
precursor to the Pentecost happening, and it happened to, and because of, the
first Mediator, Moses.
Numbers  11:24-25  CJB    24  Moshe  went  out  and  told  the  people  what
ADONAI had said. Then he collected seventy of the leaders of the people
and placed them all around the tent. 25 ADONAI came down in the cloud,
spoke  to  him,  took  some  of  the  Spirit  that  was  on  him  and  put  it  on  the
seventy leaders. When the Spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied-
then but not afterwards.
So the same spirit that Moses the Mediator had (God's spirit) was shared with the
70  elders.  And  when  the  70  elders  received  this  spirit,  they  began  speaking
ecstatic speech (ecstatic speech is usually what prophesying means). Now 1300
years  later  at  Pentecost  the  same  spirit  that  Yeshua  the  Mediator  had  was
shared with all the Jewish Believers; and when they received this spirit, what did
they do? They began speaking ecstatic speech, in different languages. God is a
                             4 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
God of patterns and so everything we see happening in the New Testament was
already established in the Old Testament. Only with the advent of Yeshua and
the Ruach HaKodesh these God-patterns were brought to an even higher level
and meaning. Pentecost was no different. But this also means that in order to
correctly  understand  everything  that  happens  in  the  New  Testament,  we  first
have to know the Torah and the Old Testament so that we learn the patterns and
the background context that the New is built upon.
Now another important question for us to ponder; who was it that received the
Holy Spirit, and who was it that saw everything that happened on that amazing
day? The answer is in verse 5: "Now there were staying in Yerushalayim religious
Jews from every nation under heaven". And then we get a representative listing
of just where these religious Jews hailed from. But please note: ONLY Jews saw
what  happened,  and  ONLY  Jews  received  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is  no  gentile
representation  mentioned  or  implied.  Why  were  all  these  Jews  present  at  Mt.
Zion? Because the pilgrimage festival of Shavuot required it of them. And note
also the addition of the adjective "religious" to describe the Jews that had come.
It wasn't much of a journey to come to Jerusalem for local Judean Jews, nor very
hard  for  the  Galilean  Jews.  But  for  the  Jews  who  came  from  distant  places  it
disrupted their lives for weeks in a major way and was quite costly economically
for  them.  So  the  many  several  millions  of  Jews  who  weren't  all  that  religious
didn't come; only the most devout.
Obviously they weren't all standing at Mt. Zion when this incredible visual display
and loud rushing noise erupted; there were too many Jews in town for them all to
to  be  at  one  place.  But  verse  6  explains  that  because  the  noise  was  so  loud,
others around the city heard it and walked towards where it seemed to be coming
from. Their reaction was bewilderment, or as our CJB says, confusion. And why
were  they  bewildered?  Because  they  were  hearing  the  words  spoken  each  in
their own distinct language. So these bewildered religious Jews weren't in denial
of what was happening; they just didn't know what to make of it.
This short list of nations that these Jews came from is meant to be representative
of the many nations and provinces that formed the Roman Empire. Certainly the
Jews  of  the  Diaspora  were  present  in  virtually  every  nation  of  the  Empire,  but
there were greater concentrations of them in some nations than in others. Notice
how Egypt is mentioned for example. Philo (who lived at the same time as Jesus)
reports that over 1 million Jews lived in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. Almost none
of these visiting Jews spoke Hebrew; rather they spoke their native tongue. It is
                             5 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
no different today. It has taken a concerted effort in modern Israel to teach the
many  Jewish  immigrants  to  the  land  to  speak  Hebrew;  and  a  major  portion  of
Israeli Jews still can't speak Hebrew. Instead they live in ghettos and continue
speaking Russian, Ukrainian, Ethiopian, Polish, German, French, and so on.
Although  some  of  the  visiting  Jews  were  awestruck  at  this  incident  of  the
languages,  others  mocked  it.  But  to  be  sure,  their  mocking  was  as  mocking
usually  is:  sarcasm  and  not  intelligent  response.  The  accusation  that  the
Believers  were  drunk  and  that's  how  they  could  speak  all  these  languages  is
irrational  and  no  doubt  meant  to  be  a  little  humorous.  Part  of  what  made  this
event so difficult for this crowd of Jews to comprehend is that it was apparently
quite well known just who these 12 disciples were, who they represented, and
where they were from. Most were country-folk, from Galilee; they weren't learned
intellectuals. It is a little like the way rural Mid-Westerners in the USA are looked
down upon by residents of New York City and Washington D.C.: they assume
that  the  only  intelligence  that  exists  is  among  themselves.  Many  in  the  crowd
were incredulous that Galileans could possibly be so multi-lingual.
Let's read a little more.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2:14 – 23
Peter, the leader and spokesmen for the 12 disciples, stands up to address the
huge crowd that has come to investigate this noisy rushing wind sound as well as
the cacophony of many foreign languages being spoken at the same time. And
he  begins  by  calling  out  to  "you  Judeans"!  Why  when  the  crowd  was  so
internationally mixed did he call out the local residents of Judea? It was because
the Galilee was cut off from the academic and cultural center of Judaism, which
was located in Jerusalem of Judea. And no doubt Peter recognized that it was
the arrogant Jews from Judea who were the mockers. So addressing the only
half-serious  accusation  about  the  Believers  being  drunk,  he  answered  in  an
equally half-serious response. He says it's so early in the morning that nobody
has had time to get drunk.
Now he goes on to explain what the arrival of the Holy Spirit does mean, and
Peter says that this day was spoken of by the Prophet Joel. He quotes from Joel
chapter 2 (in most Bibles but chapter 3 in the CJB). Peter understands that the
Last  Days  are  now  underway,  and  that  what  everyone  has  just  witnessed  is
essentially a fulfillment of what Moses had hoped for.
                             6 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Numbers 11:29 CJB  29 But Moshe replied, "Are you so zealous to protect
me? I wish all of ADONAI's people were prophets! I wish ADONAI would put
his Spirit on all of them!"
Since  this  prophecy  of  Joel  deals  with  the  End  Times,  and  we  are  currently
studying  a  New  Testament  book,  let's  take  just  a  moment  to  get  some  terms
squared away. The Last Days is a long, indeterminate period of time that begins
once  the  Messiah  has  come  (and  of  course,  He  has).  The  ending  of  this  long
period of the Last Days is the end of the era of humanity, which coincides with
the  entry  into  the  1000  year  reign  of  Christ  when  He  returns.  The  Last  Day
(singular)  is  synonymous  with  the  Day  of  the  Lord  (or  Day  of  Adonai).  This
particular day is still future for us. Is this a literal single day? That is unclear. But it
essentially signals the final wrath of God in the final hours or few days leading up
to Christ ruling the world from His throne in Jerusalem.
So while Peter can correctly interpret the prophetic Scriptures and what He has
personally witnessed with Messiah Yeshua and now the Holy Spirit as the entry
point into the period of the Last Days, the Last Day itself is not known to him.
Thus Joel's prophecy covers from the time of Peter all the way until the end of
mankind's history as we know it.
It is interesting to me that Joel and Peter speak of the sun becoming dark as a
sign because that sign indeed did happen on the day Yeshua was crucified.
Matthew 27:45 CJB  45 From noon until three o'clock in the afternoon, all the
Land was covered with darkness.
Was this darkness at Yeshua's death what Joel was speaking about? Perhaps.
But whatever happened there at Yeshua's execution seemed to be only a local
event. What Joel is prophesying seems to affect the entire world. Nonetheless,
Peter is clear that he views all that has happened as the beginning of the end.
And in fact in some of Peter's and Paul's epistles we find them tying to prepare
folks for the end, which they obviously think is going to happen in their lifetimes.
So that partly explains their sense of urgency in the taking the Gospel message
out at great personal cost.
But now Peter moves into a stage of his speech in which he wants to connect
that  final  line  of  the  Joel  passage  with  Yeshua.  That  is,  where  we  hear  the
Prophet Joel say: "And then whoever calls on the name of Adonai will be saved",
                             7 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
is  referring  to  Jesus  as  the  name  to  be  called  on.  But  this  connection  has  its
problems.  I've  often  told  you  that  the  contents  of  the  New  Testament  consists
(half or a bit more) of Old Testament quotes. And it is best as we encounter each
of the OT quotes in the NT to go back to our Old Testaments and read it there.
Often   there   are   subtle   differences.   Sometimes   the   differences   are   more
substantial because the NT speaker is either paraphrasing, or perhaps molding
the OT quote to better fit what he's trying to get across to his listeners. Here in
Acts 2 as we read Joel's prophecy, it is given to us in Greek (the language of the
New Testament). However what Peter was quoting was written centuries earlier
in Hebrew. So when we see the phrase "whoever calls on the name of Adonai
will  be  saved",  in  Greek  the  word  kurios  is  being  used  to  translate  Adonai.
And  kurios  means  "lord"  (which  is  what  we  find  in  almost  all  Bibles).  In
Christianity it is a given that all mentions of the word Lord (especially in the New
Testament) are referring to Jesus Christ.
Here's the difficulty with that: when we look at Joel in the original Hebrew Bible
(which is what Peter is quoting from of course) we find this: "whoever calls on the
name of YHWH (yud-heh-vav-heh) will be saved". So the Greek New Testament
substitutes the term Lord (kurios) instead of using God's formal name as it is in
the original Hebrew of the Prophet Joel. As those who have studied with us since
Genesis know that the Torah says that God's formal name is Yehoveh. So Peter
says  (quoting  Joel)  whoever  calls  on  the  name  of  Yehoveh  will  be  saved.
Essentially Peter is making the leap that to acknowledge the name of Yeshua as
Messiah  is  the  requirement  to  be  able  to  call  on  the  name  of  Yehoveh  to  be
saved. Yeshua is the sole agent of Salvation; but Yehoveh is the sole source of
Salvation.  And  this  is  something  that  Believers,  Jew  and  gentile,  need  to
understand.  There  a  terrible  doctrine  that  has  existed  since  the  early  Roman
Church,  which  implies  a  replacement  of  Yehoveh  the  Father  with  Yeshua  the
Son. They can speak of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but the Father
is often seen as outdated and irrelevant. Yeshua was given power and authority
from His Father Yehoveh; but Yeshua didn't replace His father. In fact when He
ascended we are told that He went to sit at the Father's right hand. Yeshua is the
way to the Father, not the replacement of the Father. And Peter, Paul and the
other  disciples  had  their  work  cut  out  for  them  to  try  and  find  a  way  to  first
comprehend  this  challenging  reality,  and  then  to  explain  it;  first  to  the  Jewish
people, and then later to uninitiated gentiles.
And make no mistake fellow Believers: without the Holy Spirit indwelling us, I see
no way that a human can apprehend this mysterious understanding. Never take it
                             8 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
for  granted  that  you  understand;  because  what  I  just  explained  to  you  is
unintelligible to non-Believers. It takes faith in Messiah to arrive at that point; truly
a leap of faith. And few seem to be able to make that leap. Count yourself as
immensely blessed that you can and did.
The same Peter who ran and cowered when Christ was arrested, even denying
that he knew Yeshua, now boldly takes aim at this huge crowd of befuddled Jews
standing  before  him  and  tells  them  that  they  are  personally  responsible  for
Yeshua's death! Let me say upfront that this verse is often used in Christendom
to  say  that  the  Jews  are  Christ  Killers.  That  charge  was  often  used  in  *
Germany as a valid excuse for systematically exterminating the Jewish people.
Do not mistake what Peter is saying to this crowd as being the same as the false
charge  of  killing  God  that  is  so  often  leveled  at  the  Jewish  people  in  general.
We'll deal with that shortly.
Peter  then  lays  out  his  case  for  Yeshua  being  the  Messiah.  He  says  that  the
signs and miracles and powerful works that Yeshua did were the result of God's
power  through  Him.  In  fact,  says  Peter,  "You  yourselves  know  this".  In  other
words, many in the crowd at sometime or another witnessed some of these signs
and miracles performed by Yeshua, so what Peter is saying isn't here-say or a
tall tale. Then he goes on to say that Yeshua's arrest wasn't an accident, it was
according to God's predetermined plan. And even more importantly, even though
the Jewish people didn't actually kill Christ, they would use gentiles (those not
bound to Torah) to do it for them. Let's pause here for a moment.
What the phrase in vs. 23 says is: "you crucified by the hands of lawless men".
Let's focus on the word "lawless". In Greek the word is anomos. Nomos means
law, a-nomos is the opposite and it means without law. Thus the CJB translation
of "not bound by Torah" for the Greek word anomos gets the idea across better
because in the Bible the term "law" ALWAYS refers to one of two things: a) the
Torah, the Law of Moses or b) later on, Tradition, Rabbinical law. I can't begin to
emphasize strongly enough that especially when reading the New Testament and
we come across the term law or lawlessness, that the ONLY law this is referring
to is the Law of Moses or Tradition. It has nothing to do with civil laws. It is not
about a leader disregarding his country's constitution. Let me give you a good
example.  In  order  to  do  this  I  will  use  the  RSV  Bible  because  it  phrases  this
passage in the familiar way of most Christian Bibles.
RSV 2 Thessalonians 2:1  Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus
                             9 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, 2 not to be
quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter
purporting  to  be  from  us,  to  the  effect  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  has
come.  3  Let  no  one  deceive  you  in  any  way;  for  that  day  will  not  come,
unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-
called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of
God, proclaiming himself to be God.
What does lawlessness mean in this context (and the word being translated for
lawlessness is anomos so lawlessness is a good translation)? Does this mean
Roman law? Does it mean USA or EU law? Does it mean International law? Of
course not; it is referring to the only law that God deems as relevant: His own
Law, the Law of Moses, the Torah. This passage is speaking of the anti-Christ
who sets himself against God; and what better way to set yourself against God
than to set yourself against His laws and commandments? In this passage of 2nd
Thessalonians this lawlessness (going against Torah) is called rebellion in God's
eyes.
Who  actually  nailed  Jesus  to  the  cross  and  killed  him?  Roman  soldiers  who
were anomos; lawless people living outside of the Torah. Yet as Peter says, the
Jewish people can't escape guilt because they goaded the Romans into doing
their dirty work for them. But if the Jews were communally responsible, then so
were the gentiles.
Peter further emphasizes that the Jews responsible for Christ's death were the
ones  he  says  personally  witnessed  the  signs  and  miracles  Yeshua  performed
and then refused to accept it. These particular Jews were well aware of it (Peter
says at the end of vs. 22, "You yourselves know this"), so they have no excuse.
And  by  the  way,  this  brings  us  right  back  to  when  this  address  to  the  crowd
started in vs. 14 and Peter opened with "You Judeans"! In other words, where
was  Christ  crucified?  Jerusalem  in  Judea.  Who  were  the  Jews  calling  for  the
release of the convicted murder Barabas, but the death of the innocent Yeshua?
Almost  entirely  they  were  Judeans  who  had  no  regard  for  this  filthy  Galilean
rabble rouser who challenged the Jerusalem Temple authorities.
I'll close for today with this: if any Jew is most guilty of killing Christ it is Judas;
one of the 12 original disciples, hand picked by Yeshua. And beyond him it would
be those Judeans who insisted that Pontius Pilate have Jesus executed for them.
                            10 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
The  notion  that  all  Jews  living  during  Christ's  day,  or  that  all  Jews  alive  since
then, are somehow guilty of Messiah's death and are somehow to be seen as
Christ  Killers  is  not  only  naïve  it  is  slanderous.  Many  Judean  Jews  may  have
wanted him dead, but it was Roman gentiles who gladly killed him and enjoyed
torturing Him in the process.
We'll continue at verse 24 of Acts chapter 2 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 6, Chapter 2 continued 2
Let us continue today in Acts chapter 2. We're spending an inordinate amount of
time  in  this  chapter  because  there  is  an  inordinate  amount  of  information
contained here concerning one of the most monumental events in human history:
the arrival of God's Holy Spirit to indwell God's worshippers. But also because
there are underlying Scriptures that form the basis for Peter's thought provoking
argument to accept the deity of Yeshua and His position as Lord and Messiah. I
have no doubt that this elegant speech that Peter gives is a result of the training
that  he  received  at  the  feet  of  Jesus;  for  only  a  Jewish  scholar  with  intimate
knowledge of the Torah could have pieced this together, and Peter was no Torah
scholar;  he  was  a  common  Galilean,  a  blue  collar  fisherman.  We're  going  to
examine some of that Scriptural foundation today that Yeshua must have taught
Peter so keep your Bibles handy.
Let's  review  a  few  points  from  last  week,  if  only  briefly.  First,  what  is  called
Pentecost in English is Shavuot in Hebrew, and it's the 4th in the series of the 7
Biblical  Feasts  that  God  ordained  at  Mt.  Sinai.  Originally  Shavuot  was  an
agricultural feast that celebrated the harvest of the Wheat crop; but later Jewish
Tradition added the meaning that it was the day that Moses received the Torah
on     Mt.     Sinai     (which     is     likely).     The     Jewish     commentaries     and
Rabbinic  midrash  about  the  giving  of  the  Torah  to  Moses  on  Pentecost
(Shavuot) tended to focus on the elements that excited the senses: the fire and
flames, the ear-piercing noise, and the many voices of God (that represented all
human   languages).   This   notion   of   the   Torah   arriving   in   this   manner
on  Shavuot  1300  years  earlier  had  become  a  given  in  Jewish  society;  it  was
universally accepted in Judaism as truth and woven into Jewish thought.
                             1 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
Thus when we read Acts chapter 2 we can more readily see that Luke wrote
about the mysterious events of this particular Pentecost (Shavuot) that follows
Messiah's ascension to Heaven within this understanding; and shortly I'll point
out how Peter did the same. 
Another point I made from last week was to understand that to Peter the advent
of  Messiah  and  the  arrival  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  indwell  humans  signaled  the
prophesied entry into the era of the Last Days and, with equal importance, the
arrival of the Kingdom of God. He quotes the Prophet Joel and some Psalms to
make his point. But he also has in mind the Prophet Isaiah, which although he
doesn't   directly   quote,   he   borrows   some   of   Isaiah's   prophetic   thoughts.
Specifically he borrows from Isaiah 2, 55, and 56. Since we've already looked at
Isaiah 2, we'll talk a bit about Isaiah 55 and 56 today. 
Yet another matter we took up last week was for the purpose of defining a pivotal
Biblical term: lawlessness. Evangelical Christians immediately tend to think of the
coming Anti-Christ as the "Lawless One", and so they envision a very bad man
who scoffs at societal laws or sees himself as above the law (somewhat like a
tyrant, an outlaw or a gang member). But that is an incorrect mental picture. In
fact  Biblically  speaking,  this  term  "lawless"  specifically  applies  to  all  who  turn
their backs on God's Torah. The Greek word for law is nomos, and for lawless
(without law, or outside of the law) it is anomos. I urge you to commit those two
Greek words to memory. It shouldn't be terribly hard to do because English uses
similar grammatical word structure. Example: we call a set of agreed to ethical
principles  "moral";  and  the  lack  of  adherence  to  proper  ethical  principles
"amoral" (without morals). Amoral however is not the same as immoral. Immoral
means  a  person  recognizes  the  ethical  principles  but  decides  to  break  them.
However an amoral person recognizes no ethical principles as valid, binding or
pertaining   to   them.   So   nomos   and   anomos   work   exactly   the   same
way. Anomos doesn't mean to break the law, it means to refuse to recognize
the law as valid or pertaining to oneself. But what is essential for us to remember
is  that  in  the  Bible  the  term  law  is  always  referring  to  either  God's  law  or  to
Hebrew Traditions that purport to convey the underlying principles of God's law.
And the only Biblical law that exists from God's perspective is the Law of Moses,
the Torah. So lawless or lawlessness is not referring to the breaking of societal
laws or international law, or any set of laws that are manmade. 
I don't want you to think that this understanding that is a foundational belief and
teaching at Seed of Abraham Ministries concerning the continuing relevance of
                             2 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
the  Torah  Law  is  a  unique  one  for  us.  F.F.  Bruce,  in  his  New  International
Commentary on the Book of Acts says this about the use of the word lawless in
the Bible: ".....lawless men (are meant) in the sense of being outside of the law of
Israel". And what is the law of Israel? The Torah, the Law of Moses. 
So before we re-read part of Acts chapter 2, let's move from theory to practice
as I hit you right between the eyes with an inescapable and uncomfortable reality
that each Believer is faced with. Being labeled as anomous is always a wicked
negative thing in the Bible (Old and New Testaments). And, sadly (dangerously)
most of Christianity today (just like the Romans who crucified Christ) says that
God's  Torah,  the  Law  of  Moses,  doesn't  pertain  to  them.  Thus  most  of
Christianity  today  by  every  Biblical  definition  has  classified  itself,  and  proudly
proclaims  to  be,  anomos.  Without  God's  Law.  I'll  let  you  ponder  that  as  we
move on. 
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2:22 – 36
Verse  22  begins  with  "Men  of  Israel,  listen  to  this!"  some  Bibles  say  it  only
slightly differently. Remembering that to Luke and to Peter the coming of the Holy
Spirit on Pentecost (Shavuot) is the 2nd coming of the Torah, accomplished in
essentially the same way that the Jewish religious leaders and teachers said that
it happened at Mt. Sinai with Moses, then we need to be alert to why Peter chose
the words he did to speak to this huge crowd of bewildered religious Jews who
were in Jerusalem (some journeying extraordinarily long distances) in obedience
to God's commandment to come to the Temple for Shavuot. 
Listen   to   the   words   of   Moses   as   he   recalls   the   events   of   Mt.   Sinai   in
Deuteronomy 5:1.
CJB  Deuteronomy  5:1  Then  Moshe  called  to  all  Isra'el  and  said  to  them,
"Listen,  Isra'el,  to  the  laws  and  rulings  which  I  am  announcing  in  your
hearing   today,   so   that   you   will   learn   them   and   take   care   to   obey
them. 2 ADONAI our God made a covenant with us at Horev. 
And  a  few  verses  later  in  the  same  setting,  during  the  same  speech  to  the
Israelites, Moses said this in Deuteronomy 6.
Deuteronomy 6:3-5 CJB
                             3 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
3 Therefore listen, Isra'el, and take care to obey, so that things will go well
with you, and so that you will increase greatly, as ADONAI, the God of your
ancestors, promised you by giving you a land flowing with milk and honey.
4 "Sh'ma, Yisra'el! ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI echad [Hear, Isra'el! ADONAI
our God, ADONAI is one];
5 and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, all your being
and all your resources.
And, by the way, even though we read the word Adonai in our CJB's, and the
word Lord in virtually all English Bibles that I've ever come across, that is NOT
the  original  Hebrew.  Rather  the  word  is  YHWH,  Yahweh  or  Yehoveh.  That's
right; God's formal name is used in every instance, not the rather generic "Lord"
or Adonai in Hebrew that we read in our modern Bibles. 
It is common in all societies in all ages to invoke phrases and sayings that are
easily  recognizable  by  every  citizen;  sayings  that  evoke  memories  and  mental
pictures (cherished or solemn) of people and places and events. In America, and
I dare say in most of the world, one only has to invoke the words 911 or World
Trade  Center  and  your  audience  fully  understands  your  context  and  any
comparison  you  are  making.  And  so  it  was  for  Luke  as  he  quotes  Peter.  The
Jews hearing Peter instantly grasped the connection when Peter says in Hebrew
"Shema  Israel"  (Listen  Israel!)  and  then  goes  on  in  paraphrase  of  Moses  to
explain the very nature of God and His unity; only this time it is in relation to the
Son  of  God,  Yeshua.  Of  course  not  all  the  Jews  present  agreed  with  Peter's
proposed connection between God and Yeshua, or between Mt. Sinai and what
they just witnessed happen on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. 
And  since  we're  on  the  subject  of  Moses  and  the  pattern  of  Mt.  Sinai  being
repeated  at  Pentecost,  I'll  expound  just  a  bit  on  something  I  quoted  from  last
week.
Numbers 11:25 CJB
25 ADONAI came down in the cloud, spoke to him (Moses), took some of the
Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy leaders. When the Spirit
came to rest on them, they prophesied- then but not afterwards.
                             4 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
I pointed out last week that this event in Numbers 11 set the pattern for what
happened  at  Pentecost  in  Acts  2.  What  I  failed  to  point  out  is  just  how  nearly
identical  the  two  events  happened,  both  centered  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  And
although this opens up its own theological can of worms, we'll open that can just
a wee bit and hopefully close the lid before too many crawl out! Notice that the 70
Elders  began  prophesyinging  (that  is,  speaking  ecstatic  speech),  but  then  not
afterwards (meaning they spoke this way for perhaps minutes or hours and then
it ended). It was the same for the 12 Disciples and all the 120 Believers that were
there at Mt. Zion. That is, when the Holy Spirit came upon them they began to
talk ecstatic speech (in this case, employing different languages). But there is no
record in the Bible or elsewhere, not even a hint or implication, that all of these
Believers who were speaking in tongues (in foreign languages) in the immediate
aftermath, and as a consequence, of the Holy Spirit event continued to do so for
more  than  a  few  minutes  or  hours.  That  is,  just  like  Moses'  70  Elders,  they
prophecied (using foreign languages), but not afterwards. 
Paul says that speaking in tongues is one of several possible gifts that one can
receive as a result of the Holy Spirit indwelling. 
CJB  1  Corinthians  12:1  But,  brothers,  I  do  not  want  you  to  go  on  being
ignorant about the things of the Spirit.
2 You know that when you were pagans, no matter how you felt you were
being led, you were being led astray to idols, which can't speak at all.
3 Therefore, I want to make it clear to you that no one speaking by the Spirit
of  God  ever  says,  "Yeshua  is  cursed!"  and  no  one  can  say,  "Yeshua  is
Lord," except by the Ruach HaKodesh.
4 Now there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit gives them.
5  Also  there  are  different  ways  of  serving,  but  it  is  the  same  Lord  being
served.
6 And there are different modes of working, but it is the same God working
them all in everyone.
7  Moreover,  to  each  person  is  given  the  particular  manifestation  of  the
Spirit that will be for the common good.
                             5 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
8 To one, through the Spirit, is given a word of wisdom; to another, a word
of knowledge, in accordance with the same Spirit;
9 to another, faith, by the same Spirit; and to another, gifts of healing, by
the one Spirit;
10 to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the
ability to judge between spirits; to another, the ability to speak in different
kinds of tongues; and to yet another, the ability to interpret tongues.
11 One and the same Spirit is at work in all these things, distributing to each
person as he chooses.
So speaking in tongues is one of a range of possible gifts from the Holy Spirit. It
is  obvious  from  Paul's  perspective  that  the  gift  of  speaking  in  tongues  is  not
universal among legitimate Believers and that the Holy Spirit chooses to whom
He  shall  give  each  particular  gift.  Not  only  in  our  day,  but  even  in  Paul's,  this
issue of speaking in tongues as a sign of having received the Holy Spirit evokes
great  passion  and  strong  disagreement.  The  Believer's  fellowship  at  Corinth
where Paul was, was struggling with this, no doubt with much dissention and bad
feelings towards one another. So in 1Corinthians 14 Paul attempts to give the
issue some balance and context.
CJB 1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love! However, keep on eagerly seeking the
things of the Spirit; and especially seek to be able to prophesying.
2 For someone speaking in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God,
because  no  one  can  understand,  since  he  is  uttering  mysteries  in  the
power of the Spirit.
3    But    someone    prophesyinging    is    speaking    to    people,    edifying,
encouraging and comforting them.
4   A   person   speaking   in   a   tongue   does   edify   himself,   but   a   person
prophesyinging edifies the congregation.
5 I wish you would all speak in tongues, but even more I wish you would all
prophesying. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who
speaks  in  tongues,  unless  someone  gives  an  interpretation,  so  that  the
                             6 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
congregation can be edified.
6 Brothers, suppose I come to you now speaking in tongues. How can I be
of  benefit  to  you  unless  I  bring  you  some  revelation  or  knowledge  or
prophecy or teaching?
7 Even with lifeless musical instruments, such as a flute or a harp, how will
anyone  recognize  the  melody  if  one  note  can't  be  distinguished  from
another?
8 And if the bugle gives an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle?
9 It's the same with you: how will anyone know what you are saying unless
you use your tongue to produce intelligible speech? You will be talking to
the air!
So my position on the challenging issue of speaking in tongues is this: speaking
in tongues is a real, valid, ongoing and valuable spiritual gift. But just because
this gift happened at a particular Pentecost to the 120 Believers and 12 Disciples
(and  only  lasted  for  a  short  time,  apparently),  that  doesn't  mean  that  it  is
automatic that every new Believer from then forward would speak in tongues. At
Pentecost  it  happened  for  a  specific  divine  purpose:  Jerusalem  was  filled  with
Diaspora Jews coming from all over the Roman Empire, and they spoke different
languages. Most did NOT speak Hebrew or Aramaic. It is my speculation that if
all the Jews at Mt. Zion spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, the manifestation of the Holy
Spirit that caused this speaking in tongues would not have happened as it did
because it would have served no useful purpose.
Just as at Mt. Sinai when God wanted people of every language to understand
His Torah, so God wanted every Jew present at Pentecost to hear and perceive
what was happening in his/her own language. Thus speaking in tongues is one of
several  unique  and  specific  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  having  or  not  having  this
particular gift has nothing to do with one's level of faith or personal merit. It is a
sovereign  decision  of  God  for  whatever  purpose  He  has  for  you,  or  maybe  in
whatever  circumstance  you  find  yourself.  But  the  use  of  the  spiritual  gift  of
speaking  in  tongues  (and  interpreting)  must  be  proper  and  not  contrived,  and
should  not  ever  be  divisive.  Nor  should  we  judge  one  another  on  account  of
having this gift, or not having this gift. And Paul goes to great lengths to explain
this to the Corinthians. In fact, Paul goes on to say that he feels that prophesying
                             7 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
is a greater and more useful gift than speaking in tongues. 
Let me also mention that in the New Testament the word "prophesy" takes on a
different meaning from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament most of the time
(not always) prophesying involved predicting the future and/or establishing new
Scripture. But in the New Testament predicting the future is the exception when it
comes  to  the  meaning  of  prophesying.  In  Christ's  era  prophesying  meant  to
teach,  or  to  expound  upon  God's  Word  (existing  Scripture)  in  an  inspired  or
profound way. The belief in the era of Paul was that God's Word to mankind was
complete and locked up. The Books that formed the Hebrew Bible, and especially
the  Prophets,  represented  the  entirety  of  God's  Word  to  mankind.  Thus  Bible
and Torah teachers were said to be prophesying when they taught; not predicting
the  future  but  also  NOT  adding  to  the  Holy  Scripture.  Usually  it  simply  meant
interpreting  what  the  Bible  (the  Old  Testament)  had  to  say  about  any  matter,
including  the  future.  And  that  was  essentially  what  Hebrew  midrash  was
attempting to do. So in New Testament Bible speak, as your Torah Teacher, it
could be said that I am prophesying to you the congregation. In modern terms, I
am interpreting the Bible and teaching it. 
In  verses  23  and  24,  Peter  speaks  of  what  man  did  versus  what  God  did  in
response to the signs and miracles that Yeshua used to prove who He was. Man
judged Yeshua and condemned Him. Many ordinary Judean Jews in conspiracy
with the High Priests and the Roman Governor had Yeshua nailed to a stake and
killed. But God reversed their decision. Humans killed Messiah; God put life back
into Him. Humans put Christ into the grave; God rescued Him from the grave.
Humans  despised  Yeshua  and  thought  Him  worthless;  God  exalted  Him  and
placed Him at His right hand. 
But  now  Peter  deals  with  a  matter  that  Jews  then,  and  modern  Jews  today
continue to wrestle with; the issue of the relationship between King David and
Messiah. Judaism has different takes on this matter, so there is no consensus.
Some   hold   that   King   David   himself   will   either   be   resurrected   or   will   be
reincarnated in a different body. And this is why Judaism in general works very
hard to find David a perfect man who never sinned (a happy fiction to be sure,
according to the Scriptures). So with that in mind, we can begin to comprehend
why there was great interest, but no doubt much disagreement, within the crowd
of  Jews  listening  to  Peter  as  he  explains  his  view  of  the  relationship  between
David and Yeshua. So in verse 25 Peter begins the topic by invoking a Psalm of
David. Psalm 16:8 – 11 is quoted. And because in the New Testament everything
                             8 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
is  rendered  in  Greek,  we  find  a  few  minor  differences  between  this  Old
Testament  quote  versus  what  we  find  in  the  original  Hebrew  quote.  Here  it  is
from the Old Testament.
Psalm 16:8-11 CJB
8 I always set ADONAI before me; with him at my right hand, I can never be
moved;
9 so my heart is glad, my glory rejoices, and my body too rests in safety;
10 for you will not abandon me to Sh'ol, you will not let your faithful one see
the Abyss.
11 You make me know the path of life; in your presence is unbounded joy, in
your right hand eternal delight.
So the two are very close but not exact. The Hebrew speaks of eternal delight in
God's right hand, which is not there in the Greek NT quote. But what is Peter's
point of basing what he's about to say on these few verses? The issue is as I
mentioned a few moments ago: much of 2nd Temple Judaism believed that King
David  was  the  Messiah  and  thus  would  somehow  return  and  reappear  as  the
Messiah  during  their  day.  Peter  needed  to  explain  that  this  was  an  incorrect
understanding of this passage, and he would use logic, history and some more
Scripture (even David's own words) to prove His point. 
So in verse 29 he lays it out: David died and he was buried. In fact Peter points in
the direction of David's tomb that was likely on the eastern slope of the City of
David at that time and visited by virtually every Jew that ever made his/her way to
Jerusalem.  So  of  this  fact  there  was  no  dispute,  and  his  tomb  made  it  self-
evident. But, says Peter, David in addition to being a king was also a Prophet
(and  Judaism  certainly  agreed  with  that)  and  so  when  there  was  prophetic
Scripture about the Messiah and David's name was included, it was referring not
to David himself but rather to one of his descendants (a literal descendant, not a
reincarnation of David). So David could not possibly have been the Messiah; but
Yeshua, a descendant of David, is. 
What is the proof of this? Again, Peter says David was buried and his body was
in a tomb that was visited every day in Jerusalem. Christ too was buried but His
                             9 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
body came alive and He walked out of that tomb because the grave couldn't hold
Him.  Even  more,  while  David's  bleached  bones  lay  in  that  much-visited  tomb,
Christ is nowhere to be found on earth because unlike King David, Yeshua bodily
ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of Yehoveh (and to this there were
many      witnesses).      Further      Yeshua      received      "what      the      Father
promised", the Ruach HaKodesh, and now has poured out this same Spirit on
His followers. And to this fact, thousands were (on this very day) witnesses to it. 
So in Acts 2 verse 35 Peter quotes Psalm 110 verse 1, stating that the person
identified  as  "my  Lord"  in  that  passage  will  sit  at  God's  right  hand.  Much  of
Judaism felt, and still feels, that "my Lord" is referring to King David. Yet, says
Peter, it can't be King David because he didn't ascend into Heaven; he's dead
and  buried.  Therefore  Peter  says  in  verse  36  that  the  whole  house  of  Israel
(meaning  Judah  and  the  10  tribes  of  Ephraim/Israel)  needs  to  recognize  and
acknowledge  that  Yeshua  is  the  Messiah  the  Prophets  and  King  David  spoke
about. 
Now  at  this  point  I  want  to  pause  and  change  gears  and  discuss  with  you  a
couple of chapters in Isaiah that Peter no doubt was using as a foundation for his
understanding of the relationship between David and Messiah Yeshua. Open you
Bibles to Isaiah 55.
READ ISAIAH 55:1 – 5
The  key  words  in  Isaiah  55  as  pertains  to  our  subject  today  are  these:  "I  will
make an everlasting covenant with you, the grace I assured David." The grace
(the chesed in Hebrew) that YHWH assured David was that a descendant of His
would rule forever. The best place I can think of where this everlasting covenant
that shows grace towards David is summed up is in Ezekiel 37. There we hear
this:
Ezekiel 37:24-28 CJB
24 My servant David will be king over them, and all of them will have one
shepherd;   they   will   live   by   my   rulings   and   keep   and   observe   my
regulations.
25  They  will  live  in  the  land  I  gave  to  Ya'akov  my  servant,  where  your
ancestors   lived;   they   will   live   there-   they,   their   children,   and   their
                            10 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
grandchildren, forever; and David my servant will be their leader forever.
26 I will make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. I will
give to them, increase their numbers, and set my sanctuary among them
forever.
27  My  home  will  be  with  them;  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  will  be  my
people.
28 The nations will know that I am ADONAI, who sets Isra'el apart as holy,
when my sanctuary is with them forever.'"
Since  David  is  not  immortal  or  eternal,  then  this  has  to  be  referring  to  a  very
special descendant of David who became immortal and eternal. Otherwise his
rule forever was not possible. That descendant was Yeshua of Natzeret, Jesus
the Christ. 
Let's  switch  gears  one  more  time  and  talk  now  about  Isaiah  56.  The  reason  I
want to deal with this now before we finish Acts 2 is because I mentioned last
week  that  as  Jeremiah  31:30  so  vividly  explains  this  "new  covenant"  that  is
sealed in the blood of Christ (that Christianity claims is the foundation for the so-
called New Testament Church) is actually explicitly said to be for the House of
Judah and the House of Israel. 
30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,  "when  I  will  make  a  new
covenant with the house of Isra'el and with the house of Y'hudah.
The Church rightly points to this verse as the prophecy of a new covenant that
will be sealed in Christ's blood. However the verse is explicit that this covenant is
for Judah and Israel; there is not a thing here about gentiles or foreigners. As I
have  stated  many  times:  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  Bible  as  a  covenant
between God and gentiles. All divine covenants after Noah are between God and
the Hebrews.
And certainly this passage is emphatic that the new covenant is for Israel. Even
so the Church has got it right that gentiles can be included, grafted in. But the
Church  has  also  gotten  it  wrong  by  making  Christianity  a  new  and  separate
religion,  whose  God  is  Jesus,  and  this  to  the  exclusion  of  the  God  of  Israel,
Yehoveh,  His  Word,  the  Torah  and  even  the  Jewish  people.  God  speaks  in  a
                            11 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
number  of  places  in  the  Bible  about  including  gentiles  in  the  blessings  and
covenants   He   has   given   to   Israel,   but   always   there   are   caveats   and
requirements.  Among  other  things  Isaiah  56  explains  God's  view  on  this
eventual gentile inclusion into the Hebrew faith. 
READ ISAIAH 56 all
So here are the key verses. First, a foreigner joining Adonai (it actually reads
YHWH) should not say "Adonai will separate me from His people". Thus here is
a promise that God will freely accept gentiles who want to join.......who? Him. It
doesn't  say  "join  Israel".  This  means  that  joining  God  is  to  make  the  God  of
Israel your God. But then there is verse 6 that sets some stringent stipulations for
those gentiles who want to join HIM (not join Israel, not become Jews per se). He
says gentile foreigners must 1) serve Him, 2) love Him, 3) be His workers, and 4)
keep His Shabbats and not profane them. And if a gentile foreigner will do these
4 things his/her sacrifices will be accepted. And this is because God's house will
be a house of prayer for all peoples. There are some other fascinating prophetic
words contained in Isaiah 56 that aren't appropriate for our study today, but are
worth your time to consider alone and in prayer. 
Let's end today with this thought. Seed of Abraham Ministries,Torah Class has
never advocated for gentiles taking up Judaism in order to follow Christ; but we
have also never advocated against Judaism except as regards its rigidity against
accepting  Yeshua  as  Messiah  and  essentially  excommunicating  Jews  who  do
accept Him. However Judaism and following God's Biblical Torah are often not
on the same page, anymore than Christianity and following God's Scriptures are.
This chapter in Isaiah 56 is a shining example to both Judaism and Christianity
that  it  is  long  past  time  to  set  aside  our  dubious  manmade  traditions  and
doctrines and theological arrogance to rediscover God's Word, from Genesis to
Revelation. 
Here   in   Isaiah   56   we   see   the   Lord   emphatically   stating   His   insistence
that Shabbat observance is mandatory for gentiles who wish to join Him (again,
it  doesn't  say  join  Israel).  I  emphasize  that  part  about  who  or  what  it  is  that
gentiles  join  because  this  makes  it  clear  that  while  through  faith  in  Yeshua
gentiles are grafted into Israel's covenants, we who are gentiles are not grafted
into national Israel so we don't become Israelites, or Hebrews, or Jews, or the
new  Israel  (that  is,  Replacement  Theology).  The  Hebrew  people,  who  later
became known as Israelites, will always be God's precious treasure; a special
                            12 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
people set apart from all others. They have endured more than any people group
on this planet for over 3500 years because of their connection and devotion to
the One God, the God of Israel, Yehoveh. Indeed they have stumbled and fallen
many times and paid dearly for it; only to get up, repent, and have God forgive
them and begin anew. And they will always hold a special place in the Kingdom
of God for that reason. 
Do you want to come to God's holy mountain? Do you want to be joyful in God's
house of prayer in Jerusalem, soon to be the world capital with Messiah Yeshua
as  King  of  the  Kingdom?  Do  you  want  your  sacrifice,  who  is  Christ,  to  be
accepted by God the Father so that you can be clean and atoned for? Then God
says: serve Him, love Him, be a worker for Him, and keep His Shabbats. Not my
words, not my rules; they are God's. 
We'll complete Acts 2 and move into chapter 3 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            13 / 13
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 7, Chapters 2 and 3
We'll  close  out  Acts  chapter  2  and  open  chapter  3  today.  But  first  as  is  our
custom, let's quickly review our previous session.
One of the most memorable features of the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell
Believers on Pentecost (Shavuot), was that the 12 Disciples along with the 120
other Believers present began to speak in foreign languages that were unknown
to them. The word used in that era to mean a language was tongue. Tongues
referred  only  to  natural  human  languages  just  as  we  think  of  them:  English,
French,  Spanish,  Hebrew,  Russian,  Arabic,  etc.  Today  the  Church  calls  this
phenomenon  "speaking  in  tongues".  And  there  is  substantial  theological  and
denominational disagreement over whether this spiritual gift is still appropriate for
our time, or if it still exists, and for some it is thought that a Believer must possess
it as evidence of being saved.
Was  there  a  reason  or  a  precedent  for  this  ecstatic  speech  event  to  occur  at
Pentecost in conjunction with the presence of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy
Spirit)?  Indeed  there  was.  Back  in  Moses'  day  we  found  in  Numbers  11  that
when  God  put  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  (not  within)  the  70  Elders  that  Moses  had
appointed  to  help  him  guide  God's  people  through  the  wilderness,  they  all
spontaneously started uttering ecstatic speech. Since it is said that some of the
Spirit that was upon Moses was, by an act of God, shared with the 70 Elders,
then  we  understand  that  it  is  the  same  Spirit  that  is  being  shared  and  not  a
different one or ones. So we have at Pentecost with the Messianic Believers in
Jerusalem  a  nearly  identical  happening  as  occurred  13  centuries  earlier  with
Moses and His Elders during the exodus from Egypt.
                             1 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
There was an important divine purpose for the Holy Spirit enabling these
followers  of  Christ  to  speak  different  languages  on  this  particular  occasion:
thousands  of  visiting  religious  Jews  had  come  to  Jerusalem  from  all  over  the
Roman Empire on a God-mandated annual pilgrimage. The required pilgrimage
was  to  celebrate  the  Biblical  Festival  of  Shavuot  at  the  Temple,  and  these
Diaspora Jews each spoke a language that was native to whichever country they
were  from.  That  is,  most  did  not  speak  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  the  two  common
languages  of  the  Holy  Land  Jews  including  the  12  Disciples.  So  without  this
miracle of languages what the Lord was revealing through the Believers about
Yeshua  and  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  have  been  understood  by  these  many
thousands of visiting foreign Jews.
We also discussed that in one of his letters to the Corinthians Paul addressed the
issue of speaking in tongues head-on because it was causing dissention among
the  new  Believers  at  Corinth;  and  that  same  dissention  continues  among
Christian denominations to our day. We read passages in 1Corinthians chapters
12 and 14 to see that Paul certainly commended those who spoke in tongues.
But he also nuanced it by saying that speaking in tongues was not meant to be
universal among Believers because it was but one of a range of gifts and abilities
that  the  Holy  Spirit  endowed  the  faithful  with.  So  the  exact  gifting  that  each
Believer might receive was done strictly at the sovereign choice of the Spirit. Paul
concluded  that  speaking  in  tongues  was  not  even  the  greatest  among  the
Spiritual gifts. However without saying which gift was greatest or least he did say
that prophesying was greater than tongues.
Then we learned that prophesying in the NT era did not usually mean to foretell
the  future  as  it  did  in  OT  times.  Nor  did  it  have  the  alternate  OT  meaning  of
adding  to  Holy  Scripture.  Rather  in  NT  times  prophesying  meant  to  expound
upon the existing Scriptures (the OT, the Tanakh) that was believed to be closed
up, completed, with no more to be added. In modern terms, then, prophesying
merely means to properly interpret the Bible and to teach it.
Let's re-read part of Acts chapter 2.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2: 33 – end
The first verses we read bring up the issue of the role of King David in regards to
the Messiah. And in verses that come just before these passages Peter begins to
explain  that  the  Messiah  would  be  eternal;  but  that  King  David  had  died,  was
                             2 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
buried,  and  his  tomb  was  just  a  few  hundred  meters  from  where  they  were
standing.  So  it  is  obvious  that  King  David  wasn't  the  Messiah  since  he  is  not
alive,  and  he  has  not  bodily  ascended  into  Heaven  to  sit  at  God's  right  hand.
However Yeshua, who was killed, arose from the dead, and then ascended into
Heaven  leaving  no  trace  of  Himself  behind,  is  a  descendant  of  King  David
and  is  the  Messiah.  Peter  admonishes  his  listeners  that  many  of  them  were
eyewitnesses to the signs and miracles of Yeshua so there should be no doubt in
them.  These  signs  and  miracles  fulfilled  the  prophecies  of  the  several  OT
Prophets concerning the Messiah, even those prophecies of King David. Thus
this is the proof that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Messiah, He is Lord and King, He
is  eternal,  and  He  is  currently  in  Heaven  with  Yehoveh,  His  Father.  But  then
Peter  hits  them  with  a  roundhouse  right  to  the  jaw.  He  says  to  these  Jews:
"Messiah is this Yeshua, whom you executed on a stake!"
Peter's eloquent argument and his accusation of responsibility to the Jews who
were  listening  to  him  had  its  effect.  Many  realized  their  guilt  and  shame
(especially the local Judean Jews among the crowd). What now? They bore guilt
(mostly  in  a  communal  sense)  for  killing  God's  Messiah;  so  how  could  they
possibly  survive  this  unforgivable  trespass?  Notice  their  response:  "Brothers,
what should we do?" Peter told them to 1) turn from their sins, 2) return to God,
and 3) be immersed (baptized) on the authority of Yeshua. And if they will do
these 3 things they will be forgiven. Of course what Peter is talking about is the
kind of repentance that is acceptable to God.
But the Jewish crowd's reaction to Peter's condemnation of them makes it clear
that  they  inherently  understood  that  repentance  is  above  all  else  an  ACTION!
They asked what to do; not what to pray or what to think. And so Peter said they
were to behaviorally turn from their sins, actively return to obeying God in their
lives, and hurry to be baptized in the name of Yeshua. All of these things were
tangible actions, not a change in feelings or merely a passive change of mind or
heart. This idea of repentance as concrete behavioral change at all levels of our
lives has been all but lost in Christianity. However don't think that this mistaken
mindset  that  feelings  and  words  of  repentance  are  as  good  as  or  better  than
making  actual  life  changes  happens  only  in  our  day  and  age.  Listen  to  this
passage written by John Chrysostom around 400 A.D., taken from his work titled
"Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles".
"What shall we do?" They did what must be done, be we (do) the opposite.
They condemned themselves and despaired of their salvation. This is what
                             3 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
made them such as they were. They knew what gift they had received. But
how  do  you  become  like  them,  when  you  do  everything  in  an  opposite
spirit? As soon as they heard, they were baptized. They did not speak cold
words  that  we  do  now,  nor  did  they  contrive  delays,  even  though  they
heard  all  the  requirements.  For  they  did  not  hesitate  when  they  were
commanded  to  "save  yourselves  from  this  generation",  but  welcomed  it.
They  showed  their  welcome  through  their  action  and  proved  it  through
their deeds what sort of people they were."
Repentance not only requires action; the substance of true repentance IS action.
To say you have repented but it is not reflected in any discernable way in your
life? Only God can know if He has forgiven you, but how can those around you
think that whatever you piously claim is any more than "cold words", says John
Chrysostom, if they see no positive change in you? I tell you frankly that I have
seen many claim repentance and Christ, but few do more than talk the talk. In the
late 90's in a CNN interview, Billy Graham lamented that the follow up from his
Crusades  (that  had  made  him  a  household  word  and  a  giant  in  Christendom)
revealed that of all those hundreds of thousands who left their seats to come and
surround the stage and pray the sinners prayer fewer than 3% showed any signs
of continuing on with what they had professed. And just as a reformed alcoholic
or drug addict can listen to the pleading words of a substance abuser and know
whether  they  are  sincere  or  their  words  are  just  emotion  driven  or  even
manipulation,  so  a  person  who  at  one  time  thought  they  were  saved,  but
suddenly realized that their own actions reflect no fruit of the Spirit in their lives,
no discernable outward commitment to Christ, can often recognize the same in
others.
I  am  a  good  example  of  this.  I  was  raised  in  a  Christian  household  to  model
parents. I can't ever recall a time in my life that I didn't know who Jesus was.
We went to Church as a family. I never heard a bad word from my mother or
father, never heard them argue with one another. They were highly regarded and
trusted  in  the  community.  They  were  kind  and  sweet.  We  were  taught  Godly
principles and our household was quiet, safe, stable and loving. I was baptized
(like so many, on a few occasions!) But in my late 30's my life was plunged into
chaos and despair; and all at once, in a catastrophe that I can only visualize as
like the World Trade Center collapsing all at once into a heap of dust and rubble,
I instantly realized that the cause and fault of my predicament was my own. I had
talked  the  talk  with  the  best  of  them;  but  I  had  never  walked  the  walk  of  a
Believer. There was no fruit; I hadn't endeavored to be different than the world
                             4 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
but rather to be as much like the world as possible. I never considered my life in
relation to the Lord. No one would ever have guessed my claim of Christianity
unless I had told them; and I hardly ever did. I doubt they would have believed
me anyway.
In my despair I realized that while I knew who Christ was, I had never sincerely
repented of my sins nor had any serious intention of following His ways. I had
merely tried to disguise those sins with a thin covering of mouthed words but did
nothing  to  back  it  up.  I  took  salvation  for  granted;  something  cheaply  gained
therefore only lightly valued. I prayed the prayer of forgiveness to relieve some
guilt for awhile, giving me a false sense of security, and then just continued on as
before. While I cannot be 100% certain, as I reflect I do not think I was saved. I
had  lived  a  self-deception  for  most  of  my  life,  but  God  could  not  have  been
fooled.  Yet  out  of  the  ashes  came  a  different  person,  a  restored  person,  who
learned  that  repentance  is  action,  not  cold  words.  Repentance  is  real,  actual,
visible change. The proof of repentance lies in a commitment not to repeat the
same offenses. Peter learned that; John Chrysostom must have as well. And so
did I. It is my earnest hope that you will too, and not have to experience disaster
before you do.
But  getting  back  to  our  passage,  let's  think  about  what  it  was  that  so  worried
those religious Jews that they yelled out to Peter, "What should we do?" They
had accepted some level of culpability for the death of Yeshua; but at the same
time every one knew that they hadn't personally killed Yeshua, nor necessarily
even called for his death. Even so the Torah and the Altar offer no possibility of
atonement for murder, or for those in the conspiracy to murder, or for those that
offer false testimony against an innocent who is then convicted of a capital crime
and put to death. The Law offers no atonement for blasphemy against God (and
what could be more blasphemous than to reject, let alone conspire to kill, God's
Son?) One could repentant, even change and be entirely and sincerely sorry; but
no atonement was available in the Levitical sacrificial system for what the English
Bible  often  labels  as  intentional  or  high-handed  sins.  Thus  their  guilt  and
separation from God clung to them like a stain; it could not be removed at any
price. But Peter offered them a way out.
Notice in verse 38 Peter says: "....and each of you be immersed on the authority
of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins......" The insolvable was
solved if the name of Yeshua was invoked. Peter's instruction telling them to be
immersed (baptized) was to (as David Stern says it): "....absorb completely and
                             5 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
accept totally the work, power, authority and person of Yeshua the Messiah". If
one  does  this  then  forgiveness  of  sins  occurs  (even  for  sins  that  up  until  now
were  not  forgivable  by  any  means  offered  by  the  Torah  Law).  3000  people
rushed to accept what Peter offered them that day and they were immersed into
the name and Lordship of Yeshua.
But to whom is this kind of forgiveness available? In verse 39 Peter says: "For
the promise is for you, for your children, and for those far away; as many as God
may  call".  Where  did  Peter  get  this  idea  from?  Just  as  with  all  of  his  other
premises, he got it from Holy Scripture. We discussed last week how the Prophet
Isaiah, especially chapters 2, 55 and 56, greatly influenced Peter's theology. But
here Peter paraphrases Genesis 28:13 & 14. This is a story of Jacob, before God
renamed him Israel.
Genesis 28:13-14 CJB  13 Then suddenly ADONAI was standing there next
to him; and he said, "I am ADONAI, the God of Avraham your [grand]father
and the God of Yitz'chak. The land on which you are lying I will give to you
and to your descendants. 14 Your descendants will be as numerous as the
grains of dust on the earth. You will expand to the west and to the east, to
the north and to the south. By you and your descendants all the families of
the earth will be blessed.
Abraham  had  many  years  earlier  been  promised  that  the  covenant  God  made
with him would be passed down to his descendants. Jacob was the recipient of
that promise, and now it would flow onward from him.
Peter  says:  "....for  the  PROMISE  is  for  you...."      For  the  Jewish  people  "the
promise"  was  a  well  understood  buzzword  that  meant  the  covenant  God  had
made with Abraham. For indeed this covenant was a promise; it put no conditions
upon  Abraham  it  only  made  guarantees  to  Abraham.  Peter,  as  does  God's
promise to Abraham, says this promise is for your children (descendants) as well,
but also for those far away. Who are those who are far away? It is common in
Christianity to say that this is referring to gentiles and then use Isaiah 57:19 as
the proof text. However as I've demonstrated to you over the years, you can't
just willy-nilly lift verses, or portions of a verse, from the Scriptures and use them
to validate pre-determined agendas. Indeed there is no doubt from many other
verses in the OT (such as we found in Isaiah 56) about foreigners being able to
join  the  God  of  Israel,  and  from  several  more  in  the  NT  that  under  certain
conditions  gentiles  can  be  partakers  in  Israel's  blessings  and  promises  given
                             6 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
through  Israel's  covenants  with  Yehoveh.  However  I  don't  think  that  is  at  all
what Peter had in mind here. For one reason, it would not be until a later time
that God would deal with Peter in a dream-vision (where the Lord lowered a cloth
filled with unclean animals and told Peter to choose and eat) that Peter finally
understood that gentiles were to be actively included into the body of Messiah;
something he was reluctant to accept.
The verse in Isaiah 57 that Christianity nearly universally says is what Peter was
quoting, and it is speaking about the inclusion of gentiles, is this: 19 I will create
the right words: 'Shalom shalom to those far off and to those nearby!' says
ADONAI; 'I will heal them!'" So the doctrinal idea is that those who are far off in
this passage, and thus those who Peter is speaking about, are gentiles. Jews are
near, gentiles are far off. I don't accept that interpretation, especially when one
reads this verse in context.
CJB  Isaiah  57:1    The  righteous  person  perishes,  and  nobody  gives  it  a
thought.  Godly  men  are  taken  away,  and  no  one  understands  that  the
righteous person is taken away from the evil yet to come. 2 Yes, those who
live uprightly will have peace as they rest on their couches. 3 "But you, you
witches' children, come here, you spawn of adulterers and whores!
Then moving down towards the end of this chapter we read:
Isaiah 57:16-19 CJB   16 For I will not fight them forever or always nurse my
anger; otherwise their spirits would faint before me, the creatures I myself
have made. 17 It was because of their flagrant greed that I was angry and
struck them; I hid myself and was angry, but they continued on their own
rebellious way. 18 I have seen their ways, and I will heal them; I will lead
them and give comfort to them and to those who mourn for them- 19 I will
create  the  right  words:  'Shalom  shalom  to  those  far  off  and  to  those
nearby!' says ADONAI; 'I will heal them!'"
This  is  an  obvious  reference  to  Israel's  exiles.  God  is  speaking  about  Israel
(those who rebelled). Gentiles aren't rebels because they never were part of His
chosen people and the God of Israel was not their god. Those who are near are
those  Jews  who  live  in  the  Holy  Land.  Those  who  are  far  off  are  the  Hebrew
exiles  and  the  Diaspora  scattered  about  the  Roman  Empire  and  beyond.  This
includes the House of Judah and the 10 tribes of the House of Ephraim/Israel. So
when Peter spoke of those far off it was the Diaspora Jews and the 10 tribes who
                             7 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
had yet to return. Peter's entire attention was focused on the 12 tribes of Israel,
and no one else.....yet.
Verse 42 then moves beyond the day of Pentecost to what occurred afterwards.
And in this verse is yet another premise that Christians use to establish a dubious
doctrine.  Here  we  read:  "They  continued  faithfully  in  the  teaching  of  the
emissaries,  in  fellowship,  in  breaking  bread  and  in  the  prayers."  This  verse  is
pretty  straightforward  so  what  I'll  focus  on  is  the  reference  to  the  breaking  of
bread. Beginning with the early Roman Church most of Christianity from that time
forward  says  that  breaking  bread  is  referring  to  what  is  today  known  as
Communion; but it decidedly is not about Communion.
Within Judaism then, as now, the breaking of bread stands for the blessing over
what is the basic food staple at most tables, bread. And the symbolism is that
God   sustains   life   with   this   provision   of   sustenance.   In   the   Talmudic
tractate  Berakoth  (which  means  benedictions)  we  find  this  rather  standard
understanding of the breaking of bread by the host of the meal:
"The host breaks bread and the guest says grace after the meal. The host
breaks bread so that he should do so generously, and the guest says grace
so that he should bless the host. The guests may not eat anything until the
one  who  breaks  the  bread  has  tasted.  The  one  who  has  broken  bread
stretches out his hand first, but if he wishes to show respect to his teacher
or  to  anyone  senior  to  himself  he  may  do  so.  The  one  who  acts  as  host
many not break bread until the guests have finished responding Amen."
Before  the  host  breaks  the  bread  a  blessing  is  pronounced  (which  is  why  the
guests  must  say  Amen),  and  then  afterward  the  host  breaks  the  bread.  I  say
again:  breaking  bread  has  no  reference  or  connection  to  the  gentile  Roman
Christian sacrament of Communion. The breaking of bread was in ancient times,
in  Peter's  time,  and  remains  to  this  day  a  common  Jewish  mealtime  ritual
tradition. All Peter was getting at was that the Believers ate meals together and
did so in the standard and customary Jewish way. Thus while Christianity tries to
show Peter moving away from his Jewishness by breaking bread, the meaning is
the exact opposite. In fact in verse 46 the matter is further clarified.
Acts 2:46 CJB  46 Continuing faithfully and with singleness of purpose to
meet in the Temple courts daily, and breaking bread in their several homes,
they shared their food in joy and simplicity of heart........
                             8 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
Notice this as well: the disciples continued to meet in the Temple courts every
day. F.F. Bruce in his New International Commentary on the Book of Acts says
this about what this verse tells us: "The Apostles continued to live as observant
Jews". That sums it up about as well as it can be.
Let's move on to Acts Chapter 3.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 3 all
In the previous chapter, verse 43 says that after Pentecost many miracles and
signs took place through the Disciples. Here in chapter 3 we see one of those
miracles played out.
Verse 1 opens with Peter and John making their customary daily journey to the
Temple. As good observant Jews, they are going at the time of afternoon prayer
variously described in different English Bibles as occurring at the ninth hour or 3
in the afternoon (it's the same thing). The Hebrews had, since their time of exile
in Babylon and the creation of the Synagogue system, prayed 3 times per day.
The morning prayer was called Shacharit; the afternoon prayer Minchah; and
the evening prayer Ma'ariv.
Where did the concept of praying 3 times a day as the proper number of times
come from? From the Prophet Daniel while he was a Babylonian captive.
Daniel 6:11 CJB11  On learning that the document had been signed, Dani'el
went home. The windows of his upstairs room were open in the direction of
Yerushalayim;  and  there  he  kneeled  down  three  times  a  day  and  prayed,
giving thanks before his God, just as he had been doing before.
Thus  from  this  single  verse,  upon  the  earliest  beginnings  of  the  Synagogue
system up in Babylon, the religious Jews face all Synagogues in the direction of
Jerusalem and they pray 3 times per day.
One of the several reasons that Jews might go to the Temple was to be present
at  the  twice  daily  Altar  sacrifices.  These  particular  sacrifices  occurred  in  the
morning and evening. Called the tamid sacrifices (meaning regular or daily) the
Priests performed these 7 days per week, rain or shine, on behalf of all Israel.
What should be noticed is that while the Torah prescribes a certain number of
sacrificial  offerings  each  day  for  all  Israel,  it  does  NOT  prescribe  a  certain
                             9 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
number of daily prayers. Rather the 3 times per day prayer protocol was part of
the liturgy that had been developed in the Synagogue system but was at some
point  adopted  by  the  Temple  authorities.  The  reason  I  even  mention  this  is  to
remind  us  all  that  the  Synagogue  system  was  a  manmade  system  created  in
response to predicament of the Babylonian exile. At that time the Temple was
destroyed,  the  Priesthood  defunct,  and  most  Jews  were  sent  away  out  of  the
Holy  Land  and  to  Babylon.  Thus  there  was  no  means  to  observe  the  Torah
required purity rituals, or to atone for sins by means of Altar sacrifices. There was
no one to teach the Torah, no authority to enforce it, and no place for worship or
teaching  to  occur.  Therefore  the  Synagogue  evolved  as  a  means  to  have  an
alternative  religious  structure.  The  Synagogue  would  develop  new  teachers  of
God's Word, and to be a place for Jews to worship apart from the pagan worship
centers of Babylon, and to simply meet and have fellowship. These are all good
and worthy things.
The  problem  arose  when  alternative  means  for  atonement  were  invented  and
declared by the Synagogue authorities. This was in no way authorized by God or
His Torah. Prayer and Torah study were said to be the new means of atonement
for sins (even though the Scriptures allow no alternative). New rituals and liturgy
were developed, and a religious leadership that was not organized or manned by
Levitical Priests was formed. The troublesome issue is that once the Jews were
freed from their captivity, the Temple was rebuilt and the Priesthood reorganized,
the Altar sacrifices were resumed and everything at the Temple in Jerusalem was
again functioning as it should, the Synagogue system was not disbanded. Rather
the  Jews  now  had  two  different  religious  authority  systems  that  functioned
separately. Some commentators have tried to describe the two systems as being
complimentary and thus all was well. But all one has to do is read a bit of Jewish
history, or even the New Testament, to see that the Temple and the Synagogue
systems were in many ways competitors if not antagonists. So as often happens,
compromises  were  made  for  the  sake  of  peace  or  to  make  the  people  more
comfortable. The 3 times per day prayer at the Temple was one of these many
compromises.
Luke's story of a miracle healing begins as Peter and John are at the Temple
and a crippled man is carried in by his friends to what was no doubt his usual
begging station, which was at the Beautiful Gate. We are told that he was born
crippled meaning he suffered some sort of congenital birth defect. Where is the
Beautiful    Gate?    A    Hebrew    word    for    beautiful    is    yafeh;    when    you
English-ize yafeh you get Jaffa. So some have tried to say that the Jaffa gate in
                            10 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
Jerusalem is the Beautiful Gate of our story. I've taken many of you through that
gate and I'm sorry to inform you that this is not the gate that our crippled man
was laying at. For one reason the Jaffa gate came much later. For another it is
nowhere near the Temple grounds. Likely the YafehGate (the Beautiful Gate) is
what is also known in the Mishnah as the Nicanor Gate, the Bronze Gate, and
also as the Corinthian Gate. It was located near the Court of the Women on the
Temple grounds. Its nickname, the Beautiful Gate, came because of its special
magnificence. Josephus tells us that it was made of ornate bronze, inlaid with
gold and silver and was the most spectacular of the several gates on the Temple
grounds.
Begging  was  fully  condoned  and  even  licensed  in  this  day.  Laziness  was  not
tolerated and neither was faking a disability, hence the licensing. In fact giving
alms  to  beggars  was  considered  to  be  an  important  part  of  Judaism.  Let's
remember that there was no government welfare or disability payment system.
Charity was the only way the sick and lame could survive if they were from poor
families. The Torah law was clear that the less fortunate were to be cared for
otherwise they could cry out to God and the guilt would be placed upon those
who refused to help them.
This  story  of  the  crippled  man  that  John  and  Peter  encounter  is  laden  with
information that I don't want us to hurry through. So we'll conclude for now and
take up this story next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 8, Chapter 3 continued
Last week we concluded chapter 2 and began chapter 3 of Acts. And what we
observed  was  that  when  we  take  these  verses  within  the  context  of  the
2nd Temple Judaism of Jesus's era, and understand what the cultural mindset
and backdrop was for the Bible characters involved and for the author (Luke),
only then does the meaning pour forth.
For  instance;  near  of  the  end  of  Acts  chapter  2  Peter  uses  the  term  "the
promise" as the basis for how he interprets the works and person of Yeshua the
Messiah.  And  it  isn't  necessarily  in  line  with  what  we  might  think.  Often  in
Christianity it is said that what Peter is getting at is that "the promise" is referring
to the New Covenant in Christ. And thus, the New Covenant is unilateral; that is
in the New Covenant only God has obligations. The Believer has none. Yet in
fact, what Peter is alluding to is not the New Covenant, but rather a much more
ancient one: the Abrahamic Covenant.
The term "the promise" had for centuries been the nickname for the Abrahamic
Covenant. And indeed it was a promise to Abraham that was unilateral; that is, all
of  its  obligations  fell  to  God.  However  the  New  Covenant  is  anything  but
unilateral nor is it a promise on the order of the Abrahamic Covenant. So Peter
lays out some very specific requirements to take advantage of the new dynamic
brought about by Yeshua's death and resurrection. First, one must actively turn
from their sins. Second, one must sincerely return to God. And third, one must be
physically  baptized  on  the  authority  of  Messiah  Yeshua.  These  were  3  strict
conditions for forgiveness, and thus salvation. So indeed Believers in Jesus had,
and continue to have, obligations for membership to the community of Believers.
                             1 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
In that same vein it is often said that the New Covenant is all about grace, while
another earlier covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) was about works; this is a false
dichotomy. Both covenants were based on grace, because both covenants were
based on the theological concept of substitution of an innocent victim in place of
the  guilty  perpetrator.  The  primary  difference  was  that  the  older  covenant
required the life of an animal as a substitute each time atonement was needed,
while the newer covenant required the life of Messiah as a one-time substitute.
And, as concerns the Law, what could demonstrate more grace than for God to
let the guilty human being live while an innocent animal died in his/her place?
Further, repentance was equally required for both covenants. An animal sacrifice
without  repentance  was  not  effectual.  Saying  one  believes  in  Yeshua  for
salvation, but without true repentance, is equally ineffectual.
What we also saw was that true repentance (the kind that provides forgiveness of
sins) is first and foremost an action. There must be life changes; mere words and
feelings will not do. Past transgressions must end.
Then in chapter 2 verse 39 we have Peter explaining just who "the promise" was
extended  to.  And  his  answer  was  to  those  near  and  to  those  far  away.  In  the
context  of  that  era,  and  to  Peter's  mind,  the  near  were  those  Jews  standing
before him, and the far away were all the Jews and Israelites of the Diaspora. He
was  not  thinking  of,  or  speaking  about,  gentiles  at  all  at  this  time,  and  in  fact
some  months  later  he  was  still  not  thinking  that  gentiles  were  to  be  included.
Then  in  Acts  chapter  10  we'll  find  God  using  a  dream-vision  to  finally  get  it
across  to  Peter  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  was  to  be  extended  to  all  the
families of the earth, not just to Jews.
Acts 10:34-35 CJB  34 Then Kefa addressed them: "I now understand that
God does not play favorites, 35 but that whoever fears him and does what is
right is acceptable to him, no matter what people he belongs to.
Next, still in chapter 2, we discussed the concept of breaking of bread and found
that it had nothing to do with a Christian tradition that was formed a few centuries
after Peter's day. That tradition was invented by the Roman Church and called
the  Sacrament  of  Communion.  The  breaking  of  bread  was  a  regular,  long
established, Jewish tradition of first saying a blessing over the bread at mealtime,
and  then  literally  breaking  it  into  pieces  to  pass  it  around  to  the  diners.
Communion and the breaking of bread are in no way connected.
                             2 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
Lastly we moved into chapter 3 and the story of the healing miracle of a crippled
man. We just got started last week and didn't get much past the first couple of
verses,  so  we'll  re-read  this  chapter  in  its  entirely.  Open  your  Bibles  to  Acts
chapter 3.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 3 all
Scholars say that what is happening in this chapter is that Peter is outlining his
Christology.  Christology  is  one  of  the  several  categories  and  subject  headings
that helps to define any particular Christian systematic theology. It a big word that
simply  means  the  religious  doctrines  that  may  be  derived  from  the  life  and
teachings  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  I  would  agree  that  Christology  is  definitely
contained in this chapter. However what is often lumped in with Christology are
rather standard Jewish understandings and doctrines derived from the Torah and
from the traditions of Judaism. But because they occur in the New Testament,
these beliefs are often thought to be something new that Yeshua taught (perhaps
even different from the Torah).  Some of these doctrines are quite important as
they are foundational to our proper understanding of Messiah and of redemption.
So we will take some time to examine these.
Essentially what we have here in our story is a divine miracle to heal a cripple,
but it is done for a larger purpose than making the lame to walk. It is done both
as  a  demonstration  of  God's  healing  power,  through  Yeshua,  but  it  also  gives
Peter a platform to preach and teach the Gospel.
The cripple was sitting at a gate called the Beautiful Gate that led into the Court
of the Women; it was one of the main entrances into the Temple complex. He
would have been outside the gate and not inside, as the lame were considered
too  blemished  to  be  allowed  too  near  the  Temple  itself.  Not  even  blemished
Levites and Priests were allowed inside the Temple precinct as it introduced ritual
impurity to the sacred area. This crippled man was a beggar because he had no
other  means  to  survive.  And  because  so  many  people  passed  through  this
particular gate, it was prime real estate for beseeching alms. We should not think
that begging was somehow a bad thing; ironically Judaism actually saw giving to
beggars as a way to achieve merit before God. Thus there was a mindset that
beggars served an important purpose in Jewish society by providing a means for
other Jews to practice an important Torah principle: tzedekah. Tzedekah means
charity.  Beggar  and  giver  formed  a  kind  of  symbiotic  relationship  such  that  if
there were no poor and lame beggars, then Jews couldn't perform the required
                             3 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
charity.  In  the  Babylonian  Talmud  tractate  Baba  Bathra,  we  read  this  excerpt
that well sums up how 2nd Temple Judaism viewed giving to beggars.
In  response  to  criticism  from  gentiles  that  challenged  the  Jewish  concept
of tzedekah in that "If your God loves the poor, why does He not support them?"
the  Hebrew  Sages  replied:  "So  that  through  giving  to  them  we  may  be  saved
from the punishment of Gehinnom". Gehinnom is another way of saying *. In
other words, tzedekah had a certain salvation component to it in the minds of
many Jewish religious authorities of that era, and so beggars were a necessarily
thing so tzedekah could happen.
As this particular beggar spotted Peter and John walking by him he stretched out
his hand as usual hoping for some coins. However instead of giving him money,
Kefa (Peter) offered something unexpected. When we read in verse 4 that Kefa
and Yochanon (John) stared at the beggar, this was not a glare of disapproval;
rather they must have felt an unction from the Holy Spirit to do something truly
awesome  for  this  unfortunate  individual.  Eye  contact  is  a  powerful  thing;  by
staring  into  the  eyes  of  this  beggar,  they  made  a  personal  connection.  They
explain that they won't be giving him any money because they don't have any.
However they will give him something valuable that they do possess and are able
to give; something even greater than charity.
Peter reached out his own hand and grasped the hand of the cripple and said:
"In the name of Yeshua of Nazareth, walk!". He pulled on the man, encouraging
him to stand, and miraculously he did just that. In fact after feeling the sensation
of standing for the first time in his life, he began to walk, and then soon began to
leap  around  all  the  time  praising  God.  Let's  remember  that  not  only  had  he
never, since birth, had the ability to walk, his legs would have been horrifically
atrophied. So the Lord not only repaired whatever was impairing his mobility, He
also instantaneously strengthened those rubbery muscles and ligaments.
It is no accident that the term "leaping" is employed to describe how this former
cripple reacted. A Messianic prophecy well known in Peter's day is found in the
Book of Isaiah that predicts exactly this. It is as beautifully lyrical as a Psalm of
David and worth a few minutes to read it all.
READ ISAIAH 35 all
So when the people saw this man crippled from birth leaping around like a deer,
                             4 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
many would have recognized it as a Messianic prophetic fulfillment, which is of
course what God intended and indeed it was. And Peter made it clear that this
healing was in the name of Yeshua.  Notice also that only AFTER he was healed
did the lame man enter the Temple grounds. To repeat: no blemished person, not
even a Levite, could enter the Temple grounds because it brought defilement to
the holiness of the place. So for the first time in his life this man could enter into
the Temple and he could offer sacrifices of atonement at the Altar. Think on that
for a moment; his crippled condition also meant he had no avenue to atone for
his sins. What a great picture this paints of the purpose for the Law of Moses ,
which was provided for God's crippled people as a means to have atonement for
there sins; a means that had not before existed. And then later, through Yeshua,
an ever greater means was provided for the entire crippled world of humanity to
atone for our sins.
Let's take a bit of a detour at this time to talk about a challenging subject that is
brought up as early in the Bible as the Torah and continues on throughout the
New  Testament;  the  relationship  between  sin  and  sickness.  I  ask  for  all  your
attention and concentration because this is not easy, which is why it is not often
talked about in our Synagogues and Churches except only in the simplest terms.
Depending on the various denominational views, committing sinful acts either is
or is not a direct cause of physical sickness. And various Bible verses can be
found to support either doctrine. Here's an example of a passage that seems to
favor believing that sinful acts DO cause sickness.
CJB John 5:1  After this, there was a Judean festival; and Yeshua went up to
Yerushalayim.  2  In  Yerushalayim,  by  the  Sheep  Gate,  is  a  pool  called  in
Aramaic,   Beit-Zata,   3   in   which   lay   a   crowd   of   invalids-   blind,   lame,
crippled.    4  *    5  One  man  was  there  who  had  been  ill  for  thirty-eight
years.   8   Yeshua   said   to   him,   "Get   up,   pick   up   your   mat   and
walk!"  9  Immediately  the  man  was  healed,  and  he  picked  up  his  mat  and
walked.  14  Afterwards  Yeshua  found  him  in  the  Temple  court  and  said  to
him, "See, you are well! Now stop sinning, or something worse may happen
to you!"
But in another passage that seems to say something entirely different, we read
words  that  imply  that  sinning  is  not  necessarily  tied  directly  to  sickness  or
disability.
                             5 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
CJB John 9:1  As Yeshua passed along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His
talmidim asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned- this man or his parents- to cause
him to be born blind?" 3 Yeshua answered, "His blindness is due neither to
his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might be
seen at work in him.
Further, depending on denominational views, since God is able to heal then a
Believer  either  prays  AND  seeks  medical  help,  or  one  should  ONLY  pray  and
shun medical help; the idea being that seeking a human to heal us signifies a
lack of faith in God. We'll deal with both of these matters because it is profoundly
important to our story and to our lives.
The first thing to know about sin and sickness is that from a Biblical perspective
they both represent a lack of wholeness. Sin is the lack of spiritual wholeness;
sickness is the corresponding lack of physical wholeness. And what we learn in
Scripture is that the lack of spiritual and physical wholeness is connected and
work hand-in-hand. We also learn from the Bible that the lack of wholeness is an
affront to the Lord and so He has set down rules and regulations regarding it. In
fact Yehoveh has set up a barrier between him and un-whole mankind because
He  can't  have  un-whole  anything  in  His  presence  as  the  lack  of  wholeness
defiles  holiness.  Therefore  Heaven  is  a  place  divided  and  separated  away
(protected)  from  the  entire  physical  universe,  and  for  humans  the  boundary
between  the  two  cannot  be  crossed  over  without  very  specific  circumstances
occurring. Those circumstances are 1) our physical death, and 2) righteousness
imputed  to  us  (God's  Believers)  by  divine  grace,  and  this  through  God's  son
Yeshua.
Thus, for instance, when I told you that a Levite or Priest with a blemish (like a
missing  finger,  or  a  substantial  burn,  or  a  crippled  foot)  cannot  serve  at  the
Temple, it is because of this principle of wholeness. Essentially the purpose for
redemption is create wholeness in people who are not whole; and everyone is
born  "not  whole",  both  spiritually  and  physically,  because  of  the  Fall  of  Adam
and Eve. Let me say it again because it is one of the most critical and least talked
about  Biblical  principles  of  God:  redemption  is  NOT  the  goal  in  and  of  itself;
rather redemption is the means to the goal.  The purpose and goal of redemption
is the restoration of wholeness to humanity.
Thus  when  sin  (a  spiritual  element)  entered  the  physical  world,  so  did  its
counterpart,  sickness  and  death.  One  of  the  several  outstanding  things  that
                             6 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
Messiah Yeshua's death on the cross did was to pay or atone not only for our
sins (that is our wrong behaviors or wrong attitudes that go against the Torah),
His sacrificial death also paid for our condition of sin, or our sin nature, that we all
are born with. That is, a newborn infant is born with a sin nature before he/she
even  has  an  opportunity  to  commit  a  sinful  act.  The  Levitical  system  of  Altar
sacrifices could pay ONLY for sinful acts; not for our sin nature. And even then,
not ALL sinful acts could be atoned for. Christ's death covered it all, so indeed it
is vastly superior to anything that the death of an animal could atone for. But let
me  also  be  clear:  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  accompanying  sacrificial  system
using animals for atonement worked. Over and over in the Torah after explaining
a law, and what the requisite sacrifice was to atone for breaking that law, it was
directly said that provided the sacrifice was done with an attitude of repentance,
the sinner was forgiven. However it had its limitations.
Thus  sickness  is  the  tangible  physical  manifestation  of  the  invisible  spiritual
condition of sin. It is once again an example of our Reality of Duality principle; the
spiritual world and the physical world operating in lock step. We get a dramatic
illustration of this in the Torah concerning Miryam, Moses' sister.
Numbers  12:6-10  CJB    6  He  said,  "Listen  to  what  I  say:  when  there  is  a
prophet  among  you,  I,  ADONAI,  make  myself  known  to  him  in  a  vision,  I
speak with him in a dream. 7 But it isn't that way with my servant Moshe. He
is the only one who is faithful in my entire household. 8 With him I speak
face to face and clearly, not in riddles; he sees the image of ADONAI. So
why  weren't  you  afraid  to  criticize  my  servant  Moshe?"  9  The  anger  of
ADONAI  flared  up  against  them,  and  he  left.  10  But  when  the  cloud  was
removed  from  above  the  tent,  Miryam  had  tzara'at,  as  white  as  snow.
Aharon looked at Miryam, and she was as white as snow.
Thus Miryam's hidden spiritual condition became apparent on the outside of her
body for all to see: sickness in the form of a skin disease. And so it is the same
for all mankind. We get physically sick because we are spiritually sick. And while
we  can  certainly  mitigate  part  of  that  by  not  committing  sins,  we  cannot  fully
mitigate the other part, which is our sin natures. Those sin natures will stay with
us until we die; and then if we are Believers we will someday return to earth with
glorified bodies that have different natures. Only then will we no longer be subject
to sickness, because only then we will no longer be subject to sin.
One  more  interesting  bit  of  information.  Wholeness,  or  restoration  to  perfect
                             7 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
health, is in Greek holoklerian. It means to bring something to sound well-being
and thus complete health. In the Greek version of the Old Testament called the
Septuagint, this rarely used word refers to an unblemished animal that is thus
qualified for sacrifice because of its soundness. That is, the animal is suitable for
use by God because it is whole. It works the same with humans. A human must
be brought to holoklerian, wholeness, in order to be useable for God.
Now for the 2nd part of the matter of sin and sickness: as a practical issue what
are Believers to do when we inevitably get physically sick? The reality is that the
Biblical  attitude  towards  healers,  medicine  men,  and  physicians  was  strongly
negative. In the Torah, for instance, we read this about healing from sickness or
injury:
Deuteronomy 32:39 CJB  39 See now that I (God), yes, I, am he; and there is
no god beside me. I put to death, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; no
one saves anyone from my hand!
Here's another example:
2  Chronicles  16:12-13  CJB    12  In  the  thirty-ninth  year  of  his  reign,  Asa
suffered from a disease in his legs. It was a very serious disease, yet even
with   this   disease   he   did   not   seek   out   ADONAI   but   turned   to   the
physicians. 13 Asa slept with his ancestors, dying in the forty-first year of
his reign.
And in a famous saying of Christ in the Book of Luke:
Luke 4:23 CJB  23 Then Yeshua said to them, "No doubt you will quote to
me this proverb- '"Doctor, cure yourself!"  
 There was a prevailing attitude among the Hebrews both ancient and in Peter's
day that practicing healing was part magic, part medicine, and short on miracle
and faith. Jews were from skeptical to fearful of Doctors. It was by firm reliance
on the healing power of the Lord that the Israelites depended. The Jews all the
more  despised  the  Greeks  and  Romans  because  the  occupation  of  physician
was usual and normal in their pagan Hellenistic society; medicine was already an
ancient practice. Yet, beginning about 100 years before Christ, doctors among
the  Hebrews  started  to  make  headway  and  were  seen  less  as  heretics  to  the
Jewish religious faith and increasingly as an extension of God's healing hand on
                             8 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
earth. Thus even the author of the Book of Acts, Luke, a man called a God-fearer
who accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys, is explicitly labeled
as a physician. And obviously he was well accepted as there is no evidence that
he had to give up his occupation in order to join the community of Believers.
As  with  all  changes  within  a  society,  attitude  evolution  is  slow  and  so  both
viewpoints of Doctors being counter-to-God and being an agent of God existed at
the same time. In the Book of Apocrypha known both as Ecclesiasticus and the
Wisdom of Sirach, chapter 38, we see an example of this more accepting attitude
of medical practitioners exist alongside the traditional bent against Doctors:
My son, in thy sickness be not negligent but pray to the Lord, and He will
make  thee  whole.  Leave  off  from  sin,  and  order  they  hands  aright,  and
cleanse  thy  heart  from  all  wickedness.  Give  a  sweet  savor  (an  animal
sacrifice) and a memorial of fine flour (the usual Minchah offering that goes
with an animal sacrifice); and make a fat offering..... (But) he that sinneth
before his Maker let him fall into the hand of the physician". 
So the idea is that if a person is righteous before the Lord, then they should seek
healing solely by the Lord. But if a person was an unrepentant sinner then they
should  seek  a  human  physician.  Thus  there  was  an  acknowledgment  that
physicians could indeed legitimately heal, even if they weren't very respected by
the  more  pious  Jews.  In  time  we  find  some  well  known  Rabbis  becoming
renowned Doctors, especially as the Jewish people began to adopt the viewpoint
that  medicine  and  the  skill  of  a  physician  was  itself  a  gift  of  kindness  and
provision from the Lord. In the end, both mainstream Judaism and Christianity
have decided that prayer and medicine are a good prescriptive combination for
battling sickness (although, in what proportion is hardly broadly agreed to and in
some cases medicine is still shunned as an affront to God.)
What this tells us is that Peter and John would have been immediately labeled as
Jewish healers by the Jews who witnessed the formerly lame man become fully
healed. The 2 disciples tried to deflect that by quickly announcing that the healing
was an issue of faith in God, through Yeshua, and thus a divine miracle; they
weren't physicians or practitioners of magic.  
We'll  continue  with  Acts  chapter  3  next  time  and  get  into  additional  important
doctrinal principles introduced by Peter.
                             9 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            10 / 10
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 9, Chapter 3 continued 2
Before we move on in Acts chapter 3 with our discussion of the cripple who was
healed  by  the  power  of  Yeshua  through  Peter  and  John,  let's  recall  what  we
learned in our last lesson. 
We talked about the relationship between sin and sickness and found that the
Bible frames the issue as one of wholeness.....or perhaps more accurately the
lack of wholeness... as the dynamic that undergirds the connection between sin
and sickness. When we compare and contrast Bible passages on this subject in
John 5 and John 9 we find in the first instance these words of Yeshua who was
speaking to a lame person he had just healed: "See, you are well! Now stop
sinning, or something worse may happen to you!" But in the second instance
we have Yeshua healing a blind man and when asked by His disciples whose
sins caused this man to be blind, He answered: "His blindness is due neither
to his sin nor that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might
be seen at work in him."
So in the sense that sinning (meaning wrong behavior, breaking the Torah Law)
directly leads to a person becoming ill, Scripture shows that is not necessarily the
case. It can be so, but by no means can we establish a concrete direct one to
one  link  between  committing  sins  and  sickness;  steal  a  car,  get  the  measles.
Commit adultery, get cancer. Rather, it is more about the reality that as a result of
the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, all humans are born in sin (that is, we all
are born with sin woven into our DNA). And the result of this is that we get sick
and we die. So sickness is the tangible physical manifestation and counterpart of
the invisible spiritual condition of sin. 
                             1 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
But to God the issue of sin is the lack of wholeness in His created creatures. All
of His creatures were created whole. But because we now have sin woven into
us,  then  we  are  no  longer  whole;  we  are  blemished.  Sickness  and  death  also
represent a lack of physical wholeness. Thus since nothing that is not whole can
be allowed into the presence of God, and since the Fall of Man nothing remains
whole, what is to be done? Answer: God must restore that which is not whole to
full wholeness. But how? Through redemption. By the blood and the living water
of the Lamb, Son of God, those who profess the Lamb (Yeshua of Nazareth) as
their Redeemer are imputed with a kind of wholeness. It is certainly not that are
bodies  are  made  physically  new  and  whole,  because  Believers  suffer  disease
and die just like the wicked do. Rather it is our spirits that are made whole, and
acceptable, to God such that when we finally shed these un-whole bodies, our
spirits  may  enter  into  His  presence.  As  Paul  so  eloquently  said  it:  CJB  2
Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, then, and would much prefer to leave our
home in the body and come to our home with the Lord.
So a key principle that we learned (and frankly sometimes flies in face of what we
might have been taught in the past) is that redemption is not an end or goal in
itself;  rather  redemption  is  the  means  to  attain  the  goal.  And  the  goal  is
wholeness before God. 
Another thing we discussed was that in Christ's day physicians were viewed with
suspicion  by  the  Jews  (Luke,  the  writer  of  Acts,  was  a  physician).  Generally
speaking, the attitude was that God was the healer, and so a sick person was to
seek  God  and  no  one  else  for  healing.  Thus  medical  healing  by  doctors  and
prayer for divine healing were regularly seen as incompatible. Even so, because
of  the  dominance  of  Greek  culture  and  the  practice  of  medicine  being  so
prevalent in the Roman Empire, Jews sort of readapted their thinking and began
to accept the notion that medical healing and doctors were themselves a gift from
God, and thus could be used in conjunction with prayer for healing provided the
medical  doctor  didn't  practice  magic.  Nevertheless,  while  out  in  the  Jewish
Diaspora  this  concept  of  physicians  and  medicine  as  NOT  being  an  enemy  to
faith in God was easily accepted, in Judea and Jerusalem it was less so. Thus at
the Temple, when Peter and John seemed to have healed the cripple of our story
of Acts 3, they were instantly seen by the locals as faith healers. And so their first
reaction was to make it clear that they didn't heal this man; God healed him. And
that it was done in the name, power and authority of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Let's re-read part of Acts 3.
                             2 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 3:12 – end
The first thing to notice here is that in verse 12 it is reaffirmed to whom Peter is
addressing his speech: to the men of Israel. Peter is not talking to gentiles, as
gentiles are at this point not relevant to anything Kefa (Peter) is thinking about (at
least, not yet). And because this crippled man was so well known, it was clear
that something miraculous had happened to him and it involved Peter and John.
Quickly Peter deflects credit that the gathering crowd wants to give to him and
says that it was neither power from God given to them, nor was it their personal
condition of special godliness. And now Peter gives a speech that is essentially a
Gospel presentation. First, he says that the power to do such miracles is invested
in but one person: Yehoveh; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (that is, the
God of the Hebrews). However this same God has glorified Yeshua of Nazareth,
meaning God has given Christ authority and power that belongs exclusively to
the Father. 
This  concept  of  the  power  belonging  to  God  the  Father,  but  being  given  to
Yeshua His Son, can be difficult to grasp. Thus there are theologians beginning
with some of the earlier Church Fathers who determined that if the Father gave
His  son  His  authority  and  power,  that  means  that  Jesus  now  carries  what  His
Father  used  to  have,  but  willingly  gave  up.  And  that  kind  of  thinking  is  what
results when Yeshua is wrongly cast into a Greek cultural mold, because in the
Greek  god  pantheon,  a  father  god  would  give  power  to  his  son,  but  whatever
power he gave to the son only the son now possessed it and the father god no
longer  had  that  particular  power.  So  the  son-God  could  even  use  that  power
against his father. And while some of you may be thinking that you had never
heard  that  from  a  Pastor  as  regards  the  Biblical  Father  and  Son,  in  fact  this
implication  is  expressed  in  the  doctrines  and  attitudes  of  many  mainstream
denominations. This is why among some Christians Jesus is seen as supremely
relevant, but the Father is seen as less relevant or even irrelevant for so-called
New Testament Believers. 
But  because  Yeshua  was  a  Jew  who  was  born  and  lived  in  a  Jewish  Middle
Eastern culture, the relationship between a typical father and his son was well
understood by Peter's audience. Indeed the family patriarch bore all the power in
the family until he became completely incapacitated or died. If at a certain age of
maturity the firstborn son seems worthy enough to handle some of the father's
affairs,  then  the  father  (at  his  sole  discretion)  will  give  the  son  authority  and
power to act as the father's proxy in whatever capacity the father decides. But
                             3 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
this in no way means that the father has surrendered the familial authority and
power in the sense that he has transferred it to his son, so that now only his son
possesses  it  and  the  father  no  longer  has  a  say.  When  we  see  the  heavenly
Father and His Son portrayed to us in the Bible, we must think in these same
terms because that is precisely what is intended. The Father holds and retains all
power, but he has given power and authority to His Son Yeshua to act as the
Father's shaliach (His agent). And interestingly Peter characterizes Yeshua not
as an equal, but as the servant of the Father. Again, this is but standard Jewish
Middle Eastern thinking about the father and son relationship. 
But just as Peter had done when he bashed the crowd of Jews on Mt. Zion who
were  witnessing  the  Pentecost  event  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the
speaking in tongues, he now lays the same accusation upon the Jews who have
come running to see this formerly lame man leaping around like a deer. He says
that the one whom God glorified (Jesus), they denied and disowned. And when
Pontius Pilate gave the Jewish crowd a choice of pardoning a criminal murderer
or letting the innocent Christ go, the crowd sided with the murderer. The result
was that the author of life (Yeshua) was given the death sentence and killed. 
While we're here, I want to digress for just a moment to discuss Pontius Pilate.
He was the 5th in a series of governors over the Roman province of Judea. And it
is  as  certain  as  anything  can  be  when  we're  looking  back  2000  years  in  the
historical record, that he came into power on what our modern calendars would
say is 26 A.D. He was known as a rigid, reckless and ruthless ruler that tended to
stir up civil disobedience rather than to tamp it down using any kind of diplomacy.
This  was  against  formal  Roman  policy  that  attempted  to  rule  its  empire  in  an
enlightened way, not unlike the way Cyrus had operated the Persian Empire. 
Pilate  was  removed  from  power  by  Caesar  in  36  A.D.  for  a  particularly
unconscionable  act  against  some  Samaritans  who  wanted  to  journey  to  Mt.
Gerizim  to  meet  with  a  prophet.  He  killed  many  of  this  peaceful  assembly  for
ambiguous reasons. My purpose for telling you this is that because Pilate was
the one who condemned Jesus to the cross, then Christ's death had to occur no
earlier than 26 A.D. and no later than 36 A.D. So we have a well defined 10 year
period  for  when  Christ  ministered  and  died.  So  when  we  understand  that  this
miracle  of  healing  the  cripple  at  the  Beautiful  Gate  occurred  not  long  after
Shavuot in the same year that Christ died and ascended to Heaven, then we get
a good point of reference for dating this event. 
                             4 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
In verse 16 Peter pronounces perhaps the most important non-negotiable
doctrine  of  Salvation:  "It  is  trust  that  comes  through  Yeshua,  which  has
given him this perfect healing in the presence of you all". We discussed in
our last lesson the Greek work holoklerian and while here it is being translated
as  "perfect  healing"  essentially  it  is  a  term  meant  to  denote  wholeness.  Thus
Peter   is   saying   that   it   is   Yeshua   through   who   comes   our   restoration   to
wholeness, just as it has for this disabled man. Notice that once the lame man is
made whole, only NOW can he enter the gate into the Temple grounds. And the
requirement  to  receive  this  restoration  to  wholeness  is  trust  in  Yeshua  as  the
Messiah.  Of  course  it  is  this  trust  in  Yeshua  that  Evangelical  Christianity  has
termed grace.....and I can't think of a more appropriate English word than grace
to describe what Christ has done for us. This man crippled from birth (as are all
human  beings)  who  was  made  whole  did  nothing  to  merit  restoration;  it  was
simply given to him as a free gift from God. What an exquisite picture of Salvation
we are offered here in this healing. 
Next  Peter  invokes  essentially  the  same  words  that  Yeshua  did  on  the  Cross,
only slightly modified. In verse 17 Peter says: CJB Acts 3:17 "Now, brothers, I
know that you did not understand the significance of what you were doing;
neither did your leaders." This compares favorably with what we find in Luke
23:   CJB   Luke   23:34   Yeshua   said,   "Father,   forgive   them;   they   don't
understand what they are doing."  We should take notice that the only Gospel
that  records  these  particular  words  of  Christ  is  the  Gospel  of  Luke;  the  same
Luke who wrote Acts. So it is no coincidence that Luke chooses to also record
that Peter borrowed these familiar words from his master to mitigate the fear and
guilt (and probably anger among some of them) that the crowd was feeling. 
And, because the Gospel is consistent and never changes, Peter's words about
what the crowd should do about their guilt for killing God's Son are essentially
the same as he spoke to the crowds on Pentecost: repent. Verse 19 has Peter
saying,  "Repent  and  turn  to  God  so  that  your  sins  may  be  erased".  Now
there is more to this verse that we'll get to in a little while. But first, I'd like to
point out that if you use a KJV Bible that same verse reads like this: KJV Acts
3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out....."  The  CJB  says  "turn  to  God";  the  KJV  says  "be  converted".  We're
going to pause now and take a detour to examine yet another common Christian
doctrine  that  needs  to  be  retired.  And  it  is  the  doctrine  that  says  becoming  a
Christian means to convert. 
                             5 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
This little word convert has enormous implications; and it has much to do with the
wall of separation that has grown between Jews and Christians. And I'll tell you
the bottom line up front before I explain the matter more thoroughly. Peter's call
is  not  to  convert;  it  is  to  turn.  The  dictionary  says  that  to  convert  means  to
change in form, or to metamorphose. To become something other than you are.
But to turn means: to rotate, swivel, or pivot. I hope you heard the rather large
difference  in  meaning  and  outcome  of  the  two  terms  convert  and  turn.  One
means to become something else entirely; the other means to change direction.
So what is it that a person is supposed to do when we repent and come to Jesus:
become something else entirely? Or to change direction? 
The  Greek  word  being  translated  is  epistrefo.  And  remembering  that  what  is
being expressed is Hebrew thought coming from Peter's Jewish mind, then we
need to grasp that the Greek we have it in is effectively a translation. By the way:
I'm not claiming that Acts was originally written in Hebrew. I'm saying that while
the original written text is Greek (so far as we know), the thought and culture and
language of the Bible character Peter is Hebrew. So epistrefo is attempting to
translate the Hebrew word shav, which means to turn back. The issue that has
arisen  from  this  intellectually  incorrect  KJV  Bible  choice  to  use  the  word
"convert" stems from an agenda that the Catholic Church held that indeed one
had to metamorphose like a caterpillar to a butterfly to become a Christian. Or,
even more so, from a cat to a dog. And doubly so for Jews. For a Jew, to convert
to  Christianity  first  and  foremost  meant  to  stop  being  a  Jew  and  start  being  a
gentile.  This  was  no  misunderstanding,  nor  did  they  mean  something  different
than what we mentally picture when we envision conversion. It is precisely what
the  Church  leadership  intended  since  the  thinking  was  that  Christianity  is  a
gentiles-only  religion;  and  this  doctrine  of  conversion  is  deeply  imbedded
(although   often   invisibly   just   below   the   surface)   in   most   of   mainstream
Christianity even if Christians regularly don't recognize it for what it is. 
Words  have  meaning.  Words  create  mental  pictures  that  lead  to  assumptions
and conclusions that we make often without consciously realizing it. And while I
don't  know  what  we'd  do  without  the  written  word  of  God,  on  the  other  hand,
unless  one  is  versed  in  the  original  languages  what  all  of  us  read  from  are
translations. 
But that's only the beginning of the issue of extracting meaning from words. The
meaning of words changes over time. Some English words used in the KJV Bible
translation don't necessarily mean what we take that same word to mean in the
                             6 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
21stcentury. Goodness, during my lifetime there are many English words that I
used in my childhood that have completely different meanings today. And there
are English words that exist today that didn't when I was a youth. 
Thus for you who have followed Seed of Abraham Torah Class over the years,
you  know  that  one  of  our  basic  tenets  is  that  we  must  try  to  understand  what
those words written in the Bible meant to the authors and to the people those
authors  were  directing  their  inspired  words  towards,  in  their  time  and  in  their
ancient Middle Eastern cultural setting. This historical reconstruction is crucial to
extract proper meaning from the words we read in Scripture. What must also be
admitted  is  that  some  of  those  ancient  Hebrew  concepts  have  been  tragically
misunderstood (and at times misrepresented) and so mistranslated into English
words  that  give  us  the  wrong  impression  of  their  intent,  but  do  fulfill  certain
theological agendas.
There are a few Biblical words, though, that have more impact on our Christian
theology, doctrines and philosophy than others and one of those key words is the
term "convert" or "conversion". And while we have found this English word used
in the KJV and a handful of other Bibles, and in our study today of the Book of
Acts chapter 3 verse 19, this is also true as the word "conversion" applies to the
Apostle Paul. And I propose to you today that this word "conversion" needs to be
removed  from  our  Believer's  vocabulary  and  removed  from  our  Bibles  as
concerns  redemption,  repentance  and  salvation  because  it  isn't  actually  there
and doesn't belong being inserted there. Conversion gives us an entirely wrong
impression about what it was that Peter and Luke had in mind in Acts, and what
Paul did in reaction to his experience with Christ, and what he expected of the
disciples that they all made on behalf of Messiah. 
The traditional scholarship over the past several centuries has concluded that the
1st generation Christian community after Yeshua and the Apostles had already
become a distinct religion that was separated from Judaism. Basically the idea is
that Peter was in process of rejecting Judaism in favor of Christianity, and Paul
already had, and along with it he had decided to condemn as worthless servitude
any  attempt  for  new  Believers  to  follow  the  Law  of  Moses  that  was  the  very
heartbeat  of  the  Biblical  religion.  The  term  that  was  coined  by  later  Christian
leaders to describe what this well studied Jewish Rabbi Sha'ul did in his extreme
change  from  being  a  follower  of  Judaism  into  an  anti-law  Christian,  was
"conversion". Paul was a convert we are told. 
                             7 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
But what does being converted mean? A.D. Nock says that conversion means a
deliberate and great change is involved, whereby the old was wrong and the new
is right. And in indeed that is the crux of Christian doctrine to prove that Peter and
then Paul decided that their Hebrew Judaism that obeyed the Torah was wrong,
and this new religion called Christianity that abolished the Torah was right. 
In  the  mid  1970's  a  Bible  academic  named  Krister  Stendahl  urged  his  fellow
scholars  to  drop  the  term  conversion  and  instead  use  the  word  "call".  His
contention  was  that  this  English  word  more  accurately  portrays  to  the  modern
mind what was true: and it is that Peter and Paul did NOT see themselves as no
longer part of Judaism or as Jews who abandoned the Law and the Torah. The
word "call" softened the contrast between the Judaism that these two Messianic
leaders had been practicing and this new and spreading movement that made
Yeshua  of  Nazareth  the  focus.  In  other  words,  for  Peter,  Paul,  and  all  the
disciples what they came to practice after their personal experiences with Christ
was a type of Judaism, not a new anti-Judaism religion. 
Of  course  there  was  push  back  against  Mr.  Stendhal  from  the  institutional
Christian  community  that  wanted  there  to  be  not  merely  a  sharp  contrast,  but
rather   a   complete   break,   between   Torah-based   Judaism   and   this   new
Christianity.    And    this    thought    process    is    based    on    the    idea    that
Paul converted from Judaism to Christianity. It means that he discovered that
the  traditional  Torah-based  religion  of  the  Hebrews  was  wrong,  and  now  he
would follow the new Christianity that in his day had no holy book whatsoever.
After all, it is historical fact that there was no New Testament until around 200
A.D., some 150 years after Paul's time. 
So if Peter and Paul (and of course the other disciples) "converted", then why do
they  continue  going  to  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,  and  making  sacrifices  there?
Why does Paul continue to engage in the vow rituals of first allowing one's hair
to grow, and then cutting it and offering it at the Temple upon conclusion of the
vow terms? Why do they all continue to engage in the Biblical Feasts ordained in
Leviticus? 
But getting beyond Peter and Paul, how do we deal with the two groups that are
routinely  said  to  be  Paul's  converts:  Jews  who  practice  Judaism,  and  pagan
Gentiles  who  practice  idolatry?  On  the  surface  it  would  certainly  seem  to  be
correct  to  say  that  Gentiles  indeed  made  metamorphosis  from  caterpillar  to
butterfly: from the worship of their traditional gods and idols to the worship of the
                             8 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
God of Israel. Here's the reason why the term "convert" still is inappropriate and
misleading even to this situation. In Peter's worldview (which was representative
of   the   general   Jewish   worldview)   the   world   consisted   of   two   religious
communities:     Israel's     and     everybody     else     (everybody     else     was
"the  nations",  goyim  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures).  However  there  were  some
Gentiles who had become something called God-fearers; Gentiles who adopted
the God of Israel as their god. 
So had the Jews reached a point in their cultural evolution of making a distinction
between  Gentiles  and  pagan  Gentiles?  No.  That  kind  of  thought  is  nowhere
present during the era of the Apostles. A culture or ethnicity and their god were
one in the same. So if you are an Israelite you automatically worship the god of
Israel;  if  you  are  Gentile  you  automatically  worship  some  other  god  from
wherever you lived. End of story. Thus in the Book of Galatians chapter 5 Paul
speaks  against  other  so-called  Christian  missionaries  who  are  telling  the  local
Gentiles  of  Galatia  that  if  they  receive  a  Jewish  circumcision,  then  they'll  be
responsible to keep the "whole law" (meaning the Torah and the entire body of
Tradition that most national Jews followed). In other words, the acts of having a
circumcision and agreeing to live a completely Jewish lifestyle mean that such a
Gentile  has  converted;  that  he  has  metamorphosed  from  being  a  Gentile  to
becoming   a   Jew.   And   surprise!   Paul   was   against   this.   He   was   against
conversion.  He  did  not  want  Gentiles  to  give  up  being  Gentiles  to  become
national   Jews.   His   Gentiles   were   to   stay   Gentiles.   Yes,   they   must   stop
worshipping their other gods and bow only to the God of Israel; but they were
NOT to convert (Christianity calls what these Christian Missionaries were doing
that  Paul  was  fighting  against  as  Judaizing).  So  in  Paul's  mind,  the  only  true
converts  were  those  Gentiles  who  intentionally  became  national  Jews  as  the
Judaizing missionaries were insisting upon. 
You see the problem in using the word convert or conversion is it confuses and
misrepresents the situation that is being described in the Bible. The term convert
entangles us in the idea that in Peter's day Christianity was created by Christ (as
the first Christian) as something for people to convert to. 
So if Gentiles were NOT to convert and become Jews, and there was no need for
Jews  to  convert  to  something  else  to  follow  Yeshua,  then  what  was  Paul's
thought about what had happened to him on the road to Damascus and what,
precisely, was he asking these Gentiles he was preaching to, to do? What mental
picture did he have that he was urging them to accept and adopt? When you look
                             9 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
at    Paul's    writings    in    Greek,    he    uses    certain    derivations    of    the
Greek word strefo and they all have something to do with pointing to or turning
to. For example in 1Thess 1:9 we hear Paul say: "You turned to (epistrefo) God
from idols, to worship the true and living God". Interestingly when the Greek got
translated into Latin, the Latin word chosen was converso; and then when the
Latin got translated into English the word chosen was convert. 
So  the  idea  that  Peter  and  Paul  insist  upon  is  that  one  does  not  convert,  but
rather  one  turns.  If  a  Gentile  converted  that  means  he  would  become  a  Jew,
follow Jewish Tradition, and be obligated to follow Jewish ancestral customs. If a
Jew  converted  he  became  a  Gentile  and  gave  up  his  Jewish  heritage.  But  as
Paul said in 1Thess. 1, a new Believer is to turn and unite with God the Father
and with the Lord Yeshua.....Jew or gentile. 
So Paul in trying to explain exactly what it is that he is asking Gentiles to do says
that upon one's faith in Messiah Yeshua, the Holy Spirit enters the Believer and
a  kind  of  spiritual  family  connection  is  made  with  the  Jewish  people.  And  to
illustrate  this,  Paul  likes  to  use  the  Roman  concept  of  adoption  (after  all  he  is
talking to Gentiles). The adopted person does NOT have REAL physical blood or
genetic connection to his or her adoptive family; nonetheless, in a real legal way
and by means of a state of mind this person becomes part of the family by mutual
agreement.  The  adopted  person  makes  a  commitment  to  the  family,  and  the
family imputes family status upon the adopted person. Further, as Paul says in
Romans 8 and Galatians 4 that upon this status change, the adopted person (a
gentile) can now cry out "Abba, Father" in worship. This "Abba, Father" isn't the
Hebrew Patriarch Abraham nor is it Jacob, so no family connection with him is
intended. Rather this "Abba, Father" is referring to the heavenly Father, the God
of Israel and of Abraham. So just as a Roman adopted person would not claim
blood relationship with his new family, he does claim full legal family status based
on law and on mutual agreement. 
Thus this is how we need to view what Peter meant, and what happened to Paul
on the Road to Damascus, and what Paul then expected of those Gentiles that
he would go on to evangelize. He expected them to turn from their god to the
true god. 
When we realize this then we can drop this concept that the disciples converted
from something wrong to something right. That they all left their Jewishness to
become something else. Or that a Gentile is to leave his or her Gentile-ness to
                            10 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
become something else (a Jew). Whatever change there is, or is being asked, it
is a spiritual turning. 
This also helps us to understand why the Church's insistence that if a Jew wants
to  worship  Christ  that  they  must  "convert",  is  met  with  such  resistance  by  the
Jewish  community  (as  it  should  be).  And  this  is  because  a  right-thinking  Jew
understands  that  by  converting  the  Church  most  certainly  means  that  the  Jew
must  leave  his  or  her  Judaism,  ancestral  Jewish  heritage,  and  Jewish  cultural
customs in order to become a Christian. 
Paul sums up his position rather well regarding Jews and gentiles, and whether
the one should "convert" to become the other, in Romans 2:25 – Romans 3:5
READ ROMANS 2:25 – 3:6
So I ask you to retire the term convert or conversion from your vocabulary, and
instead  begin  to  employ  the  term  "turn"  in  your  words  and  in  your  thinking.
Because  that  is  closer  to  what  Peter  meant,  and  to  what  Paul  did  as  he  was
prepared to take the Good News to the world of the Gentiles.
Well,  as  you  can  see,  because  Acts  chapter  3  is  so  loaded  with  theologically
important issues that arise from the advent of Yeshua and the coming of the Holy
Spirit,  we're  still  not  done  with  Acts  chapter  3.  So  we  will  continue  in  it  next
week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 10, Chapters 3 and 4
We'll  continue  to  go  at  a  measured  pace  through  Acts  chapter  3  and  on  into
chapter 4 because there are so many theological implications that pass right by
us  if  we  don't.  And  when  they  do  come  up  it  behooves  us  to  notice  and  talk
about them.
So; because of a single word that we found in Acts chapter 3 verse 19 in the
most popular version of the Bible ever created, the King James Bible, we spent
much  time  last  week  with  an  issue  of  vital  importance  to  our  faith  and  to
Jewish/Christian relations. That single word is "convert". KJV Acts 3:19 "Repent
ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out....." 
The  reality  is  that  the  English  word  "converted"  is  not  there  in  the  Greek  NT
manuscripts.  Rather  in  Greek  the  word  is  epistrefo  and  it  doesn't  mean  to
convert,  it  means  to  turn  or  to  pivot.  Convert  of  course  means  for  a  thing  to
become  something  else  entirely.  But  to  turn  means  for  a  thing  to  change
direction. So, which is a new Believer to do in order to have our sins blotted out:
convert  or  turn?  Big  difference.  The  choice  of  convert  or  turn  should  not  be
viewed as some highly nuanced scholarly debate that belongs only in the realm
of theologians; rather it is fundamental to Christianity and helps to define what
the terms of our membership into the Kingdom of God are. Why was the word
convert chosen by the KJV translator if the word wasn't actually there? Because
the Roman Church had for over 1000 years declared itself to be a gentiles-only
institution.  Jews  were  welcome  only  if  they  "converted"  from  being  a  Jew  into
being a gentile; a Jew had to quit being Jewish in order to become a Christian.
The underlying theological assumption was that Jews were required to change
from following something that the Church deemed had been wrong (the Biblical
                             1 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
Torah,  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  subsequent  Jewish  Traditions)  to  following
something   that   the   Church   deemed   was   right:   the   New   Testament   and
subsequent Roman Christian Traditions.
Naturally the result was that except for a tiny handful, the world's Jews shunned
Christianity   for   themselves   because   it   necessarily   meant   giving   up   their
Jewishness and their Hebrew heritage. Thus for around 1700 years a formidable
wall  has  existed  between  Judaism  and  Christianity,  but  in  reality  the  wall  is  a
barrier between Jews and their Messiah.
We concluded our last lesson with me urging all who hear my voice to please
remove the term "convert" from your Christian vocabulary. Rather Jews, just as
gentiles, are not required to convert but to turn from our sins and from idolatry
and from manmade doctrines to the One God Yehoveh, and His Son Yeshua. It
is through repentance and turning (not converting) that our sins are blotted out,
says Peter. Paul says that Jews should remain Jews and gentiles should remain
gentiles  in  Romans  2  and  3.  But  our  mutual  salvation  comes  from  the  same
place: the person and Lordship of Yeshua the Messiah. And we are to share one
mutual holy book: the Bible, Old and New Testaments working together as one
unified inspired source of God's Word.
Let's move on now and complete Acts chapter 3 and get started with chapter 4.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 3 and we'll re-read a few verses.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 3:19 – end
Verse  20  speaks  of  "times  of  refreshing"  that  come  for  those  who  repent  and
turn from their sins to Christ. This refreshing comes to us due to the presence of
the Lord. The word refreshing is translating the Greek word anapsyxis. This term
occurs  in  the  Septuagint  (the  early  Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  that
came before the Dead Sea Scrolls), but there it is translated into English as relief
or respite, and not refreshing. So it seems to me that the intent of verse 20 is not
so much that the presence of the Lord will refresh, but that He will provide relief
and rest. This seems to play well with Yeshua's call that we read in Matthew's
Gospel:
CJB  Matthew  11:28  "Come  to  me,  all  of  you  who  are  struggling  and
burdened, and I will give you rest.
                             2 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
And yet even Yeshua's statement to that effect is but repeating what the Father
said in the Torah in Exodus 33:
CJB Exodus 33:14 He answered, "Set your mind at rest- my presence will go
with you, after all."
And the reason that I want to draw that connection concerning rest in the Lord for
you is this: in verse 20 when it is said that the Lord's presence shall bring the
times of anapsyxis (relief, rest) to Believers, who is the Lord in this case; the
Father or Jesus? The answer becomes clear when we look at the remainder of
verse 20: ".....and He may send the Messiah appointed in advance for you,
that  is,  Yeshua."  Obviously  the  "He"  is  referring  to  the  Father;  otherwise  we
have the Messiah sending Himself. So it is the Father who is here being called
Lord.
Verse 21 explains that Yeshua must remain in Heaven until the time comes for
restoring  everything.  That  is,  a  planet-wide  restoration  for  all  who  have  been
elected for restoration will happen upon Christ's return to earth, when the Father
decides it is time. And yet we must also understand from the previous verse that
it is God the Father by whose power the restoration will come, even when the
time of Yeshua's return arrives. This brings us back to another important issue
we  talked  about  last  week,  the  well-understood  concept  in  NT  times  of  the
relationship between father and son (go back to last week's lesson to get a more
thorough discussion on the subject). But the Reader's Digest version is that the
Son is subservient to the Father, and the Father can, and regularly does, give
some of His power and authority to His Son to wield. But this is not a transfer of
power  and  authority  such  that  now  the  Son  possesses  it  and  the  Father
renounces the power and authority He used to have. Rather it is that the Son
becomes the Father's shaliach (his agent, his proxy) to carry out the Father's
will. It is the Father's power through His agent....Yeshua....that is being exercised.
Thus when we read in the book of Matthew: CJB Matthew 28:18 Yeshua came
and talked with them. He said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me...." the first question for us to ask is 'who is it that gave to
Yeshua  all  authority'?  Answer;  the  Father.  And  since  the  Father  and  Son
relationship  of  the  Bible  is  used  strictly  within  the  context  of  Hebrew  Middle
Eastern culture, not Greek or gentile or 21st century Western culture, then we
understand that Christ isn't saying that the Father has transferred all power and
authority  that  He  once  carried  to  His  Son  Yeshua  and  now  has  essentially
                             3 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
become  an  empty  vessel  and  retired.  Rather  what  is  meant  is  that  all  the
Father's  power  and  authority  can  be  wielded  by  the  Son,  Yeshua,  as  the
Father's authorized agent. But the power that the Son wields is still the Father's.
At the end of verse 20 Peter says that this knowledge that he has about Messiah
Yeshua, and what His return means, came from all the Prophets of the Tanakh,
the Old Testament. But is it true, or just an exaggeration, that even the earliest
Prophets looked ahead and saw the day of Messiah coming and spoke of Him?
Yes it is true, and Peter goes on to quote words from Moses in Deuteronomy 18
that gives a stern warning that God is going to raise up another Prophet in the
future, "from among your brothers" (meaning the Prophet will come from the 12
tribes of Israel), that will be like Moses. And Moses was himself both a Prophet
and a Mediator, which indeed is what Yeshua also is. Only Moses and Yeshua
held  that  God-given  privilege  of  Prophet  and  Mediator,  or  ever  will.  And  the
people (Israel) are to listen to this future Prophet....or else. What is the purpose of
a  Biblical  Prophet?  A  Prophet  is  to  announce  God's  will  so  that  the  people
(including the Israelite Kings) know what God's will is. Thus this second Moses,
Yeshua, will also announce God's will. He or she who refuses to listen to God's
will  that  is  announced  through  Yeshua  shall  be  removed  from  his/her  people
(Israel) and destroyed.
So  Peter  is  essentially  saying  that  the  first  Prophet  to  speak  of  Yeshua  was
Moses,  and  then  this  prophetic  testimony  was  carried  on  through  all  the  later
prophets beginning with Samuel. It should not go unnoticed that Samuel was the
Prophet assigned to anoint Saul as Israel's first king, and then later to replace
Saul with David. So many of the pronouncements that Samuel made concerning
David  would  also  apply  to  David's  royal  descendant  Yeshua,  meaning  the
prophecies were Messianic prophecies.
Then  Peter  connects  those  Jews  standing  before  him  with  the  Old  Testament
prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah  by  saying  that  they  are  the  sons  of  the
Prophets.  Saying  these  Jews  are  sons  of  the  Prophets  is  a  Middle  Eastern
cultural expression that means that they are the ones who are the inheritors of
what the Prophets prophesied. Even more they are the ones being spoken of in
the  Covenant  promise  God  made  to  Abraham  so  long  ago  when  He  said  "By
your  seed  will  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed".  And  since  they  are
biologically connected with Abraham, then God has determined that it is the Jews
to whom Christ would first be sent, before anyone else. And this is so that the
Jews  would  be  the  first  ones  to  turn  (epistrefo)  from  their  evil  ways  and  be
                             4 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
saved.
What must be noticed and acknowledged by Christians especially is that the Lord
revolved all His salvation plans, efforts, and even the persons involved, around
Israel. The Word of God in stone was given to a Hebrew (Moses). The Word of
God in flesh was Himself a Hebrew (Yeshua). And both Moses and Yeshua gave
God's Word exclusively to Hebrews. Whatever of God's Word would eventually
go to gentiles went through the lesser ordinary humans such as the Apostles like
Peter and Paul.
Indeed, the roots of our faith are Hebrew roots at every level.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 4.
No  sooner  does  Peter  begin  to  announce  the  Gospel  of  Christ  than  the
persecutions begin. And, since as of this time the only people who were hearing
the Gospel were Jews, then of course it was the Jewish leadership who were the
persecutors. That is the subject of Acts chapter 4.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 4 all
Let's  begin  by  understanding  that  what  we  just  read  is  all  occurring  with  the
context and timeframe of the healing of the crippled man. It is still the same day,
and  what  Peter  said  to  the  crowd  in  Acts  3  happened  immediately  upon  the
healing, and chapter 4 follows in a matter of an hour or so.
Verse one explains that Peter was still explaining about the healing to the crowd
(and   no   doubt   answering   many   questions)   when   apparently   this   growing
assembly  of  excited  and  amazed  Jews  drew  the  attention  of  the  Temple
authorities  who  were  always  on  the  lookout  for  trouble.  Those  who  ran  the
Temple,  beginning  with  the  High  Priest,  held  their  positions  only  because  the
Romans  permitted  it.  So  they  worked  hard  to  be  sure  that  no  unrest  at  the
Temple  would  upset  the  Roman  leadership  and  thus  endanger  their  highly
profitable occupations.
We  are  told  that  a  contingency  of  Temple  leadership  came  to  investigate:  the
priests,  the  captain  of  the  Temple  police,  and  the  Tz'dukim  (the  Sadducees).
This group was quite angry and upset mainly because of the doctrine Peter was
teaching.  And  that  doctrine  was  of  the  bodily  resurrection  of  the  dead,  with
                             5 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
Yeshua as the proof of their claim. We have a couple of items to talk about in this
regard. First, we should remember that these Temple authorities were the same
ones who had just weeks earlier sentenced Yeshua to death and turned Him over
to Pontius Pilate. So since the mood of the times was one of great religious fervor
and the expectation of a Messiah to throw off the oppressive Roman subjugation
that the Jews hated, Jerusalem was always just one spark away from a serious
riot.
Second,  the  Sadducees  were  generally  seen  as  heartless  and  cold  in  their
administration of the Temple and in meting out justice. And they were viewed as
lackeys of the Romans, more determined to stay in power by pleasing Rome than
having concern for justice for their own people, the Jews. The Pharisees were the
more popular party of that day and so the theology of the Pharisees was more
widely accepted by the mainstream Jewish public. This issue of resurrection from
the  dead,  especially  bodily  resurrection,  was  enormously  controversial,  and
naturally the belief of the Pharisees was at the opposite end of the spectrum from
the  Sadducees.  And  the  belief  of  the  3rd  largest  party,  the  Essenes,  was  on
many matters different from both the Pharisees and the Sadducees. So if we can
step back for a moment and grasp the big picture, the main thing the Sadducee
Temple  authority  was  so  upset  about  was  the  issue  of  resurrection  from  the
dead, and that was at the heart of Peter's message. Add to it the other delicate
issue  of  the  many  followers  of  Yeshua  being  pretty  bitter  and  angry  at  the
Sadducees  for  the  injustice  done  to  their  leader  and  we  can  see  why  the
Sadducees  needed  to  intervene  immediately  lest  this  situation  snowball  out  of
control.
Messianic Rabbi Joseph Shulam in his commentary on the Book of Acts used
words from Josephus that described in detail some of the theological differences
between the main 3 parties of the Jews, including the thorny issue of resurrection
from the dead, and he expressed the philosophies of the Sadducees, Pharisees,
and Essenes. I can do no better than that, and I think it is so very helpful for Bible
students  to  understand  just  what  the  mainstream  prevailing  views  were  of
resurrection  in  Christ's  era  so  we  can  better  digest  what  we're  reading  in  the
New Testament; and no place is more affected by these views than the Book of
Acts. Here's what Josephus had to say:
"For it is a fixed belief of (the Essenes) that the body is corruptible and its
constituent matter impermanent (temporary), but that the soul is immortal
and  imperishable  (eternal).  Emanating  from  the  finest  ether  (ether  is  the
                             6 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
invisible stuff that souls are made of), these souls become entangled, as it
were, in the prison of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of
natural spell. But once they are released from the bonds of the flesh (after a
person dies), then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice
and are borne aloft. They (the Essenes) regard the soul as immortal and so
believe that they ought to strive especially to draw near to righteousness.
Every soul they (the Pharisees) maintain is imperishable (eternal), but the
soul of the good (the righteous dead) passes into another body, while the
souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment. They believe that souls have
the  power  to  survive  death  and  that  there  are  rewards  and  punishments
under the earth (the grave) for those who have led lives of virtue or vice.
Eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while good souls receive an
easy passage to new life.
The Sadducees hold that the soul perishes along with the body (at death).
They do away with Fate altogether, and remove God beyond not merely the
commission, but the very sight of evil. They maintain that man has the free
choice of good or evil, and that it rests with each man's free will whether
he follows one or the other. As for the persistence of the soul after death,
penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them." 
Another interesting belief of the Sadducees was that they did not believe in the
Oral Torah, or what Yeshua called The Traditions of the Elders. They held that
only the written law (the Torah Law, the Law of Moses) was valid and it was to be
applied  in  the  strictest  possible  manner.  This  of  course  was  opposite  of  the
Pharisees who put the Oral Torah on par with, or really above, the written Torah.
But  the  bottom  line  for  our  story  in  Acts  4  is  that  the  Sadducees  denied  the
possibility of EITHER resurrection of the soul or body; when you're dead, you're
dead, and your soul dies along with you. Your existence in any form ceases and
there  is  no  afterlife.  At  the  same  time  the  Pharisees  so  strongly  believed  in
resurrection of the soul and transference of that soul into another body (a kind of
reincarnation) that they said that anyone who did NOT believe this doctrine the
same as they did had no place in the world to come (in Hebrew, the olam haba).
Sounds  a  bit  like  Christian  denominations  today,  who  say  if  you  don't  accept
most  of  their  particularly  cherished  doctrines  that  you  might  not  even  be  a
Christian!
Since  it  is  said  that  priests,  the  captain  of  the  Temple  police,  and  Sadducees
                             7 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
were part of the entourage that came to arrest Peter and John, let's talk about
them for a moment. The priests are referring to the chief priests. There were a
number of them, and they were the most senior of the regular priests who were in
charge of the various courses of priests who served in rotation at the Temple.
The  captain  of  the  Temple  police  is  called  the  sagan.  He  belonged  to  one  or
another of the families of the chief priests. He was of very high rank, with only the
High Priest above him, so he carried great authority. The Temple police is the
same police group that had arrested Christ on that infamous Passover night a
few weeks earlier. The Temple police were not Romans, they were hand picked
Levites, although there is evidence that in certain circumstances Roman soldiers
might accompany the Levite Temple policemen. The Sadducees were aristocrats
of   wealthy   families;   and   the   High   Priests   were   Sadducees.   Further   the
Sadducees  were  the  top  officials  of  the  High  Jewish  court  called  the  Great
Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin consisted of a mixture of Pharisees and Sadducees.
The  Great  Sanhedrin  was  the  supreme  court  of  the  Jews  when  it  came  to
religious matters. It operated near the Temple grounds in a building traditionally
called the Building of Hewn Stones. Of course because of the way Jewish Law
worked,  religious  and  civil  matters  overlapped.  Depending  on  who  the  current
Procurator of Judea was (at this time it was Pontius Pilate), the Sanhedrin tended
to deal with most criminal matters provided it was among Jews and didn't involve
gentile  Romans.  It  was  a  group  that  consisted  of  71  men,  and  modeled  after
Moses  and  his  group  of  70  elders.  The  High  Priest  was  the  head  of  the
Sanhedrin.  And  then  the  70  other  members  were  organized  using  a  seniority
system and were seated using a series of benches, much like the way the British
Parliament works. That is, you have the most senior members who sit up front.
Behind  them  are  less  senior  members  and  behind  them  the  most  junior
members.   When   a   senior   member   vacated   his   front   bench   position,   the
Sanhedrin  member  junior  to  him  that  sat  behind  him,  moved  up  to  the  front
bench. When he moved up, the most junior member behind him also moved up
to take his seat and then the now empty back bench seat was filled with a new
member to the court.
So those who came to arrest Peter and Paul bore the greatest legal authority in
Judea  other  than  for  the  Roman  Procurator  Pontius  Pilate,  indicating  just  how
seriously they took this matter of resurrection theology and calling on the name of
Yeshua  especially  as  one  who  was  resurrected  (and  to  this  there  were  many
witnesses).  Because  it  was  late  in  the  day,  the  2  disciples  were  put  into  jail
overnight to be dealt with the next day at the convenience of the court. However
                             8 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
we're  told  that  before  their  arrest  came,  some  5000  men  came  to  faith  in
Yeshua;  a  huge  number  that  indicates  just  how  enormous  this  crowd  had
become  and  it  actually  justifies  the  concern  of  the  Temple  authorities.  In  fact,
although there is some scholarly debate as to whether this number of 5000 is
men and women combined or men only, the word used here is andron and it
means  males,  not  people  in  general.  So  that  means  that  probably  double  that
number (adding in women) came to faith based on Peter's speech and the result
of the healing of the cripple.
In  verse  5  we're  told  that  rulers,  elders  and  scribes  were  gathered  together  in
Jerusalem along with some specific priests to hear the case. Rulers, elders, and
scribes were names for various classes of members of the Great Sanhedrin. The
rulers was an alternate name for the chief priests. Elders refer to Jewish nobility,
but they were laymen and not Levites or Priests. Scribes is a bit hazy, because
over the centuries the term evolved as it took on various meanings. It seems that
in the New Testament era they were a kind of ruling class whose members could
come  from  any  one  of  several  walks  of  life  from  low  order  priests,  to  rich
merchants and even artisans. These were men who had attained a social status
called chakhamim; this Hebrew word was used to denote ordained scholars. So
they were well educated and experts in matters of business and law.
The Scribes were highly educated people especially trained in writing skills. What
we  now  know  is  that  while  learning  and  speaking  languages  fluently,  even
reading  well,  was  common  among  the  Jews  of  Yeshua's  day,  it  was  seen  as
entirely different than learning how to write. Few learned how to write because it
involved  so  much  more  than  how  we  think  of  it  today.  The  High  Priests  and
aristocrats often couldn't write; thus they hired scribes to do it for them. Scribes
of  this  era  had  to  literally  manufacture  their  own  paper  and  ink.  They  had  to
fashion their own writing instruments. So writing involved an entire set of various
skills to accomplish; one didn't just go to the marketplace and buy a few sheets
of paper, some ink and a pen, and get started. In fact ink in those days didn't
even penetrate the papyrus paper; although problematic on the one hand, on the
other the ink sat on the surface of the paper so that it could be wiped or scraped
off if there was an error. A sheet of papyrus paper could even be wiped clean and
reused.
Along  with  the  rulers,  elders,  and  scribes  who  came  to  hear  Peter  and  John's
case,  were  other  named  members  of  the  Sanhedrin:  Annas  (called  the  High
Priest), Caiaphas, John and Alexander. And as verse 6 says they all belonged to
                             9 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
the  high-priestly  family.  Let's  spend  a  little  time  talking  about  the  High  Priest
system in New Testament times.
The first thing to know is that it didn't operate at all the way the Torah prescribed
it. Upon the Maccabean Rebellion of 164 B.C., and the subsequent retaking by
the Jewish rebels of the Temple from the Syrian army and Antiochus Epiphanies
(which, by the way, is remembered by the holiday of Hanukkah), the authorized
High Priest was deposed and sent packing. The now deposed High Priest was of
the line of Zadok, who was the rightful line of High Priests stemming from Aaron.
But the Hasmon family (led by Judas the Maccabee, the hero of the rebellion)
essentially took over the civil and religious governing of Judea. The result was
that  from  that  time  forward  the  High  Priesthood  became  a  political  office  that
could be bought and sold. Even though it was usually occupied by a person of
Levite descent, and equally as usual that Levite belonged to one priestly line or
another, it wasn't of the proper God-ordained line, the line of Zadok.
The  Torah  Law  makes  it  that  the  High  Priest  is  High  Priest  for  life.  Then  only
when he dies, his firstborn son takes his spot, reigns as High Priest until he dies,
and so on. So the High Priest office was inherited and not chosen. But now since
the Maccabean Rebellion, a High Priest might occupy the office for a few months
or years and then decide to vacate and turn it over to another family member (or
have it taken from him), or if the price was right, sold to another family entirely.
So suddenly there were a number of current and former High Priests living at the
same  time  and  they  all  retained  the  title  of  High  Priest  even  though  they  only
served one at a time as the acting High Priest. It is just like it is in America with
high political offices. For instance; all former Presidents retain their title for life,
even after they've left office. Same for Governors. It's just a political tradition.
Thus in Acts chapter 4 while Annas is called High Priest, he was actually only the
Patriarch  of  the  reigning  High  Priestly  family  and  was  not  actually  the  current
High  Priest.  The  current  High  Priest  was  his  son-in-law  Caiaphas,  and  so  for
Annas High Priest was merely an honorary title. John and Alexander were other
members of the High Priest family, but so far as the records show they had not
been  High  Priests  up  to  now.  So  in  the  New  Testament  we'll  occasionally
encounter words to the effect that the High Priests (plural) did so-and-so. That is
not  an  error;  there  were  a  number  of  ex-High  Priests  running  around  who
continued to hold high status.
In  fact  during  the  few  times  that  Judea  was  not  occupied  by  a  foreign  power,
                            10 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
such  as  immediately  following  the  Maccabean  Rebellion,  the  High  Priest  was
also head of state. That is he was governor of Judea as well as the High Priest of
the Temple. Hyrcannus is one such example.
In  our  story  Annas  was  the  10th  High  Priest  from  the  time  of  Herod  the  Great
(who  reigned  from  37  B.C.  to  4  B.C.)  So  High  Priests  came  and  went  at  an
alarming rate. Interestingly, Annas was not appointed by a Jewish High Priestly
family  but  instead  by  the  then  current  Roman  governor  Quirinius  in  6  B.C.  So
here we see that even control of the religious establishment of Judea (meaning
the  Temple)  came  under  direct  rule  of  the  Romans  from  6  B.C.  until  38  A.D.
when Agrippa was finally able to restore religious rule to the Jews. Annas held
the office of High Priest for 8 or 9 years before he was removed by the Roman
governor Valerius Gratus. He also appointed Annas' son-in-law Caiaphas as the
new High Priest, an office he held obviously at the time of our story, but would be
deposed in 36 A.D.
I know that's a lot of history; but my intention was for you to get a good picture of
the state of the Temple and the Priesthood and how it operated all during the
time of Christ, and how it was during the time of Peter and Paul right up until the
Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. It is no wonder that Yeshua showed no respect
to the Temple authorities, and that the Essenes split with the Temple, labeled the
Temple authorities as the Sons of Darkness, and set up shop out by the Dead
Sea.
We'll continue with our study of Acts chapter 4 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 11, Chapter 4
We  spent  a  goodly  portion  of  our  previous  lesson  in  Acts  creating  a  kind  of  diagram  to
understand just who the various players were in our story, what their titles and positions meant,
and what the general social and religious conditions of the Jewish people were living in the
Holy  Land.  I  spoke  about  rulers,  chief  priests,  elders,  the  Temple  police,  scribes  and  other
occupations.  We  learned  some  of  the  fundamental  beliefs  and  differences  between  the  3
mainstream social/religious parties of the day called the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes;
and especially as concerns the issue of resurrection from the dead, which was apparently a
controversial topic for the times.  Briefly, the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the
dead, and did not believe in any sort of afterlife. The soul ended its existence at the same
moment  the  body  died.  So  what  Peter  and  John  were  teaching  at  the  Temple  about
resurrection,  and  claimed  happened  with  their  departed  Master  Yeshua,  was  instantly
problematic and flew in the face of what the High Priest accepted as truth.
The Pharisees did believe in resurrection of the dead, but in the sense that while the soul was
immortal and eternal, upon the death of the body the soul of the departed righteous person
passed into another body at some point (sooner or later). But the souls of the wicked were
bound up in torment for eternity. The party of the Essenes also believed in resurrection from
the dead in the form of the soul living on, but not necessarily the body being reanimated nor
the immortal soul being placed into a new and better body. So the future of the soul was to
remain alive, but disembodied.
Of course there were numerous other differences between the 3 parties besides the issue of
resurrection from the dead. What is quite helpful to know when studying the New Testament is
this: the Sadducees were associated and connected to the institution of the Temple and its
Priesthood. In fact at this time the High Priests and the Chief Priests were all Sadducees. The
Pharisees on the other hand were associated and connected to the Synagogue System. As I
noted last week it was the Pharisees who had created the concept of Oral Torah, meaning a
claim of unwritten laws handed down from Moses. And the Pharisees were, for the most part,
the creators of Traditions that in many ways heavily skewed the meaning of the written Laws of
Moses  to  make  them  reflect  the  views  and  beliefs  of  the  Pharisees.  Recall  that  Yeshua
criticized the Pharisees for creating and imposing their Traditions that at times countermanded
the Holy Scriptures in His estimation.
CJB  Matthew 15:1 Then some P'rushim and Torah-teachers from Yerushalayim came to
Yeshua and asked him, 2 "Why is it that your talmidim break the Tradition of the Elders?
They  don't  do  n'tilat-yadayim  before  they  eat!"  3  He  answered,  "Indeed,  why  do  you
break the command of God by your tradition?
The Sadducees generally agreed with Jesus on this issue of Tradition and refused to accept
the validity of anything but the historical written Laws of Moses as recorded in the Torah. That
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
is, they shunned Tradition, or as Yeshua referred to it, the Traditions of the Elders. Why? For
the Sadducees it was mostly because it was the rival Pharisees and the Synagogue system
that  had  created  the  Oral  Torah,  the  Traditions,  so  they  weren't  about  to  adopt  them  for
themselves. 
Thus since the Synagogue and the Temple were indeed rival systems, each with their own
separate authority structures, so were the Sadducees and the Pharisees rivals. The Essenes
wanted  no  part  of  either  the  Synagogue  or  the  Temple  because  they  thought  the  Temple
Priesthood thoroughly corrupt and the Pharisees wrong on their theology. Not much later, just
one  more  generation  after  Peter,  the  Romans  would  destroy  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple,
meaning the priests were out of job. Thus the Sadducees overnight became a relic as they lost
the basis of their power and authority (the Temple and Priesthood). The Pharisees became the
Rabbis as the Synagogue system lived on, and Tradition and Oral Torah were in time written
down  into  an  authoritative  work  called  the  Mishnah,  which  itself  turned  into  the  source
document for Halakah, Rabbinic Law, that all Jews were expected to observe. Rabbis now
ruled Judaism without opposition or competition (except among themselves) and so it is to this
day.
Among the other social and government institutions of the Jews that we discussed was the
Sanhedrin;  the  Jewish  Supreme  Court.  It  was  this  body  that  Peter  and  John  were  brought
before  to  have  their  case  examined.  The  High  Priest  by  right  of  his  position  was  also  the
president of the Sanhedrin. So we see that while there were some Pharisees that sat on the
Sanhedrin, the Sadducees (starting with the High Priest) actually controlled the court and so
more or less dictated the outcomes. The Sanhedrin was not a Biblically ordained legal body,
however it was modeled after the system Moses used during the exodus (at least as far as
there being 70 elders to help govern plus its leader for a total of 71 individuals), and its job
being to judge Israel. In fact, it seems that the institution of the Sanhedrin did not exist until
after the Maccabean Rebellion of the 160's B.C. And its existence would terminate in 70 A.D.
upon the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. It would in time be reborn but as a totally different
kind of institution. The Sanhedrin became the institution of chief Rabbis who met to determine
the  new  and  growing  body  of  Jewish  Law  that  also  goes  by  the  names  of  Tradition  and
Halakah.
And finally we discussed that although in Acts 4:6 a fellow named Annas is called the High
Priest, in fact he was not the currently sitting High Priest; rather it was his son-in-law Caiaphas.
It  is  simply  that  during  this  era  since  the  job  of  High  Priest  was  no  longer  for  life  or  was  it
inherited,  but  instead  it  was  appointed  by  Rome  on  the  basis  of  bribes  and  commissions.
Annas was a former High Priest but also the patriarch of the current High Priest family. And all
living ex-High Priests were allowed to retain the honorary title of High Priest.
Let's re-read a portion of Acts 4.
RE-READ ACTS 4:5 – end
So Peter and John were jailed overnight and then they appeared before the Sanhedrin. And
the question the two disciples were asked was: "By what power or by what name did you do
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
this"? Note that the court didn't in any way dispute what happened; this cripple was indeed
healed. It was a miracle, but done in whose power and whose name? So the outcome wasn't
an issue; it was the theology that mattered to the Sadducees. To the minds of the Jews the
healing of an individual was inherently something beyond the natural power of a human being.
Thus  the  Sanhedrin  wanted  to  know  if  this  particular  healing  might  have  been  sorcery  or
perhaps even blasphemy (that is, the healing done in the name of a false god). Recall that
Yeshua was accused of performing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, the Devil.
But Peter, with the power of the Holy Spirit, had an answer for them. When we're told that
Peter was "filled with the Ruach HaKodesh", it doesn't mean that he was just now indwelt
with the Holy Spirit or that he received more of the Holy Spirit than he had received a few days
earlier  at  Pentecost.  This  won't  be  the  only  time  we'll  see  a  disciple  make  a  speech  and
we're told that he was "filled with the Holy Spirit". It only means that this Believer was given
special  divine  inspiration  for  what  he  was  about  to  say  or  do.  I  am  certain  that  Peter
remembered and was comforted by these words of His Master and so fully expected to be
"filled with the Holy Spirit" at the appropriate moment:
Matthew 10:18-20 CJB
18  On  my  account  you  will  be  brought  before  governors  and  kings  as  a  testimony  to
them and to the Goyim.
19 But when they bring you to trial, do not worry about what to say or how to say it;
when the time comes, you will be given what you should say.
20 For it will not be just you speaking, but the Spirit of your heavenly Father speaking
through you.
I  want  to  comment  on  Jesus's  statement  for  just  a  moment.  Yeshua  is  not  saying  that  His
disciples, the original 12 (or us), should ignore preparation when given an opportunity to speak
God's Word or to speak about the Good News in witness of Him. This is not a call to "wing it".
The 12 Disciples (to whom He was speaking) were with Yeshua day and night and so were
being constantly taught about the Holy Scriptures from the mouth of God Himself. They were in
as intense a teaching environment (for as much as 3 years) that we scarcely imagine. As we
see here in Acts, and throughout the New Testament, these men who had no special higher
learning (all higher learning among the Jews was only religious education), and could quote
Scripture beautifully and in the proper context. They weren't merely good memorizers and so
could speak Bible passages the way a Parrot can mimic but not know the substance of what it
is saying. Rather the Disciples were able to discern sufficiently to understand how to properly
apply the appropriate passages to the appropriate circumstances.
The  Disciples  didn't  have  the  luxury  of  having  Bibles  to  carry  around  or  refer  to  as  we  do.
Yeshua  didn't  have  a  Tanakh,  and  didn't  have  Scripture  scrolls  to  teach  His  students  from
(except occasionally perhaps in a Synagogue). Memory and practice....much time and effort....
was needed to be able to remember and pull up those divine words when called upon. I've
taught you for many years that upon coming to Salvation, the next step must be immersion in
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
water  (to  be  baptized).  But  immediately  after  that  is  to  be  immersed  into  God's  Word.
Otherwise  all  we'll  know  is  what  others  tell  us,  and  often  that  amounts  to  bumper  sticker
sayings or doctrines that might well be true (sometimes not), but come without an underlying
foundation  for  understanding  what  we've  heard  or  how  to  apply  it  to  our  lives.  These  12
disciples who were often accused of being common am ha'eretz (a term literally meaning the
people of the land, but in Christ's day was used in a derogatory way to indicate people of little
wit or systematic education). Yet these ordinary men could confound and intelligently respond
to kings, even Torah teachers, under the most stressful circumstances. It was because a) they
knew God's Word, and b) they had the Holy Spirit to guide them.
I have heard about many of you who have confounded and startled Pastors and Rabbis and
friends and family with your answers to their questions or statements about your faith or about
Biblical doctrines. And some of you have told me that when you are responding that you can't
believe what is coming out of your mouth! And what startles your audience is that most of you
never  went  to  Seminary  or  Bible  College.  But  you  have  diligently  studied  God's  Word,  with
the Ruach HaKodesh as your teacher, and so you know the unfiltered truth. There can be no
higher education than that so don't ever think that you are unqualified to challenge religious
authorities when they have it wrong.
I  can  only  imagine  the  dumbfounded  expressions  on  the  faces  of  the  members  of  the
Sanhedrin as Peter began to speak under divine inspiration. Immediately he questioned their
motives for questioning him. He says "If we are being examined today for a good deed done to
a disabled person"; in other words he's saying that assuming your motive to have us before
you is to actually understand how this healing took place, then he has a direct answer for them.
He goes on to say that he wants them and all Israel to know that this was done in the name of
Yeshua HaMashiach (Yeshua of Nazareth who is Israel's Messiah). They knew exactly who
Peter was talking about, and it conjured up their worst fears. Why? Because they had hoped
that a few weeks earlier after they had managed to get the Romans to execute Jesus for them
that yet another threat to their power and authority would have been eliminated. But instead, it
now  appears  that  they  had  created  a  martyr.  The  followers  of  this  martyr  were  bold  and
fearless, and the huge crowd that had heard and believed Peter the night before was evidence
enough that this Yeshua movement was alive and well and growing even though the founder
was dead and gone.
But after answering their question about whose name and power this healing happened, Peter
just can't stand to leave well enough alone; he goes on to say to the High Priest and the 70
most powerful Jewish officials in the land: "You executed this Yeshua on a stake as a criminal,
but God raised Him from the dead, and now as a result of the power of this Yeshua, the cripple
is healed". Yikes.  This was no polite oratory by Peter; he instantly went for the jugular. Peter
who is supposed to be on the witness stand to defend himself has gone on the offensive even
telling the Sanhedrin that what they did to Yeshua, was obviously against God's will since He
undid it.
Peter now has their attention and so preaches the Gospel of Christ that begins by using Psalm
118. Psalm 118 was well known for reasons we'll talk about in a few minutes, but first I want to
point  out  something  that  frankly  I  delight  in  bringing  up  every  chance  I  get.  The  Gospel  of
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
Salvation was given to mankind in the Old Testament, not the New. Yeshua taught the Gospel
from the Old Testament. The Disciples taught the Gospel to their fellow Jews from the Old
Testament. The Apostle Paul taught the Gospel to the gentiles from the Old Testament. Every
Scripture  passage  the  disciples  and  Apostles  and  Christ  Himself  quoted  was  from  the  Old
Testament. And that is because there would be no such thing as a New Testament for nearly 2
centuries after Christ's passion on the cross. So when people question the relevance of the
Old Testament for modern day Believers, and that Salvation is of the New Testament and not
the Old, you might want to point that out.
I'm of course in no way disparaging the latter part of our Bibles, the New Testament, or am I
lessening its irreplaceable value or inspiration. However for a very long time there has been a
great effort in our Christian institutions (none more so than in the 21st century) to separate the
Old from the New making the Old almost a separate issue, if not a separate book, from the
New with each testament designated as pertinent to different people groups (one for Jews, the
other for Christian gentiles). Although we'll find some of the early Church Fathers holding this
view,  this  was  by  no  means  unanimous.  I  think  it  is  most  instructional  to  include  the  early
Church Fathers' comments in any discussion of the New Testament.
Here is what Venerable Bede (also known as Saint Bede) said in the early 700's A.D. about
the issue of the two testaments (Old and New) as well as the two peoples of the earth (Jew
and gentile) in relation to one another. This excerpt is taken from his Commentary on the Acts
of the Apostles as he speaks specifically about Acts chapter 4 and Peter's Psalm 118 quote.
"The builders were the Jews, while all the gentiles remained in the wasteland of idols.
The Jews alone were daily reading the Law and the Prophets for the building up of the
people. As they were building, they came to the cornerstone, which embraces two walls;
that is, they found in the prophetic Scriptures that Christ, who would bring together in
Himself two peoples, was to come in the flesh. And because they preferred to remain in
one wall, that is to be saved alone, they rejected the stone, which was not one-sided but
two-sided.  Nevertheless,  although  they  were  unwilling,  God  by  Himself  placed  this
stone  at  the  chief  position  in  the  corner,  so  that  from  two  Testaments  and  from  two
peoples there might rise up a building of one and the same faith."
Very wise and profound words from Bede. Psalm 118 is part of the Hallel, which consists of
Psalms 113-118. It is a key part of Jewish Synagogue liturgy. And Psalm 118 begins:
CJB Psalm 118:1 Give thanks to ADONAI; for he is good, for his grace continues forever.
2 Now let Isra'el say, "His grace continues forever."
3 Now let the house of Aharon say, "His grace continues forever."
4 Now let those who fear ADONAI say, "His grace continues forever."
Skipping to verse 14:
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
14 Yah is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.
Then down to verse 22:
22 The very rock that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone!
This  is  agreed  by  Jews  and  Christians  as  a  Messianic  Psalm.  And  we  find  the  use  of  "the
Rock" or "the Stone" as a metaphor for, and reference to, Messiah. Yeshua used it of Himself
as in the Book of Mark. Naturally when He used it, it was clear to those around Him that He
was saying that He was the rock and the cornerstone from Psalm 118.
Mark 12:10-12 CJB
10  Haven't  you  read  the  passage  in  the  Tanakh  that  says,  'The  very  rock  which  the
builders rejected has become the cornerstone!
11 This has come from ADONAI, and in our eyes it is amazing'?"
12 They set about to arrest him, for they recognized that he had told the parable with
reference to themselves. But they were afraid of the crowd, so they left him and went
away.
So  Peter's  use  of  "the  rock  which  the  builders  rejected"  (referring  to  Yeshua)  was  both
accurate and inflammatory because if we had read the last few verses of Mark 11 we would
have seen that when Jesus spoke these words He was in the Temple courts, the province of
the Sadducees. So the "they" who were about to arrest Yeshua for saying that He was the
rock  and  cornerstone  were  the  Sadducees.  And  now  Peter  stands  before  the  very  same
people and uses this same Messianic verse in the same context, pronouncing the same man,
Yeshua, as the stone the builders rejected. But he also indicts the Sadducees as the builders
who did the rejecting.
But then comes verse 12, which to me is one of the most powerful not only in Acts but in the
entire  New  Testament.  "There  is  salvation  in  no  one  else!  For  there  is  no  other  name
under heaven given to mankind by whom we must be saved!"For millions of Believers like
me, this statement is a non-negotiable, foundational principle of our faith. How at any point in
history that a Believer could create or adopt the Two Covenant (or Dual Covenant) Theology
that Jews are saved by the Law and gentiles are saved by Christ is beyond me. And believe
me,  many  well  known  Pastors,  Rabbis  and  Bible  Teachers  who  love  Israel  and  are  at  the
forefront of fighting anti-Semitism, have adopted this Two Covenant Theology that says that
Jews have a different path to salvation than gentiles. They may deny the label, but at the same
time teach that there is no need for Jews to accept Yeshua as their Savior; the Law of Moses
has redeemed them.
Yet to whom was Peter speaking when he uttered these immutable words? He was standing in
the  Court  of  the  Sanhedrin,  on  the  Temple  Mount,  speaking  in  closed  session  ONLY  to
Sadducees and Pharisees: Jews. Not a single gentile heard those words. So the irony is thick;
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
Peter told the Jews that Yeshua is the only name who saves, but today many gentile Christians
say that His words do NOT apply to Jews but only to gentiles. Go figure.
In  Acts  4:13,  the  first  reaction  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  surprise  that  these
presumably uneducated men could speak with such gravitas and authority. Their accents and
their dress gave them away that they were simple Galileans, and they also remembered that
these two (Peter and John) were constant companions with Yeshua (also a Galilean). Rabban
Gamaliel  II,  some  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.D.,  said  these  recorded
words to give us an idea of how the learned Jews looked at the common Jews:  "An uncultured
person is not sin-fearing; and neither is an ignorant person (an am ha'eretz) pious...." So while
the members of the Sanhedrin were boxed-in by the unexpectedly wise and inspired words of
Peter,  a  mere  fisherman,  they  still  gave  him  no  respect.  At  the  same  time,  what  with  the
formerly crippled man standing right there next to the disciples, what was the Sanhedrin to do?
In  verse  16,  in  private  conference,  the  Sanhedrin  admits  that  a  "notable  sign"  (that  is,  a
miracle) had been performed through Peter and John. There was nothing illegal about that,
and so nothing they could do. Fascinating; the leaders of the Jewish religious establishment
have  no  interest  in  the  fact  that  an  otherwise  permanently  disabled  man,  since  birth,  has
regained full use of his body due to a miracle of God. Their only agenda is how this might
affect their personal status and authority. In verse 17 they go so far as to try to squelch this
from spreading! Imagine! The leaders of the religion of the Jews are trying to figure out how to
STOP  any  more  people  from  being  healed  in  the  name  of  Yeshua  because  they  didn't
authorize it, don't control it,  and so don't get credit for it.  Any good politician can perfectly
understand their thinking.
So the only course of action the Sanhedrin could take was to threaten the disciples never to do
it again, with some unnamed consequences if they did so. But especially they say that Peter
and John are never to speak to anyone again in "this name" (meaning Yeshua).  Of course
Peter and John will have none of it, and so in no time they will again be arrested (as we'll find
in the next chapter of Acts). But their second arrest will not go as easy for them because of the
way Jewish Law was administered at this time.
Jewish law in those days held that ignorance of the law was indeed a good excuse. Saying "I
didn't  know  I  was  doing  wrong"  or  "I  wasn't  aware  of  the  law"  was  generally  seen  as  a
legitimate defense. This is even reflected in Peter's earlier statement in Acts 3: 17 when Peter
said to the crowd:
17 "Now, brothers, I know that you did not understand the significance of what you were
doing; neither did your leaders.
18  But  this  is  how  God  fulfilled  what  he  had  announced  in  advance,  when  he  spoke
through all the prophets, namely, that his Messiah was to die.
19 "Therefore, repent and turn to God, so that your sins may be erased;
If the court felt that the accused was telling the truth, and had good reason to perhaps not
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
know the law or understand the ramifications of what they were doing, then the person was let
off  with  a  warning  and  given  some  education  on  the  law.  So  since  the  Jewish  public  fully
understood this legal principle, then Peter was telling the crowd that their ignorance of what
they had done WAS a reasonable defense. However.... now that they understand what they did,
and who this man was that they conspired to kill (Jesus the Christ), then they must cleanse
their  hearts  and  minds  and  never  do  it  again  so  to  speak.  And  they  could  do  this  only  by
repenting.
In Peter and John's case, they had broken no law. But, the Sanhedrin essentially made new
law when they were told they could no longer speak about Yeshua. So once an arrested and
released  person  was  informed  of  the  law,  if  that  person  was  arrested  again  for  the  same
offense there could be no more excuse. Thus because the Sanhedrin warned Peter not to heal
or speak in the name of Yeshua again, when they did so they were arrested and in much more
hot water than they were the first time because now the law stood on the side of the Sanhedrin
because the accused were not ignorant of the law; they broke it deliberately.
In verse 23 Peter and John were released and immediately they went to their fellow Believers
with  the  news.  They  told  them  about  what  had  happened  to  them  and  when  the  Believers
heard this rejoicing broke out as they praised God for His protection and deliverance. Their
communal prayer began by quoting a passage from Psalm 146, and then moved into quoting
Psalm 2 verses 1 and 2:
Let's read Psalm 2 together as then we'll have a better idea of what the Believers had in mind
as they prayed it to the Father.
READ PSALM 2 all
This is obviously another Messianic Psalm that speaks about Yeshua. There is a Hebrew study
principle called Pesher. Pesher interpretation of the Bible is when Bible verses are applied to
current events; and often the Bible verses we read are prophetic. So it is Pesher interpretation
when we look at Biblically prophesied events and try to connect them to things happening all
around us.
I  want  to  point  out  a  short  phrase  in  this  passage  that  to  me  speaks  not  of  Yeshua's  first
coming, but of His second. And the words are in verse 9:  9 You will break them with an iron
rod, shatter them like a clay pot.'"In the Book of Revelation we read a letter in Revelation
chapter 2 from Messiah to the Church. And in that letter we are told the manner in which the
Millennial Kingdom, the Kingdom of God on earth with Christ as our King, will be ruled.
Revelation 2:26-27 CJB
26 To him who wins the victory and does what I want until the goal is reached, I will give
him authority over the nations;
27 he will rule them with a staff of iron and dash them to pieces like pottery,
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
So here we have a direct connection between Psalm 2 and Revelation 2. What was
prophesied in Psalm 2 will happen in Revelation 2. Bede was so very right: the rock that is the
cornerstone connects two walls, the Old and New Testaments.
We'll finish chapter 4 next week. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 12, chapters 4 and 5
Keep your Bibles handy; we're going to be doing a lot of reading today in both Testaments.
Depending on who does the counting, the New Testament consists of somewhere between
45%  and  55%  Old  Testament  quotes.  In  other  words,  the  Bible  characters  of  the  New
Testament regularly use Old Testament quotes to prove their case or to make a point. So if we
were to carefully go through our New Testaments and cross out the Old Testament verses, our
New Testaments would shrink to around ½ the size they are now.
The CJB that we read from for Torah Class makes it easy to spot the OT passages because it
uses bold type to highlight the OT quotes in the New Testament; and a footnote tells us where
in the Tanakh each particular quote appears. However it is not exhaustive and doesn't include
them all. Thus what we see in Acts chapter 4 is Peter quoting a number of Old Testament
passages in his explanation of the Gospel message and in condemning the Sadducean High
Priests for their role in the execution of Yeshua.
One of the major themes in Acts 4 is Peter connecting the well-known Psalm 118 passage
about the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone, with the salvation offered in
Christ. This Psalm was well known by most Jews and committed to memory by many because
it was part of the Hallel that was used in the Synagogue and as part of Festival liturgy. Peter
says  of  Psalm  118  that  Jesus  is  the  stone  that  was  rejected  by  the  builders;  and  that  the
builders are represented by members of the Sanhedrin that he was standing before. This was
more than metaphor; these same Sanhedrin members indeed had only a couple of months
earlier decided that Yeshua should be killed, and enlisted the help of the Romans and Pontius
Pilate to do it for them.
The Sanhedrin that was examining Peter and John could find no legitimate cause to punish
them,  so  they  released  them  with  the  warning  that  they  were  never  again  to  do  miracles
(including healing) in the name of Yeshua; to which Peter said he would not comply. Upon
being  reunited  with  the  other  Believers  in  Jerusalem  who  were  overjoyed  that  Peter  and
Jonathon  came  back  to  them  unharmed,  they  prayed  together  a  common  prayer  that  was
Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2. This Psalm of David asked why the nations (meaning gentiles) raged
and tried to thwart God's plans, when there was no hope of them defeating the Lord. And this
Psalm goes on to depict the national leaders of the gentiles conspiring to fight against Yehoveh
and His Messiah Yeshua.
Let's re-read the last part of Acts chapter 4.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 4:25 – end
So Peter sees Psalm 2 as a prophecy about the Messiah, and says that this has been fulfilled
                               1 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
in the persons of Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with both gentiles and the peoples of Israel
(meaning Jews in a broad sense but in reality those who formed the Sanhedrin). This particular
Herod Peter mentioned is Herod Antipas and he was not the king over Judea at this time; in
fact the history record seems to indicate that there was no king over Judea and Jerusalem for
perhaps a 3 or 4 year time span. Antipas ruled over the Roman controlled provinces of Galilee
and  Perea  as  a  Tetrarch,  a  governor.  Judea  was  ruled  by  Pontius  Pilate  as  Procurator  (a
higher  position  than  a  Tetrarch),  meaning  he  had  nearly  autonomous  power  and  reported
directly to Caesar. So by invoking Herod and Pilate, Peter was indicting the political leadership
of  most  of  the  Holy  Lands  as  co-conspirators  who  joined  together  to  oppose  the  will  of
Yehoveh.
But  Peter,  at  the  same  time  in  verse  28,  acknowledges  that  despite  how  it  might  seem  to
earthly  eyes,  all  that  happened  to  Yeshua  was  preplanned  by  His  Father  Yehoveh  and  so
essentially Antipas and Pilate and those Jews and gentiles that were complicit in the murder of
Messiah were but unwitting tools in God's hands. Please note something of vital importance: it
is  that  God  foreknew  that  these  people  would  do  these  wicked  things  but  that  doesn't
somehow now make them righteous people, nor does it absolve them from their evil intents
and  deeds.  There  has  been  much  heartburn  and  difference  of  opinion  within  the  world's
churches over just how to view Adolf Hitler because it was his horrific attempt to stamp out the
Jewish race that brought us the Holocaust. Yet at the same time the result of the Holocaust
was  a  guilty  Western  world  who  felt  they  had  little  choice  but  to  give  the  surviving  Jews  a
homeland for their own. And of course that homeland turned out to be their ancient ancestral
home, Israel.
As we are well aware this rebirth of the nation of Israel fulfilled several OT prophecies about
the exiled Jews being returned to their homeland, and then to be eventually joined by their
brothers, the legendary 10 Lost Tribes. This prophecy of return is best expressed in Ezekiel 36
and 37.
CJB  Ezekiel  36:24  For  I  will  take  you  from  among  the  nations,  gather  you  from  all  the
countries, and return you to your own soil.
And then in Ezekiel 37:
Ezekiel  37:21-22  CJB  21  Then  say  to  them  that  Adonai  ELOHIM  says:  'I  will  take  the
people of Isra'el from among the nations where they have gone and gather them from
every side and bring them back to their own land.
22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Isra'el; and one king will
be king for all of them. They will no longer be two nations, and they will never again be
divided into two kingdoms.
But as with the issue of Herod and Pilate, are we to give Hitler credit and merit because his
satanic actions directly led to the Jews being given back their homeland thus fulfilling God's
prophetic promise? Hardly. It is just that in some unfathomable way God sees and controls
history from horizon to horizon, and is able to orchestrate the bad intentions of wicked people
                               2 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
to bring about His plans for good.
As the group of joyful Believers was being led in prayer by Peter, we are told that the place
where they gathered was shaken as they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. First, was there an
actual physical shaking as with an earthquake? We don't know; it could be, or it could just as
easily  be  an  expression  meaning  that  this  group  of  Believers  was  spiritually  and  physically
overwhelmed by the power and presence of the Ruach HaKodesh. I mentioned this in our last
lesson but it bears repeating: being filled with the Holy Spirit in this context does NOT mean
that these folks were receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit for the first time; nor does it mean
that the Holy Spirit comes and goes; nor does it mean that there are numerous baptisms of the
Holy Spirit upon the same individual. Rather this is a common way of speaking that means that
some kind of special inspiration of God, delivered by the Spirit, overcame them. And as we find
in the Bible (as with Moses and his 70 elders and at Pentecost), often a special inspiration of
God's  Spirit  manifests  itself  in  human  speech.  So  not  surprisingly  we  find  that  what
accompanied this special inspiration was an ability to speak God's message of salvation with
boldness. In Greek the word that we translate as boldness is parrhesia and it means free and
fearless confidence. And when we understand what has just happened to Peter and John with
their arrest and the threats from the Sanhedrin to never speak of the name Yeshua again, we
can understand why these ordinary everyday Believing Jews needed to be divinely filled with
fearless confidence.
Isn't  it  the  lack  of  free  and  fearless  confidence  that  keeps  many  of  us  from  presenting  the
Gospel to people we meet; even to family and friends? How often I've heard shy Believers
explain that they don't see it as their job to present the Gospel because it's not how they are
wired. Pastors, those trained in the Bible, and people with the gift of Evangelism are to do that.
I'm sorry to tell you that this is not at all what Jesus or any of the writers of the New Testament
instructed. Rather they agree unanimously that it is the responsibility of all Believers, without
exception,  to  spread  the  Gospel.  On  the  other  hand  I  can  assure  you  that  spreading  the
Gospel  has  more  to  do  with  your  personal  countenance,  your  behavior,  and  your  decision
every day to live a life of holiness and righteousness than any persuasive words of the Good
News you might utter. Nevertheless speech is important, and speaking the Gospel goes hand
in hand with living it out for all to see. We aren't given the option of substituting one for the
other or choosing to do only one or the other.
Beginning in verse 32 until the end of the chapter we are told how this spirit-filled community of
Jewish Believers manifested their faith in their daily living. And it began with adopting a lifestyle
much  like  the  Essenes  had  been  living  for  a  few  decades  by  now.  That  is,  these  Believers
worked together with a remarkable selflessness and togetherness, and members even gave up
rights to their own private property, sharing it with other members or selling it and using the
proceeds for the good of the community. Unlike the Essenes, however, this sharing of private
property was neither required nor forced, it was voluntary; a Believer was not compelled to sell
or share his assets in order to become and remain a member of the Believing community in
good standing.
It is interesting to me that the Kibbutzim of Israel generally live in this way to this day (and
more strictly so a few decades ago). That is, no one in a Kibbutz owns property and assets
                               3 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
privately; it all belongs to the Kibbutz community. But then each member is provided housing,
food, clothing, education, and almost all their needs. They work together for the common good.
This isn't Communism whereby the national government owns everything and simply directs
what everyone must do. Rather those who join a Kibbutz have this understanding of sharing for
the common good from the beginning, and each Kibbutz is fully independent. So for those who
have been to Israel and have seen Kibbutzim and know their lifestyle, what we are reading
here in Acts 4 is a close parallel so it gives you a good way to visualize it.
This  chapter  ends  with  an  example  of  the  type  of  community  spirit  that  the  Believers  in
Jerusalem  had.  Yosef,  who  was  a  Diaspora  Jew  from  the  Mediterranean  island  nation  of
Cyprus,  sold  a  field  and  gave  the  proceeds  to  the  disciples  to  disperse  as  they  saw  fit.
Interestingly he was not technically a Jew but rather was a Levite, and had been given the
nickname of Bar Nabba meaning the Exhorter.  I mentioned at another time that the Priesthood
was at this time not operating at all according to the Torah regulations, but instead it went by
manmade traditions. Levites, like Yosef, by Torah regulation were not supposed to own land.
Levites had been given cities to live in and fields to be owned communally just outside those
city walls. So it is apparent that other than for some of the ritual procedures, the Levitical laws
concerning Levites and priests had become abandoned by Christ's era.
Let's read Acts chapter 5.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 5 all
It would have been far better not to put a chapter change between Acts 4 and 5 where it has
been  placed  because  it  blunts  the  intended  impact.  We  ended  chapter  4  with  a  brief  story
about Yosef who sold a field and gave the money to the disciples for the good of the Believing
community. Now to start chapter 5 we get a similar story although it is essentially designed to
draw a contrast and distinction between the two situations that both involved selling personal
property and giving proceeds to the disciples.
A man named Ananias (which was quite a common name in this era) and his wife Sapphira
more or less tried to imitate what Yosef had done, but the less than honorable intent of their
hearts  was  exposed  and  it  resulted  in  their  immediate  deaths.  We're  going  to  examine  this
story in depth for a number of reasons; but one of the main reasons is that this is a story that
has created much anxiety and embarrassment within Christianity because the consequence of
death seems so harsh in comparison to the crime. That is, it is a Roman Christian tradition that
the harsh merciless justice of the Old Testament and the Law has supposedly given way to the
loving and forgiving justice of the New Testament and grace. Or to put a finer point on it, the
God of the Old Testament, the Father, has been set aside for the God of the New Testament,
Christ.  And  while  the  Father  might  quickly  punish  and  chastise,  Christ  would  only  lovingly
forgive us and so Believers bear no consequence for our sins. This is the classic case whereby
false manmade doctrines are established but God's Word shows us something quite different.
The result? A concerted effort to defend the manmade doctrine, and much confusion for Bible
students.
Because God is a God of patterns we find a corollary to this story of Ananias and Sapphira in
                               4 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
the Old Testament. It concerns a man named Achan and we find it in Joshua chapter 7. Let's
read it.
READ JOSHUA CHAPTER 7 all
So this fellow Achan took some of the spoils that belonged to God. This is a violation of the
Law of Herem, also called the Law of the Ban. And the idea is that in a Holy War all the spoils
of war belong to God. After a great victory at Jericho, when the spoils should have been piled
up and burned (since burning them up was the only way to sanctify them and give them to
God), a fellow named Achan misappropriated some of the spoils for himself. This act not only
was  personal  sin;  it  had  the  effect  of  cursing  all  of  Israel.  Thus  in  their  next  attempted
conquest,  the  city  of  Ai,  the  attack  was  a  disaster  and  a  failure.  The  enemy  soldiers  of  Ai
chased away the Israelites, killing several of them, and thus Ai was not taken. Joshua and the
Israelites were devastated because they felt God had promised them victory. So how can they
understand and explain this humiliating defeat?
God explained it to them; He said that someone had taken property, which belonged to Him,
and that this person had to be identified and properly judged.
Achan turned out to be the culprit, he admitted his crime, and the result was that Achan and his
entire family was stoned to death and the family's possessions along with their lifeless bodies
were burned to ashes. So fire and burning can on the one hand sanctify (as we see in the Law
of Herem), but on the other it can be used to utterly destroy (the consequence of the sin of not
obeying the Law of Herem). 
There is yet another OT principle and pattern that needs to be applied to our story of Ananias
and  Sapphira  to  help  us  understand  God's  severe  reaction  towards  them.  It  involves  the
Biblical  principle  of  vow  offerings.  And,  once  again,  many  denominations  don't  like  this
because  in  the  mainstream,  Christianity  doesn't  believe  that  anything  of  the  Old  Testament
and the Law applies to New Testament Believers (and Ananias and Sapphira were, by Church
standards, New Testament Believers). And yet what happened here is directly tied to the Law
of making vows. And if we don't apply the Law of Herem and the Law of Vows to our story in
Acts 5, then we can't make any sense of it. In Deuteronomy chapter 23 we learn this:
Deuteronomy 23:22-24 CJB
22 "When you make a vow to ADONAI your God, you are not to delay in fulfilling it, for
ADONAI your God will certainly demand it of you, and your failure to do so will be your
sin.
23 If you choose not to make a vow at all, that will not be a sin for you;
24 but if a vow passes your lips, you must take care to perform it according to what you
voluntarily vowed to ADONAI your God, what you promised in words spoken aloud.
So to break the Law of Herem, or to break the Law of Vow offering, and not give to God what
                               5 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
was promised is classified as an intentional sin; or better for our English vocabulary, a high
handed sin. It is the worst of the worst kind of sin and for this kind of sin there is no atonement
available (at least not through the Law). I think it would be proper to define these sins, as with
Ananias and Sapphira's sin, as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit of God, because in verse 4, the
final words of Peter to Ananias are: "You have lied not to human beings but to God". And in
verse 9 to Sapphira Peter says: "Then why did you people plot to test the Spirit of the Lord?"
Listen to Christ's own words about this subject in Matthew 12:
Matthew 12:31-32 CJB
31  Because  of  this,  I  tell  you  that  people  will  be  forgiven  any  sin  and  blasphemy,  but
blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh will not be forgiven.
32 One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps
on speaking against the Ruach HaKodesh will never be forgiven, neither in the 'olam
hazeh (this world) nor in the 'olam haba (the world to come).
So here is what happened with Ananias and Sapphira and why it happened: it followed the
patterns that God had laid down. The first thing to recognize is that from the first moments of
the inception of the body of followers of Christ, Believers were not perfect, nor did they become
perfect. There is nothing here to indicate that Ananias and Sapphira's actions were those of
pretenders; rather they were merely weak Believers.
Second,  just  as  with  Achan  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  Ananias  and  Sapphira  held  back  for
themselves some of what now belonged to God. Why did the proceeds of the sale of their own
property belong to God? Because they had made a show of selling their property and giving it
all to the Believer's community; God saw this is a vow. But instead of following through they
falsely reported the selling price, and then gave that lesser amount to the disciples keeping the
rest for themselves. It was a deception designed to make them look good in front of everyone.
The Deuteronomy 23 passage we read says that no one is required to make a vow; that is
strictly up to the individual. But, once the vow is made, God will hold us to it. Yeshua speaks
about making vows in this way:
Matthew 5:33-37 CJB
33 "Again, you have heard that our fathers were told, 'Do not break your oath,' and 'Keep
your vows to ADONAI.'
34 But I tell you not to swear at all- not 'by heaven,' because it is God's throne;
35 not 'by the earth,' because it is his footstool; and not 'by Yerushalayim,' because it is
the city of the Great King.
36 And don't swear by your head, because you can't make a single hair white or black.
                               6 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
37 Just let your 'Yes' be a simple 'Yes,' and your 'No' a simple 'No'; anything more than
this has its origin in evil.
Ananias and Sapphira should have heeded their Master Yeshua. They had no need to vow to
sell  property  and  give  it  all  to  the  Believers  Community.  Peter  says  in  verse  4  of  Acts  5:
"Before you sold it, the property was yours; and after you sold it, the money was yours to use
as  you  pleased."  Ananias  and  Sapphira  did  nothing  wrong  in  selling  property  and  giving
however  much  or  little  of  it  they  preferred  to  the  disciples.  What  they  did  would  have  been
simple charity; what they did wrong was to turn voluntary charity into a sacred vow to give it all
to their fellow Believers. The instant they did that, the proceeds of the sale belonged to God as
His  holy  property.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  transferred  ownership  to  the  Lord  (whether  they
realized that or not), and then took some of what was now God's holy property for themselves.
This is a lesson for us in modern times. Making a vow to God is a serious matter; it was then
and remains so today. I'm not saying that if you break your vow that God will surely kill you;
but  He  did  choose  to  kill  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  And  Jesus,  knowing  the  hardness  of  our
hearts....including the hearts of Believers.....strongly warned us to simply make our yes, yes and
no, no without invoking a vow in the name of the Lord. Because then it changes the entire
equation to something holy and therefore dangerous.
So what did God intend to accomplish with the dramatic deaths of the Blasphemers Ananias
and Sapphira, beyond divine justice? Verse 11 gives us the answer. "As a result of this, great
fear came over the whole Messianic community; and even over everyone who heard about it."
I think if we are honest, we see a little of Ananias and Sapphira in ourselves. Who among us
hasn't made a promise in our heart to do something righteous, or to not do something selfish
or bad, and either changed our minds or forgotten all about it? Or even more, directed a prayer
towards God that if He would do thus and so for us, then we would respond by doing thus and
so for Him; and He did His part but we didn't follow through with our part. Besides, no matter
how we look at the God principles involved with their deaths, doesn't it seem to our natural
sense of fairness that receiving the death penalty for not turning over 100% of the proceeds of
the sale of their own property to the Believing community is extreme?
I have little doubt that the Believers who witnessed or heard of this event truly understood the
God principles about what happened with Ananias and Sapphira. Yet as F. F. Bruce said in his
Commentary  on  Acts:  "The  fear  which  fell  on  the  whole  community  suggests  that  many  a
member of it (like many an Israelite when Achan was exposed) had reason to tremble and
think: There, but for the grace of God, go I".  Amen to that.
The  Holy  Scriptures  are  there  to  inform,  to  inspire,  but  also  to  warn.  So  for  those  who  still
haven't been convinced, just yet, that God's laws and commandments from the Hebrew Bible
are every bit as relevant and required of us to obey them as are the instructions to us from
Christ  and  His  Disciples  in  the  New  Testament,  let  the  horrific  deaths  of  Ananias  and
Sapphira.....followers of Christ.....be a lesson. Fear God.
We'll continue with Acts chapter 5 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               7 / 7
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 13, Chapter 5
I hope you are enjoying the Book of Acts as much as I am enjoying presenting it to you. In our
Introduction to Acts I said that this book is the vital bridge from the Old Testament to the New,
and I'm sure that by now you are seeing it as the construction of our bridge progresses.
As we began Acts chapter 5 last week we immediately found ourselves embroiled in a long
running Christian controversy due to the rather unsettling story of Ananias and Sapphira, and
we're going to spend even more time with it because its importance to our spiritual and earthly
lives is greater than it might appear in a casual reading. Some Believers aren't aware there is
controversy swirling around this story because those who are especially new to the Hebrew
Roots  perspective  of  understanding  the  Lord  and  His  Word  likely  have  lived  most  of  their
Christian  lives  as  part  of  one  denomination  or  another.  And  Christian  denominations  aren't
known  for  tackling  the  contentious  issues  or  for  presenting  multiple  possible  solutions  to
difficult Biblical doctrines; rather one answer is given as firm and unequivocal and so laymen
often aren't aware that there other quite different viewpoints on the matter.
The  challenge  presented  by  our  story  is  that  beginning  with  the  early  Church  of  Rome,  an
official  attitude  about  the  continuing  relevance  of  each  Bible  testament  was  adopted  that
favored the New and disparaged the Old. Even when over a thousand years later Luther split
the Catholic Church and the Protestant movement arose, most of the attitudes and core beliefs
of Catholic Christianity followed into Protestantism.  But those beliefs as regards the relevance
of the two testaments for Christians in reality takes matters a step further and brings us into the
realm  of  the  very  nature  of  God.  As  David  Stern  in  his  concise  Commentary  on  the  New
Testament  says:  "One  sometimes  hears  presented  as  Christian  doctrine  the  second
century  heresy  of  Marcion  that  the  New  Testament  preaches  a  superior  God  of  love,
while the Old Testament God is an inferior deity concerned with judgment, wrath, justice
and the carrying out of the details of the Law. In the present incident (of Ananias and
Sapphira)  and  at  vv.10-11  we  see  that  the  New  Testament  is,  so  far  as  justice  and
judgment are concerned, the same as the Tanakh (the OT.) God is One. He cannot abide
sin. Fraud is sin, and it is punished."
In other words, in this supposed "new religion" of the gentiles called Christianity whose God is
Jesus, Believers will always be forgiven for our trespasses and never suffer the consequences
of punishment at the hand of God. And this is because our new god is a god of love and not
wrath. And yet in the earliest setting of what is described as the first Believing community of
Jews in Jerusalem (this is who we are reading about in Acts) that was governed by the first
Apostles, when Ananias and Sapphira decided to give to the disciples only some, and hold
back  the  remainder,  of  the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  their  personal  property  God  instantly
snuffed  out  their  lives  for  their  offense.  Thus  we  have  a  real  conundrum  before  us  about
whether God's nature actually has changed from judgment to love (as is typically professed in
the Church). This story in Acts 5, however, directly refutes the Christian doctrine that says that
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
the God of wrath was replaced by His Son the God of love. Because if that's truly the case,
then how can we square that the new God of love would callously kill a husband and wife for
merely not giving a large enough portion of their wealth to the Church? What happened to the
unlimited forgiveness and mercy? Therefore many Christian commentators have attempted to
deal with this embarrassment by suggesting that this story is contrived, or was added later, or
is simply a fairy tale because its outcome is impossible to accept.
I explained last week that it indeed is impossible to understand this story if we don't first know
the Old Testament and the resultant principles that are at play here in the New Testament. And
there are two principles that are front and center: the principles of the Law of Herem (the Law
of the Ban), and also the Law of Vow Offerings. We discussed this in depth last week so I
won't go over it again except to say that they both involve different circumstances under which
a human determines to misappropriate property that belongs exclusively to God. Property that
belongs to God is by definition holy property and thus cannot be kept, used, or consumed by
man. The prescribed consequence for these sins is usually death.
So before we explore more of Acts chapter 5 (beyond the story of the deaths of the husband
and wife who tried to defraud God), I think it is vital to discuss two simple but foundational
concepts  of  Judeo-Christianity,  which  if  not  correctly  understood  lead  to  many  erroneous
doctrines and beliefs; and those two concepts are love and sin. Thus the question for us today
is: from God's viewpoint, what is love and what is sin? I can't begin to tell you some of the
interesting answers I get when I ask Christians what sin is. But defining love comes in a close
second for the many variations I also hear. So take a few seconds to ask yourself (silently)
what you personally believe sin is; and then what love is.
OK, now let's see what the Lord says about it. Turn your Bibles to 1John chapter 3.
READ 1JOHN CHAPTER 3 all
To the shock and dismay of many, the Holy Scriptures tell us that love is not about feelings;
love is an action. Love is reflected by what we do. "Feeling" love is not Biblical love; DOING
love  is  Biblical  love.  That  is  not  to  say  that  love  doesn't  elicit  emotions;  but  too  often  for
Christians emotions are not only the dominant element of love, emotions are the only element
of love. And the emotion of love overrides everything else. Here in 1John we just read this
passage about God's view of love:
1John 3:15-18 CJB
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has
eternal life in him.
16 The way that we have come to know love is through his (Yeshua) having laid down his
life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers!
17  If  someone  has  worldly  possessions  and  sees  his  brother  in  need,  yet  closes  his
heart against him, how can he be loving God?
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
18 Children, let us love not with words and talk, but with actions and in reality!
Biblically speaking, love is to accept, and hate is to reject; these are definitive actions. John
gives an example of love as an action by our Savior laying down His life for us. Yeshua gave
up His life not in theory; not in sentiment or intentions; not in mere promises but actually. And I
remind you we are reading in the New Testament that God demands that our love is expressed
in  terms  of  action,  not  words  and  talk  and  certainly  not  mere  emotions  and  warm  feelings.
Action, says John, is love in reality; all else is not.
Notice  in  verse  17  how  John's  words  tie  so  closely  to  the  crime  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira.
Could John be remembering this startling event that we are told brought great fear to the entire
early   Believing   community?   Because   in   vs.   17   he   says:   "If   someone   has   worldly
possessions and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how can he
be loving God?" Is this not essentially the story and circumstance of Ananias and Sapphira?
But how about sin? What is sin? It is more often than not that Christian brothers and sisters tell
me that in their view sin is whatever the Holy Spirit tells them sin is. This belief is prevalent
enough that I have given it a label: The Doctrine of Situational Sin. That is, what sin is for you
is  not  necessarily  sin  for  me,  and  vice  versa.  Since  Christ,  sin  is  now  fully  customized  and
entirely circumstantial; there is no standard. A sin can be sin today, but it wasn't sin yesterday
and might not be sin tomorrow. So there is no longer a firm, knowable set of rules regarding
sin; it varies person by person and situation to situation. Therefore we can't possibly judge one
another;  we  don't  dare  look  at  something  a  Believer  is  doing  and  say  to  ourselves,  "that  is
sin". And that is because this doctrine of Situational Sin tells us that since we have no way of
knowing what the Holy Spirit told that person, then there is no way of discerning whether they
are sinning or not. Lord forbid we'd ever tell an offending Believer they were sinning because
maybe the Holy Spirit told them that at the moment it wasn't sin for them.
Well, let's see what the Apostle John had to say about sin and just what sin is.
1John 3:3-7 CJB
3  And  everyone  who  has  this  hope  in  him  continues  purifying  himself,  since  God  is
pure.
4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah- indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
5 You know that he (Christ) appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin
in him.
6  So  no  one  who  remains  united  with  him  continues  sinning;  everyone  who  does
continue sinning has neither seen him nor known him.
7 Children, don't let anyone deceive you- it is the person that keeps on doing what is
right who is righteous, just as God is righteous.
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
What did John just say sin is? Violating Torah. Anyone hear any equivocation there? Any room
for adjusting sin to the situation and to the individual and thus making sin at times not-sin? Any
thought that the Holy Spirit can override the written word of God at any time and turn sin into
righteous behavior?
Since I read this from the CJB, let's see what the most popular Bible version ever made does
with that same verse.
KJV  1  John  3:4  Whosoever  committeth  sin  transgresseth  also  the  law:  for  sin  is  the
transgression of the law.
Pretty straightforward. As much as some Believers might like to think that the Law of Moses
has no further bearing on our lives; or as much as it might be comforting to feel that God has
dissolved all standards of sin and instead has now customized sin for each of us; and only that
which you perceive in your heart that the Holy Spirit is telling you is sin is actually sin (and all
else isn't) simply defies the Biblical definition of sin.....including the New Testament definition of
sin that we just read.
Sin is Biblically defined as the breaking of the God's Law, and there has only ever been one
Biblical Law: The Torah Law. If you truly believe that the Holy Spirit would tell you something
different  than  what  God  the  Father  told  you  in  His  written  Word,  then  you  cannot  possibly
believe that God is One.  This also means that the Holy Spirit must be telling you something
different than Christ said about sin. Because in the Sermon on the Mount we read this:
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christ said the Law is not abolished; and He said that we are to obey the Torah laws and teach
the  Torah  laws  so  that  we  can  be  called  great  in  His  Kingdom.  But  now  let  me  connect
something else for you between this quote of Yeshua in Matthew and what Peter said in the
Book of Acts. Going back to Acts chapter 5 look at verse 3. There it says:
Acts 5:3 CJB 3 Then Kefa said, "Why has the Adversary so filled your heart that you lie
to the Ruach HaKodesh and keep back some of the money you received for the land?
The word I'm looking at is filled. "Why has the Adversary so filled your heart?" Peter asks.
The Greek word that is being translated into English as filled is pleroo. And indeed pleroo
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
means to fill, or fill up. So I could say to a gas station attendant, "please pleroo (fill up) my gas
tank". We find that same Greek word pleroo in Matthew 5:17. And I bring this up because I
regularly  hear  that  when  Christ  says  that  He  has  not  abolished  the  Torah  but  that  He  has
completed it that to complete means to finish it; and finish means to bring it to an end. So the
Torah may not be abolished but it is ended (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). However when
we reverse engineer that verse and add the original Greek back into it we get:" Don't think I
have come to abolish the Torah, I have come to pleroo it". Messiah is saying He has come to
fill the Law, or fill it up. Pleroo in no way EVER means to finish or end something and it is
never used that way, nor is it ever translated that way in the Bible. If pleroo did mean to finish
or  end,  then  we  would  have  to  translate  Acts  5:3  like  this:    "Then  Kefa  said,  why  has  the
Adversary so brought your heart to an end?" Doesn't make any sense, does it?
The Law was alive and well for Ananias and Sapphira and all the Believers Peter was leading.
Peter's Master Yeshua told him so; and John confirms that sin is breaking the Law (what sin
was  before  Christ  remains  that  way  after  Christ).  And  what  Law  did  the  New  Testament
Believers Ananias and Sapphira break? At least two laws: the Law of Herem, and the Law of
Vow  offerings.  The  price  of  their  sin  was  instantaneous  physical  death  at  the  hand  of  God
when  their  fraud  was  discovered.  And  there  is  no  indication  or  implication  that  they  were
anything other than Believers in Christ in good standing. But they sinned. This first group of
Believers in Jerusalem was indeed saved; but they weren't perfect. And the Lord intended on
protecting the integrity of this new movement of Yeshua followers at whatever the cost.
Let's reread part of Acts chapter 5.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 5:12 - end
After  the  incident  with  the  deceiving  spirit  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  we  find  the  disciples
meeting  at  the  Temple  Mount,  specifically  at  Solomon's  Portico,  a  popular  public  meeting
place. And what were they there to do? They went to perform many more signs and miracles;
the very thing the Sanhedrin told them they must not do.
That part is pretty straightforward; but what does it mean in verse 13 that "no one else dared to
join them"? Who is the "no one else'? This is especially complicated because the next words
say that "throngs of Believers were added to the Lord". What is clear is that those who dared
not join them at Solomon's Portico were reacting to what had just happened to Ananias and
Sapphira  because  vs.  11  says  that  "as  a  result  of  this  great  fear  came  over  the  whole
Messianic community". So while I can't prove it, it seems to me that those who didn't dare to
join some the Apostles at Solomon's Portico to continue public healings and miracles in the
name  of  Yeshua  were  frightened  Believers.  And  even  so,  the  result  of  the  miracles  and
healings done publically at the Temple Mount was that throngs more came to believe.
I think I can put this in modern application that is a little easier to see. One of the main reasons
that  Christians  will  tell  you  that  they  won't  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Israel  is  fear.  That  fear
doesn't make them any less Christian than those who don't have that fear or overcame their
fear and went anyway. On the other hand, those Jerusalem Believers who were too frightened
to want to be part of the healings and miracles being done in perhaps the most visible place in
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
all  of  the  Holy  Lands  missed  out  on  a  huge  blessing.  They  didn't  get  to  witness,  let  alone
participate in, these awesome works of God that changed the lives of scores and hundreds of
people. And be aware; much like the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost caused an ability
for  all  the  disciples  present  to  speak  in  tongues,  but  only  marginally  so  thereafter,  these
miracles of healing on a massive scale only lasted for a short time. Soon, although we might
still hear of occasional healings in the NT, they would become few and far between.
Because Jews were not sold on the idea of medicine and physicians and instead placed their
hope of the healing of their bodies in the Lord, then it is not surprising that the word spread like
wildfire that many people were being healed by Peter and the disciples. So, verse 16 says that
the  sick  and  those  afflicted  with  unclean  spirits  poured  into  the  Temple  Mount  and  were
brought to the disciples to be healed (please note that every one of them was healed)! No
exceptions. Pity those fearful Believers who were too scared to be part of this unprecedented
outpouring of God's healing power. Who knows how many of them had afflictions that would
have been healed?
We are told that the Jews were so anxious to partake of the healing power that the disciples
seemed  to  wield  that  they  were  happy  to  just  to  have  Peter's  shadow  pass  over  them.  We
need to understand that a person's shadow was considered to be part of the person. And no
doubt some amount of local superstition was at play among those who brought the sick and
those with unclean spirits (meaning they were demon possessed). However even their small
amount of faith in what they saw happening with their own eyes such that they sought it for
themselves  and  others  was  sufficient  for  God  to  heal.  The  religious  officials  of  Jerusalem
didn't have such simple faith. Instead they reacted in jealousy and anger and saw this as an
assault on their power and authority.
Verse 17 explains that the High Priest and "his associates" who were Sadducees (meaning
other members of the Sanhedrin who met mostly on the Temple Mount), came running to stop
what they had previously ordered was not to happen. So, Peter is again arrested, only this time
along with other disciples and they are all put into jail. However once again God overturns what
sinful man has ordained; an angel opens the jail and releases the disciples who go right back
to where they were and they start preaching and healing again.
There are a couple of things about this incident that I'd like to address. The first is the identity
of the angel. The words used in English are: an angel of the Lord. Or in Greek an angelos
kurios. Angel of the Lord is a good and accurate translation of the Greek. Some commentators
therefore make this to be that special angel that we hear of a few times in the Old Testament
(as with Hagar out in the desert and near death) that is called The Angel of the Lord. However
that is not what we have here.
In Hebrew the word for angel is malach. Yet malach is really just a generic word that means
messenger, and most of the time it is a human messenger. However sometimes it is an angel,
but  how  do  we  tell  the  difference?  First  is  context.  But  second  is  that  most  of  the  time  a
heavenly  angel  is  called  a  malach  elohim;  that  is  a  messenger  from  God.  A  few  times  a
heavenly angel is called a malach adonai; that is a messenger from the Lord. In other words,
the word malach has to be modified by adding another word to it in order for us to be informed
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
that the messenger is a heavenly one; an angel. That is what is happening here in Acts 5:19.
The  term  "an  angel  of  the  Lord"  is  translating  the  Hebrew  thought  of  a  malach  adonai.
Alternatively, when we are speaking of that special angel, The Angel of the Lord, in Hebrew it
is written: malach YHWH. That is, God's formal name is used. And I believe that this special
"angel"  is  no  angel  at  all  but  rather  it  is  yet  another  manifestation  of  God  Himself  because
anytime the malach YHWH speaks, He speaks on His own authority and uses the first person
I,  me.  A  regular  angel  makes  it  clear  that  he  comes  in  God's  authority  bringing  God's
message, and not his own.
The second issue I want to discuss is something we last discussed some years ago, but it is
time to bring it up again because I fear the need is upon is: and that issue is civil disobedience.
Or more to the point: should a Believer ever engage in civil disobedience against our governing
authorities?  Of  course  there  is  mixed  opinion  on  this,  often  stemming  from  Paul's  famous
command to obey our human government.
Romans 13:1-6 CJB
CJB Romans 13:1 Everyone is to obey the governing authorities. For there is no authority
that is not from God, and the existing authorities have been placed where they are by
God.
2  Therefore,  whoever  resists  the  authorities  is  resisting  what  God  has  instituted;  and
those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are no terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you like to be unafraid of
the person in authority? Then simply do what is good, and you will win his approval;
4 for he is God's servant, there for your benefit. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid!
Because  it  is  not  for  nothing  that  he  holds  the  power  of  the  sword;  for  he  is  God's
servant, there as an avenger to punish wrongdoers.
5 Another reason to obey, besides fear of punishment, is for the sake of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes; for the authorities are God's public officials, constantly
attending to these duties.
Yet,  here  in  Acts  we  see  Peter  and  the  disciples  defiantly  refusing  to  obey  their  local
government because, in their view, they should obey God and not man when the two are in
conflict  (Acts  4:19).  I'm  going  to  try  to  summarize  my  opinion  on  how  Believers  ought  to
approach this very real issue recognizing that by no means is mine the final word.
First, we should understand the difference between preferences and morals. For instance: I
prefer one brand of cereal over another. Or I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. Neither
of these choices involves morals. Instead these are decisions of our intellects that God allows
us  to  make  with  no  heavenly  consequences  for  our  choices.  However  moral  choices  are
different; Believers are to get our moral standards only from God. Example: I choose to insist
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
that  prayer  and  the  10  Commandments  must  be  removed  from  our  schools  for  the  sake  of
evenhandedness  and  societal  fairness.  Or  I  choose  to  tell  the  truth  rather  than  lying  to  a
business associate. These are choices of the will; and the human will was given to mankind by
the Lord as the means by which we make moral choices.
Next,  we  have  to  understand  that  most  of  what  goes  on  between  citizens  and  their
governments involves preferences. Paul brings up the issue of taxes for instance. How much
tax and in what form we pay it is a choice our government makes, and it is a preference as
opposed to an issue of morality. That I don't like it or that it can be burdensome or even unfair
in my view doesn't make it a moral issue. Healthcare is another example of preference. You
can  like  or  dislike  Medicare,  or  Obamacare,  or  the  often  proposed  nationalized  health  care
system  modeled  after  Canada's  and  Europe's.  But  this,  too,  is  a  matter  of  preference,  not
morality. Speed limits, food safety laws, zoning ordinances, even those troublesome EPA laws,
are all preferences and don't usually involve morality but they can anger us and impinge on
our personal freedoms. That some politicians or voters try to frame these matters as moral
issues doesn't make it so. They just use "moral" to evoke greater passion for their position, or
as a means of manipulation.
On  the  other  hand  what  could  be  greater  examples  of  moral  issues  legislated  by  the
government than abortion, homosexuality and * marriage. God is clear about the value of
every life; and is even clearer that marriage is in His province alone and it is a bond between a
male  and  a  female.  We  are  told  in  numerous  passages,  Old  and  New  Testaments,  that
homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight. So for our government to glorify these things
and to force it upon our society is a moral outrage.
I  am  persuaded  that  in  Romans  13  Paul  is  insisting  that  we  obey  our  governments  over
matters that do NOT involve morality. And I'm equally convinced that Peter believes that he
has no choice but to speak God's Word and to spread the Gospel, and to heal in the name of
Yeshua as a fundamental moral issue. Therefore I believe that this is how we as Messianics
and Christians, Jews and gentiles, need to approach the matter.
Civil disobedience in the instance of matters of preference is not called for and in fact the Bible
discourages us from it. I cannot say that there aren't cases where civil obedience is called for
if  the  matters  of  preference  are  in  the  extreme  (such  as  a  90  or  even  100%  tax  on  all  our
income that would render us as slaves). But barring something that extreme we should not
refuse  to  pay  our  taxes  because  we  don't  like  the  system  or  we  think  it  doesn't  meet  our
standard  of  fairness.  However  I  firmly  believe  that  civil  disobedience  is  warranted  and
necessary, if not our duty, when it comes to obeying God over obeying our government who
has made immoral laws and is forcing us to follow them. Peter and the disciples in breaking out
of prison with the Lord's help and going back to healing and preaching, is our example.
I'll close with this possibility that could easily become real in America. In Canada, it is illegal to
speak  against  homosexuality  from  the  pulpit.  It  is  considered  hate  speech  and  there  is  no
sanctuary from it anywhere, not even in the privacy of your home. An infamous case in the
Province of New Brunswick occurred just a few years ago. A Pastor was arrested for teaching
on God's commandments involving sexual immorality, and of course homosexuality was part
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
of it. He was arrested, and brought before a judge who jailed him for 3 months until he finally
agreed to undergo government sensitivity training and signed a document saying that he would
never again speak against homosexuality in his church.
Were there demonstrations of Believers against this? No. Did Believers try to bust him out of
jail?  No.  Did  other  Pastors  intentionally  speak  out  against  homosexuality  from  the  pulpit  in
support and dare the government to arrest them all? No. Did Believers go on strike or block
intersections or hand out leaflets and besiege their government in protest? No. There was no
civil disobedience and so it was kind of a back page story in the Canadian newspapers. And I
say to you unequivocally, there should have been civil disobedience.  If Peter had been there, I
assure you there would have been.
Fellow  Believers,  civil  disobedience  is  absolutely  called  for  when  we  are  being  forced  to
commit  immoral  acts,  or  to  condone  government  sanctioned  immorality.  Should  we  seek
confrontation? No. Should we do everything as peaceably and non-violently as possible? Yes.
But there will be a cost. There is no shame in going to jail or paying a fine over refusing to be
obedient to human civil government but obedient to the Lord. You may even have a business
taken from you for refusing to do the immoral. But if that's the case then that is what should
happen. And whatever happens, we should all count it as joy that the Lord has allowed us to
suffer for His sake.
As we read in this same chapter of Acts that we are studying, in verses 40 -42:
Acts 5:40-42 CJB
40  After  summoning  the  emissaries  and  flogging  them,  they  commanded  them  not  to
speak in the name of Yeshua, and let them go.
41  The  emissaries  left  the  Sanhedrin  overjoyed  at  having  been  considered  worthy  of
suffering disgrace on account of him.
42 And not for a single day, either in the Temple court or in private homes, did they stop
teaching and proclaiming the Good News that Yeshua is the Messiah.
So the issue is not whether Believers can or should act in civil disobedience if that time should
come.  The  issue  to  have  the  courage  to  act,  and  then  to  accept  the  likely  consequences
handed down by our human authorities.
We'll finish up Acts chapter 5 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 14, Chapter 5 continued
Amidst the incredible outpouring of God's Spirit through the miraculous works and deeds of
the disciples, what we see in Acts Chapter 5 is a rising level of tension and conflict between
the followers of Yeshua and the local Jewish Temple authorities. At first it was warnings from
the High Priest Caiaphas to stop healing in the name of Yeshua. When this warning wasn't
heeded  it  followed  with  floggings.  And  in  the  next  chapter  the  tension  spills  over  to  the
Synagogue and thus is taken up by the population of Jerusalem at large. That is, at first it was
those whose livelihoods and status centered on the Temple (the Sadducees, Priesthood and
Sanhedrin) that had issues with Peter and the Believers; and interestingly these issues were
mostly  about  a  perceived  threat  to  their  personal  power  and  authority,  although  the  sticky
matter of resurrection also played a role. But then in Chapter 6 we will see the Synagogue take
up  the  persecution  of  Believers  for  mostly  theological  reasons  that  primarily  interested  the
Pharisees. And these theological issues were less about Holy Scripture and much more about
Synagogue customs and traditions.
From a broad panoramic view we see that the spiritual change in Believers brought about by
the  advent  of  Christ,  and  the  subsequent  empowerment  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  help  but
affect the tangible physical world we live in. The notion that our faith can be separated from our
daily lives, behaviors, decisions and activities is not feasible if true and sincere faith actually
exists within us. The effects of our salvation change everything in us and how we relate to
everything  around  us.  Thus  while  a  political  philosophy  can  indeed  call  for  a  separation
between faith and state, in practice for the true Believer this is an impossibility. This reality
automatically brought Peter and the 11 disciples (as well as their followers) into unavoidable
direct confrontation with the powers-that-be.
I don't recall who said it, but I once heard a person insist that if a Believer isn't a pariah to the
world then they aren't trying hard enough. All throughout the Scriptures we are presented with
a mental picture of a wide, yawning chasm between the ways of the World versus those who
put their trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "What has light to do with darkness?",
Yeshua asks His disciples. Therefore persecution of Believers by the World is inevitable and
we should not be surprised that when we come to faith it not only involves incalculable gain but
also loss in the form of relationships and perhaps other things that have meant so much to us
in our past but are now incompatible with our new life. Peter's admonishment is that since this
fact is inescapable, why not consider it joy if you are being persecuted (experiencing loss) for
your  faith  in  Yeshua  because  in  persecution  and  suffering  there  can  be  no  better  concrete
proof that you are firmly on the side of divine righteousness and holiness?
So it is an irony that a religion of peace and love was born and will remain in confrontation, if
not battle, with the World until Messiah returns to take charge. This confrontation is what we're
seeing in the Book of Acts, and it ought to be what we're experiencing in our own lives. Since
this is the case, then last week we discussed the thorny issue of what we should do when our
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
government  installs  immoral  laws  and  insists  that  we  obey  them.  And  here  in  Acts  we  find
Peter  making  the  decision  that  when  God  orders  one  thing  and  human  government  the
opposite our pathway is clear: obey God, and let the chips fall where they may. This brought us
to  the  matter  of  civil  disobedience,  which  from  the  Believer's  perspective  I  would  define  as
knowingly and openly choosing to disobey immoral manmade laws in order to be obedient to
the Lord. We'll not review that conversation from last week, but I will sum it up by saying that
the answer is that yes, if civil disobedience is our only avenue to obey God, then as Believers
we must take it. And that may well mean we pay a price for it that includes loss of personal
property, fines, or perhaps going to jail. What I'm proposing is not hypothetical or something
that  belongs  in  fiction  books;  it  is  here  and  upon  us  now.  A  few  weeks  ago  in  America's
northwest  a  Christian  bakery  refused  to  create  a  wedding  cake  for  a  *  couple.  The  local
government is currently trying to put them out of business. In France, just this week, a political
leader has been indicted on hate crime charges for saying that Islam is a religion of violence
and it worships a false god. I told you the story in our last lesson of a Canadian minister who
spent 3 months in jail for teaching from the Bible about homosexuality; not publically but inside
the  walls  of  his  own  church,  to  his  own  congregation.  If  this  sort  of  thing  is  not  already
happening where you are, it soon will be so it is better to decide now what you will do.
As we left off last week, Peter and the disciples had been arrested (again) by the Sadducees
and the Sanhedrin for healing the sick in the name of Yeshua and spreading the Gospel of
Salvation  in  Messiah.  While  they  were  in  jail  an  angel  of  God  broke  them  out  in  some
miraculous way such that when the prisoners were found missing, prison officials found the
locks were still intact and the guards were still on duty; but the jail cell was empty. God had
once again overruled that which man had decided, but was against God's will.
Let's re-read part of Acts chapter 5.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 5:17 – end
Through His angel God told the disciples to return to the Temple Mount and continue to speak
about  this  new  life.  The  new  life  was  referring  mainly  to  the  eternal  life  given  to  Believers
through  faith  in  Yeshua.  They  entered  the  Temple  grounds  at  daybreak  meaning  that  their
escape from jail had been during the night. No doubt they went immediately there and had not
returned to their homes, yet. The Temple grounds closed at dark and didn't open again until
daybreak.  Since  it  was  morning  the  High  Priest  arrived  to  his  post  and  convened  the
Sanhedrin. It seems their first order of business was to deal with these radicals who refused to
stop  healing  in  name  of,  and  speaking  about,  their  dead  Master,  Yeshua.  So  they  told  the
prison guards to go and get the men from their cell and bring them. Dumbfounded the prison
officer said that even though everything was secure and the guards were at their posts, the
holding cell was empty.
Escapes like this just didn't happen, and especially when the guards had shown no signs of
being derelict of their duties; in fact there is not even a hint of accusation that the guards had
fallen down on their jobs. Thus the result was that the Captain of the Guards and the High
Priest  were  perplexed  as  this  simply  made  no  sense.  But  suddenly  some  unnamed  person
comes and tells the High Priest that these escaped disciples are right back at the Temple and
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
teaching the people! Luke doesn't tell us who this informant is, but no doubt he was in the
employ of the Sanhedrin because he was aware that the disciples should have been in jail and
now back up on the Temple Mount in defiance of the local authorities.  The Captain himself
went up with a contingent of Levite guards to the Temple Mount and sure enough there they
were. Apparently the Captain went out of his way to treat these disciples respectfully because
he didn't want a riot on his hands. After all, people were getting healed right and left and those
who were afflicted were anxiously waiting and hoping that they too would be healed. Roughing
up the healers wouldn't sit well. So now again standing in front of the Sanhedrin Caiaphas, the
High Priest and President of the Sanhedrin began to interrogate them.
Recall that the first time Peter and John were arrested, they were let go because they had
violated no law. But before they were released the High Priest told them they were not to teach
or heal in the name of Yeshua henceforth. He had essentially made new law (and had the
authority to do so) and Peter and John were acutely aware of it. The High Priest now reminds
them  of  this  so  that  no  excuse  of  ignorance  of  the  law  could  be  claimed.  But  then  the  real
cause  of  concern  for  Caiaphas  slips  out;  "moreover,  you  are  determined  to  make  us
responsible for this man's death" (this man referring to Christ).  What this passage actually
says  is  that  "you  are  determined  to  bring  this  man's  blood  upon  us".  Bringing  blood  upon
someone  means  to  accuse  them  of  unjust  killing;  murder.  Shedding  innocent  blood,  dam
naki in Hebrew, is a grievous sin for which there is no atonement in the Law of Moses.
This  statement  of  Caiaphas  about  the  disciples  trying  to  pin  the  crime  of  blood  upon  him
directly ties to a passage from Matthew 27.
Matthew 27:20-26 CJB
20 But the head cohanim persuaded the crowd to ask for Bar-Abba's release and to have
Yeshua executed on the stake.
21 "Which of the two do you want me to set free for you?" asked the governor. "Bar-
Abba!" they answered.
22 Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Yeshua, called 'the Messiah'?" They
all said, "Put him to death on the stake! Put him to death on the stake!"
23 When he asked, "Why? What crime has he committed?" they shouted all the louder,
"Put him to death on the stake!"
24  When  Pilate  saw  that  he  was  accomplishing  nothing,  but  rather  that  a  riot  was
starting, he took water, washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, "My hands are
clean of this man's blood; it's your responsibility."
25 All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"
26 Then he released to them Bar-Abba; but Yeshua, after having him whipped, he handed
over to be executed on a stake.
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
Notice  that  it  was  the  head  cohanim,  head  priest  Caiaphas,  who  persuaded  the  crowd  to
beseech Pilate to let the murderer Bar-Abba go and instead to crucify the innocent Yeshua. Let
me  say  this  way:  it  was  the  chief  religious  leader  of  the  Jews  who  insisted  that  the  people
convict Jesus and pardon Bar-Nabba. So what were the common people to do if the head of
their religion insisted that it was the godly thing to do to choose a certain way? Thus in verse
25 when the crowd followed their High Priest and carelessly said that Yeshua's blood would
be upon them and their children, then the one who bore most responsibility was Caiaphas.
Now,  perhaps  3  months  later,  Caiaphas  is  furious  and  defensive  when  Peter  tells  him  that
indeed the blood of the Son of God is upon him. And for this there is no atonement, no escape.
The High Priest is not used to being talked to like this.
So in Acts 5 verses 29 – 32 Peter answers Caiaphas's question about why they were back at
the Temple doing what he had expressly told them not to do. He says, "We must obey God
rather than men". Peter isn't using the words, of course, but he is speaking of justifiable civil
disobedience. My fellow Believers he is speaking to us as much as he was to the High Priest.
In today's world we (and by we I mean YOU and I) are being battered and threatened with
Biblically  immoral  demands  from  our  civil  authorities  (and  sometimes  from  our  religious
authorities)  to  do  things  that  God  expressly  forbids.  From  *  marriage,  to  homosexual
ministers, to a casual acceptance of a woman's right to kill her unborn child, to insisting that
we back the corrupt UN and a non-people who call themselves the Palestinians; and instead
we are to boycott and in every way possible stand against God's people Israel. We are not to
pray  at  government  functions;  we  cannot  let  our  children  wear  a  Jesus  Loves  You  shirt  to
school. We must accept and embrace adherents to Islam as a show of love and tolerance.
Peter is showing us the way to respond; but do we have the fortitude and courage to do it? I
can guarantee you that you will be called backward, a hater, ignorant, a fundamentalist, and a
heretic is you do respond. Not too long from now I think the word terrorist will be added to that
list. So far, I don't see very many who are willing to brave the accusations of men and stand
up for what is right. Earlier in Acts 5 we read of Believers who were too afraid to go and stand
with  Peter  at  Solomon's  Portico  in  defiance  of  the  civil  authorities'  order  to  not  preach  the
truth of Messiah. So fear of the repercussions of disobeying people in authority in order to obey
God is not a new phenomenon or challenge for Believers. It is something that we shall face
nearly daily until we depart this earth or until Messiah makes His return.
If ever you are looking for a brief summation of the Gospel to tell friends and family who won't
give you anything but a few moments of their time, simply copy word for word verses 30 – 32. I
mean that quite literally; write it down, copy it, reduce it in size, and stick it in you wallets. Let's
go through Peter's Gospel step by step. First he identifies who God is: He is the "God of our
Fathers". Who are the Fathers of the Jews? The Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This
is as important in our time as it was back then. The peoples of the earth worship no fewer gods
today  than  in  Peter's  day;  so  for  someone  to  say  that  they  worship  god  only  has  meaning
when  their  god  is  positively  identified.  And  the  God  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob
worshipped is the God of the Israel, YHWH; there is no other. This is why (to the shock and
anger of many) I openly and firmly say that the God of Islam is a false god; He is not the same
as the God of the Bible. This verse, among many others, is proof. Islam says that their god is
the god of Abraham and Ishmael. Ishmael worshipped the moon god and before God chose
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
Abraham, so did Abraham worship the moon god along with a few others. The God of the Jews
is the God of the Tanakh, the Old Testament. The god of Islam is the god of the Koran, the
Islamic  holy  book.  Thus  Peter  identifying  the  true  God  as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and
Jacob makes a distinction between Him and all other gods.
The next point is that God exalted Yeshua whereas Caiaphas and his crew had Him killed.
Saying Yeshua was raised up is meant both in the sense of resurrection and glorification by
placing Christ at God's right hand in Heaven. As I've mentioned before; God's decision about
Yeshua was the opposite of men's decision, so He simply overturned the decision to kill Jesus
and un-killed Him.
How Messiah was killed also matters; He was hanged on a stake. Hanged doesn't mean to
place a rope around the neck; it means to impale on wood. Of course what this is referring to is
Yeshua's  crucifixion.  This  matters  because  several  Messianic  prophecies  call  out  various
elements of Messiah's execution. We find these in Isaiah 50 and 53, Psalms 22, 34, and 69,
and a few other OT passages. So Yeshua's death fulfilled the ancient prophecies in detail.
After that, Peter says that Yeshua is Ruler and Savior. That is, He is not only the Messiah in
the sense of being a sacrifice for sins. He is also God's chosen ruler over mankind; Christ has
authority.
And why did God make Him Ruler and Savior? Verse 31 says it is so that Israel would do
t'shuvah  (Hebrew  for  repent).  Stop  and  think:  so  that  WHO  would  repent  did  God  make
Yeshua Savior? Israel! So once again the Two-Covenant Theology that the Law of Moses is
for Israel and Christ is for gentiles is shot down. In fact, notice something I've mentioned a
couple of times; Peter has so far shown no interest in gentiles (as relates to Christ and the
Gospel). In fact it will take a particular incident that is recorded in Acts chapter 10 before God
gets the message across to a reluctant Peter that Yeshua is for all peoples, not just Jews.
And,  Peter  says  that  "we"  (meaning  the  12  Disciples  plus  others)  are  witnesses  to  all  this.
They physically and tangibly saw these things with their own eyes. But finally, Peter states that
God gives the Holy Spirit to everyone who obeys Him. Not to some of whom obey Him; and
not  to  those  who  do  NOT  obey  Him.  In  this  context  obeying  God  means  to  welcome  His
Messiah, Yeshua, and to follow His instructions. So the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a key
element, and is part and parcel, of salvation.
Let's sum up Peter's Gospel presentation in 7 points:
1. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
2. Yeshua  was  executed  by  humans  on  a  Cross,  thereby  fulfilling  the  OT  prophecies
about Him
3. God resurrected Yeshua from the dead
4. God exalted Yeshua and has placed Him at His right hand, in Heaven
5. Yeshua is not only Savior, He is Ruler.
6. Repentance  of  our  sins  that  comes  from  the  knowledge  of  Yeshua  is  required  for
forgiveness of our sins
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
7. All who Believe and obey God are given the Holy Spirit to indwell them
Then verse 33 gives us the response from the members of the Sanhedrin to Peter's Gospel
presentation. And what we hear is about what happens when people hear the Gospel; they
react in one of two ways. Either they are cut to the quick, feel convicted and open their hearts
to it; or they are cut to quick and react in anger and reject it. The Sanhedrin was so hostile to
the Good News that the consensus was to put Peter and the disciples to death.
The only thing that stood between the deaths of Peter and the disciples was a man named
Gamaliel. One of the few Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, he was known at that time as perhaps
the greatest Torah teacher in the Holy Land. The Apostle Paul was trained up in Gamaliel's
teaching  academy.  Gamaliel  cautioned  a  much  more  measured  approach  to  this  problem.
Before we discuss what he said, let's see who Gamaliel is.
Gamaliel  was  a  member  of  the  most  prestigious  Pharisee  family  in  the  Holy  Land.  He  was
considered as unrivaled in His knowledge of the Torah. He was also known as Gamaliel the
Elder, which helps to distinguish him from a grandson named after him (Gamaliel II) who was
part  of  the  council  of  Yavneh  that  some  years  after  the  Roman  destruction  of  Jerusalem
finalized the OT canon as we know it today. Gamaliel II also helped to revise the Synagogue
and  Rabbinical  systems  more  or  less  as  has  come  down  to  us  in  our  time.  It  is  so  very
important to our understanding of the New Testament to grasp that Gamaliel the Elder, and
Paul, were products of the Synagogue and not of the Temple. The Synagogue was run by the
Pharisees,  and  their  doctrines  and  teachings  revolved  around  Oral  Torah,  also  known  as
Tradition. We'll talk much more about this at a later time because we must understand that the
same term (such as the word "law") can mean different things depending on whether one is
operating  within  the  principles  of  the  Synagogue  or  operating  within  the  principles  of  the
Temple.  This  is  why,  I  might  add,  Paul  trips  up  scholars  and  laymen  alike  in  trying  to
understand his writings. 
So Gamaliel the Elder makes an eloquent speech to the Sanhedrin, not so much on behalf of
the disciples but rather out of enlightened self interest as well as personal religious doctrine.
He takes the tact that before the Sanhedrin acts harshly it should consider what happened to
other recent movements of radicals and zealots and he offers two well-known examples. The
first is of a man named Todah who convinced people that he was a special person that ought
to  be  followed  (and  no  doubt  this  involved  some  sort  of  rebellion  against  the  Roman
occupation). About 400 men became dedicated followers. However when Todah was arrested
and executed, his movement ended.
Then there was the case of Judas the Galilean who led another uprising against the Romans
about 30 years earlier. Apparently the catalyst for his cause was the Roman census taken for
tax purposes. But as soon as he was captured and killed, his movement also disintegrated and
caused  no  further  trouble.  So  the  lesson,  says  Gamaliel,  is  that  if  a  political  or  religious
movement is a strictly human endeavor then when its founder and leader is killed, his followers
will soon grow disheartened and fall away on their own.
His  conclusion  is  that  since  in  all  likelihood  this  will  be  the  same  case  with  these  Yeshua
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
followers, then no action at all is probably the best policy. However, if in the off chance this
movement  really  is  God-ordained,  then  no  action  is  also  the  best  policy  otherwise  the
Sanhedrin would find themselves fighting against God.
Very  smart  man.  But,  let  us  also  remember  something  else:  the  Pharisees  were  generally
sympathetic  to  their  own  Jewish  people,  whether  radicals  or  ordinary  citizens,  and  were
strongly  against  the  Roman  occupation.  So  while  the  Sadducees  were  beholden  to  the
Romans and always co-operative with them, it was against the law of the Synagogue (run by
Pharisees)  to  turn  Jews  over  to  the  Romans.  Because  before  his  speech  the  Sanhedrin
wanted  to  have  Peter  and  the  disciples  executed,  that  would  necessarily  mean  Roman
involvement  since  Jews  were  not  allowed  to  carry  out  their  own  capital  punishment.  The
Sadducees had no issue with that, but as a Pharisee and leader in the Synagogue system,
even  the  thought  of  turning  Jews  over  to  the  Romans  to  be  killed  went  against  Gamaliel's
convictions.
The Sanhedrin took Gamaliel's advice. After the deliberation the disciples were called in and
once again ordered to stop healing and teaching in the name of Yeshua, and then released.
But not before they were flogged. Why were they flogged? Because they indeed were guilty of
breaking the law. The law they broke had been established just a few days earlier when Peter
and  John  were  arrested  and  plainly  told  that  they  could  not  preach,  heal,  and  teach  in  the
name  of  Yeshua.  So  some  punishment  had  to  happen  or  the  Sanhedrin  would  look  weak.
Obviously  the  flogging  was  not  extreme  as  they  returned  back  to  their  fellow  Believers
immediately afterward.
What a victory for the followers of Christ! They had stood up to the Sanhedrin and not given in
on their faith. This would set the tone for years to come that Believers were willing to suffer
anything to obey Messiah and take the Good News to everyone regardless of opposition. The
CJB says that they were actually overjoyed at being seen as worthy to suffer "disgrace" for the
sake  of  Yeshua.  The  Greek  word  being  translated  as  disgrace  is  atimazo.  Atimazo  most
literally means shame in the sense of loss of one's honor. Among Middle Easterners while the
pain of flogging was certainly a major part of the purpose for flogging, every bit as important
was  that  culturally  flogging  brought  shame  upon  the  victim.  Shame  doesn't  mean  ashamed
like we think of today in the West whereby guilt is the result. Shame was not a feeling of guilt; it
was  a  demeaning  social  status.  A  person  who  was  shamed  was  looked  down  upon  by  his
family, friends and countrymen. It was a very undesirable social stigma because honor was the
status that all people wanted to maintain.
Thus when one was shamed, it became that person's sole goal in life to do whatever it took to
recover  his  or  her  honor.  Different  Middle  Eastern  societies  vary  a  little  in  how  shame  was
resolved  and  honor  recovered.  But  often  this  included  killing  the  person  who  inflicted  the
shame. Thus even today we'll hear of the term "honor killing". This is a killing for the purpose
of recovering an individual's or a family's honor. In fact, shame and honor was the point of
Christ's  famous  turn  the  other  cheek  statement  in  Matthew  5:39.  And  the  idea  was  that  as
horrible as being shamed was in Jewish society, one should be willing to suffer it for the sake
of the Kingdom of God, and not lash out.
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
Thus if you were a Jewish Believer and saw Peter acting joyfully after his flogging and now in
his condition of cultural shame, it would have caught you off guard. Thus the final statement
that ends this chapter that says that the disciples who still bore their flogging marks went right
on teaching and proclaiming the Gospel both in private in people's homes, and in public at the
Temple, has a much greater meaning than it does to modern day Believers. This is because
shamed people were shunned; they weren't invited into other people's homes. And shamed
people hid themselves; they certainly didn't go out in public on their own volition and draw a
crowd  to  boot,  or  they  would  have  been  publically  ridiculed.  And  yes,  of  course  they  were
continuing in their civil disobedience as they defied the court order to stop teaching and healing
in the name of Our Savior Yeshua.
We'll begin Acts chapter 6 next time that prepares for the story of the first Christian martyr,
Stephen. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 15, Chapter 6
We are going to explore some topics today that are as relevant to helping us to understand the
Book  of  Acts  as  they  are  challenging  to  stay  focused  and  to  digest.  We're  also  going  to
discuss things about the Jewish religious institution that most Jews don't know much about. If
you have studied with us for a few years this will likely be a little easier. So here we go.
As I look back over the several decades of my life, I realize that one of the greatest gifts that
the Lord has given to me was an opportunity to travel internationally. In my corporate career,
as I first started travelling, it was mainly to Western Europe. I was so excited to get to see
different countries I had only read about or seen pictures of! Until then I had never ventured
further than the border towns of Mexico, which wasn't much of a stretch since I was born and
raised  in  southern  California.  So  after  business  meetings  and  on  weekends  I  would  do  as
much  sightseeing  as  possible.  But  after  some  years  of  traveling,  as  the  novelty  of  long
overseas flights and sightseeing wore off, I learned some unexpected and valuable life lessons
that have greatly affected my worldview.
As I then traveled to other continents and spent time in the Middle East and Egypt, my eyes
were  further  opened  and  this  is  where  my  experiences  began  to  bleed  over  into  my
understanding of God's Word. My purpose in telling you this is not as a mini-biography but
rather to say that among the unexpected things I learned was that cultural differences among
nations and people can be profound, and that every individual on this planet has their values,
personal concerns and worldviews shaped by their local cultural (usually the one they were
born into). Before I started to travel I had always accepted the old cliché as unchallenged fact
that people are the same everywhere; same values, same wants and desires, with the only
difference  being  the  details:  language,  economic  opportunity,  available  technology  and  the
stage  of  their  national  development.  It  turns  out  that  those  who  say  that  have  either  never
traveled abroad or never got involved in the local society beyond being a tourist.
Culture and its associated language determine how we perceive the world around us and how
we communicate about those things. In the case of the Bible (especially the New Testament),
culture and language affects even the use and meaning of rather common words and terms.
Using  modern  day  examples  of  what  I'm  getting  at,  what  the  word  justice  means  in  the
Kingdom  of  Jordan  is  nothing  like  what  it  means  in  America.  The  value  of  life  in  Egypt  is
entirely different than it is in Israel. The definition of ethics and morals in Brazil is not the same
as it is in Canada.  And as concerns the Bible it goes so far that what various Bible characters
mean by the words they use changes depending on the era, on what their political, regional,
and religious affiliations are, where they are from and at times who they are talking to.
Early  in  the  Bible  (in  the  Old  Testament),  the  issue  of  cultural  differences  as  it  shapes
worldview is basic; pagan versus not pagan. And at that time that meant Hebrews as opposed
to everybody else. Words and terms were pretty static and so their meaning could be applied
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
more universally. Cultural change occurred very slowly. As we page through the Bible things
accelerate;  we  see  the  Hebrews  begin  to  interact  more  with  gentiles,  and  then  later  as  the
Israelites form national coalitions with former enemies intermarriage becomes the norm, and
then later still as the Jews are exiled and forced to live among and mix in much more intimate
ways  with  gentile  cultures  in  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  Empires,  the  lines  blur  further
between Jewish and gentile society and so the meanings of terms and words gets much more
complex.
If we had retained the Apocrypha in our Bibles, then we could further follow the progress of the
Israelites  when  the  complexities  of  their  society  increased  as  living  among  gentile  cultures
became permanent, even a desired thing. Years before Christ a major split had occurred in
Jewish culture: there were now the Diaspora Jews versus the Holy Land Jews and they had
distinct societal differences and life philosophies. By the time we open the first pages of the
New Testament and are immersed into the era of the Roman Empire, we are dealing not only
with  a  world  cultural  milieu  that  resembles  London  or  New  York  City,  we  have  the  Jews
themselves  broken  into  a  number  of  factions,  each  holding  widely  disparate  beliefs,  often
having  opposing  agendas,  depending  upon  different  sources  of  documents,  doctrines  and
religious authority figures to obtain divine direction, even at times insisting on using a certain
language while shunning others as heresy.  
What I've just explained to you is the intricate backdrop of the New Testament from Matthew
to Revelation. Among Jews there was not just one point of view nor was there a single unified
Jewish  culture.  What  we  must  realize  is  that  whatever  composite  mixture  the  Biblical  New
Testament Jewish society was it in no way resembled the worldviews common in the West
today; so what they had in mind by what various people said often gets lost in translation or is
heavily filtered through a Western mindset as we read the Bible. So today within the context of
Acts chapter 6 we're going to explore some cultural issues that are not meant to complicate or
confuse  us,  but  rather  to  untangle  Scriptural  difficulties  (and  sometimes  seeming  Scriptural
contradictions) and explain better what our various characters in the Book of Acts meant by
what they said, and why they thought the way they did. Without understanding this, modern
Believers will make incorrect assumptions that result in dubious doctrines that can lead us well
away from the truth. So open your Bibles to Acts chapter 6.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 6 all
As this chapter opens we're given a rough time frame; it is around the time that Peter and the
disciples were arrested by the Sanhedrin and then flogged for preaching the Gospel and doing
miracles in the name of Yeshua.  So the setting for this chapter is still Jerusalem, as it has
been since Acts chapter 1. Take note: even though all the disciples are Galileans, just as their
Lord  and  Master  Yeshua  was  also  from  the  Galilee,  the  nucleus  of  their  new  sect  is  in
Jerusalem.  This  makes  sense  because  Jerusalem  was  the  religious  power  center  for  much
(although not all) of Judaism. And for the 12 disciples and the new Believers and also for the
Romans,  these  members  of  the  sect  called  The  Way  were  not  seen  as  a  new  religion  but
rather as a relatively small but quickly growing movement of Jews within Judaism. However not
everything was going well.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
The first verse of Acts 6 explains that there was growing antagonism between two factions that
composed  the  Believers  in  Jerusalem.  And  the  main  bone  of  contention  had  to  do  with  a
perceived unfairness with the distribution of support to widows based on whether they were
Hellenists or Hebrews. The first thing to tackle is what the author Luke had in mind when he
referred to one group as Hellenists and the other as Hebrews. This represents the first of the
troublesome  cultural  differences  among  Jews  that  I  spoke  of  earlier,  which  we  need  to  be
aware of in order to better understand the make-up of the earliest Believers in Christ.
In  Greek  the  words  are  Elleniston  (which  we  translate  into  English  as  Hellenists),  and
Ebraious  (which  we  translate  into  English  as  Hebrews).  This  is  the  first  time  in  the  New
Testament that we find the term Hellenists and while there are some disagreements among
Bible  scholars  on  the  finer  details  of  what  this  term  means  to  communicate,  at  the  least
Hellenists means people whose first language is Greek. Further it means that these people
have,  to  some  level  or  another,  adopted  Greek  and  Roman  cultural  viewpoints  (called
Hellenism). These Hellenist Believers are still Jews; but very likely most are Diaspora Jews
who either made Torah ordained pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Shavuot and as a result of the
awesome Pentecost experience of the arrival of the Holy Spirit decided to remain permanently
in the Holy Land. Or some were those who formerly lived in foreign lands but for whatever
reasons had relocated to Judah at an earlier time.
This distinguishes the Hellenists from the Hebrews who were the native Holy Land Jews. The
Hebrews spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic, or likely both languages as they were similar. I've
explained in other lessons that languages are invariably linked to culture. So there were built-in
cultural differences between the Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew speaking Jews. In fact,
I think it is reasonable to assume that there was a definite language barrier that often created
frustration  and  misunderstanding  between  the  two  groups  of  Christ  followers.  And  to  use
modern terms to help us understand the unease between the two groups, the Hellenist Jews
were closer to what in our time we might call Liberal Christians versus the Hebrew Jews that
we might equate to Conservative or Fundamentalist Christians.
For  anyone  who  has  been  fortunate  enough  to  spend  time  immersed  into  modern  Israel's
vibrant society, the issues among Jews who hail from different languages and cultures is very
much on display. The result is distrust and constant collisions between the cultures. When one
has to deal with the government agencies (which in Israel is a given), and especially when
dealing  with  the  national  healthcare  system,  it  is  often  chaos  because  so  much  of  Israel's
population  cannot  speak  Hebrew.  And  also  because  often  the  social  and  governmental
structure of wherever these Jews have migrated from is totally different from that of Israel and
so they can't make any sense of how the system works. So things can quickly dissolve into
frustration, anger and a lot of shouting. This is what we see happening here in Acts chapter 6.
But what exactly is the issue of the widows that has so many Believers unhappy? The matter
of widows in ancient times is another thing that Western culture doesn't really understand, but
since the situation with widows is often brought up in the Bible, then let's take a few minutes to
get a handle on it. Obviously, there was no government welfare system in those days to care
for orphans, the disabled, the unemployed, or for poor widows. Rather that responsibility fell
mostly to the religious system and to personal charity. However since a widow is the result of a
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
marriage situation, then there were legal sanctions involved.
At the core of most marriages between Hebrews was the Ketubah; the marriage contract. This
is not a marriage license. Rather it is a standard legal agreement that states how property is to
be  handled  during  the  time  of  the  marriage,  what  happens  to  property  if  the  marriage  is
dissolved,  and  especially  how  a  widowed  wife  is  to  be  supported  should  the  unfortunate
occasion arise (and it arose frequently because wives were always much younger than their
husbands).
Legally, within first century Jewish society, a widow by definition possessed a valid Ketubah.
Unlike  in  modern  times  in  Western  culture  where  typically  a  wife  inherits  her  deceased
husband's  property  by  default  unless  there  is  a  will  or  prenuptial  agreement  that  says
otherwise, in ancient times a woman had no rights of property inheritance and no amount of
legal  paperwork  could  change  that.  Therefore  the  Ketubah  spelled  out  the  terms  for  her
support by the deceased husband's family who would inherit the husband's property.
One of the marriage contract principles was that the widow was to be cared for at a level that
would  allow  her  to  maintain  similar  living  standards  that  she  had  been  enjoying  with  her
husband. Usually this involved the widow getting to keep the house that she and her husband
resided in. Property could be designated for use for her support; however she didn't receive
ownership of the property. It is only the income from the property that she could receive and it
was up to the husband's family to be honest and diligent in the property administration.
However if she remarried, all rights to income ceased because she would have received a new
Ketubah from her new husband thus voiding the former Ketubah. Some widows received a
comfortable living. But the common Jews had little if any property and so a widow was often
left without much, if any, support. Thus the Torah Laws commanded that the local community
provide her food and a modest means of support. However from a government standpoint this
support was considered voluntary charity and could not be compelled. Thus the widow had to
rely on the goodwill of her family and of her community. If none was forthcoming she was in a
dire situation.
Typically in the New Testament era the religious entity that oversaw a widow's support was
the Synagogue. The Temple had not played a major role in that matter since before the exile to
Babylon. If there was a dispute it would have been directed to the Sanhedrin.
In our story the 12 disciples felt that the complaint that the Hellenist widows were receiving less
than the Hebrew widows was legitimate so they took action. A general meeting of the local
Believers  was  called  to  work  it  out.  As  is  typical  of  congregations  people  first  look  to  the
leadership to be the ones to handle matters. But the 12 disciples told the congregation that
they didn't think it right that they should take time from studying and teaching God's Word in
order to "serve tables". To serve tables doesn't mean to be waiters.  Rather to serve tables
means  to  take  on  the  responsibility  of  overseeing  food  distribution.  But  as  our  story
demonstrates,  congregation  leaders  need  to  have  the  starch  to  stand  up  and  say  that  they
cannot and must not try to do everything; the congregation has duties as well. And it seemed
good  to  the  disciples  that  food  distribution  to  the  widows  was  an  appropriate  thing  for  the
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
congregation to handle. It was decided that the congregation would select 7 men of especially
good character to supervise the matter. The 12 disciples, if in agreement, would then officially
appoint them and consecrate them into service with the laying on of hands (semichah).
What  is  interesting  is  the  7  they  chose;  every  one  of  them  had  Greek  names.  In  fact,  one
named  Nicholas  was  a  gentile  by  birth  and  had  been  living  in  Antioch  of  Syria,  but  had
converted to Judaism, meaning he had in fact become a Jew. So it appears that the 7 chosen
might have all been from the Hellenist faction, who were the ones making the complaint. Since
the complaint came from the Hellenists it seems the Hellenists were given the job of solving it.
So  here  is  a  great  application  to  take  from  this:  if  you  want  to  complain  about  something
around here don't be surprised if you are tasked with fixing the problem! One thing I'd like you
to notice: if it is so that all 7 were Hellenists then it means that Stephen who would soon be
persecuted and martyred was also a Hellenist Jew.
Verse  7  reiterates  that  the  number  of  Believers  was  constantly  growing  and  substantial
numbers  of  priests  also  joined.  This  issue  of  priests  joining  the  Believers  caused  great
heartburn  for  the  Priesthood;  after  all  it  was  the  High  Priest  who  had  this  group's  leader
(Yeshua)  killed,  and  it  was  the  High  Priest  (as  President  of  the  Sanhedrin)  who  had  twice
arrested  Peter  and  the  last  time  had  him  flogged.  So  priests  joining  the  ranks  of  Believers
would have been seen as disloyal. Priests (common priests) only worked for the Temple two
weeks  per  year.  There  were  24  courses  of  priests  that  served  in  rotation.  So  priests  had
regular jobs and crafts to support them and their families. But, they also would receive some
portion of the Temple sacrifices to supplement their incomes (this was Torah Law). It is hard
for me to imagine that the priests who joined the Believers kept their positions as priests. So
there was a great cost for them to make such a commitment.
It's at verse 8 that the focus shifts to Stephen, previously described as a man full of faith and
the Holy Spirit. Here we see that much like the 12 disciples, Stephen was so exceptional in
faith and fervor that he too was able to perform great miracles. He apparently was also quite
fearless and outspoken and so this provoked fierce hostility among some of the other local
Jewish factions. So in verse 9 we find that a particular synagogue took action against Stephen.
This was known as the Synagogue of Freedmen and it consisted mostly of Diaspora Jews from
such places as Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia. To help us understand just how far flung
Jewish communities had become since Babylon, consider that Cyrene was in Northern Africa
and today is known as Tripoli, Libya. Alexandria was an enormous port city in Egypt and goes
by the same name to this day. At the time of Christ, Philo tells us that close to a million Jews
lived there. Cilicia lay on the Mediterranean Sea coast in what is today modern Turkey. It is
probably not a coincidence that this place is mentioned because Paul came from Tarsus, a city
in Cilicia. Considering what comes next in Acts chapter 7 (Stephen's martyrdom) and that Paul
was  involved  in  it,  the  Synagogue  of  Freedmen  may  well  have  been  the  one  that  Paul
belonged to. At this time Asia was the name for the western parts of Asia Minor with Ephesus
as its capital. So Asia, as used here, is like saying northern Europe or southwestern United
States.
The name Synagogue of the Freedmen indicates that the Synagogue mostly (or at one time)
represented former slaves, but by no means does that indicate that all members were slaves at
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
one  time  or  another.  There  were  many  Synagogues  in  Jerusalem,  and  some  were  directly
connected to Synagogues that had their origin in the Diaspora.
Here would be a good place to stop, put down our Bibles, and get a better understanding of
Synagogues  in  New  Testament  times.  I'm  not  sure  I  have  the  words  to  emphasize  the
importance  for  modern  Believers  to  understand  what  we're  about  to  learn  because  it  alters
how we read the New Testament and especially how we read and understand the words of
Paul. And it is nearly unanimous in the modern Church that Paul is the foundational source of
the doctrines used by Christianity. So how Believers understand Paul is vital to our faith.
In  New  Testament  times  and  in  the  3  centuries  or  so  leading  up  to  it,  the  world  of  the
Synagogue was separate and distinct from the world of the Temple. And, especially important,
is that words and terms held in common between the Temple and the Synagogue were used
differently and meant different things to those who were attached to the Temple versus those
who were attached to the Synagogues. Even more, it can be generally stated that while priests
and Levites were attached to the Temple, all other Jews were attached to the Synagogue and
only had limited contact with the Temple depending on their distance from it.
We are going to be pretty thorough in our study of the Synagogue and its profound impact on
Judaism and on the writers of the New Testament. Thus we'll not finish today. Let's begin by
briefly reviewing some things we discussed a few weeks earlier. The Jews of the Holy Lands at
the time of the Book of Acts were divided into 3 main religious groups that were something like
political   parties   blended   with   religious   denominations.   They   were   the   Sadducees,   the
Pharisees, and the Essenes. However there was a 4th group called the Samaritans that usually
isn't discussed because even though they considered themselves Jews, and even though they
claimed  Moses  and  the  Law,  they  were  by  design  disconnected  from  Jerusalem  and  the
Temple. This situation goes back in its origin to the time of King Jeroboam around 925 B.C.
who reigned not long after King David and then Solomon.
The Samaritans in time had set up their own Temple at Mt. Gerizim in Samaria, and instituted
their own Priesthood, and so shunned the Temple and Priesthood in Jerusalem. They used
their own version of the Scriptures called the Samaritan Pentateuch, that was indeed the Torah
but  with  a  few  key  modifications  to  validate  their  beliefs.  I  won't  talk  further  about  them
because  they  are  not  important  to  our  study  just  yet.  Just  know  that  although  they  called
themselves Jews, in fact they represented tiny remnants of the 10 northern Israelite tribes most
of  whom  had  mixed  their  genes  with  foreigners.  Certainly  some  of  the  Samaritans  were
legitimately connected to the tribe of Judah (at least from times long past). However it was
because of the Samaritan's refusal to adhere to the Jerusalem based Temple of the Holy Land
Jews,  or  even  the  Synagogue  based  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  that  they  were  ostracized  and
considered as impure and untouchables.
The  Sadducees'  sphere  of  operation  was  the  Temple.  The  Pharisees'  sphere  of  operation
was  the  Synagogue.  The  Essenes  disconnected  from  the  Temple  because  they  deemed  it
wicked and corrupt (they were right); but they also seemed to remain relatively friendly to the
Synagogue,  even  if  they  didn't  join  it,  and  so  set  up  their  own  religious  centers.  They,  too,
wanted nothing to do with the Samaritans.
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
It  is  vital  to  pause  and  remember  that  God,  through  His  Torah,  provided  one  place  of
communal worship and ritual and one only: the Wilderness Tabernacle that was used during
the exodus, and then later the Temple that was located on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem. But when
the Babylonians destroyed the Temple in 587 B.C., and hauled the Jews away to Babylon, the
one authorized place of communal worship and ritual was no longer in existence and most of
the Jewish population now lived as captives in a foreign land almost a thousand miles away
from the Holy City. Thus we read in Daniel about the Jews finding alternative ways to meet
together, pray and worship.
It  is  due  to  the  difficult  circumstances  of  Babylon  that  the  Synagogue  was  created.  The
Synagogue at first was a place of meeting for Jews that was apart from the pagan worship
places.  The  people  were  taught  the  Torah  and  the  Prophets  to  keep  the  religion  of  the
Israelites  alive.  Without  the  priests  to  oversee,  lay  people  became  the  Synagogue  leaders.
Torah prescribed Temple ritual was replaced with study and prayer. Traditions and customs
were developed to deal with the situation of Jews living far from home, in a gentile controlled
world, where at least for a time the Temple didn't exist and Jerusalem lay in ruins. Without the
Temple the Jews couldn't atone for their sins or renew ritual purity when they became defiled.
The Traditions and customs created by the Synagogue purported to solve that problem. So
when  King  Cyrus  the  Persian  liberated  the  Jews  from  Babylon  and  took  their  Empire  from
them, 95% of the exiled Jews didn't return to the Holy Land. This 95% is what we today called
the Diaspora....the dispersed....Jews.
As the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah explain, the Temple was eventually rebuilt and the city of
Jerusalem  restored.  The  Priesthood  was  re-established  and  sacrifices  on  the  Temple  Altar
resumed.  But  by  the  time  this  had  occurred,  the  Synagogue  had  become  a  reality  if  not  in
name,  then  in  concept;  the  last  couple  of  generations  of  Jews  had  grown  up  within  an
alternative religious system. The Jewish exiles were comfortable with it and didn't question its
ways and rules, and the new religious authorities had no interest in giving up their power and
positions  merely  because  the  Temple  was  once  again  operative.  They  had  adapted  and
learned to live without the need for a Temple and Priesthood for more than 70 years. Besides,
in  the  years  ahead  the  95%  of  Jews  who  lived  so  far  away  from  the  Temple,  worshipping,
praying, learning, and being governed by local religious authorities was far more convenient
and practical. Thus eventually the Jews found themselves with 2 religious systems each with
its own religious authority: the Synagogue and the Temple.
Let me be clear: it is not that the Synagogue disavowed the Temple or was against the Temple
or discouraged their people from going to the Temple. There is no evidence that ritual sacrifice
took place at the Synagogue, and the Temple was still the center of the Jews' religion. The
Synagogue  authorities  did  not  see  themselves  as  the  new  Priesthood.  It  was  expected,
especially  of  those  who  lived  close  enough,  that  Jews  should  go  to  the  Temple  to  observe
certain observances and appointed times found in the Law of Moses. Yet, we are left with the
thorny issue of the Jews having one God-ordained system, the Temple, which found itself in
some  ways  in  competition  with  a  relatively  new  man-made  system  the  Synagogue.    The
relationship between the Temple and the Synagogue was muddy and messy. Yet Jews found
no conflict of conscience in belonging to a Synagogue whose authorities determined how the
Law ought to be followed by its members, while at the same time submitting to the authority of
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
the High Priest on matters of ritual and sacrifice that could occur only at the Temple. So it is as
though the result of the invention of the Synagogue was that Judaism had compartmentalized
Jewish life; everyday activities and behavior was legislated and dictated by the Synagogue.
The occasional ritual and sacrificial needs were legislated and dictated by the Temple. That
may not be how the Lord had ordained it; but that is how it was.
Christians  joke  that  (at  least  in  America),  if  you  don't  like  the  Church  you're  attending  just
cross the street to another one. And it is true; I was born and raised in a tiny community of less
than  1000  people;  but  we  had  at  least  4  churches  operating  all  the  time  and  sometimes  5.
None of them were full. It was not much different in Jerusalem. Even in the Holy City with the
Temple rising up on Mt. Moriah in all its splendor and glory; a place where people could go
every day if they wanted to that they might study, pray and worship,  the Jerusalem Talmud
reports  that  there  were  480  Synagogues  in  Jerusalem;  the  Babylonian  Talmud  puts  that
number at 394. Either way that is a staggering number of houses of worship for one city. But it
also demonstrates the fractured nature of Judaism and the Synagogue system.
The bottom line is that wherever there was so much as a colony of Jews a Synagogue would
be found there. Thus the Synagogue and Synagogue life is central to the New Testament. It is
no wonder that Yeshua often found His way to Synagogues to reach out to His people. CJB
Luke 4:16 Now when he (Yeshua) went to Natzeret, where he had been brought up, on
Shabbat he went to the synagogue as usual. He stood up to read......
Paul, too, of course frequented Synagogues. CJB Acts 17:2 According to his usual practice,
Sha'ul went in; and on three Shabbats he gave them drashes from the Tanakh..........
Thus when we read Paul, we must always understand that he is the product of the Synagogue
and not the Temple. This is proof enough that Oral Tradition, which was the foundation of the
Synagogue system of behavior and liturgy, had a profound effect on Paul's life, thoughts, and
vocabulary.
We'll continue on this topic next week and finish up Acts chapter 6. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 16, Chapter 6 continued
Ready to get a little "heavy duty" today? I hope so.
As we opened Acts chapter 6 last week it was prudent that we take the time to explore some
ancient Jewish cultural issues in  order for us to better understand not only what was taking
place throughout the Book of Acts, but also throughout the New Testament. And then more-so
how  the  principles  that  are  revealed  ought  to  be  brought  forward  and  into  application  2000
years later for modern day Believers, Jewish or gentile. And I want to forewarn you that our
exploration  has  only  just  begun,  because  the  advantage  of  the  Hebrew  Roots  approach  to
Bible teaching is to teach God's Word within the context of the culture of the people who wrote
it. What they meant is what the Bible means and how we are to understand it. But it is a Bible
era Jewish culture that is being presented to us; so it is not only foreign to gentile Christians,
but very often foreign to modern Jews.
Therefore  I  consider  it  so  important  for  serious  Bible  students  at  this  point  in  your  learning
process  that  I  want  to  review  in  some  depth  because  much  of  what  we  discussed  isn't  the
easiest thing in the world to assimilate and absorb; however it does make all the difference in
extracting the truth and thus discerning correct doctrine from the New Testament.
Early in chapter 6 we found that this group of Believers that Peter was leading in Jerusalem
was  neither  entirely  harmonious  nor  as  like  minded  as  we  might  have  hoped.  And  so  a
complaint arose that of the two main factions that formed the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem,
one  felt  it  was  being  discriminated  against.  Those  two  factions  are  given  the  names  of
Hellenists  (Elleniston  in  Greek),  and  Hebrews  (Ebraious  in  Greek).  Thus  the  first  thing  to
understand  is  that  while  Hellenists  and  Hellenism  (which  means  Greco-Roman  culture  and
lifestyle) is often portrayed as negative or wrong, in the context of the Believers in Jerusalem it
is a relatively neutral term that is simply meant to identify a set of common cultural traits about
one faction. However, then as now, people from one culture regularly criticize or see as inferior
practices and customs from people of a different culture.
Being a Hellenist means that a person's mother tongue is Greek. Only a few of these Greek
speakers could also speak Hebrew. Second it means that they were Jews from the Diaspora
who  were  born  and  raised  in  foreign  nations  outside  of  the  Holy  Land.  Diaspora  Jews
represented around 95% of all living Jews, making the Jews who were born and raised in the
Holy Land a distinct minority; but a minority that generally felt superior to the foreign Jews.
Third  it  means  that  whatever  their  Jewish  religious  experiences,  the  experiences  of  the
Hellenists were formed by the teaching of Rabbis at their Synagogues. And finally it means
that the Bible they used was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible dating
from 250 B.C. And this Bible had a few small but significant differences between it and the
Hebrew Bible. Notably, the vast majority of Diaspora Jews never found their way to Jerusalem
and the Temple for the Biblical Festivals or to make sacrifices on the altar for atonement for
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
their sins because they lived hundreds if not a thousand or more miles away and such a trip
was  so  expensive  and  time  consuming  as  to  be  a  practical  impossibility  for  all  but  the
wealthiest or most zealous. Yet they didn't usually feel that they were living in a state of sin or
ritual impurity for not being able to sacrifice at the Temple Altar; the Synagogue had come up
with customs and Traditions that purported to give them atonement by other means.
The other faction of Jerusalem Believers called Hebrews was called so mainly because their
native language was Hebrew. They were born and raised in the Holy Land and even though
they,  too,  revolved  their  daily  religious  lives  around  the  Synagogue  and  teachings  of  the
Rabbis, they did have regular connection with the Temple as they were near enough to attend
all the required Festivals, could come to make altar sacrifices for atonement as needed, and so
on. So to be clear: the term Hebrews in this context doesn't mean that this faction of Believers
was racial and ethnic Hebrews and the Hellenist faction was not. It more spoke to language,
place of birth, and a general lifestyle philosophy; not a lack of Hebrew genealogy.
Next we spoke about the subject that was at the center of the dispute between the Hellenist
and Hebrew Believers, which was the distribution of food to widows. I won't go over all the
information  we  discussed  last  week  about  widows  in  that  era.  Just  recall  that  supporting
widows  who  had  little  to  no  other  means  of  support  was  charity  and  that  fell  mainly  to  the
members  of  whatever  Synagogue  she  belonged  to.  Peter  and  the  11  other  disciples  who
formed the leadership of the Jerusalem Believers all belonged to the Hebrew faction; they were
born in the Holy Land (Galilee), spoke Hebrew, and were comfortable going to the Temple for
ceremony and sacrifice. So how much prejudice the Hellenist widows were suffering from that
was real and intended, or it was mostly perception from people who felt more like outsiders
that  were  dealing  with  language  and  cultural  barriers,  is  hard  to  tell.  Nonetheless  the  12
disciples  thought  the  problem  valid  enough  that  they  had  the  congregation  select  7  men
specifically to supervise support for all the widows. Due to the Greek names of the 7 it seems
all but certain that they all must have been from the complaining Hellenist faction. This group
even included one who was a gentile by birth but who had fully converted to Judaism, and
another who was an exceptionally spirit-filled man that would soon become the first martyr for
his faith in Yeshua: Stephen.
Next  we  discussed  that  while  the  3  best  known  and  socially  acceptable  religious/political
parties of Jews were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, in fact there was a 4th that most
Jews of that day refused to recognize as being legitimately Jewish at all: the Samaritans. As
their name implies they occupied an area called Samaria, which the Jews of that day no longer
considered as part of the Holy Land, so despised were the Samaritans. The Samaritans were
seen as traitors to Judaism, the Synagogue and the Temple for a number of reasons. First was
because the Samaritans were an ethnic mixture of tiny remnants of the 10 northern Israelite
tribes who had somehow managed to avoid deportation at the hands of the Assyrians some
700 years earlier and along the way had interbred with gentiles. Some were from the tribe of
Judah (Jews) and had also gone to Samaria and in many cases they too married foreigners
and had children. But second, from the religious perspective, the Samaritans committed the
unpardonable act of erecting their own Temple in Samaria at Mt. Gerizim and creating their
own separate Priesthood. They went so far as to make modifications to the Torah of Moses to
reflect  their  beliefs  (this  is  called  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch)  and  they  did  not  accept  any
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
writings as Scripture other than their modified Torah. That is, they didn't accept as Scripture
any of Israel's Prophets. Thus they were judged by the Holy Land Jews as more unclean and
untouchable than if they had been gentiles and were worshipping some of the standard pagan
gods. For the Holy Land Jews the Samaritans perverted and mocked everything that was holy
to them and they hated them for it.  So the Samaritans had no ties whatsoever with the two
standard Jewish religious institutions of that day: the Synagogue and the Temple.
Then we got into a substantial discussion about the Synagogue as an institution completely
separate and apart from the Temple. This is no trivial matter; it is perhaps one of the larger
keys that, if understood, can unlock the mysteries of the meaning of many New Testament
passages and none more so than the difficult words of Paul; I'll briefly point out the highlights
of that topic.
First, we find no mention of the Synagogue in the OT. That is because the Synagogue was a
purely  manmade  institution  eventually  created  by  the  exiled  Jews  in  response  to  their
predicament of having been hauled off to Babylon by the Babylonians in the early 6th century
B.C. The Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, the Priesthood abandoned, and the Jews found
themselves  captives  living  in  a  gentile  world  among  pagan  gods.  They  could  not  ritually
cleanse themselves, they could not eat kosher food, they could not sacrifice to atone for their
sins, and none of the required Levitical rituals of the Torah for Shabbat or the Festivals could
be accomplished.
Thus at first, mainly for the purpose of separating themselves from the pagan Babylonians,
they  began  meeting  together  and  soon  they  acquired  buildings  and  appointed  leaders  and
teachers  and  in  a  few  decades  they  established  a  complex  system  of  religious  authority,
teachings,  and  new  traditions  that  addressed  their  many  conundrums.  While  much  of  this
solved practical problems that the Jews faced none of this was God-ordained. The Synagogue
would not be led by priests but rather mostly by self-appointed or elected lay people. But the
Synagogue served a useful purpose in Jewish social and religious life mainly by keeping the
far flung Jewish communities connected with a common identity. They didn't assimilate into
the gentile world and disappear as what seemed to have happened to their Israelite brethren,
the 10 "lost" tribes. The Synagogue and Judaism were born together out of necessity and in
time became the center and pulse of Jewish life.
As  we  get  into  the  era  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testament,  even  though  the  Temple  and
Priesthood had been restored and operating for centuries, the Synagogue continued to flourish
as  well.  The  party  of  the  Pharisees  had  become  the  leaders  of  the  Synagogue.  Religious
schools had been set up, and the most famous was that of Gamaliel. These schools had no
connection to the Priesthood or Temple; rather they were the source of Rabbis for the many
and growing number of Synagogues. And what is so critical for us to grasp is that the teaching
of the Synagogue centered on Oral Torah, also known as Tradition, or as Jesus once called it
"Traditions of the Elders".
This stood in direct opposition to the Temple and Priesthood that was run by the party of the
Sadducees.  They  did  not  accept  as  valid  the  Traditions  of  the  Elders  as  taught  in  the
Synagogue;  rather  they  accepted  only  the  written  and  original  Torah  of  Moses  and  the
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
Prophets as their Scriptural authority.
Let's discuss the concept of Oral Torah, Tradition, before we get back into Acts chapter 6 so
that we can all be on the same page. Oral Torah or Tradition are interpretations of the Torah
Law (that is, the Law of Moses). It is somewhat like doctrine is to Christianity; it's only that
different terms are used. In Judaism they use the term Traditions; in Christianity the parallel
term is doctrines. That is, within Christianity every denomination has decided to interpret the
Bible in its own way, and comes to some conclusions about what Scripture passages mean.
Then when these interpretations are adopted by Church authorities, they're called doctrines.
For example, Southern Baptists have the doctrine of eternal security that says that once you
are saved there is no way and no circumstance under which you lose your salvation. This is
their    interpretation    of    Scriptures    in    that    regard.    Catholics    have    the    doctrine    of
Transubstantiation whereby when one takes communion, the wine literally becomes blood (not
symbolically but it actually, supernaturally changes form) just as the bread literally becomes
flesh. This is their interpretation of the Scriptures in that regard. Both the Southern Baptists and
Catholics however would not really agree that these are merely interpretations; rather to their
minds this is what Scripture plainly says. So, from their perspective they are teaching the Bible
when they teach their doctrines; they are considered one and the same. There is nearly no
distinction made between doctrine and Scripture except perhaps at the academic level.
It  is  the  same  with  Judaism.  We  can  rightly  speak  of  Oral  Torah  as  interpretations  of
Scripture, but essentially to the minds of Rabbis and their Jewish congregations the Oral Torah
is  merely  the  discovery  of  the  true  inherent  meaning  of  the  written  Torah,  thus  there  is  no
difference between the written Torah of Moses, and the Oral Torah of the Rabbis.
Saul Kaatz in 1923 published a book in Germany that tried to help explain to mystified gentile
Christians about the Jewish mindset of Oral Torah (aka Traditions of the Elders). He said this:
"Every interpretation of the Torah given by a universally recognized (Jewish) authority
is regarded as divine and given on Mt. Sinai, in the sense that it is taken as the original
divinely willed interpretation of the (Scriptural) text; for the omniscient and all-wise God
included  in  His  revealed  Torah  every  shade  of  meaning,  which  divinely  inspired
interpretation thereafter discovered."
So, from the Jewish viewpoint, every interpretation given by recognized Jewish Rabbis in the
Talmud was actually something Moses had received from God at Mt. Sinai long ago, and over
time inspired Sages and Rabbis discovered these truths. It was not received in the sense that
these  interpretations  were  also  written  down  by  Moses,  but  rather  the  interpretations  were
supernaturally and organically contained hidden within the letters of the Torah in the same way
that the fruit of a tree is contained in a kind of hidden form within the seed from which came the
tree. So if the written Torah of Moses is the tree, then the Oral Torah is the fruit of that same
tree. Since they both come from the same seed, then they are essentially of identical divine
substance.
Again; while that concept might sound strange to gentiles, it is only because of the terms that
are used in Judaism. If I gave you as an illustration that the Bible is the tree, and the doctrines
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
of the Christian Church are the fruit of the tree, then because they both come from the same
seed (and the seed is God), then they are organically inseparable and therefore essentially of
the same divine substance. What I just told you is generally speaking the Church's position
about  Church  doctrines  even  if  you  weren't  aware  of  it;  that  is,  there  is  no  discernable
difference between the Bible and Church doctrine. If the Church teaches their doctrine, they
feel they are teaching you the Bible. If the Synagogue teaches their Traditions, they feel they
are teaching you the Torah. While I don't agree with that stance of either the Church or the
Synagogue, some would fight to their last breath to defend it.
What I just told you isn't usually ever expressed to the congregation within Christianity. Rather
it is taken as a given that doesn't need expression. So we can listen to months and years of
Church sermons that might not include much more than a few words taken from a handful of
Bible verses, but at the same time Pastors insist that what they are doing is teaching the Bible.
The same goes with Judaism. The Synagogue leaders will teach what Rabbi so and so says
from  the  Talmud  and  expound  on  it  for  hours,  while  perhaps  including  no  more  than  a  few
verses from the written Biblical Torah. But at the end of the day, they will insist that what they
are  doing  is  teaching  the  written  Biblical  Torah.  This  perspective  is  only  rarely  challenged
because it represents a couple of thousand years of custom.
This brings me to my last point before we get back into Acts chapter 6. The result of this reality
is that the meaning of terms gets blurred. As regards Judaism, the term Torah can mean what
it originally meant: the written Torah of Moses as we find it in the Bible. Or Torah can mean
Oral Torah because Judaism sees that as essentially the same as the written Torah. Thus the
term law can mean one of the Laws of Moses as written and found in the Torah of the Bible, or
it can mean a tradition or ruling as handed down by a Rabbi as his interpretation of the Torah
of Moses. And in the New Testament we run across this challenge of regularly trying to discern
what a Bible character means by the terms he or she uses (and especially as concerns the
term "law").
The reason I've taken so much of your time with this over the last couple of weeks is this:
in the New Testament ALL the writers were products of the Synagogue system to one level or
another. None were priests so far as we are aware, so they certainly weren't products of the
Temple system as run by the Sadducees. So what does that tell us about their vocabulary and
the meaning of the terms they used? It means that they were schooled in Tradition, Oral Torah,
by  their  Synagogue  leaders  and  their  vocabulary  reflected  that  important  fact.  Certainly
Scripture  was  read  and  known,  and  Scripture  was  believed  in  and  trusted;  some  knew  the
Torah and the Prophets better than others who knew mostly Traditions. But at the same time
the  Oral  Torah  that  interpreted  those  Scriptures  was  seen  as  every  bit  as  divine  and
authoritative and trustworthy as the original Scriptures themselves.
Before we move on I want to give you as an example of the effect of these Jewish cultural
realities the Sermon on the Mount, whereby Yeshua was seen as great Rabbi (and a Rabbi is
by definition a product of the Synagogue).  So He did NOT quote Scripture per se. Rather He
spoke to His listeners in the same way as all Rabbis of His era did; He referred to what earlier
interpreters of Scripture said (remember how Yeshua said, "you have heard that our fathers
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
were  told"  and  then  went  on  to  say,  "but  I  tell  you"),  and  followed  by  giving  His  own
interpretation of Scripture.  This procedure was fully accepted and expected by the Jews sitting
there on the hillside listening to Him because they understood the process of how Oral Torah
was created (and no doubt not everyone accepted this Rabbi's teaching). Thus to the minds of
those hearing Jesus, He was merely creating new Tradition in the customary way (even if it
was more profound than anything they had ever heard before because they were hearing it
from God!). 
We aren't done with learning about the Synagogue and its deeply rooted role in Jewish life
and, most importantly for us, in the creation of the New Testament. But for the time being we'll
pull off of this fascinating subject and get back to Acts chapter 6.
Let's begin reading at chapter 6 verse 8.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 6:8 – end
Here we meet the exceptional follower of Christ, Stephen. And since he was so full of grace
and of Holy Spirit power God did great miracles through him. And now for the first time we see
the Synagogue come against Stephen and the Believers. And since their interpretations of the
Torah  couldn't  stand  up  against  Stephen's  they  took  the  bold  action  of  accusing  him  of
blasphemy. Specifically they said that he blasphemed against both Moses and God.
To blaspheme Moses doesn't mean to go against Moses the person. Rather it means to go
against what God gave to Moses. Thus the sense is to go against the Torah given at Mt. Sinai.
Rabbis  were  infamous  for  hurling  the  accusation  at  one  another  that  they  are  blaspheming
Moses  or  destroying  the  Torah  when  they  disagreed  on  important  interpretations.  So  the
charge of blaspheming Moses wasn't as serious or unusual as it might sound.
But what does the far more serious charge of blaspheming God mean? How does one do that?
Obviously there was no question among anyone that Stephen was a Jew who worshipped the
God of Israel; so he didn't renounce God. In this era the accusation of blaspheming God was
nearly exclusively about one thing: pronouncing God's formal name out loud or even writing it.
This was a Synagogue tradition that began in the late 300's B.C. There is no evidence that the
Temple  shared  that  belief.  After  all,  the  Sadducees  who  ran  the  Temple  were  purists  and
accepted only the original written Torah of Moses and the several Prophets as authoritative.
And  the  OT  is  not  only  NOT  against  pronouncing  God's  name,  it  uses  God's  name  6000
times, and has almost every Hebrew Bible character of any importance speaking God's formal
name. The Hebrews were encouraged in the OT to call on God's name. In fact, many Hebrew
names included God's formal name, although usually in abbreviated fashion.
Interestingly  the  prohibition  against  using  God's  formal  name  stemmed  from  a  Synagogue
ruling  that  a  child  should  never  call  his  father  by  his  given  name  as  it  was  deemed
disrespectful. From that grew the notion that if it was disrespectful to call one's human father
by his given formal name, how much more so to call our Heavenly Father by His formal name.
Thus  began  the  Oral  Tradition  that  it  was  wrong  to  pronounce  God's  formal  name,  and
eventually it was considered so serious as to be blasphemy.
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
I want to stress this yet again. The OT not only doesn't prohibit the use of God's name, it says
God's  people  should  call  on  His  holy  name.  And  further,  the  only  admonition  and  ruling
against  using  God's  name  is  found  in  the  rabbinical  rulings  (such  as  the  Mishna  and  the
Talmud). And what are the Mishnah and the Talmud? Oral Torah, Tradition. And who wrote the
Mishnah and the Talmud? The Rabbis. And what did the Rabbis represent? The Synagogue.
Let me be clear; I'm not in any way demeaning the Synagogue or the Rabbis. I'm saying that
when doctrines and Traditions of men begin to take over, Biblical truth inevitably takes a back
seat. Or as Christ once famously said:
Matthew 15:1-9 CJB
1  Then  some  P'rushim  and  Torah-teachers  from  Yerushalayim  came  to  Yeshua  and
asked him,
2 "Why is it that your talmidim break the Tradition of the Elders? They don't do n'tilat-
yadayim before they eat!"
3 He answered, "Indeed, why do you break the command of God by your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who curses his father or
mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say, 'If anyone says to his father or mother, "I have promised to give to God
what I might have used to help you,"
6 then he is rid of his duty to honor his father or mother.' Thus by your tradition you
make null and void the word of God!
7 You hypocrites! Yesha'yahu was right when he prophesied about you,
8 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.
9 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were
doctrines.'"
In no way was Christ putting down all Traditions and customs and Jewish doctrines. He was
saying that while there is a place for them in our faith, they are to be subservient to the Holy
Scriptures.  Oral  Torah  (Tradition)  is  NOT  equal  to  the  written  Torah  of  Moses.  Church
doctrines are not equal to the Bible. And this is because Traditions, customs and doctrines are
manmade and therefore subject to opinion and error, while the Holy Scriptures are God-made
and thus infallible.
Notice that we are expressly told in verse 13 of Acts 6 that those who made the accusations
against Stephen were FALSE witnesses. What do false witnesses do? They lie and fabricate.
So we don't have to speculate; the charges against Stephen of constantly speaking against
the Temple and against the Torah are false charges. And what exactly are the charges that
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
amount to blasphemy in their eyes? The charges are that Stephen says Yeshua was going to
destroy  the  Temple,  and  that  He  has  changed  CUSTOMS  that  Moses  handed  down  to  the
Jews. Note: it was not the Laws of the Torah that they accused Stephen's Master of changing,
but  rather  the  CUSTOMS.  That  is,  they  are  speaking  about  one  thing  only:  Oral  Torah,
Traditions. But recall; to the Jewish mind Tradition and the actual written Torah were the same
things. And indeed I demonstrated to you that the Sermon on the Mount was given in typical
rabbinical  fashion,  as  Yeshua  first  said  what  earlier  interpretations  of  the  Law  were  (earlier
Traditions) but now what He says is the proper interpretation. Indeed Stephen was challenging
the currently accepted Oral Torah rulings and customs. But he, like Yeshua, was in no way
challenging the Torah of Moses.
As for the charge that Yeshua was going to destroy the Temple? We could go deeply into that
as many commentators have. But I have only one thing I want to say about it; this was a silly
and phony charge designed only to illicit murderous emotions. From their viewpoint how could
Yeshua destroy the Temple? He was dead and gone! Crucified in front of them. The accusers
certainly didn't believe that Yeshua was alive, resurrected, and living in Heaven with God! No,
in the end this was about one thing only: Stephen was speaking against the Traditional Torah
interpretations  as  taught  in  the  Synagogues.  Thus  we  are  told  that  it  was  Jews  from  the
Synagogue of the Freedmen who were making these charges.
The final verse of Acts chapter 6 has Stephen standing before the Sanhedrin. Thus this street
mob  did  not  defy  or  overwhelm  the  Sanhedrin  to  lynch  Stephen.  Whatever  happened  to
Stephen would be decided, or at the least condoned, by the Supreme Court of the Jews. And
whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in  what  they  decided,  they  were  the  legitimate  civil
government of the Jews.
I love the final words of this chapter as it says Stephen's face looked like the face of an angel.
And angels are regularly depicted as emitting bright light; so from the Jewish perspective, and
according to the now voluminous Synagogue traditions concerning angels and demons, the
idea  is  that  Stephen's  face  was  bright  and  shining  in  a  supernatural  way.  Luke's  idea  in
reporting this phenomenon was to compare the glow of Stephen's face with the same Moses
that Stephen is on trial for supposedly speaking against.
Exodus 34:29-30 CJB
29 When Moshe came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the testimony in his
hand, he didn't realize that the skin of his face was sending out rays of light as a result
of his talking with [ADONAI].
30 When Aharon and the people of Isra'el saw Moshe, the skin of his face was shining;
and they were afraid to approach him.
Next  week  we'll  begin  with  Acts  chapter  7  and  the  trial  and  martyrdom  of  Stephen.  We're
going to discuss some fascinating things about Stephen that will surprise you.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 17, Chapter 7
The final words of our last lesson were meant to prepare us for today's teaching in Acts
chapter 7. Here we find Stephen, full of grace and power, standing before the Sanhedrin with a
mob of angry Jews wanting to lynch him for supposedly blaspheming Moses, God and the
Temple. We were told in Chapter 6 that Stephen had gotten into an argument with members of
the Synagogue of the Freedmen (no doubt over doctrine) and they simply couldn't compete
with or refute his wisdom, nor could they match the authority with which He spoke because if
was not a fair fight: he had the Holy Spirit and they didn't.
How many in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movement have tried diligently, patiently,
lovingly to show Bible teachers, professors, Pastors and Elders, Rabbis, even Believing friends
and family members what God's Word so plainly says about a number of important subjects
that are central to a correct understanding of our faith; only to face anger and accusations of
heresy when these religious leaders have no defensible response to explain their dubious
doctrines. Thus Acts Chapter 6 verses 10 and 11 explain that because those Stephen tried to
persuade had no defensible response to Stephens teaching, they retaliated by using false
witnesses to fling false accusations against Stephen. However in the name of intellectual
honesty, it is also the case in the Biblical era that witnesses can be called false not for lying,
but rather when it is discovered that they did not witness the actual event, are presenting
second hand evidence or hearsay, and thus their testimony is disqualified. We can't be 100%
certain that the latter isn't the case, but we can be 99.9% certain that it is not, because it is
inconceivable that Stephen actually suggested that Yeshua (who is dead) would destroy the
Temple, or that Stephen denied Moses. 
As Stephen is being interrogated we are told that his face began to glow like that of an angel.
This compares with what happened to Moses as he descended from Mt. Sinai after a close
encounter with God. So Luke's idea in including this bit of information (that otherwise adds
nothing to the narrative) is to show that God was present with Stephen and that what Stephen
was about to say in response to the questioning is divinely inspired.
Let's read Acts chapter 7, the longest continuous speech by anyone in the Book of Acts.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 7 all
Verse 1 specifies who is questioning Stephen; it is the High Priest who at this time was
Caiaphas. Because the High Priest doubles as the head of the Sanhedrin, it is his prerogative
to lead the questioning of the accused if he chooses to do so. And the question is: "Are these
accusations true?" The response of Stephen is long and doesn't really address the question
directly. Why didn't he just say "no", or perhaps explain that the charges were exaggerated or
greatly distorted from what he had said? We need to keep at the forefront of our minds as we
view this story that the false accusers were from a local Synagogue. Thus while they
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
occasionally visited the Temple for sacrifice and ceremony, their main allegiance and the place
where they received their religious doctrines was their Synagogue. So was it really so
upsetting to them that Stephen supposedly said something against the Temple? Yes and no;
the matter of the Temple we will discuss shortly in a way you won't expect. But the primary
issue was their claim that he was blaspheming Moses. What they meant by blaspheming
Moses was that to dispute their Traditions was blasphemy. And this was because the
Traditions (also called Oral Torah) that were rabbinical interpretations of the written Torah of
Moses, was the epicenter of the Synagogue and whatever it was that Stephen said they took it
as an assault on those cherished Traditions.
Essentially Stephen was charged with teaching against everything that Judaism stood for.
We've spent much time in trying to understand the place and nature of the Synagogue in New
Testament times, but we need to also remember the nature of Judaism at this same time.
Before Babylon, Jewish life and religion sought direction from the Temple; that was the God-
ordained way and it was generally the only source available. It was the Priests and Levites job
to (among other things) teach the people the Law of Moses and then to enforce it. If we were to
invent a name to call the body of teachings and the way of life that the Priests taught we could
rightly label it Hebrew-ism. That is, the civil code for the Hebrews with its rules and regulations
was essentially the Torah itself. And it was to be followed by all Hebrews since it was given by
God at Mt. Sinai through Moses to all Hebrews (all 12 tribes plus the Levites).
However several centuries later that situation changed dramatically. Around 700 years prior to
Christ, 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel were sent away in exile to foreign lands for their
disobedience to God. The Assyrians were the Lord's hand of judgment. The 10 tribes that
formed northern Israel were conquered and scattered throughout the vast Assyrian Empire and
due to their disinterest in being Hebrews any longer, most assimilated into the world of the
gentiles throughout the giant Asian continent, and others were sent into North Africa. What
remained of the Hebrews in the Holy Land was the tribe of Judah and most of the tribe of
Benjamin; but rather quickly Benjamin assimilated into the tribe of Judah. The name that was
given to the people of Judah was Jews. And soon enough they too would be exiled from the
Holy Land, only for them it would be into Babylon.
Because one result of the Babylonian conquest was the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple, and thus the end of a functioning Priesthood, so the Hebrew-ism that used the Torah
of Moses as its civil and religious code was soon replaced with something else. And that
something else was a mixture of Torah and newly formed traditions. Since this was only
applicable to those of the tribe of Judah (the 10 tribes no longer being present, having melded
into the gentile world), this new hybrid religion became the basis of Judah-ism; the religion of
Judah. The Jews at that time didn't actually refer to their religion as Judaism; that is something
that came centuries later. Nonetheless, all the practices and customs that in time gained the
label of Judaism were being developed and practiced by the Jews during and after their
Babylonian captivity.
So to be clear, it was against this hybrid religion of Torah and Tradition whose home was the
Synagogue, a religion that we call Judaism, that Stephen is said to have offended. Remember;
the Temple was controlled by the Priests and the Sadducees. And the Temple and the
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Sadducees denied the validity of the very thing that the Synagogues taught, believed in, and
demanded adherence to: Traditions, Oral Torah. So, as mainstream Christianity regularly
claims, was Stephen distancing himself from the Law of Moses and from the culture of the
Jews? That is, that the Believing congregation to whom he belonged was in process of ceasing
to be Jews and instead becoming Christians?
Verse 2 immediately answers that question. "Brothers and fathers" he says, "listen to me".
Stephen makes it clear that he regards himself as one of them, and they remain a part of him.
He is in no way separating himself from the Jews of Judea. And from here he goes on to recall
the heritage that he feels he shares with his brothers and sisters, the heritage that all Jews
know starts with Abraham whom he calls "our father" (not your father or my father, but rather
OUR father). So far so good.
It is important to note that everything that Stephen is quoting about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
Joseph is theoretically taken directly from the Torah so that he could demonstrate both his
knowledge of the Torah as well as his dedication to it. But a problem arises that isn't easy to
spot unless you know what to look for. If we check with the Hebrew Bible, some of the details
that Stephen quotes don't line up. I need you to pay close attention to this, please, because
this isn't trivial. For instance, in verse 4 Stephen says that during the time Abraham was living
in Haran, his father died and then God made Abraham move to the land (that is to Canaan,
which is now Judah). Genesis 11:26 says that Abraham's father Terach was 70 when
Abraham was born and then Genesis 11:32 specifically says that Terach died at the age of
205. But Genesis 12:4 says that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran. 70 plus 75
equals 145; so that would make Terach 145 years old when he died, not 205. Yet 205 is what
the Hebrew Tanakh clearly says. One of these numbers has to be incorrect, but which one?
And this was as evident to the people of that day as it is to us. So what to do?
We talked last week about the Samaritans who had established their own Temple and
Priesthood, but who also modified the Torah in some ways to match their traditions. And one of
the ways they did that was to change Genesis 11:32 to say 145 years instead of 205. In other
words, they decided that there was an error in the math and so they corrected it in their Torah.
The Sanhedrin to whom Stephen was speaking would likely have immediately noticed the use
of the number 145 instead of 205, since this was an area of dispute. Would they say then that
Stephen had made a basic mistake that most Jewish children would have recognized? No.
This would have told them something important that infuriated them all the more; Stephen was
quoting the Samaritan Pentateuch; the holy book of the despised Samaritans. Why would he
do that? In order to keep this train of thought and move to the point I would like to make, drop
down to Acts 7:14. There we have Stephen saying that Jacob and all of his relatives went
down to Egypt to meet Joseph; all 75 of them. However the Hebrew Bible says this in Genesis
46:
Genesis 46:27 CJB27 The sons of Yosef, born to him in Egypt, were two in number. Thus
all the people in Ya'akov's family who entered Egypt numbered seventy.
The Hebrew Tanakh says 70, not 75. However in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Greek
Septuagint, the number is indeed 75. Remember that I pointed out last time that Stephen was
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Hellenist Jew; his name was Greek, his first language was Greek, and he would have originally
come to Judah from somewhere foreign. Here's the crux: was Stephen perhaps from
Samaria? Could he have been a Samaritan? The people present would have caught the
differences between the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Torah because the Synagogue mostly
used the Greek Torah while the Temple strictly used the Hebrew Torah. But there is yet
another clue that pretty well nails matters down. Move down now to Acts 7:15 and 16. There
Stephen says that the place that Abraham bought for a tomb for his family was in Shechem,
and he bought that tomb from Hamor of Shechem. Listen however to the Hebrew Tanakh (the
Old Testament) and what it says about where Abraham bought a burial plot and from whom.
Genesis 23:17-20 CJB
17 Thus the field of 'Efron in Makhpelah, which is by Mamre- the field, its cave and all the
trees in and around it- were deeded 18 to Avraham as his possession in the presence of
the sons of Het who belonged to the ruling council of the city.
19 Then Avraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Makhpelah, by Mamre,
also known as Hevron, in the land of Kena'an. 20 The field and its cave had been
purchased by Avraham from the sons of Het as a burial-site which would belong to him.
Yes, I know that Stephen was talking about burying Jacob and Joseph, and not Sarah, in
Shechem. However once again listen to another passage from the Hebrew Tanakh:
Genesis 49:29-33 CJB
29 Then he (Jacob) charged them as follows: "I am to be gathered to my people. Bury me
with my ancestors in the cave that is in the field of 'Efron the Hitti,
30 the cave in the field of Makhpelah, by Mamre, in the land of Kena'an, which Avraham
bought together with the field from 'Efron the Hitti as a burial-place belonging to him-
31 there they buried Avraham and his wife Sarah, there they buried Yitz'chak and his wife
Rivkah, and there I buried Le'ah-
32 the field and the cave in it, which was purchased from the sons of Het."
33 When Ya'akov had finished charging his sons, he drew his legs up into the bed,
breathed his last and was gathered to his people.
The point is that the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, says that Jacob was buried in the same cave
that Abraham buried Sarah and that cave was bought from Efron the Hittite, and it was near
Hebron, not Shechem.
So why the glaring discrepancy? Was Stephen just a poor student of the Bible and he is
mumbling nonsense? No. The Samaritan tradition was that Abraham bought the cave from
Hamor and buried everyone near Shechem, not Hebron. Why this different tradition? Because
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Shechem was in Samaria and Hebron was in the south of Judea. Stephen was quoting the
Samaritan tradition about the burial place of the Patriarchs. Why else would he do that if he
weren't a Samaritan? He certainly wouldn't have learned that at the Temple. I went through
this little Sherlock Holmes exercise to make the point that it is nearly certain that Stephen was
himself a hated Samaritan who had practiced the Samaritan religion until sometime before he
became a Believer. My speculation is that he was probably a Jew who lived in Samaria from
birth, and so was of course taught the Samaritan traditions, and he had not yet let go of the
Traditions of the Samaritans, or just as likely didn't even know that the Hebrew Bible had a
different tradition. And once that became clear to his accusers from the Synagogue and the
Sanhedrin, he was quite literally a dead man walking. To them Stephen being a Samaritan
would explain his supposed bent against Judaism and it explains to us why the men of the
Synagogue reacted so irrationally about the supposed destruction that Stephen's master
Yeshua (even though he was dead) was going to wreak upon the Jerusalem Temple. After all
the issue of the Temple was a very sensitive one; the Samaritans had a rival Temple at Mt.
Gerizim and thought the Jerusalem Temple illegitimate and vice versa. Jealously and rivalry is
a terrible thing, especially when it involves religion. But Stephen being a Samaritan would also
explain the blind hatred that they felt towards him (once they figured out that indeed he was a
Samaritan) and thus their murderous desire to kill him immediately.
Let's back up now to verse 3, which begins Stephens's long overview of the history of the
Hebrews to which he claims brotherhood. We'll not go over every detail, but rather simply
follow his path. Since it was with Abraham that God made a covenant that created the Hebrew
people and set aside a particular land for a national homeland, it is the logical place to start. I
want you to notice that the main point Stephen makes about Abraham concerns the land. The
land is the key, because the land and the people (the Hebrews) are organically connected.
Thus we see Stephen speak about how Abraham was to leave his land, and go to a land that
God would show him. And then after Abraham's father Terach died, only then did Abraham
journey to that land. And next Stephen says that although Abraham didn't receive any land for
his own, the land did go to his descendants.
Then in verse 8 land is used in a different way. Before Abraham's descendants receive the
land God has set aside for them, they will be aliens in a foreign land where they will be slaves
for 400 years.
The next milestone is that Abraham received the rite of circumcision as a sign of the covenant
made between God and Abraham. To reiterate: the Abrahamic Covenant primarily concerns
land. Note something that is often misunderstood: circumcision was first used as the sign of
the Abrahamic Covenant, which happened around 5 or 6 centuries before it was incorporated
into the Covenant of Moses. So while the Abrahamic Covenant was built around land, the
Covenant of Moses was mostly about people; it was about how redeemed people are to
behave and conduct themselves before the Lord, and about what a relationship between God
and His people is to look like. Circumcision was incorporated into the Law of Moses; thus we
see how circumcision regarding Abraham's covenant that was about land, was integrated with
the Mosaic Covenant that was about God's people. God made the two issues of His people
and His land inseparable through the single sign of circumcision.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Next the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are passed to Isaac, and of course Stephen
points out the all important circumcision ceremony, the B'rit-milah.   He quickly moves to
Jacob, son of Isaac, as next in line and that Jacob became the father of what Stephen calls the
12 Patriarchs. He is not confusing the well know term "the Patriarchs" (meaning Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob); rather he is just using the term patriarchs in a more general way as referring
to founders of the 12 tribes of Israel.
The next stage of history that Stephen recounts is of the life of Joseph. There are for sure two
points to this part of Stephens's speech. First is that it shows the fulfillment of God's oracle to
Abraham that Israel would wind up in a foreign land as slaves before they received their own
land inheritance, and how it came about. Second is that Stephen points out how Israel
continued with a long pattern of at times being faithful, and at other times being rebellious. And
how God would punish, and then rescue, with the goal of redemption for Israel's grave
trespasses and thus never closing the door on the possibility of God's mercy and Israel's
restoration. Yet, there may well be a third point that Stephen is making by focusing on Joseph;
Joseph's life somewhat mirrors that of Messiah Yeshua. And considering that Stephen was all
about preaching the Gospel, I am convinced that he intended to draw this parallel. And he
does so by pointing out that Joseph was the savior of Israel by bringing the clan to Egypt to
survive a famine. But, at first Israel didn't recognize their own brother, and thus didn't know
for a time the identity of their savior as one of their own.
Stephen recalls that once it was established that Joseph would save Israel, his father Jacob
brought all his clan to Egypt, and that it was there that he died, but his bones were brought with
Israel when they left Egypt for Canaan. And says verse 17, this was a fulfillment of God's
oracle to Abraham to first send Israel to a foreign land, and then rescue them from it and bring
them into their own land, the Promised Land.
Now Stephen sets the stage for the advent of Moses by briefly speaking about Israel's terrible
time in Egypt shortly before their deliverance when newborn Hebrew babies were cruelly killed
on order of the Pharaoh. And this was due to the dramatic multiplying of Israel's population in
the most impossible of circumstances. One of the things being accomplished here is that
Stephen is cementing his personal identity with Moses, calling him beautiful, so that any
charges against him that he would blaspheme or deny Moses would be seen as absurd. 
Stephen goes on to explain that in a wonderful irony, Moses (a hated Hebrew) was raised in
Pharaoh's household and given the best education. But then verse 23 tells us something that
ties in with our long discussion of Judaism and the Synagogue. Stephen says that Moses was
40 years old when, still as a member of Pharaoh's household, he decides he wants to go visit
his Israelite brothers. This of course doesn't mean that there was a journey involved; it just
means that Moses had been segregated from the Hebrew community that lived next to the
ethnic Egyptian community. Here's what I want you to catch: nowhere in the Torah do we find
that Moses was 40 years old when he went to see his Israelite brothers. So did Stephen just
use a bit of rhetorical license to invent a number to embellish his story? Of course not; in fact it
was a number that at least the mob that wanted to kill him would have agreed with. You see,
the number 40 is a Tradition; it came from the Synagogue. And since Stephen was, as were all
Jews in this era products of the Synagogue (except for the Priests and Levites who were
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
products of the Temple), he simply took this Tradition of Moses being 40 at this time as
immutable fact. I point this out because it is another opportunity to demonstrate that the
thought processes of the writers and Bible characters of the New Testament....all of it..... revolve
around the Synagogue and Oral Torah (Tradition) that was taught there. They did so
automatically and unconsciously because that's what they knew; it was simply part of who
they were. It is not unlike Christianity accepting December 25th as the date of Jesus's birth.
There is not one hint in the Bible that this is so; but because Roman Church authorities long
ago deemed it to be so, few in the modern Church would even think to question it. December
25th as Christ's birthday is a manmade tradition with no basis of historical fact or record, and
neither is Moses being 40 at the time of the event in Egypt that Stephen refers to historical fact
or record; it too is a manmade tradition. But Lord help anyone who would dare to challenge
either of these points. That is the power of long held customs and traditions and doctrines
especially in a religious environment. Sometimes the effect is benign; at other times it is
malignant and causes grievous doctrinal error.
In verse 25 Stephen makes the point that Moses, like Joseph, was rejected by his brother
Israelites (again, his point is to make an obvious connection to Yeshua). But, says Stephen,
Moses was rejected because the Hebrews didn't understand that he was to be their deliverer,
their savior. So he kind of softens his rhetoric by making the Israelites early rejection of Moses
and Joseph (and by association, Yeshua) due to ignorance rather than knowingly choosing to
deny the Son of God.  Next Stephen quotes Exodus 2:14 and says that when Moses
intervened in a dispute among Hebrews they retorted, "Who made you ruler and judge over
us....?" So what we see is Moses' second act as a Mediator; but this time as a mediator
between 2 Israelites. And these combatants question Moses' authority over them. But more
they remind Moses of his first act of mediation when he killed an Egyptian for striking a
Hebrew. So here we see God's future Mediator mediate with both gentiles and Hebrews on
earthly matters. But we also see how hard hearted the Hebrews had become. As a result,
Moses fled to Midian from fear of prosecution for murder.
Stephen now turns to the moment when Moses became God's official Mediator, as he
describes the Burning Bush event. But once again we see Synagogue Tradition play a role in
Stephen's speech. He beings verse 30 by saying, "After 40 more years an angel appeared to
him in the desert...." In fact the Torah does not say Moses' age when he fled Egypt, nor how
long he spent in Midian. The best Torah reference we get in determining Moses age is in
Exodus 7:7 when we're told that Moses was 80 years old the first time he confronted
Pharaoh.  So here Stephen merely quotes Oral Torah, assuming it as fact, and I must say that
I find it mildly amusing that since his speech wound up in the New Testament, Moses being 40
when he fled Egypt and spending 40 years in Midian is taken by the Church to be Biblically and
historically accurate when in fact it is ancient Synagogue Tradition.
Now Stephen starts to narrow his message and purpose by saying that Moses, the one who
was rejected by the people of Israel saying, "Who made you a ruler and judge?", is in fact the
very ruler that God had chosen to be ruler and judge over His chosen people, Israel. In other
words, the people were wrong to question Moses; in fact they at first ridiculed and rejected
God's appointed ruler and judge. But this time Stephen adds to his characterization of Moses
by adding the word "ransomer". This of course starts to draw his story closer and closer to
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Yeshua. And Stephen says in verse 36 that it is this man, Moses, who as God's deliverer took
Israel out of Egypt through great miracles and signs, and led them through the desert
wilderness for 40 years. And, knowing that the Synagogue members and the High Priest and
the Sanhedrin whom he was addressing wouldn't in any way dispute his logic and conclusion
to this point, he now reminds them that this same Moses that was venerated by all Jews is the
one who said that at a later time God would raise up a prophet like him from among the
Israelites. The unspoken question is: so who is this prophet like Moses?
Stephen returns to the theme of disobedience by saying that now that Moses' authority from
God had been revealed the people of Israel did not want to obey Moses. In other words, this
was not an act of ignorance but rather a display of willful rebellion against God (and by
extension against Moses, God's Mediator). The intended implication is that it is not Stephen
who is speaking against Moses but rather his accusers who are the rebels. And he uses the
incident of the Golden Calf as an illustration of willful, knowing, intentional refusal to obey God.
There Aaron, High Priest of Israel (and don't miss Stephen's implied connection between
what Aaron did and what Caiaphas is currently doing), built god images and led the people into
rebellion and into worshipping false gods.
As we near a close for today, I'll pause for just a moment so that we don't lose the forest
amidst the trees: this immense, undying respect that Stephen is showing towards Moses IS his
answer to Caiaphas about whether the accusations against him are true. And at the same time
Stephen is turning this mock trial on its head from being the accused, to becoming the accuser,
by comparing his persecutors with the worst of the historical rebels against God and Moses,
making them one and the same. And don't think for a moment that everyone there didn't fully
comprehend what Stephen was doing.
We'll conclude the story of Stephen as the first recorded Believing martyr next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 18, Chapter 7 continued
We are well into Stephen's speech of Acts chapter 7, which will end in his death by stoning.
His speech is essentially a recounting of Israel's record of unfaithfulness towards God, and
being stubbornly resentful towards God's prophets, beginning with the Patriarchs. His words
are not meant to defend himself (something the accusers were expecting); they were meant to
turn the tables to accuse his accusers. The discourse is also meant to remind the members of
the Sanhedrin, as well as the angry men of the Synagogue of the Freedmen who were the
ones who dragged Stephen to the Jewish High Court and claimed that he had blasphemed
both  God  and  Moses,  that  the  history  of  the  Hebrews  is  all  about  their  rejection  of  God's
prophets  who  bring  messages  of  warning  and  chastisement  from  the  Lord,  and  then  their
bewilderment when they are oppressed by foreigners and exiled from the Promised Land. 
During  his  speech  Stephen  draws  intentional  parallels  between  Joseph,  Moses,  David  and
Yeshua. This infuriates all who were present even more. But in reality Stephen was doomed
nearly  from  the  beginning  of  his  acceptance  of  Christ  because  of  his  background  and  his
nature. Stephen was an outspoken, bold and fearless man who today we would probably label
as  a  fanatic.  He  was  also  a  Hellenist  Jew,  which  meant  that  his  first  language  was  Greek.
While this was the norm outside of Judea, in Jerusalem it was frowned upon by the Holy Land
Jews,  even  though  Greek  was  heard  everywhere  throughout  the  holy  city.  It  seems  all  but
certain that he was also a Samaritan; a people group that were despised and rejected by the
mainstream Jewish community. Now as a Believer in Yeshua as Messiah, he was part of a
small  minority  faction  within  Judaism;  one  whose  reason  for  existing  (worshipping  the
deceased  carpenter's  son  from  Nazareth  as  the  Jewish  Messiah)  was  not  accepted  as
legitimate by most of the rest of Judaism. Stephen was a pariah to Jews, to Judaism, to the
Temple and to the Synagogue, and he seemed to have gone out of his way to speak his mind
to anyone that would listen. He was about to pay the ultimate price for his uncompromising
stance on Yeshua.
Let's re-read the last half of Acts chapter 7.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 7:35 – end
Remembering that the reason for Stephen's trial is that he supposedly blasphemed Moses,
Stephen reminds his accusers that their forefathers as captives in Egypt did not want to obey
Moses even after all the miracles and signs he performed there. In fact, a few weeks after their
escape from Egypt (and their tyrannical Pharaoh) many of the Hebrews began turning their
hearts  back  towards  Egypt.  Stephen  refutes  the  charge  against  him  of  being  opposed  to
Moses by declaring that Moses was ruler and ransomer of Israel. Of course, unless Stephen
was naïve, he full well knew that the charge against him was not that he was actually against
Moses the man; it was that Stephen questioned the Traditions of the Elders (Oral Torah) that
the  Synagogue  insisted  is  what  Moses  taught.  In  Christian  terms,  Stephen  challenged  the
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
doctrines of the local church.
Stephen makes a comment in verse 37 that quotes Deuteronomy 18:15, obviously making the
point  that  Stephen's  Master  Yeshua  is  the  one  being  referenced.  Let's  read  the  entire
passage in Deuteronomy to understand Stephen's point.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19 CJB
15 "ADONAI will raise up for you a prophet like me from among yourselves, from your
own kinsmen. You are to pay attention to him,
16 just as when you were assembled at Horev and requested ADONAI your God, 'Don't
let me hear the voice of ADONAI my God any more, or let me see this great fire ever
again; if I do, I will die!'
17 On that occasion ADONAI said to me, 'They are right in what they are saying.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen. I will put my
words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I order him.
19 Whoever doesn't listen to my words, which he will speak in my name, will have to
account for himself to me.
First, Stephen is saying that this is a Messianic prophecy of Moses. Yeshua once said this
about Moses in John chapter 5:
45 "But don't think that it is I who will be your accuser before the Father. Do you know
who will accuse you? Moshe, the very one you have counted on!
46 For if you really believed Moshe, you would believe me; because it was about me that
he wrote.
47 But if you don't believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Yeshua is referring to what Stephen just quoted.
Second, Stephen is saying that Israel should be expecting this new prophet and understand
that he is going to be in the mold of Moses more than in the mold of King David (and in the
mold of King David is what Judaism generally expected, and continues to expect, the Messiah
to be). Third is that this prophet Moses speaks of will be one of their kinsmen, meaning he will
be a Hebrew. And finally, since God will raise up this prophet like Moses, and God will put His
own words into this prophet's mouth as with Moses, then those who refuse to heed him are
directly disobeying God and will be held personally liable to God for their sin.
So Stephen says that the people rejected their deliverer, Moses; and even more when Moses
went up to Mt. Sinai to receive God's Word they grew impatient for his return and so during his
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
absence began devising other ways to satisfy their longings and desires. The Israelites began
worshipping other gods, specifically making a calf god, offering a sacrifice to it, and holding a
celebration over what they had made with their own hands. The result? God turned away from
them.
Let's pause for a second and face something that no one in the modern institutional Church
wants to hear, but sadly, it is so: this description of what the Israelites did while waiting for
Moses to return is precisely what is happening to many Christians as we wait for Yeshua's
return. Moses came because God sent him, and Moses redeemed God's people. Christ came
because God sent Him, and Christ redeemed God's people. Moses ascended to the top of Mt.
Sinai, and there to be with God to receive God's Word directly from God. Christ ascended to
the true dwelling place of God, Heaven, to receive God's Word directly from God His Father.
Moses and Messiah Yeshua both promised they would return after a time of being with the
Father.
But  the  people  of  Israel  grew  restless  and  tired  of  waiting,  and  decided  that  Moses  was
perhaps  not  going  to  return,  or  had  been  indefinitely  delayed.  They  wanted  answers  and
solutions  now.  They  began  to  doubt  Moses  so  they  slipped  back  into  their  old  ways,  and
determined that their intellect and their ability to craft their own solutions with their own hands
was the right way to go. They found a willing religious leader to go along with them in Moses'
brother, Aaron. The result was that they worshipped a god who was not their god (it wasn't
even real), even though they were confident that they were worshipping their god. Christianity
during the 2000 years Christ has been gone has grown impatient. God's Word has grown old
and tired among many followers, and so Christians by the millions have slipped back into their
old ways, no longer trusting God's Mediator, Yeshua, and by association also not His Word,
the Bible. Instead some of our religious leaders have used their own intellects and agendas to
fashion new doctrines and ways made with their own hands and minds that are pleasing to
their followers.
Slowly these new doctrines have caused the Bible to be whittled down from its original. Early
on the Old Testament was severed away by the Roman Church as irrelevant to Christians;
today many denominational leaders warn that merely reading the Old Testament is dangerous
to our faith. Thus it is common practice in our time that a Bible contains no Old Testament
(especially  for  new  Believers)  only  the  New.  Inevitably  the  New  Testament  has  also  been
whittled down with the argument that really all that matters is our salvation in Christ; anything
and everything beyond that is secondary or optional.  How we live our lives after our salvation
is not that important; only that our ticket to Heaven has been validated. On this earth our only
real duty is to "love", in whatever way we choose to define love. So mostly only the Gospels
matter  along  with  perhaps  a  few  select  passages  from  Paul's  writings.  Thus  a  "Bible"  that
consists only of the Gospels is now common and is often what is handed out to new prospects
by evangelists. Imagine the message that sends to those who are seeking God.
The  result  is  that  too  many  Christians  now  worship  a  god  and  a  savior  that  bears  little
resemblance to the God and Savior of the Scriptures. Long ago I taught you that there are only
2 ways for us to know God: His name and His characteristics. When Believers no longer know,
or care to know, God's characteristics beyond love and mercy, and don't think that we have
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
any obligation to learn His Word or to obey His commandments, we are worshiping a god that
is a product of our intellects and that is just as false as the calf god that was fashioned by
human hands out in the Wilderness. That a substantial group of the Israelites bought in to the
manmade  calf  god  was  a  proof  to  themselves  that  it  must  be  right  and  true.  That  many,
perhaps a majority of Christians have bought into the newer manmade definitions of God, of
Messiah, and of His Word means to Believers that it must be right and true.
God used the smallest and least prominent of the tribes of Israel, the Levites, to rid Israel of the
calf worshipper leaders and to restore truth. God is in process today of raising up the smallest
group of Believers who long to learn His Word, to rediscover God's written truth, to reinstitute
God-ordained appointed times and worship practices, and to obey His commandments. The
history of the Israelites perfectly parallels the history of Christianity.
If you think this is not the case then consider the next Scriptural quote by Stephen, which is
taken from the Book of Amos chapter 5:25 - 27. And by the way, if you were to compare this
quote by Stephen as it is presented in Acts to what is found in Amos in the CJB, you will find
distinct differences because the CJB is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. The quote we
find coming from Stephen's mouth in this passage in Acts is taken from the Greek Septuagint.
This once again points up how the Synagogue differed from the Temple, as the vast majority of
the Synagogues were Hellenist.
So that we can all follow along, I'll re-quote exactly what Stephen is recorded to have said
in Acts 7:42 and 43:
42 So God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the stars- as has been
written in the book of the prophets, 'People of Isra'el, it was not to me that you offered
slaughtered animals and sacrifices for forty years in the wilderness!
43 No, you carried the tent of Molekh and the star of your god Reifan, the idols you made
so that you could worship them. Therefore, I will send you into exile beyond Bavel.'
This is what the prophet Amos told the Israelites was their history and their condition; to say
that Amos's listeners didn't much like what they heard is a monumental understatement. Thus
few believed what God's prophet Amos said about Israel and to Israel. Why didn't they accept
it? Their answer would have been: "When did we gather to together in the worship place of
Molekh ?" When did we worship the god Reifan ?" That is, Israel didn't feel that they were
worshipping other gods; they sincerely believed they were worshipping their god Yehoveh; but
in fact the god they worshipped was the god that they imagined. Therefore Yehoveh sent them
away from Him. The same thing is happening today in Christian places of worship around the
globe (thankfully not all, of course). So the question for Believers is: will you react as the crowd
did when Peter stood before them and indicted them for believing false doctrines of men and
rejecting the true Word of God, whereby they repented and wanted to know how to change? Or
will you react as do the Sanhedrin and the Synagogue members when Stephen indicted them,
and they hardened their hearts and minds and demanded that yet another of God's prophets,
Stephen, who brought them this Word from God be killed?
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
Starting in verse 44 Stephen's address shifts a bit to the matter of the Temple. This was yet
another  accusation  from  the  Synagogue;  that  is  that  Stephen  was  supposedly  speaking
against the Temple claiming that Yeshua would destroy it. The narrative of the Temple moves
us into the time of King David, yet another Messianic figure well recognized by all Jews. The
saga  begins  with  the  Wilderness  Tabernacle,  a  tent.  God  ordered  Moses  to  have  this  tent
made exactly after a pattern that Moses was shown. After Moses was replaced by Joshua,
Joshua had the tent brought into the land and placed at Shiloh. It remained there until King
David (not for the entire time, as it was moved to Nob leading up to David). And Stephen says
that David sought God's permission to build a Temple, a dwelling place for the Lord, but that
his son Solomon was the one who actually built it.
Stephen again points up something that the Jews did not want to hear: God did NOT ask for a
Temple, did not SEEK a Temple for Himself, and only essentially showed mercy to David by
allowing  David's  son  to  build  a  Temple  because  David  so  badly  wanted  to.  In  verse  48
Stephen  once  again  brings  up  the  issue  of  manmade  things  being  used  to  worship  God.
Stephen says that God does not live in places made by human hands. Oh my; that is NOT
what  the  Sadducees  and  Temple  authorities  believed  and  neither  did  those  from  the
Synagogue. Never mind that Stephen goes on to quote the truth of Holy Scripture from Isaiah
66:1 and 2:
CJB  Isaiah  66:1  "Heaven  is  my  throne,"  says  ADONAI,  "and  the  earth  is  my  footstool.
What kind of house could you build for me? What sort of place could you devise for my
rest?
2 Didn't I myself make all these things? 
God  well  knows  the  way  humans  are  wired.  If  you  erect  a  Temple  or  a  Shrine,  it  will  often
become  more  important  than  the  one  in  whose  honor  it  was  built.  We  love  to  build  grand
religious edifices because they make US proud! We seriously think we are doing something for
God when we construct monumental showplaces and call them holy sanctuaries. How often
I've heard Pastors and Elders at church building meetings speak about the need to spend big
and make things especially beautiful because we want to give to God our best. But the "best"
that God wants from his worshippers is the best of the fruits of the spiritual gifts He has given
to  us  to  use  to  benefit  others  and  God's  Kingdom;  not  the  best  most  lavish  buildings  that
money can buy.
So often we unconsciously think that God is more present in a Church or synagogue building
than anywhere else; and the more grand a building is the more present He is. But as is pointed
out again and again in Holy Scripture, nothing made with human hands is perfect enough for
God to entice Him to dwell there, and neither can humans ever build a structure that contains
God.  Even  when  it  comes  to  sacrificial  altars  God  doesn't  want  anything  fancy,  because
humans not only cannot perfect that which God has already created, all we can do is to defile
what  He  has  already  made  when  we  try  to  modify  it  and  make  it  better  according  to  our
standards. Very early on in God's Torah commandments He speaks of this principle.
Exodus 20:21-22 CJB
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
21  For  me  you  need  make  only  an  altar  of  earth;  on  it  you  will  sacrifice  your  burnt
offerings,  peace  offerings,  sheep,  goats  and  cattle.  In  every  place  where  I  cause  my
name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you.
22 If you do make me an altar of stone, you are not to build it of cut stones; for if you use
a tool on it, you profane it.
The stones as found lying around on the ground are more preferable to the Lord than cutting,
polishing,  ornamenting  and  *  them  together  to  make  a  beautiful  altar.  Why?  Because
God's creation is perfect just the way it is. Our attempts to enhance these things, and then use
them to honor God, are in vain. So Stephen's point is that the Temple building is held in much
too high of regard. It is not something that God wanted in the first place; it is merely something
that He allowed for the sake of King David and Solomon and for Israel.  But His allowing it
came  with  cautionary  warnings  as  we  just  read  in  Exodus.  Nonetheless,  Solomon  built  a
Temple  so  grand  and  so  lavish  and  expensive  that  foreigners  traveled  to  Jerusalem  just  to
view it. And who do you suppose got the praise for that Temple? Solomon! Which is exactly
what he hoped for.
So  the  Temple  had  taken  up  a  life  all  its  own.  The  building  was  what  mattered  to  the
Priesthood, the Sadducees, and to most Jews. It was a national symbol and a point of pride.
What went on in that building was secondary. In fact, we need to remember that the only place
in the Temple that God's presence ever showed up was above the Ark of the Covenant. Well,
ever since the destruction of the Temple and the exile to Babylon the Ark had gone missing.
When Nehemiah and Ezra built the new Temple, there was no Ark of the Covenant in the Holy
of  Holies;  and  it  remained  empty  right  up  through  the  time  of  Christ  and  until  the  Temple's
prophesied destruction by the Romans in 70 A.D. That's right: the Temple had not held the
Ark  of  the  Covenant,  and  presumably  God's  presence  had  not  been  there,  since  the
Babylonian exile and subsequent return.
So  Stephen  is  telling  them  that  the  magnificent  Temple  wasn't  God's  idea,  it  was  a  human
idea. But King David didn't care; he wanted a Temple for his God just like the other kings had
Temples for their gods. And then as Stephen's speech builds to its crescendo, he let's them
have it with both barrels. 'You stiff necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You
oppose the Holy Spirit. You do the same things your wicked fathers did.'
But as bold and offensive as all that was, Stephen then goes all in; 'your fathers killed those
who  told  in  advance  about  the  coming  of  the  Righteous  One  (the  Tzaddik,  meaning  the
Messiah), but YOU were the ones who actually murdered the prophesied Righteous One when
he  arrived!  Yet  you  claim  to  be  the  ones  who  receive  the  Torah  but  you  don't  keep  it'.
Stephen's life was over. He had bashed the Synagogue and the Temple authorities and they
weren't about to take this humiliation lying down.
Most of what Stephen said doesn't need any explanation; however notice he says that "you
claim to be the ones who received the Torah". Obviously it was Moses who received the Torah
1300 years earlier and not these people he was talking to.  No; as we have discussed Stephen
was  using  standard  Synagogue  language  and  thought  processes  when  he  uses  the  word
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
"Torah".  The  religious  leaders  (Rabbis)  of  the  Synagogue  were  said  to  be  "receiving  the
Torah", but what they and Stephen were referring to was Oral Torah, Traditions of the Elders,
which they saw as divine and on par with the original Torah of Moses as given on Mt. Sinai.
Stephen's  words  demonstrate  the  lack  of  distinction  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  in  that  day
between  manmade  doctrines  versus  the  God-made  Torah  of  Moses:  Genesis  through
Deuteronomy.  We  have  precisely  the  same  condition  among  so  many  Believers  today  in
Christianity,  and  much  of  Messianic  Judaism.  It  can  be  difficult  to  untangle  long  held  and
cherished doctrines, customs and traditions from the actual Word of God. And attempting to do
so, and speaking about it, often brings great anger and dissention. That is why there weren't
very  many  prophets  of  God  that  we  hear  of  in  the  Bible,  and  it's  also  why  their  lives  were
rarely pleasant. Humans of all ages and eras want to hear what we want to hear; and want to
believe what makes us comfortable. Only sometimes are God's Believers on an actual search
for the truth; most of the time we search to find a leader or congregation that will validate what
we have predetermined that we prefer to believe.
Starting  at  verse  54,  we  see  Stephen's  demise.  Grinding  or  gnashing  of  teeth  is  a  Biblical
idiom that speaks of deep upset, anxiety or frustration and we are told that this is the emotional
condition of those who heard Stephen's speech; they couldn't stand to hear one more word.
With Stephen now knowing for certain that he had but minutes to live, the Lord gives Stephen
a peace that passes understanding. And God does this by filling Stephen with His Spirit such
that Stephen's face radiates and he is given a glimpse into Heaven whereby He sees Christ
standing at the right hand of God. While Stephen's statement is reminiscent of Psalm 110:1
and  Daniel  7:13,  it  doesn't  precisely  mirror  either  one.  Yet,  it  is  clear  to  me  that  Stephen's
purpose is not to necessarily directly quote Scripture but rather to describe what he saw as a
fulfillment of those 2 Scripture passages. And since Son of Man was a well-known epithet that
Yeshua  liked  to  call  Himself,  there  was  no  further  room  for  doubt  among  those  present:
Stephen was claiming that Yeshua was in Heaven with God. No segment of Judaism at this
time, other than for Yeshua's followers, believed that a human being (including Jews), even in
spirit,  could  ascend  to  Heaven  and  be  in  God's  presence.  This  went  against  all  Jewish
doctrines.
This was the final straw; all restraint vanished. Verses 57 and 58 briefly describe the stoning of
Stephen.  Since  stoning  has  proved  to  be  the  standard  form  of  execution  used  among  the
Hebrews  all  during  the  Biblical  period,  let's  explore  it  a  bit  to  understand  it  better.  The  Old
Testament gives us 18 cases in which capital punishment is called for; among these are for
immoral  sexual  behaviors,  blasphemy,  incest,  profaning  the  Shabbat,  murder  and  idolatry.
When we read that Stephen was rushed outside the city to be stoned, it reflects the laws about
stoning  and  executions  in  general.  In  the  Mishna,  section  Sanhedrin  part  6,  is  the  detailed
information about stoning. Now while the Mishna was admittedly not created until around 170
years after Stephen's stoning, there is ample evidence to suggest that these same rules we're
about to hear applied during the New Testament era. I'll quote just a few parts of this Mishnah
so that we learn how this procedure took place.
"When sentence of stoning has been passed they take him forth to stone him. The place
of stoning was outside, far away from the court, as it is written bring forth him that hath
cursed without the camp (Lev. 24:14).  One man stands at the court (the Sanhedrin) with
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
a towel in his hand, and another is mounted on a horse.......near enough to see him. If one
in the court said, 'I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal', that man waves
the towel and the horse runs and stops him from being stoned.................. The place of
stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses knocked him down.....if he
died that sufficed......if not a second witness took a stone and dropped it on his heart .....if
he died that sufficed. If not, he was stoned by all Israel, for it is written the hand of the
witness shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterward the hand of all the
people (Deut. 17:7)."
So the idea is that first the condemned is to stand at an elevated place, and then is pushed off
that  place  by  one  witness  such  that  hopefully  he  lands  on  his  head  and  dies.  If  he  is  only
injured and not dead, then a second witness must take a large heavy stone and throw it down
on his chest with the idea that it would break some ribs and make him unable to breathe. If that
doesn't do the trick, then everyone else in attendance of the stoning must cast stones at him
until he dies. Pretty brutal. Witnesses are those who make the accusations at the trial, and give
testimony against the accused. In our case, we are directly told that the witnesses were false;
they were liars. Thus by causing the unjust death of an innocent person, the Law was that false
witnesses were now murderers and themselves subject to capital punishment, which included
permanent separation from God.
Our verse says that the crowd rushed Stephen outside the city; this complied with Torah Law
that neither execution nor burial could occur "inside the camp" (in this case the city limits of
Jerusalem) because death causes ritual impurity.  So we have here an authentic account of
stoning accomplished according to the Law.
But  here  we  are  also  first  introduced  to  Sha'ul,  Paul,  with  but  a  slight  mention.  Most  Bible
versions  say  that  the  witnesses  (the  executioners)  laid  down  their  coats  at  Paul's  feet.  It  is
hard to be certain, but it appears that Paul is playing some kind of official role at the execution
(possibly  as  an  officer  for  the  Sanhedrin),  and  he  was  not  merely  a  random  or  convenient
person to hold and guard the outer garments of those doing the stoning. In Acts 22:19 and 20
Paul admits his participation in this event.
Let's be clear; some Bible commentators try to make this an illegal execution. That is not true.
We are specifically told in Acts 6:15 that everyone in the Sanhedrin was present as they saw
the glow in Stephen's face as he made his case. So while perhaps not every i was dotted or t
crossed from a technical legal standpoint, this execution was legal and fully sanctioned by the
Jewish High Court with the High Priest Caiaphas officiating. It was by no means a citizens'
lynching.
Chapter 7 concludes with Stephen shouting almost the same words as Christ did as he was
nearing  death:  "Lord  forgive  them  for  they  know  not  what  they  do".  But  before  that  he
commends his spirit to Yeshua as the rocks pelted him knocking him into unconsciousness.
We  are  told  not  that  he  died,  but  that  he  fell  asleep.  While  saying  "fell  asleep"  to  describe
one's death is not unusual in the Bible, it is always used in the death of a righteous person. It
is my personal conviction that the reason "fell asleep" is used instead of "died" is a view to
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
the possibility of resurrection.
Let's close with this wonderful hope that is available for all who trust in Messiah Yeshua, taken
from 1st Corinthians.
1Corinthians 15:51-58 
51 Look, I will tell you a secret- not all of us will sleep! But we will all be changed!
52 It will take but a moment, the blink of an eye, at the final shofar. For the shofar will
sound, and the dead will be raised to live forever, and we too will be changed.
53 For this material which can decay must be clothed with imperishability, this which is
mortal must be clothed with immortality.
54 When what decays puts on imperishability and what is mortal puts on immortality,
then this passage in the Tanakh will be fulfilled: "Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 "Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?"
56 The sting of death is sin; and sin draws its power from the Torah;
57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Yeshua the Messiah!
58 So, my dear brothers, stand firm and immovable, always doing the Lord's work as
vigorously as you can, knowing that united with the Lord your efforts are not in vain.
Death  is  final  for  the  unsaved;  but  death  more  resembles  a  peaceful  "sleeping"  for  the
redeemed in Messiah. Death is its own end for the non-Believer; sleeping is temporary with an
awaking when it is over. Stephen, indeed, merely went to sleep.
We'll begin Acts chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 19, Chapter 8
We have a wide variety of issues that are going to come up today in Acts chapter 8 that I think
you'll  find  interesting.  Last  week  we  concluded  Acts  chapter  7  with  the  stoning  death  of
Stephen,  the  first  disciple  of  Christ  to  die  as  a  martyr.  Sadly,  like  his  master  Yeshua,
Stephen's  death  was  at  the  urging  of  his  own  people,  the  Jews.  And  as  with  Yeshua,  the
underlying  issue  that  brought-on  Stephen's  execution  was  one  of  a  fierce  disagreement
over halakhah; Jewish law. To be clear, the particular halachic issue in question had to do
with Yeshua's declaration as being the Messiah, something that only a small minority of Jews
at that time accepted. But it also serves to highlight just how sensitive was the issue of Biblical
interpretation, Oral Torah, such that too much disagreement could literally lead to loss of life.
We've  had  some  in-depth  discussions  about  the  Synagogue,  and  about  Oral  Torah  also
known  as  Tradition.  And  that  Oral  Torah  was  but  interpretations  of  the  Torah  of  Moses;
however  then,  as  now,  the  interpretations  as  given  by  revered  Rabbis  and  especially  when
eventually  written  down  into  the  Mishnah  and  Talmud,  are  considered  as  divine  as  is  the
original Torah given on Mt. Sinai. So now let's learn another term: halakhah. Usually it is said
that this word means Jewish Law; and Jewish Law is referring not to the Bible but rather to
rulings  made  by  Rabbis.  However  we  need  to  nuance  that  just  a  bit  so  as  to  properly
understand what is in the minds of the Rabbis and lay Jews when that term is employed.
Halakhah more literally and appropriately means, "The path that one walks".  Certain rulings
and laws define that uniquely Jewish path and set down boundaries. The word halakhah is
derived from the Hebrew root word heh-lamed-kaf, which means to walk, or to travel or to go.
Thus halakhah represents the overall legal code of conduct that Jews are supposed to live by.
If you were to ask a Rabbi where the laws of halakhah come from he would tell you that they
come from three sources: the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah, and long held customs some of
which are so old and obscure that no one really knows when they started or why they were
begun.  However,  as  I  have  taught  you  over  the  last  several  weeks,  from  the  Jewish
perspective, you cannot stick a sheet of paper in between the Torah of Moses and Oral Torah
(Traditions),   because   they   are   seen   as   essentially   one   in   the   same   substance.   Now
academically (which is how I am speaking at the moment) a Jewish scholar would parse his
words and agree that from a technical viewpoint the Torah of Moses is indeed a different and
older document than the Talmud. And customs aren't quite the same things as the Torah of
Moses or even the Bible interpretations that have become lawful Traditions. But in practice,
and in weight, the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah and customs are all seen as generally equally
valid and authoritative.
But  even  more  difficult  to  grasp,  especially  for  gentile  Christians  and  students  of  the  New
Testament, the terms used for these 3 sources of halakhah (the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah,
and  customs)  are  commonly  used  by  Jews  interchangeably.  And  we  will  find  that  Paul,
especially,   in   his   epistles   will   often   use   terms   like   law   and   customs   and   traditions
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
interchangeably. Why? Because that was merely the everyday mindset and the common way
of speaking among Jews in New Testament times. Thus depending on his audience and his
purpose,  Paul  (who  was  himself  a  scholar)  would  use  these  Jewish  terms  as  commonly
spoken  among  ordinary  Jews  in  casual  conversation,  or  he  might  get  more  technical  and
nuanced as he dealt with the deeper matters of Scriptural truth.
So as we go forward just understand that what halakhah means to the Jewish world is the
overall body of laws that governs Jewish life. And these laws are set down almost exclusively
by  Rabbis,  hence  the  nickname  rabbinical  law  or  Jewish  law.  Thus  when  a  Jew  speaks  of
halakhah, rabbinical law or Jewish law, these all mean the same thing. And as we reach the
time of Yeshua, halakhah consisted mostly of the rapidly developing Traditions (Oral Torah) of
the Synagogue leaders. Be aware however that not all Rabbis and Synagogues believed in the
same Bible interpretations; they didn't all go by some universally accepted halakhah. Part of
the reason that there were so many Synagogues located in Jerusalem is because so many
different Rabbis taught their own interpretations as superior to any other. It is no different than
in Christianity whereby we can all say that we are Christians, yet at the same time we have
several thousand denominations none of which agree with the others on all points of Biblical
interpretation.  And  the  disagreements  are  often  perceived  as  being  strong  enough  that  we
don't  believe  we  can  worship  together  comfortably.  Thus  Christianity  finds  it  necessary  to
divide ourselves into many denominations and churches. This is essentially what Jewish life
and religion was like at the time of Christ.
One more associated Jewish term and we'll move on. In Hebrew the word for commandment
is  mitzvah  (mitzvot  is  plural).  So  in  the  Torah  we  find  that  as  Moses  is  receiving  God's
instructions on Mt. Sinai, the rules he is receiving are called mitzvot: commandments. Thus in
halakhah, individual rulings and instructions of the Talmud (the written rulings of the Rabbis)
are also called mitzvot because in Judaism they generally carry the same weight as do the
commandments given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And, it has become so in Judaism and
Christianity  that  the  English  words  law  and  commandment  have  become  synonymous  and
interchangeable;  a law is a commandment and a commandment is a law. So today when a
Jew speaks of mitzvot he's not so much thinking of Mt. Sinai, rather he's thinking about the
many rulings and laws of the Rabbis. However just to confuse things a little more, the word
mitzvah can mean something else; it can mean doing a good deed or an act of kindness. I'm
sorry to tell you that even this gets nuanced to another level; but I'm also happy to tell you that
we won't go there today!
Our little walk down an avenue of everyday basic terms used in Judaism is for one purpose; to
help you understand the substance of Judaism and the Synagogue as it was in Christ's era
and in the era of the Apostles. These terms and their meanings that have your heads spinning
right now were as well understood for them, as how to turn a water faucet on and off is for us
today. The Jewish people, and the Jewish writers of the New Testament, didn't have to think
deeply as they used and communicated these terms; the context of the conversation dictated
exactly how to understand their meaning. It was instinctive, automatic, easy. At the same time,
the NT era Jews also weren't speaking or thinking in terms of explaining Judaism and Messiah
to gentiles whether contemporary to them, or from decades to hundreds of years later. It is our
problem and our task as modern day Believers to dig and research and find out what these
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
terms meant to those Jews who wrote them. Of course the easy way out (a truly false way) is
to declare a Christian doctrine that says that Scripture is so mystical that whatever it means to
whomever reads it, in whatever culture or language, in whatever period of history we might
live, is what it means; no context is necessary. So we are told not to worry about what the
writers  intended.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Christianity  has  become  a  disjointed  armada  of
rudderless ships aimlessly wandering on a stormy sea, having lost its direction, purpose, and
first love. Let's keep moving forward in the hope that we can help to right that ship and get
back into God's will for His worshippers.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 8.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 8 all
Luke minces no words about his personal friend Paul. He says in verse 1 that Paul was in full
agreement with the execution of Stephen. Different Bible versions will use different terms to
characterize Stephen's execution: killing, death, or even murder. The Greek word that is being
translated is anaireses; it means to destroy, kill or murder. This Greek term is meant to denote
an unjustifiable death or the destruction of something that is undesirable. So while Stephen's
execution was indeed legally sanctioned by the Jewish High Court, none the less Luke makes
it clear that this death was not justifiable; it never should have happened. As we learned in
Acts 7, it took false witnesses making up false accusations to get Stephen condemned. But
even  if  the  charges  had  been  true,  to  raise  his  "crime"  to  the  level  of  blasphemy  of  God,
thereby giving cause for capital punishment, is itself dishonest and unjustifiable.
Verse 1 continues that the execution of Stephen opened the floodgates of persecution upon
the Believers living in Jerusalem. The result was that most of the Believers fled Jerusalem,
however  the  12  disciples  remained  behind.  I  want  to  address  the  sensitive  issue  of
characterizing and labeling the believing community in Jerusalem. Almost all Bibles will say
something like: "And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in
Jerusalem".  The word I want to focus on is church. The Greek that is being translated is
ecclesia;  it  is  a  rather  generic  word  that  means  an  assembly.  It  can  denote  any  kind  of
assembly. In our case this is, of course, an assembly of believers in Yeshua. So what's the
problem  with  using  the  term  "church"?  First,  I  think  that  David  Stern's  translation  of
"Messianic  community"  far  more  appropriately  characterizes  the  assembly.  These  were
exclusively  Jewish  Believers  who  were  being  persecuted.  Second,  the  term  "church"  is
anachronistic; that is, no such thought of the word "church" as referring to a unique religious
system based on Jesus Christ would exist for hundreds of years. So inserting the word church
is to read backward into the holy text something that didn't exist in that era.
Church  was  originally  a  Latin  word  that  meant  assembly.  So  as  with  the  Greek  ecclesia  it
could apply to most any kind of assembly for any purpose. Later the term "Church" was co-
opted and became by default a term for the members of a new Rome-based, gentile religion
that  worshipped  Jesus.  This  targeted  use  of  the  term  church  developed  only  after  gentiles
wrested control of the Yeshua movement away from the Jews, and after it became centered in
Rome, and after it became a thoroughly gentile religious institution. So, to call the initial group
of Jewish Believers in Jerusalem the church is paint an intellectually dishonest picture, and
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
frankly is an insult to the memory of those first Jews whose persecution for their belief in Christ
we  are  now  reading  about.  The  reality  is  that  this  was  about  one  sect  of  Judaism  being
opposed and bullied by other sects of Judaism.
It was important that despite the bulk of the Believers leaving Jerusalem to avoid persecution
(in  whatever  form  it  was  taking)  that  we  find  the  12  disciples  remaining  there,  because  it
permitted the core leadership of the Believing community to hang on to its position of authority,
and thus to keep the movement alive and retaining an official direction.
So it is with the backdrop of suspicion, danger and persecution that we find some courageous
Believers nevertheless stepping forward to claim Stephen's body to give him a proper burial,
and then to go through the customary Jewish mourning rites to honor him. There is little doubt
that  the  reason  the  local  Believers  performed  his  funeral  is  because  Stephen  had  no
immediate  family  show  up  to  do  the  sad  task.  Whether  they  stayed  away  out  of  fear,  or
because they saw Stephen as a traitor, or there just wasn't any family nearby we don't know.
However  it  is  the  duty  of  immediate  family  to  deal  with  the  death  of  a  loved  one.  Even  so,
Jewish tradition is that a corpse has to be buried by sunset; so word couldn't have yet reached
Stephen's family up in Samaria, assuming he had family there.
Verse 3 contrasts the caring nature of the 12 disciples to properly bury their brother in the faith,
Stephen, to the cruel Paul who hunted down frightened Believers in their own homes, taking
them into custody. I again remind you; these Believers who were being pursued had committed
no   crime.   The   issue   was   over   halakhah;   the   Messianic   sect   followed   different   Bible
interpretations (ones taught to them by Yeshua) than the other sects of Judaism did. And the
main point of disagreement was the same one that exists to this day: who is the Messiah? The
description of Paul's actions is further proof that Paul was operating in some kind of an official
capacity  for  the  Sanhedrin.  Certainly  any  arrest  would  have  been  by  court  order;  a  private
citizen  couldn't  just  go  out  and  arrest  people  as  they  saw  fit.  And  equally  as  certain  the
Romans wouldn't have had any involvement as this was strictly a Jewish religious matter; no
breach of Roman law had occurred and there was no threat to Roman sovereignty from the
Believers.
Do not get the idea that this persecution of Believers was the first or only violent in-fighting
between  factions  of  Judaism  that  occurred  over  matters  of  halakhah.  One  of  the  most
infamous incidents of struggles among Jewish factions occurred between two of the greatest
rabbinical  academies  in  the  Holy  Land;  that  of  Hillel  and  the  other  of  Shammai.  They  were
rivals and each taught a halakhah that differed from the other in some important ways.  Just
before the Jewish revolt that led to the Roman destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70
A.D.,  an  intense  confrontation  arose  between  adherents  to  these  two  schools  of  Jewish
thought  over  the  matter  of  a  proposal  called  the  Decree  of  Eighteen  Things.  This  was  a
proposal that would establish several important rabbinical rulings that affected some sensitive
issues  of  halakhah.  The  disagreement  over  its  contents  (and  we  don't  know  what,  exactly,
was  in  that  document)  was  so  severe  that  a  number  of  disciples  of  the  school  of  Hillel
murdered  a  significant  number  of  disciples  of  the  school  of  Shammai  in  order  to  stop  the
proposal from going to a vote. 
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
As are so many things with God, the result of this persecution of Believers produces the
opposite results from what man intended. Those Believers who were chased out of Jerusalem
didn't  go  into  hiding;  they  merely  went  elsewhere  and  began  to  spread  the  Good  News  of
Yeshua.  Let's  be  clear;  for  the  moment,  the  persecution  was  limited  to  Jerusalem.  So  the
Believers fled to other villages and towns in Judea, Galilee, and even to Samaria as we hear
with the story of the Believer Phillip.
Verse 5 says that Phillip went to a city in Shomron; Shomron being Hebrew for Samaria. This
Phillip is not the Phillip of the original 12 disciples; rather he is the Hellenist Believer Phillip who
was one of the 7 men chosen to deal with the food distribution to the widows. We know this by
deduction  since  verse  1  explains  that  the  emissaries  (meaning  the  12  disciples)  stayed  in
Jerusalem while the others fled. This means that Phillip was a Greek speaker, and Greek was
a language commonly spoken in Samaria. No doubt Phillip knew some Hebrew and Aramaic
as well, so he was a good candidate to go to Samaria and preach the Gospel.
Phillip's  destination  also  shows  that  the  Believers  had  adopted  their  Master  Yeshua's  view
that the Samaritans were just as worthy as others to be told of the Good News, despite the fact
that Samaritans were considered unclean and traitors to Judaism. Nevertheless Phillip in the
power of God healed and drove out unclean spirits in Yeshua's name, and this caused the
Samaritans to listen to what he had to say. Remember: the Samaritans were not considered
Jews. In fact, exactly what they were is not easy for us to define, and neither was it for people
of that era. There was a thread of Jewishness, but an equally large thread of gentile-ness in
Samaria's  population.  So  in  the  eyes  of  Judaism,  Samaritans  were  an  unclean  mixture,  an
ungodly hybrid. They weren't quite Jews, and they weren't quite gentiles.
The Samaritans created a huge problem theologically for the Rabbis that would continue on for
centuries, such that the Talmud devotes an entire section on how to deal with them; it is called
Tractate Kutim. Kutim are what the Jews called the Samaritans, and this was because the city
of Kutah was where many foreign immigrants were brought in by the Assyrians to repopulate
the land. What is interesting is that in Tractate Kutim while the Rabbis say that Samaritans are
to  be  excluded  from  the  Jewish  community  because  "they  have  become  mixed  up  with  the
priests  of  high  places",  that  in  fact  they  can  re-join  the  Jewish  community  if  "they  have
renounced Mt. Gerizim and acknowledged Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead". So
what we see is that the issue for the Rabbis about the Samaritans had far less to do with them
being  a  mixed  genealogy  of  Hebrews  and  gentiles,  but  rather  that  the  Samaritans  didn't
practice any  kind of accepted, traditional Judaism. They practiced a religion based on their
own version of the Torah of Moses, yet they didn't believe in the Prophets of Israel. But even
without accepting the Old Testament Prophets, the Samaritans were still expecting a Messiah
largely  because  of  Moses  saying  that  in  time  a  "prophet  like  me"  would  arise.  I  think  it  a
reasonable assumption that Moses' statement would have been the basis of the approach that
Phillip took in delivering the Good News to the Samaritans since while they revered Moses,
any talk about fulfilling the Prophets of the Bible (something they didn't accept so they weren't
familiar with them) would have ended the conversation.
Phillip's approach to true evangelism is a great application lesson for all modern day Believers
to  consider.  When  we  are  speaking  to  non-Believers  about  Christ  it  is  important  that  we
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
approach them on their terms and in the context of what they understand and are capable of
hearing and absorbing. We find Paul doing exactly this on more than one occasion. This is why
the more typical Western Evangelical Christian approach of presenting the Romans Road or
other such Gospel formulas as found on Tracts to explain one's need for redemption is only
useful if the un-Believer has spent some time in church and is at least a little familiar with the
concepts  and  the  lingo.  Non-churched  people  cannot  make  heads  or  tails  out  of  such
information or of the terms we commonly use. And neither of course can Jews nor people of
other religious backgrounds.
As a result of his approach Phillip had marvelous success in Samaria as we're told in verse 12
that many were immersed, both men and women. Phillip's success and the amazing signs and
wonders that he performed caught the eye of a well known local magician named Shimon; or
in  English,  Simon.  In  fact  we  are  told  that  Simon  became  a  Believer  and  that  after  he  was
baptized, he clung closely to Phillip. No doubt to Simon, a practitioner of the magic arts, what
Phillip did made him feel like Phillip was a comrade in the profession and he wanted to learn
from him how to do these signs and miracles that Shimon hadn't been able to.
It makes sense that Simon would practice his occupation in Samaria where every sort of belief
was  tolerated.  This  man  fascinated  especially  the  early  Church  Fathers,  and  there  arose
among them for centuries great debates over whether Simon was actually saved, or if he was
merely an imposter. Justin Martyr who lived only a couple of generations removed from the
New Testament era wrote about Simon, calling him Simon Magus (Simon the Magician), and
says that Simon was from the Samarian city of Gitta, but later he moved to Rome. In fact, the
Gnostic sect of Christianity claims Simon as a kind of Gnostic Church Father. There is a hint of
Gnosticism where we see in verse 10 that Simon called himself The Great Power of God; this
terminology fits nicely with Gnostic philosophy.
Now  things  start  to  get  quite  theologically  dicey  for  us.  And  I  need  you  to  be  open  minded
about what I'm about to say to you as the association between salvation, baptism, and the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit varies greatly among Christian denominations and is among the
most sensitive issues that causes much divisiveness in the Church. Verse 14 tells us that the
12 disciples in Jerusalem heard about what was happening in Samaria as a result of Phillip's
work  and  so  Peter  and  John  went  to  Samaria  to  see  for  themselves;  no  doubt  they  were
skeptical considering the frayed Jewish relationship with these unclean half-breeds. But even
more, the passage in verse 15 explains that ONLY when Peter and John came and prayed for
those who had been immersed, did they receive the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. So; are
we to take from this verse that the acts of coming to faith in Christ, and then being immersed in
His Name, are completely separate from the issue of being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which
seems to be the case here? I researched a wide variety of Bible translations and even some
ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts; and they all come out the same. So there is no
error and no disagreement over the plain meaning that these new Samaritan Believers, already
baptized, had not yet received the Holy Spirit and didn't until Peter and John came to give it to
them.
This issue is important for us so I want to take a moment to re-read this short passage; please
follow along with me in your Bibles.
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
Acts 8:14-17 CJB 
14 When the emissaries in Yerushalayim heard that Shomron had received the Word of
God, they sent them Kefa and Yochanan,
15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Ruach HaKodesh.
16 For until then he had not come upon any of them; they had only been immersed into
the name of the Lord Yeshua.
17 Then, as Kefa and Yochanan placed their hands on them, they received the Ruach
HaKodesh.
It was only when Peter and John laid their hands on these already baptized Believers that they
received the Holy Spirit. Notice that there is no suggestion that Phillip's baptism of them was
inferior or defective or premature (that is, that perhaps they didn't quite believe just yet). There
is  no  hint  that  Peter  and  John  even  preached  to  the  Samaritan  Believers  to  clear  up  any
theological misconceptions that Phillip might have accidentally created. Further we usually find
in the New Testament that once a disciple preached the Good News, and a person came to
faith  in  Yeshua,  if  there  was  water  suitable  for  immersion  nearby,  baptism  was  generally
immediate.  And,  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  faith  in  Messiah  is  also  usually
immediate as evidenced in Acts chapter 10. So it seems reasonable to say that what we see
here  as  regards  the  Holy  Spirit  coming  later,  and  by  means  of  human  intervention,  is  an
exception to the rule (if there even is a rule).
Let me add to this by saying that in Paul's case of his coming to faith in Yeshua in Acts 9, it
seems that the Holy Spirit fell on him after he believed but BEFORE he was baptized. So what
are we to take from all this? Most Evangelical Christian denominations say that the sequence
is that instantly upon belief, the Holy Spirit indwells and then baptism comes after (sooner or
later), but strictly as symbolic. Most Pentecostal Christian denominations say that, like here in
Acts 8, baptism in water is a separate event from baptism of the Holy Spirit. So a person can
be saved, and immersed in the Name of Yeshua, but still not have the power of the Holy Spirit
in  them.  I'm  not  here  to  dispute  any  of  this  except  to  say  that  clearly  the  New  Testament
shows that God does NOT seem to have a rigid formula about the sequence of coming to faith,
baptism,   and   receiving   the   Holy   Spirit.   We   see   it   happen   differently   under   different
circumstances.  And  if  God  doesn't  have  a  rigid  doctrine  about  the  sequence  then  neither
should  we  adopt  a  rigid  doctrine  about  the  exact  sequence,  nor  should  we  question
someone's  faith  as  insincere  or  incomplete  because  they  didn't  go  through  the  same
sequence that we did or that our religious leadership says they should.
Since we are temporal creatures (that is we're earthbound and controlled by time and space),
then we have little choice on earth and in practice but to devise some sequence or another for
ceremonial  matters.  That  is,  we  have  to  have  some  order  of  doing  things  or  everything  is
random and chaotic. Yet we also don't have to demand that our way is God's way and that
there is no other way. Thus here at SOAM for instance, we expect a person to come to faith,
and then to approach our Elder to request immersion. The Elder then contacts that person,
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
asks them to pronounce their faith to him, and discusses the meaning of water immersion with
them.  Once  these  important  preliminaries  are  completed  only  then  will  a  SOAM  pastor
immerse that person in Living Water. While standing in the water the baptismal candidate is to
publically  profess  his/her  trust  in  Messiah  Yeshua  to  witnesses  and  to  acknowledge  their
undying love and allegiance to Him. This sequence is not accomplished in the belief that what
we do is the only possible God-authorized baptism protocol, but rather as a logical, practical
approach that seems to meet all Biblical criteria.
But now a big question looms before us: were the Samaritans really saved? And how about
Simon  Magus?  After  all  we  see  him  being  strongly  rebuked  by  Peter  in  the  next  couple  of
verses. Many Christian leaders and commentators insist that what Peter did was to essentially
excommunicate Shimon; so perhaps he was a Believer for a few days, but no longer. Others
say that Simon is so superficial in his belief that he could not possibly have been genuine at
any point.
Verse 18 begins by Simon observing that the Holy Spirit came when Peter and John laid hands
on  these  Samaritan  Believers.  Apparently  there  was  something  visible  and  tangible  that
occurred  that  impressed  Simon;  but  we  don't  know  what  it  was  and  I'm  not  about  to
speculate. However afterward Simon gets excited and he wants to have this same spectacular
power that Peter and John possess. After all, he was a revered magician and was used to
wielding supernatural power. So he offered to give money to purchase this ability. Peter bluntly
tells Simon that this is not a power that can be purchased; rather if he ever obtains it, it will
come as a free gift from God. Peter continues that Shimon will have no part in this matter and
that he needs to repent of his wrong attitude and pray for forgiveness.
From this incident there is much doubt in some quarters of Christianity if Simon was actually
ever saved. My view is that from the information we are given, the Samaritans were indeed
saved and so was Shimon saved and remained so even after Peter's strong rebuke. Verse 13
says  straightaway:  "Moreover,  Simon  himself  came  to  believe".  Look;  Simon  was  reacting
according to everything he knew from his past. It takes time to unlearn wrong things, and to
drop bad habits. Simon had no previous training in the Torah, or even in Traditions, like any
ordinary Jew had received because he wasn't a Jew!  Everything was new to him. Only a few
days earlier he was a proud pagan Sorcerer; how could he be expected to understand the finer
points of his faith and of God's Word so quickly?
As  for  Simon,  nowhere  do  we  see  anything  but  a  repentant  response  from  him  after  Peter
chastised him. No arguing, debating, or denial. And we also never hear of Simon renouncing
his relationship with the Lord. Simon was saved. What may have happened at a later date,
outside of any Biblical information, I can't say.
But my own personal experience with the Lord has taught me something valuable. Being a
Believer is an ongoing process that involves a never ending renewal of our minds. Paul calls
this process being perfected; not achieving perfection. So don't be discouraged if you aren't
moving along in your journey with Christ as quickly or smoothly as you hoped. At the same
time, don't expect God to do all the work. You must make a sincere effort to learn and mature,
and when you err be open to being chastised by God at times, just like Simon was. None of
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
this indicates that God has abandoned you nor that you don't have a relationship with Him.
We should not think this of ourselves, nor should we think it of anyone who insists that they are
worshippers of Christ but sure don't seem to act like it sometimes.
In today's world of anything goes, pleasure at any cost, gender confusion, sexual freedom with
a  lack  of  boundaries,  insatiable  hunger  for  wealth,  self-centeredness  and  entitlement,  and
other  non-Biblical  lifestyles,  we  need  to  expect  that  new  Believers  who  come  from  this
background aren't going to instantly behave in a Godly manner the moment they come to faith
in  Messiah.  We  have  an  entire  world  full  of  Samaritans  and  Simons.  They  can  only  be  as
sincere in their new faith as they know how to be. They need training in God's Word and they
need discipling and encouragement in their everyday lives, and it will likely be needed for years
to come. Perhaps you can be that person who comes alongside to guide and to mentor.
We'll finish up Acts chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 20, Chapters 8 and 9
In many ways Acts chapter 8 is a significant pivot point. Up to now all the activity concerning
the knowledge and spreading of the Good News of the Gospel has taken place in the city of
Jerusalem, has been strictly among Jews, and the focus of events has revolved around the
works of the 12 Disciples. But the sudden, horrific and unjust stoning to death of the Believer
Stephen (given full legal sanction by the Sanhedrin as overseen by the High Priest Caiaphas),
marked  the  beginning  of  an  open  persecution  against  the  Believing  community  of  Jews  in
Jerusalem.
If  we  step  back  and  consider  what  is  happening  here,  it  is  helpful  to  realize  that  this
persecution  was  upon  one  particular  faction  of  Judaism  (the  Jewish  disciples  of  Messiah
Yeshua) by other factions of Judaism that didn't agree with the Believer faction's halakhah;
that is, some of the traditions and doctrines of the Believers were in disagreement with some,
but not all, of the traditions and doctrines of other sects of Judaism. In fact the main point of
disagreement  was  over  the  identity  of  the  Messiah,  and  to  a  lesser  degree  the  Messiah's
nature. We're really not made aware of any other serious doctrinal disagreements (at least not
up to now).
Labels  are  very  tricky  things  that  can  on  the  one  hand  be  useful,  and  on  the  other  be
dangerous. When we attach a label to a group or to a person, to a concept or to a doctrine it is
done  with  the  direct  purpose  of  creating  a  kind  communication  shorthand,  or  perhaps  a
codeword  of  sorts.  A  label  is  designed  to  paint  a  quick,  sometimes  subconscious,  mental
image  so  the  conversation  doesn't  get  bogged  down  in  details.  Labels  often  illicit  knee-*
emotional responses. Used enough, labels become stereotypes that are near to impossible to
alter or correct later on. Because most Bibles will at this point in the New Testament label the
Jerusalem Believers as "Christians" or label them collectively as "the Church" then there is a
false picture created of Jews lining up against Christians; or of Judaism coming into violent
opposition  to  Christianity.  And  of  course  when  we  think  of  Christians,  Christianity  and  the
Church we think of gentiles carrying Bibles under their arms, of the sign of the Cross present
everywhere, of buildings with steeples outside and neat rows of pews inside, and of Nativity
Scenes and Christmas trees. But we need to erase all of these thoughts because that is not at
all what we are witnessing here in the Book of Acts, at any point. It is just the Bible translators'
misuse of these English labels that creates an inappropriate and historically false mental image
that I want to spend a little time to straighten out.
I pointed out in prior lessons that to use the term "Church" in the Book of Acts to collectively
label the followers of Yeshua is what is called an anachronism; that is, it is a term (even a
concept) that didn't occur until far later in history, at least a century after the Bible was closed
up. So to read the term "Church" (as we think of it today) back into the Book of Acts creates a
false impression. In a couple more chapters we'll read in most English Bibles that it was in
Antioch that the first use of the term "Christians" was coined. But in fact that, too, gives us the
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
wrong impression. In the original Greek of the New Testament the term is christianos, so it is
easy to see how the English word Christians was created from it. But christianos is taken from
the Greek word Christos. As expertly explained in the Strong's Concordance, Christos means
anointed one and it is merely translating the Hebrew word mashiach, Messiah, into Greek.
Thus  the  term  Messianic  means  followers  of  Messiah.  So  originally  whereas  Messianics
literally meant followers of the anointed one, so does christianos literally mean followers of
the anointed one. So while the English word Christians is a reasonable translation, once again
what comes to mind when we say Christians? Christian is a centuries old label; and when we
think  of  Christians  we  subconsciously  think  of  gentiles,  crosses,  churches,  Christmas  trees,
choirs dressed in robes, and if you are Catholic you think of cathedrals, priests, the Virgin Mary
and the Pope.
However the closest thing the Jewish Believers formulated as a label for themselves was The
Way.  Apparently  other  Jews  referred  to  them  at  times  as  Notzrim  and  Natzratim,  which
translates best into English as Nazarenes, meaning people connected to Nazareth, Yeshua's
hometown. The point I'm desperate to help all of my Jewish and gentile brothers and sisters in
the Lord to see is that everything that is happening to this point in the Book of Acts is taking
place exclusively within the Jewish community. The Synagogue and all that went with it is at
the  center  for  Yeshua's  followers  as  it  is  with  the  other  factions  of  Jews.  The  followers  of
Yeshua (The Way) were unique ONLY in the sense that their particular Rabbi was the crucified
Yeshua who they also believed was the Messiah. But other Jewish factions didn't agree with
this, so they rose up against the members of The Way.
Lest  you  think  this  sort  of  thing  as  concerns  Jews  and  Judaism  is  unique  to  the  New
Testament, I assure you it is not. A large modern day Jewish sect called Chabad has gone
through a painful, fairly recent, split. The leader of the Chabad Lubavitch faction was a much
beloved Rabbi named Schneerson. He passed away from natural causes in 1994. But some
among his faction declared him to be the Messiah, and say that he is not really dead as we
commonly think of death; rather he is in hiding and sometime soon will resurface. This claim
has caused a contentious split of Chabad among those who declare Schneerson as the Jewish
Messiah versus the majority who don't.  Using the terms we have recently learned, the split in
Chabad  is  over  halakhah;  Traditions  or  Oral  Torah.  The  Oral  Torah  of  the  main  faction  of
Chabad says that the Messiah has not yet come; the Oral Torah teachings of the Lubavitch
faction of Chabad says that the Messiah has appeared, is gone but will soon reappear, and he
is  Rabbi  Schneerson.  So  I  think  God  has  given  modern  day  Believers  a  very  good  way  to
better understand the background and sense of the issue that was causing the persecutions of
members of The Way in Acts chapter 8, if only we'll pay attention. Again: the issue with the
death of Yeshua, the death of Stephen, and now the general persecution of Believing Jews in
Jerusalem was over disagreements concerning halakhah; Oral Torah, Traditions, doctrines.
You will notice as we move along that as fervent as the persecution of Jewish Believers was by
the  other  Jewish  factions,  there  was  never  the  thought  expressed  that  the  Believers  had
somehow abandoned Judaism, stopped being Jews, or were forming an entire new religion.
The  Believers  did  not  even  isolate  themselves,  as  did  the  Essenes,  and  the  Essenes  were
perfectly accepted as Jews even if their brand of Judaism didn't sit all that well with most of
the other brands of Judaism.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
There are so many valuable lessons of application to learn from this, but I'd like to focus on
just one because it is especially relevant to our time. It is that among those who call ourselves
Christians  or  Messianics,  no  matter  what  faction  or  denomination,  we  need  to  display  love
towards one another. Because if indeed we all count on Yeshua for redemption, then we all
share one Spirit; God's Spirit. That doesn't mean that we can't strongly disagree on doctrines
and traditions, call one another on the carpet, leave one denomination or faction because we
think  they  are  on  the  wrong  track,  and  then  join  another  that  we  think  is  more  correct.  No
matter which group a Believer belongs to, if they hold to Yeshua (Jesus) as the true and only
Savior, and Son of God, who is Himself God, then we are brothers and sisters in the faith. We
should never behave in such hateful ways towards one another like these factions of Judaism
in Jerusalem did in the Book of Acts who are in such disagreement with a couple of doctrines
of this Messianic Judaism faction that it breaks out into outright persecution and hatred.
I'm not speaking of tolerance; I'm speaking of love. I'm not speaking of validation of wrong
theology in order to be inclusive, or compromising of principles to find a humanly comfortable
middle ground. I'm speaking of our own attitude and behavior. I constantly speak out against
several erroneous theological principles that are characteristic of the mainstream institutional
Christianity of the 21st century, especially as regards a bent against Israel and the belief that
the Torah is only for Jews. But I sure don't disagree on every point, nor do I say that those
who do not believe precisely as I do are not Christians because of this disagreement. Rather
my goal is to encourage my brothers and sisters in the faith (Jew and gentile) to return to the
truth of God's Word and to accept it for what it says; to abandon weak manmade doctrines
that are not in accordance with Scripture, and to live by God's laws and commandments that
Christ says we are obligated to do, and will not change in the least until the heavens and earth
pass away.
So in Acts chapter 8, we find that those Jewish followers of Yeshua who were under threat of
persecution  from  their  fellow  Jews  fled  Jerusalem  for  other  parts  of  Judea,  and  also  to  the
Galilee  and  somewhat  surprisingly  to  Samaria.  I  say  "surprisingly"  because  the  people  of
Samaria were seen universally by Judaism as ungodly, unclean hybrids who were neither Jew
nor  gentile;  a  people  to  be  shunned,  and  a  place  to  avoid.  And  for  Jews  of  that  era,  even
though Samaria originally formed the heartland of the Promised Land, at the moment Samaria
was acknowledged as foreign and so its residents were foreigners. This is not because of any
declaration  by  Rome,  but  because  of  a  declaration  by  Judaism.  This  was  because  the
Samaritans  practiced  what  the  Jews  considered  to  be  a  perverted  form  of  Torah-based
religion, with their holiest place being Mt. Gerizim, and their Priesthood having no connection
to Levites or to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Thus  we  find  the  disciple  Phillip,  a  Hellenist  Jewish  Believer,  going  to  Samaria  and  (once
again, surprisingly) having success in bringing the Gospel to those who would seem the least
likely to want to hear anything from a Jew: the Samaritans. No doubt news of this success
startled the 12 Disciples in Jerusalem and probably out of skepticism they dispatched Peter
and John to see for themselves. And, indeed, there were a number of Samaritans that Peter
and  John  judged  had  accepted  Yeshua  as  Savior.  But  then,  last  week,  we  addressed  the
sensitive issue of the Holy Spirit, and when and how the Holy Spirit indwells a Believer. For in
Acts chapter 8 we see that even though the new Believers of Samaria had accepted Christ,
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
and  been  baptized,  they  had  not  yet  received  the  Holy  Spirit.  John  and  Peter  arrived,  laid
hands on these Samaritans and so the Spirit came upon them.  And yet in other places in the
Bible, we'll find that the sequence is faith in Christ with instantaneous indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. In other passages, the Holy Spirit doesn't come until water baptism. And in yet other
places the Holy Spirit comes after coming to faith but before immersion.
Intellectual  honesty  demands  of  us  to  not  cherry  pick  and  choose  but  one  of  these  several
different  examples  of  Holy  Spirit  indwelling  as  the  only  legitimate  one.  However  most
denominations have indeed picked one and demands that others been seen as heresy. The
lesson to take from this is that God is not formula driven. There is no precise sequence of faith,
baptism, and indwelling of the Spirit that is authorized by God, or demanded by Him, with other
sequences  being  prohibited  or  to  be  judged  as  not  genuine.  Rather  it  seems  to  be
circumstance driven and somewhat flexible.
And  now  before  we  move  on  to  the  final  verses  of  chapter  8,  let's  recall  the  issue  of  the
Samaritan  magician  named  Shimon  (Simon  in  English).  He,  too,  accepted  the  Gospel.
However upon viewing Peter and John call down the Spirit of God into Believers, he was so
impressed that he wanted to have that same ability so he offered money to the disciples to be
taught how. Peter sternly rebuked him, such that some Bible commentators claim that Simon
was excommunicated. There is nothing in this passage that makes any such suggestion. And
any  thought  that  Simon  wasn't  saved  just  because  he  didn't  instantaneously  drop  his
misguided  beliefs  for  the  true  beliefs  stated  in  God's  Word,  is  actually  the  norm  for  most
anyone  at  any  time,  including  up  to  our  modern  era.  We  can  believe  long  before  we
understand more than the most basic principles of salvation. And these deeper, and necessary
understandings are to be the next step for all Believers; but it doesn't happen overnight, and it
takes time and effort.
So the bottom line so far in Acts chapter 8 is that for the first time the Gospel is being taken
outside  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  even  being  taken  to  those  who  don't  practice  Judaism,  and
many are coming to faith. And we also see how an ordinary disciple, Phillip, (not one of the 12
leaders) is now being focused upon as doing great miracles and bringing many of the least
likely to Christ. Let's see what Phillip does next.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 8:25 to end
Peter and John teach the Samaritans about God's Word to give some firm foundation to their
new  faith  in  Messiah  Yeshua  and  then  they  return  to  Jerusalem.  Recall  that  this  task  of
teaching God's Word as well as witnessing for Messiah, is what the 12 disciples agreed was
their true calling and what they ought to spend all their time doing. This points up that regular
congregation members (like Phillip) do not have to be Bible scholars or experts in theology to
take the Good News to those who need to hear it. In fact I think that the best protocol is for the
congregation  to  evangelize  to  individuals,  and  for  the  leaders  to  teach  and  mature  the  new
Believers.  Effective  evangelizing  is  almost  always  one  to  one  and  relational  as  opposed  to
informational;   but   teaching   can   be   (and   usually   is)   most   effective   in   a   one-to-many
environment. Why? Because God has equipped every Believer to take the Good News to non-
Believers. But only some have been given the gift and responsibility of teaching.
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
An  angel  now  instructs  Phillip  to  journey  back  southward  to  the  road  that  goes  between
Jerusalem and Gaza. Gaza was at one time one of the 5 major city-states of the Philistines;
however it was destroyed just after 100 B.C. and was not rebuilt. So by the time of Christ Gaza
was more of a general location than a specific city or town. That said in this era the water well
at  the  ruins  of  Gaza  was  still  operating,  and  it  was  one  of  the  few  water  sources  available
before entering the Sinai desert. Very likely the road to Gaza from Jerusalem was a way to
access the Via Maris trade route that more or less followed the Mediterranean Coastline. It
went all the way south to Egypt, and thus when we hear of this Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip
would  witness  to,  who  was  on  his  way  home,  he  would  naturally  take  the  Via  Maris  to  get
there.
This Ethiopian was a dignitary in the employ of the Kandake of Ethiopia; not of Candace the
Queen  of  Ethiopia  as  many  Bibles  have  it.  Kandake  is  a  title,  and  it  denotes  a  particular
dynasty  of  royalty  over  Ethiopia.  It  was  a  dynasty  of  female  rulers:  Queens.  Ethiopia  was
located  south  of  Egypt  and  is  what  the  Bible  calls  Kush.  These  dark-skinned  people  were
descendants of Ham's son Kush, thus the Biblical name for the place.
It  is  clear  that  this  eunuch  believed  in  the  God  of  Israel,  as  he  had  been  in  Jerusalem  to
worship. In his royal chariot, he was reading the scroll of Isaiah when Phillip spotted him. It
may not seem so on the surface, but there is no doubt a divine pattern is being established
here, and it is interesting to me how Phillip is the one that is setting it. A eunuch is a castrated
male. There were a number of reasons for this castration, but none of it had to do with any kind
of punishment. Rather it prevented marriage, which kept his loyalty squarely upon the person
whom he served. And it limited him to any other kind of vocation as well as marking him for life.
Often removing the male genitalia was for religious purposes especially when serving a female
god or ruler. We must remember that at least from a Biblical viewpoint, castration is seen as
mutilation  and  wrong.  For  one  thing,  it  means  that  this  man  will  never  have  offspring;  his
bloodline  will  end.  In  the  most  ancient  Hebrew  way  of  thinking  that  means  no  afterlife  is
possible,  since  in  some  mysterious  way  one's  afterlife  is  at  least  partially  contained  in  his
children.
But a mutilation of the genitals is also seen as an affront to life itself since fruitfulness in the
form of producing offspring is not possible. Even more, a castrated man may not become an
Israeli national citizen because Deuteronomy says this:  CJB Deuteronomy 23:2 "A man with
crushed or damaged private parts may not enter the assembly of ADONAI. This issue
arises because a man cannot fulfill his role in the Abrahamic Covenant to reproduce; thus that
man cannot be part of Israel.
As  concerns  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  a  castrated  male  is  very  limited  in  where  he  can
worship and in which rituals he can participate. It is likely that if this eunuch was permitted to
enter  the  Temple  Mount  at  all,  it  was  in  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles;  or  more  likely  he  was
prohibited from the Temple area altogether and only came to a Synagogue. That would explain
his interest in Isaiah as that was a Synagogue favorite particularly in this era. Thus there is no
doubt that this Ethiopian eunuch had not converted to Judaism and become a Jew because he
wouldn't have been allowed to; rather he was a God-fearer. He was a gentile who worshipped
the God of Israel.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
So what we see is that Phillip has been dealing with those whom Judaism customarily wanted
little to do. He was dealing with outcasts and those that normative Judaism looked down upon
to one degree or another; first the hated Samaritans, then a sorcerer, and now the castrated
male gentile. And what did Phillip do? He brought these outcasts into the Kingdom of God.
What a hope, and what a God-pattern is shown to us. There is no one low enough, broken
enough, wretched or ruined enough that Yeshua cannot heal their spirit and bring them into His
Kingdom. There is no heritage or race that is excluded. Submit to Christ, and God accepts us.
As is typical of Luke, he says that the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) directed Phillip to go up and join
the eunuch on his chariot. Was this a voice Phillip heard, or some kind of internal unction?
We're  not  told.  But  when  Phillip  inquires  of  the  man  what  it  is  that  he's  reading,  and  if  he
understands it, it is clear that the eunuch does not. He says someone needs to explain it to
him.
We're given the excerpt from Isaiah that the eunuch is reading and it is from Isaiah 53. The
words of Isaiah 53 that we see quoted in Acts chapter 8 more resemble the Greek Septuagint
version rather than the Hebrew Tanakh version. This would make sense since few outside of
the Holy Land could read or speak Hebrew; however Greek was widely known. And of course
this is a Messianic prophecy that the eunuch is reading, which would be most difficult to grasp
if  one  had  not  grown  up  in  a  Jewish  culture.  But  even  then,  the  Synagogues  had  various
interpretations  of  its  meaning,  the  most  accepted  being  that  this  suffering  servant  who  was
humiliated and denied justice was referring to Israel as a whole and not to an individual.
Acts 8:32-33 CJB
32 "He was like a sheep led to be slaughtered; like a lamb silent before the shearer, he
does not open his mouth.
33 He was humiliated and denied justice. Who will tell about his descendants, since his
life has been taken from the earth?"
The eunuch sees that the plain reading of this passage indicates an individual so he wonders if
Isaiah  is  speaking  about  himself  or  is  it  someone  else?  This  gave  Phillip  the  opening  he
needed. He of course informed the man that this was speaking of Messiah Yeshua and he
explained the matter and the Ethiopian believed.
It is the Ethiopian, not Philip that seems to raise the issue of immersion. The eunuch obviously
had  spent  sufficient  time  among  Jews  and  studying  the  Bible  that  he  was  familiar  with  the
mikveh and immersion in water. The way the eunuch asks the question is like this: "Is there
anything that should prevent me from being immersed?"  This no doubt was something he
had run into before due to his condition of being castrated and being gentile; it may well be that
he had not been allowed to immerse and was wondering if now he could.
Where  they  found  the  water  to  immerse  we  don't  know.  But  wherever  it  was  it  met  the
requirement of it being Living Water (meaning the source of the water had to be water that
moved, like the ocean, a river, or a spring). And since Phillip and the eunuch entered the water
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
together the source was of reasonable size. Upon immersion of the unnamed eunuch, we are
told that Phillip was suddenly snatched away, his job here completed. The Greek word used for
snatched  away  is  harpazo,  the  same  word  we  find  in  1Thessalonians  4  that  speaks  of
Believers being caught up into the air to meet Christ in the clouds. So what happened here
was a miraculous and unexpected act of God; Phillip didn't just quickly leave the scene on his
own. Phillip suddenly finds himself in Ashdod near the Mediterranean Sea. There he continues
to proclaim the Good News and journeys town by town northward about 50 miles to Caesarea
(this is speaking of Caesarea Maritima), which was an impressive and bustling port city that
had been greatly improved by King Herod. There he would have met people from every sort of
nationality and religion.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 9.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 9 all
After our being briefly introduced to Paul at the end of chapter 7, the story now turns back to
him in chapter 9 and he becomes the focus. I said in the introduction to the Book of Acts that it
is critical that because almost all Church doctrine comes from Paul, so we must learn who Paul
is  before  we  are  properly  equipped  to  read  and  decipher  his  God-inspired  letters.  And  that
while  his  Epistles  like  Galatians,  Romans,  Corinthians  and  so  on  indeed  give  us  Paul's
theology, they don't tell us who he is, why he thinks like he does, and most importantly what
his terms mean to him. We'll find that information only in the Book of Acts. And without that
and some other information about Synagogues and Judaism in general, it is not possible to
correctly interpret much of what Paul says. And what we find is that he is a Diaspora Jew born
in Tarsus of Cilicia. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, a tribe that Judah had centuries earlier
absorbed and so those of Benjamin were called by the same name as those of the tribe of
Judah:  Jews.  But  it  is  also  interesting  to  note  how  after  all  this  time,  at  least  some  Jews
continued to also identify with their original tribal family heritage even when they lived outside
of the Holy Land.
So  while  I've  spoken  on  Paul  before,  let's  review  a  little  and  I'm  going  to  add  more
information.  The  2  names  he  goes  by  in  the  New  Testament  are  Paul  and  Saul,  or  more
correctly  Sha'ul,  the  same  name  of  the  1st  king  of  Israel  who  was  from  Paul's  tribe  of
Benjamin,  King  Sha'ul.  Paul  is  Latin,  Sha'ul  is  Hebrew.  Since  Latin  and  Greek  were  the
primary  languages  of  the  Roman  Empire,  then  it  is  not  surprising  that  Paul  would  have  an
alternative Roman name. What we can be sure of is that his given name was Sha'ul and not
Paul because in Acts 13 we read: 9 "Then Sha'ul, also known as Paul, filled with the Ruach
HaKodesh....."So Paul was an assumed name that he used sometimes because it more fit his
life as a Diaspora Jew.
Paul's  hometown  of  Tarsus  was  quite  large:  around  ½  million  population.  It  had  a  sizeable
Jewish  community  with  many  Synagogues.  Paul's  first  language  was  Greek,  but  he  also
spoke Hebrew and Aramaic because Hebrew and Aramaic were similar and it was typical of
highly  educated  Jewish  scholars  to  know  both  languages  since  the  many  Jewish  religious
documents contained both Aramaic and Hebrew script. The Church Father Jerome, who lived
in the late 4th and early 5th centuries A.D. claims that Paul's family lived for a time in Gush
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
Chalav in the Galilee; but as the result of war they migrated to Tarsus where Paul was born.
Paul specifically says that he was born into Roman citizenship, something that was not usual
for Diaspora Jews. So his father was a Roman citizen by some means. Since Paul will use that
Roman citizenship to his advantage let's see just what that bought him. First, the benefits of
being a Roman citizen covered virtually every aspect of life. Everything from judicial sentences
to  tax  penalties  was  less  for  citizens  than  for  non-citizens.  Class  also  mattered;  the  higher
classes of Roman citizens used different courts than the lower classes, and the higher classes
were more or less presumed innocent while the lower classes were generally presumed guilty.
It  seems  pretty  clear  from  what  we  read  of  Paul's  encounter  with  the  court  system  that  he
knew his way around the judiciary, and could demand an audience with a king or very high
Roman official to personally look at his case. There is little doubt that Paul's family had status.
As  Rabbi  Joseph  Shulam  cleverly  observes,  one  of  the  most  enviable  rights  that  a  Roman
citizen had that others didn't was the right to appeal a court decision. Further a citizen was
protected  against  unjust  private  or  public  arrest,  and  he  couldn't  be  punished,  tortured,
incarcerated or executed by local judicial authorities. Thus we see that when Paul was arrested
for speaking the Gospel he was eventually taken to the highest authority in Rome when he lets
it be known that he is a Roman citizen and demands his rights. Paul was used to privilege in
his life, and it didn't end when he became an Apostle.
Paul was a Pharisee because Paul's family was a family of Pharisees; something rare outside
of the Holy Land. However if his family had migrated some years earlier from Galilee to Tarsus
as  Jerome  claims,  then  joining  the  party  of  the  Pharisees  while  in  the  Galilee  and  then
continuing to consider themselves as practicing Pharisees even while living in the Diaspora
makes more sense.
There is more that we need to understand about Paul the person, and I want to take all the
time needed, so we'll stop here and continue next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 21, Chapter 9
We  began  Acts  chapter  9  last  week  but  I  purposely  postponed  getting  too  deep  into  the
Scripture  passages  to  instead  focus  our  attention  on  the  person  of  Paul;  or  better  Sha'ul,
which was his given Hebrew name. Paul is the English version of a Latin word that is probably
Paulus and it seems that in general he used that name, and that name was used of him, when
he was dealing either with Jews from the Diaspora or gentiles who were subjects of the Roman
Empire. Then dealing with Hebrews he seems to mostly use Sha'ul (Saul in English).
My reason for pausing at this point, and delving deeper into Paul, is that much of what will
occur  for  the  remainder  of  Acts  will  involve  Paul  to  varying  levels.  There  is  no  more
misunderstood, misquoted, and influential source for Christian doctrine than Paul; so it is vital
that we do all we can to uncover what Paul intends to tell us. Yet we can no more hope to
understand what Paul meant by the things he did and said in his many letters that dominate
the New Testament, than we can hope to understand what Homer meant by what he said in
his  great  epic  poems  "The  Iliad"  and  "The  Odyssey",  or  by  what  Tolstoy  said  in  "War  and
Peace",  until  we  understand  them  as  the  unique  individuals  that  they  were  who  lived  at
particular times in history, and in the context of their culture, language, upbringing, education,
and life experiences. Every writer speaks from the position of their own particular worldview,
the lens through which they see history and happenings unfold and interpret them, even if they
aren't  fully  conscious  of  it.  So  to  pretend  as  though  Paul  was  a  blank  sheet  of  paper  who
didn't have a personal worldview, or that whatever it was that he wrote is so mysterious that it
transcends whatever worldview he may or may not have held, is not only illogical it makes him
less than human. And for those theologians and Bible commentators who demand that Paul is
culturally neutral or his words have little or no connection to who he is as a human person,  it is
for no other reason than for that writer or translator to be fully freed to make whatever he or
she wants to make out of Paul's words. 
So  I  have  been  putting  together  a  picture  for  you  of  who  the  historical  Paul  is  before  we
examine  what  he  says;  where  he  came  from,  what  influenced  his  religious  and  societal
thoughts and beliefs, and what the terms he regularly used meant to him in the context of his
particular  Jewish  experience.  It  is  complicated  because  just  like  for  anyone,  we  can't  be
entirely described and labeled according to only one aspect of our lives. We can no more fully
describe Paul by using the term Jew and thus anticipate his actions and reactions and thought
processes than we can fully describe a random person as a Christian and assume too much
only from that. This becomes especially important when some of the most critical doctrines that
are foundational to our faith as Believers in Christ comes directly from the writings of Paul. 
For those listeners who might think that what I'm covering is not something that anyone but a
Bible academic needs to know, think again.  For 21st century western gentiles, even though
you might not realize it, Paul couldn't be more of a foreigner to us. So let's continue adding to
Paul's biography.
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
Last time I said that Paul was originally a Diaspora Jew who was born and raised (at least for a
time) in Tarsus of the province of Cilicia. It was a large city and so Paul was anything but a
country boy like Yeshua was. At some point he came to the Holy Land to live and to go to
religious school. He came from a prestigious family who identified themselves as Pharisees,
something  rather  unusual  when  a  Jewish  family  lived  outside  of  the  Holy  Land.  The
social/political/religious  divisions  within  Judaism  that  are  represented  by  the  parties  of  the
Sadducees,  Pharisees,  and  Essenes  were  mostly  present  in  Judea  and  the  Diaspora  Jews
didn't tend to divide themselves up and label themselves that way. In the Diaspora occupation,
craft, and social status usually determined which Synagogue one might attend; not so different
from modern Christianity.
It is significant that Paul was a Roman citizen, another unusual status for a Jew. Not unheard
of, but not typical; and this status was greatly advantageous to Sha'ul bringing him credibility
as well as affording him special rights. This further emphasizes the privileged life he was born
into, and his ease of operating in both Jewish and gentile environments.
Paul was a Greek speaker as his first language. However in order to attend the elite Academy
of Gamaliel in Jerusalem for his religious training, he had to be fluent in Hebrew and be familiar
with Aramaic. But even more the Academy of Gamaliel was so distinguished that in order to be
a student Paul would have had to demonstrate amazing potential, as only a handful of the best
and brightest were admitted. What were the students taught? The Tanakh (the Old Testament,
the   Hebrew   Bible)   and   Halakhah;   that   is,   they   were   taught   the   Scriptures   and   Oral
Torah....Traditions. We find Paul quote Scriptures dozens of times in his letters so he knew his
way around the Bible. However, just as it is in Christian institutions, it is not so much what the
Bible actually says that matters as much as what the teacher says the Bible means by what it
says.  Put  another  way,  Bible  interpretation  was  the  key,  and  the  interpretations  are  what
separated the various factions of Judaism from one another the same way it separates the
several thousand modern day Christian denominations from one another.  And since Gamaliel
was  a  Pharisee  (and  so  was  Paul  even  before  coming  to  the  Holy  Land),  then  it  was  the
Biblical  interpretations  of  the  Pharisees,  meaning  the  Traditions  of  the  Pharisees,  that  Paul
learned.
So I want to stress again: the world of the Pharisees was the world of the Synagogue.  And the
world  of  the  Synagogue  stressed  Oral  Torah,  Traditions.  So  Paul's  thought  processes,  the
very  fiber  of  his  understanding,  was  most  influenced  by  Halakhah,  which  was  the  body  of
Jewish law that controlled everyday life for Jews.  The Temple and the Priesthood however
was the world of the Sadducees, and they stressed the Torah of Moses. They did not accept
the Halakhah of the Pharisees; of course that means that they had their own interpretations of
what the Law of Moses meant by what it said, and it was in many important ways different from
the interpretations of the Pharisees and therefore often different from what was taught at the
Synagogues. So the Temple and the Synagogue were rivals in many aspects.
Synagogues in the Diaspora used the Greek Septuagint as their Bibles. The LXX was a Greek
translation of the Tanakh that had been created about 250 B.C.; although in the Holy Land
some Synagogues used the Hebrew Bible (the original Tanakh) depending on the affiliation of
the  Synagogue.  Paul  would  have  been  most  familiar  with  the  Septuagint.  Although  born  in
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
Tarsus, Paul says in Acts 22 that he was "brought up" in Jerusalem. Luke says that at the time
Paul was holding the cloaks for those who would stone Stephen he was a "young man". A
"young man" in that day was between roughly 24 to 40 years of age. So Paul had lived for
some time in Jerusalem and was heavily indoctrinated in the type of Judaism present in the
Holy Land more so than in the type of Judaism practiced in the foreign lands of the Diaspora.
So although Paul had been subjected to Hellenist influences early in his life, it would be quite
incorrect to label Paul as a Hellenist Jew. As an elite academic he was familiar with both sides
of the fence, so to speak. He was as comfortable among the Hebrew Jews as he was among
the Hellenist Jews.
I'll stop here for now in describing the historical Paul by giving you an example of how knowing
a person's worldview, culture, and life context matters so much when interpreting what he or
she has to say. I'm going to take this example not from Paul, but from His Master Yeshua. I do
this for a couple of reasons; first because we see that even Jesus Christ was not a blank slate.
At  least  what  we  might  characterize  as  the  human  attribute  of  Him  had  a  definite  personal
worldview and a life context that we need to grasp so that we can correctly understand what
He  meant  by  what  He  said.  After  all,  He  was  a  rural  Galilean  Jew,  a  craftsman,  who
communicated with, and lived among, other common, blue-collar every day Jews. And the life-
context I want to highlight is that Yeshua's world was the world of the Synagogue, not of the
Temple. And second, although he didn't belong to any party, it is my opinion that he was likely
closest in religious philosophy to that of the Essenes. Nonetheless even though we are told
that He had no formal religious training, it was the world of the Synagogue that He lived in and
frequented, and not the world of the Temple. In fact the New Testament record shows that He
only visited Jerusalem and the Temple during the Biblical Feast days, and that in order to obey
requirements  of  the  Law  of  Moses.  Thus  He  well  knew  the  teachings  of  the  Rabbis.  He
certainly didn't need training in the Word of God since He WAS the Word of God. The point is
that He was quite familiar with the terms of the Synagogue because that was part of standard
Jewish social life.
The example I want to give to you comes from Yeshua's most famous and extensive speech,
the Sermon on the Mount. After plainly and emphatically stating in Matthew 5:17 -19 that He
did  not  come  to  change  or  abolish  the  Law  of  Moses  or  the  Prophets,  so  no  one  should
interpret what He is saying in that light, in verse 21 we read this:
CJB Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that our fathers were told, 'Do not murder,' and that
anyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment.
When a Jewish teacher or a Rabbi is in a debate (a Midrash) or instructing on the Torah, the
first  thing  they  say  is  what  a  prominent  teacher  or  Rabbi  has  previously  said  about  it.  And
Christ says that what this crowd of Jews had been told by the earlier teachers of their fathers
was  "do  not  murder"  because  they'll  be  judged  for  it.  But  now,  in  typical  rabbinical  fashion,
Christ gives His interpretation of the commandment to not murder. So in the next verse He
says:
CJB Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who nurses anger against his brother will be
subject  to  judgment;  that  whoever  calls  his  brother,  'You  good-for-nothing!'  will  be
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
brought before the Sanhedrin; that whoever says, 'Fool!' incurs the penalty of burning in
the fire of Gei-Hinnom!
For   Yeshua's   followers,   this   was   Yeshua's   Oral   Torah,   or   Tradition,   about   what   the
commandment  to  not  murder  means.  And  despite  all  the  erroneous  teachings  we've  heard
that  essentially  Christ  lessened  the  restrictions  of  the  commandments  of  Moses,  thereby
making it easier and less burdensome, in fact we find that He made them much stricter. Here
harboring anger or even saying something unkind against a brother (meaning a fellow Hebrew)
was considered to break the commandment against murder.
A few verses later we hear: 
CJB Matthew 5:31 "It was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get (a divorce
decree).'
So in the same familiar rabbinical format Yeshua now discusses a hot topic of His day, divorce.
And  He  begins  by  saying  what  has  been  previously  declared  by  the  earlier  Synagogue
teachings  about  divorce  is  that  the  wife  must  receive  an  official  divorce  decree  and  if  the
husband will do that, then he meets all the requirements of the commandment. But then in the
next verse He says what His interpretation of the law of divorce is:
CJB Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground
of  fornication,  makes  her  an  adulteress;  and  that  anyone  who  marries  a  divorcee
commits adultery.
We  see  that  just  as  with  the  murder  topic,  Yeshua's  interpretation  about  divorce  was  far
stricter.
The rather standard Christian teaching on this passage is that Yeshua was speaking against
the Law of Moses and essentially canceling the commandments from Mt. Sinai and replacing
them with His own. Had you been a Jew in that day, and regularly attended the Synagogue,
you  would  have  heard  this  form  of  debate  and  teaching  countless  times.  And  it  in  no  way
challenged or changed the Law of Moses; it was simply an issue of how to correctly interpret
the Law of Moses.
Paul as a trained Rabbi also thought and spoke in the same usual customary way of Rabbis.
Thus while to the uninitiated gentile Yeshua might sound as though he is setting up a new
system of Laws and speaking against the old system (but He is not), so it is that when we hear
Paul  speak  about  the  Law,  even  though  it  might  seem  so  to  a  gentile,  he  is  never  talking
against the Law but rather is offering His interpretation of the Law. And he is doing this in light
of  his  own  life  experiences  as  a  Pharisee,  and  owing  to  his  training  at  the  Academy  of
Gamaliel,  but  now  greatly  influenced  with  the  divine  revelation  of  the  risen  Christ  and  what
Christ's disciples taught him.
What I'm telling you is not speculation; it is historical fact derived from a number of reliable
sources.  If  you  can  but  get  your  mind  to  accept  it  then  reading  Paul's  letters  changes
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
dramatically. His attitude towards the Law no longer seems negative at times, and some of the
supposed  contradictions  he  occasionally  seems  to  offer  disappear.  Suddenly  everything  he
says comes right back into line with the Torah, and with what Christ taught. We also see that
while Paul is in no way repudiating or pulling away from Judaism, often he is arguing against
many of the erroneous Traditions of Judaism that were popular, although incorrect.
So with that as our background, let's get into the Scripture passages of Acts chapter 9.
Let's re-read just the opening verses of Acts 9.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 9:1-19
Most  commentators  will  refer  to  Acts  9:1  -19  as  The  Conversion  of  Paul.  Nothing  could  be
more misleading or inaccurate; and, I'm sorry to say, while I don't think it is meant that way, it
is one of the most anti-Semitic Christian catch-phrases that one could use. In fact, Paul himself
spoke out against the concept of conversion when a Jew or gentile comes to faith in Christ.
I've spoken against the use of the term conversion and all that the word entails and I won't
repeat  that  teaching,  although  I  will  briefly  summarize.  In  the  dictionary  and  certainly  in  the
sense of the word as we think of it today, to convert means to metamorphose. It means to
become something entirely different. A caterpillar will convert, or metamorphose, to a butterfly.
The result is that there is no longer any resemblance between a caterpillar and a butterfly; all
traces of the caterpillar have disappeared and an entirely new creature has emerged. Paul did
not metamorphose from a Jewish caterpillar to a Christian butterfly.
Rather Paul turned. That is, he turned away from wrong interpretations of the Law and the
Prophets and turned towards the right interpretations. He turned away from rejecting Yeshua
as the Messiah that the Law and the Prophets pointed to, and turned towards accepting Him
not only as Savior but as God. Paul did not become a new creature; he was simply the same
creature  with  a  new  understanding.  He  did  not  cease  being  a  Jew  and  instead  became  a
gentile. He did not stop obeying the Law of Moses, and start obeying a new set of Laws that
Yeshua supposedly created. He did not renounce Judaism and adopt Christianity, and he did
not stop going to the Temple or the Synagogue and instead become a church-goer. So my
name for Acts 9:1 -19 is The Turning of Saul.
The chapter opens with Saul's condition before he turns. He is working furiously to stamp out
this new sect of Judaism that calls itself The Way. Paul is not intending to personally murder
anyone; that wasn't his job because he was an academic. But no doubt, as with Stephen, he
was hoping that by ferreting out and arresting Yeshua's followers that the result would be the
same.  Thus  in  verse  2  we  find  that  Paul  goes  to  the  High  Priest  and  asks  for  letters  of
authorization  to  the  Synagogue  leaders  to  identify  and  hand  over  to  Paul  anyone  in  their
congregations that might be Yeshua sympathizers. Why go to the High Priest for permission?
Because the High Priest was head of the Sanhedrin and Paul was operating in some kind of
official capacity for the Sanhedrin. And why go to the Synagogues? Because especially in the
Diaspora the Synagogue functioned the way Churches do in rural settings. That is they are
typically the local meeting place; town hall and sanctuary rolled into one. The Synagogue was
the  social  and  religious  hub  of  the  Jewish  communities  operating  in  foreign  lands,  and  this
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
represented around 95% of all living Jews.
This also shows that even though there was a separation of authority structure and operation
between the Temple and the Synagogue, that since the Sanhedrin was the Jewish High Court,
and the head of the Jewish High Court was the High Priest, then the Temple of course had
authority in a certain sense over the Synagogue and those who attended. Thus we find Paul on
the  road  to  Damascus  with  a  letter  of  authority  to  round  up  Believers  in  any  of  the  several
Synagogues there. Damascus was in Syria, part of the Roman Empire, but of course outside of
the Holy Land. Since the Believers of Jerusalem fled after the execution of Stephen no doubt it
was these fugitives that Paul was searching for.
It was a 130 mile journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and somewhere along the route Paul
was confronted by God; or better by Yeshua in spirit. A bright light burst from the sky and it
was so terrifying and sudden that Paul fell to the ground in fright; a voice rang out from the
clouds that asked Paul why he was persecuting him. Actually Luke says that the words from
Heaven said Sha'ul, not Paul, indicating that the language Saul heard was Hebrew. Sha'ul of
course is puzzled and confused and asks who it is that is speaking to him. The voice says it is
Yeshua.  Clearly  the  point  of  Yeshua  identifying  Himself  with  the  persecuted  Believers  is  to
show full solidarity with them. But it also makes the point that from the divine perspective to
reject and persecute a worshipper of Messiah because they are doing the will of the Messiah is
the same as rejecting and persecuting the Messiah Himself.
Our CJB is correct to say that Paul's response was "Sir, who are you?" unlike most versions
that say "Lord, who are you?" When Sha'ul responded he was not meaning lord in the sense
of the Lord God, but rather in the sense of addressing a person of authority; so "sir" carries the
best meaning.  Yeshua responded by telling Paul to get up from the ground and complete his
journey to Damascus. But when he got there someone would be sent to meet him with further
instructions.
Verse 7 explains that Paul had companions traveling with him; they saw the light, they heard
the voice, but they saw no one who was speaking. They were frozen with fear and could say
nothing. But Sha'ul was blind. It was not the intensity of the light that blinded him or the other
men would have been blinded as well. Nor was Paul being punished for not believing. Might
his visual blindness be a living metaphor that exposed his spiritual blindness? Yes, I think so.
There  were  much  earlier  events  in  Israel's  history  that  essentially  accomplished  the  same
thing.  One  was  when  Miriam  spoke  out  against  her  brother  Moses  and  questioned  his
authority. She instantly broke out in Tzara'at, an unclean skin disease that is divinely caused.
Thus  Miriam's  spiritual  health  was  revealed;  she  was  spiritually  unclean  on  the  inside  even
though she looked so pious on the outside.
Sha'ul's companions had to lead him by the hand the remainder of their journey to Damascus
and he stayed blind for a time after he arrived. During that time he neither eats nor drinks. He
was blind, not ill, so very likely he was fasting as he realized he had encountered God and
because  of  Christ's  instructions  he  knew  he  was  about  to  hear  more  from  God  through
someone   else.   Fasting   to   prepare   for   God's   oracle   was   Biblical   and   it   is   invariably
accompanied with prayer.
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
There  was  a  particular  disciple  of  Christ  in  Damascus  named  Hananyah.  Hananyah  is  a
Hebrew  name,  so  this  person  was  a  Jew  originally  from  the  Holy  Land,  likely  one  of  the
fugitives Paul was seeking to arrest. The Lord comes to Hananyah in a vision and calls his
name.  Hananyah  replies,  "Behold,  here  I  am  Lord".  We  don't  find  the  word  "behold"  in  the
CJB, but it ought to be there because the Greek says "idou", which is a Greek translation of
the Hebrew word hineni. Hineni is a word that characterizes obedience, attentiveness and a
readiness  to  act  with  zeal  upon  whatever  comes  next.  It  is  often  associated  with  God's
prophets. God tells Hananyah to go to a certain house and ask about a man from Tarsus and
that  this  man  will  be  praying  (this  ties  in  with  Sha'ul  fasting).  And  while  praying  God  has
readied Paul for this encounter by means of a vision of Hananyah coming to him, laying hands
on him, and restoring his sight.
But Hananyah was skeptical of Yeshua's instruction to go to Paul because Paul's mission to
harm the Believers was well known. Yeshua doesn't chastise Hananyah because He knows
things  that  Hananyah  doesn't.  So  He  patiently  explains  that  Paul  has  been  chosen  for  a
special mission, and that will be to carry the Good News to the gentiles, to gentile kings, and
even to the sons of Israel. This reference to the sons of Israel means the Diaspora Jews who
live among the gentiles but no doubt is also meant to include the scattered 10 tribes of Israel
most of whom had forgotten their Hebrew heritage. But more, Yeshua tells Hananyah that Paul
is also going to find out that this mission is going to require great suffering. And indeed it did
as, for example, Paul says in 2Corinthians 11:
2Corinthians 11:24-28 CJB
24 Five times I received "forty lashes less one" from the Jews.
25  Three  times  I  was  beaten  with  rods.  Once  I  was  stoned.  Three  times  I  was
shipwrecked. I spent a night and a day in the open sea.
26 In my many travels I have been exposed to danger from rivers, danger from robbers,
danger  from  my  own  people,  danger  from  Gentiles,  danger  in  the  city,  danger  in  the
desert, danger at sea, danger from false brothers.
27  I  have  toiled  and  endured  hardship,  often  not  had  enough  sleep,  been  hungry  and
thirsty, frequently gone without food, been cold and naked.
28 And besides these external matters, there is the daily pressure of my anxious concern
for all the congregations.
One can only imagine what was going through Hananyah's mind as he contemplated Christ's
words that Paul would take the Jewish Gospel to gentiles. This had to be perhaps the most
incomprehensible (probably the most upsetting) part of what he heard in his vision. Why would
the gentiles want a Jewish Messiah and why would the Jews want to share their Messiah with
their  oppressors?  Nonetheless  Hananyah  obeyed,  went  in  and  laid  his  hands  on  Paul  and
Paul's  sight  returned.  His  blessing  upon  Sha'ul  was  in  the  name  of  Yeshua,  the  same  one
who took Paul's sight away from him a few days earlier.
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
But  now  comes  an  issue  we  discussed  a  couple  of  lessons  ago;  Hananyah's  laying  on  of
hands also resulted in Paul receiving the Holy Spirit. So we are left to assume that Paul had
already come to believe in Yeshua (although we are not directly told so), probably during his
prayer and fasting.  So sometime after coming to faith, but before immersion, the Holy Spirit
comes to indwell Paul but only with the laying on of hands. And along with the indwelling of the
Spirit comes healing. My conviction is that the end of his physical blindness was a real and
living  witness  to  the  end  of  his  spiritual  blindness;  otherwise  the  physical  blindness  doesn't
seem to have had a discernable purpose.
We discussed the issue of the connection between faith, baptism and the Holy Spirit at length
in earlier lessons but the point I want to draw today is that while Christian denominations will
often insist upon a certain authorized sequence of how and when baptism and the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit MUST happen and does happen, in fact what we have seen up to now in the
Book of Acts, and will see more of in coming chapters, is that there is no consistent divine
formula  or  sequence;  it  can  happen  in  any  number  of  ways.  Sometimes  long  intervals  can
happen  between  steps;  sometimes  it  all  happens  immediately.  Sometimes  it  involves  the
intervention of another; sometimes it all happens in private. The Lord is sovereign and He will
deal with us as individuals and on His own terms.
The healing Paul experiences is as though scales fell from his eyes. There is no reason to take
this as an expression; some kind of flaky substance literally covered over his eyes for several
days and then all at once fell off. The healed, saved, prepared Paul is now ready for God to
begin to mold him and shape him. Paul ends his fast, and begins eating and drinking again to
regain his strength.
Let's read a little more of Acts chapter 9.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 9:19 – 22
We're told that Paul spent time with the disciples in Damascus no doubt mostly meaning he
lodged with them while there. And immediately he went to the Synagogues to preach Yeshua
as  the  Son  of  God.  Immediately  is  eutheos  in  Greek,  and  we  should  be  careful  as  to  the
intensity  that  the  word  "immediately"  has  to  our  minds  in  modern  English.  "Immediately"  in
typical modern day use has the sense of something being hurried, or urgent, or nearly instant.
Rather the word eutheos more has the correct sense of forthwith or directly simply meaning
that  there  was  nothing  of  any  note  that  occurred  in  between  two  events,  and  that  not  very
much time passed. So the first thing Paul did after hanging out with the disciples for a few days
was to go speak in the Synagogues. No doubt during that time he and the disciples discussed
theology and Halakhah and this gave Paul time to digest all that had happened in the last few
days.
But note where it is that Paul went; to the Synagogues. Why? Because that's where the Jews
would be. So even though the bulk of Paul's mission will be to the gentiles, first he goes to the
Jews. And we're told that Sha'ul taught that Yeshua was the Son of God, which is interesting
because we might think that we would find that words that Paul taught are that Yeshua is the
Mashiach; the Messiah. Let's not just glide right by what it is that Paul taught.
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
Son of God was not just a term that Yeshua seemed to favor to describe Himself (along with
Son of Man), it had a definite meaning in the world of Judaism and especially if one was a
Pharisee  (which,  of  course,  Paul  was).  Son  of  God  was  a  term  that  we  find  in  the  Old
Testament that refers to the entire line of kings coming from King David; however some of the
Psalms, such as 110, nuance this term to give it a Messianic tone. Thus in early Biblical usage
Son of God did not have any sense that a Davidic king was deity. Rather it is that since God
was supposed to be Israel's king, but long ago Israel had demanded a human king to rule over
them, then the human king was supposed to be God's agent or under-shepherd on earth so to
speak. The human king of Israel was to operate in a Torah based, godly manner behaving
more as servant to his people than a superior self-serving ruler so typical of gentile kings. But
God was to rule over the king and the king was to accept that. And King David is said to have
exemplified this as God's servant/shepherd king.
Thus when Paul preached Yeshua as Son of God, it would have been little different had he
preached  King  David  as  Son  of  God.  By  Paul's  day  the  Pharisees  were  teaching  that  a
Messiah in the mold of King David was coming. They were not at all expecting this new King
David to be anything other than a normal flesh and blood human being. So since King David
was himself called a son of God by the Lord, then the strongest part of the reference is the
"King"  part.  The  "God"  part  meant  that  this  king  was  God  authorized  and  under  the  rule  of
God. So when Paul preached Yeshua as Son of God it mostly meant that Yeshua was God's
anointed king who comes from King David's line. And since the Halakhah of the Pharisees
said  that  Israel's  next  anointed  king  would  be  from  King  David's  line,  and  would  be  their
deliverer from the oppression of Rome, then this king was of course the Messiah (the anointed
one). Again; no thought of deity was involved in that concept.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm in no way saying that Paul was preaching that Yeshua was just
a man and not God. It's only that we're told that the first thing Paul taught about Yeshua was
that  he  was  the  Davidic  king  that  had  been  prophesied.  And  the  Pharisees  said  that  the
Davidic king was the Messiah. Even though the Jews in the Synagogues of Damascus would
not have counted themselves as Pharisees, all the Oral Torah (Halakhah) they were taught in
the Synagogues came from the teaching of the Pharisees, because all Rabbis were Pharisees.
Paul had an audience that would readily understand what he was preaching. The issue was
whether or not they would accept it.
We'll continue with Acts chapter 9 next time.  
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 22, chapter 9 continued
Acts chapter 9 began with the fierce heretic hunter, Paul, determined to help eradicate this new
sect  of  Judaism  that  called  itself  The  Way,  but  whom  the  other  Jewish  factions  called  the
Notzrim. But by halfway through the chapter Sha'ul has had a life-changing encounter with
Yeshua calling out to him from Heaven, and has himself come to accept that Yeshua is the
long awaited Messiah; Paul finds himself joining the very group he set out to destroy. Because
the   concept   of   Judaism   as   the   organizational   birthplace   of   Christ-worship   can   be   so
challenging for gentile Christians (and Jews as well) to get a handle on, I'll restate something
we've  talked  about  before.  What  is  it  about  The  Way  insisting  that  Yeshua  is  the  Messiah,
which has caused other factions of Judaism to feel such anger towards them to the point of
murder?  After  all,  their  founder  and  leader,  Yeshua,  was  dead;  so  obviously  he  was  of  no
further  threat  to  Judaism's  leadership  structure.  While  it  is  always  a  little  dangerous  to
oversimplify  a  complex  issue,  in  the  end  it  was  that  the  Traditions  taught  by  Yeshua  didn't
agree with the Traditions taught by these other factions of Judaism; or in Church-speak, it was
a violent disagreement over religious doctrines and religious authority.
Even  in  Israel  today  the  disagreements  over  Halakhah  (Jewish  law)  and  religious  authority
among Jewish factions can be extremely heated, regularly resulting in assaults and property
damage;  and  especially  when  it  involves  Jewish  followers  of  Yeshua.  A  few  years  ago  an
Israeli Messianic Jewish family that I personally know was viciously attacked by an Orthodox
religious  Jew  over  obvious  differences  in  doctrines.  This  family's  teenage  boy  received  an
explosive device disguised as a Purim gift. He brought it to his kitchen table, opened it and it
exploded in his face destroying the room and injuring and burning him terribly. Miraculously,
but with numerous operations, he survived. Like for the Believers that Paul was pursuing the
issue  that  caused  this  attempted  murder  was  not  personal  per  se;  it  was  about  Halakhah:
Jewish  law  and  Traditions.  It  was  about  one  faction  of  Judaism  (Messianic  Judaism)  being
picked on by another faction of Judaism.
By way of example, I pointed out in an earlier lesson that shortly before the destruction of the
Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., several disciples of the Jewish faction from the Rabbinic
Academy of Hillel murdered a number of disciples of the Rabbinic Academy of Shammai over
a proposed list of Oral Traditions that Shammai wanted the Sanhedrin to enact and enforce.
So  issues  about  who  was  Messiah  weren't  the  only  reasons  for  violence  among  Jewish
factions.  While  it  might  seem  so  to  modern  Christians,  the  persecution  that  the  Jewish
Believers in the Book of Acts were experiencing from other Jews was nothing new, and in fact
has continued sporadically and for varying reasons for centuries.
 Let's also remember that at the point we're at in the Book of Acts there was as yet no gentile
membership in The Way, and no Roman involvement in the persecution; this was purely an
issue  of  infighting  among  Jews.  However  not  all  factions  of  Judaism  were  determined  to
eradicate The Way; only a few of the most zealous. Some merely tried to harass and thwart
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
their efforts; others had a more live and let live attitude. And to be fair, as regards the Purim
bombing  incident,  Israeli  news  media  raged  against  this  attack  and  a  few  leaders  of
mainstream   Judaism   personally   apologized   to   this   teenage   boy's   family   and   openly
denounced the actions of the Purim bomber. So we can no more indict all Judaism as violent
persecutors of Peter and The Way in the New Testament era, than we can indict all Judaism
as persecutors of the modern day Messianic Jews. We need to keep this perspective in mind
as we continue our study of Acts.
When we left Paul he was still in Damascus, having only recently been healed from his spiritual
and  physical  blindness  by  Hananyah,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Christ  that  had  fled  from
Jerusalem, and   who reluctantly laid hands on Paul at God's instruction. Hananyah knew full
well  who  Sha'ul  was,  and  he  greatly  feared  him.  He  wasn't  so  easily  buying  that  Paul  had
suddenly become a dedicated Believer between the time he left Jerusalem with warrants in
hand to arrest Yeshua followers and his arriving in Damascus a few days later, supposedly a
changed man. But the Lord reassured Hananyah that Paul was now in the fold and in fact had
already been assigned the duty of taking the Good News to the gentiles; something else that
Hananyah couldn't have been too thrilled about. But the ever obedient disciple obeyed God,
and Paul received the Holy Spirit.
Paul ended his fast that began on the day Yeshua confronted him; he ate and regained his
strength and straightaway went to the local Synagogues in Damascus to preach what he had
just learned; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Let's pick up with verse 22.
RE-READ ACTS 9:22 – end
Paul apparently had always been a zealot in everything he did. As we assemble his life history
we see that he came to Jerusalem at a young age to seek the best religious training at the
most  elite  school;  that  he  was  (as  he  once  described  himself)  a  Pharisee  of  Pharisees
(meaning that he adopted the strictest code of Judaism for himself); that he was present at
Stephen's stoning, cheering it on; and then that he was one of the hunters that the Sanhedrin
employed to find and arrest those Jewish Believers who fled Jerusalem to Damascus. So it is
not surprising that after his Salvation he remained every bit as zealous and uncompromising
for Christ; it is simply how Paul was wired. Thus we find him in the Synagogues preaching the
Good News, getting into fiery debates with these Damascus congregations, and upsetting the
Jewish population in general. It seems that Paul was at first the proverbial bull-in-a-china-shop.
He had the intelligence, the desire, the drive and the ability to preach the Good News. Yet we
don't hear of one single person in Damascus that Paul convinced to follow Yeshua. No doubt
it  is  because  he  had  not  yet  learned  to  temper  his  enthusiasm  with  humility  and  the  Godly
wisdom that must accompany true evangelism.
Verse 23 begins with the words "Quite some time later". This could be weeks later, it could be
years, that we read of Paul finally upsetting some of the Jews of Damascus sufficiently that
they decided to kill him. Let me again interject: what had Paul done to warrant death threats?
The standard Halakhah (the Traditions that mainstream Judaism followed) didn't agree with
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
Paul's new Halakhah, which had become that of the Jewish Believers. Nothing more. But the
issues involved (mainly that Yeshua was the Messiah and He was deity) were so sensitive that
it led to a desire of this movements' most outspoken opponents to kill.
I want to pause here and shift gears because we find in our passage that after Paul had to be
stealthily smuggled out of Damascus in a basket, he would go back to Jerusalem. However the
timeline  of  this  sequence  of  events  is  problematic  when  we  compare  this  to  Paul's  own
writings. In Galatians Paul says this:
Galatians 1:15-19 CJB
15  But  when  God,  who  picked  me  out  before  I  was  born  and  called  me  by  his  grace,
chose
16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might announce him to the Gentiles, I did not consult
anyone;
17 and I did not go up to Yerushalayim to see those who were emissaries before me.
Instead, I immediately went off to Arabia and afterwards returned to Dammesek.
18 Not until three years later did I go up to Yerushalayim to make Kefa's acquaintance,
and I stayed with him for two weeks,
19 but I did not see any of the other emissaries except Ya'akov the Lord's brother.
So the issue is this: here in Acts chapter 9 it seems that during the time that Paul first came to
believe, he stayed in Damascus for an extended time. Then when a plot was discovered to
murder  him,  some  local  disciples  helped  him  to  escape  the  walled  City  of  Damascus  by
lowering him down in a basket. And then the next thing we're told (in verse 26) is that he went
to Jerusalem. So the story in Acts 9 seems to say that this all happened in a direct sequence:
he arrived in Damascus as a new Believer, escaped Damascus and then went to Jerusalem.
However Galatians appears to tell a different story. In Galatians Paul says that after he left
Damascus, he first went to Arabia and afterwards went back to Damascus. So only after his 2nd
visit to Damascus did he finally go back to Jerusalem. There are other issues of discrepancy
as well but we'll just focus on the timeline for the moment. In Galatians it seems that between
the time Paul first fled from Damascus and before he finally went to Jerusalem is 3 years. It is
common  for  Bible  commentators  to  say  that  he  was  in  Arabia  for  3  years  but  that  is  an
assumption; it is not what the Scripture passage says. We only know that the amount of time
he spent in Arabia plus the amount of time he spent on his return trip to Damascus totaled 3
years. We don't know how he divided his time between Arabia and Damascus.
As Acts 9:23 says, it was "Quite some time later" when he left Damascus for Jerusalem. We
have here an indefinite period of time from when Paul was led into Damascus, blind, and in a
few days began preaching the Gospel in Synagogues; to when he fled Damascus for Arabia,
and then eventually went back to Damascus, caused another ruckus, and had to escape over
the wall at night. Now admittedly, because the Acts 9 and Galatians 1 passages leave out so
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
much  detail  and  it  is  unclear  exactly  how  much  time  he  spent  where,  there  are  various
interpretations by scholars and commentators. But without trying to define the exact amount of
time,  the  sequence  seems  pretty  obvious  when  we  blend  the  information  of  Acts  9  with
Galatians 1. Paul was on his way to Damascus when he met Christ. He arrived in Damascus,
received the Holy Spirit and regained his sight, and then began preaching the good news in
Synagogues all in only a few days.
At  some  undefined  point  Sha'ul  left  Damascus  for  Arabia.  After  living  in  Arabia  for  some
unknown amount of time he returned to stay in Damascus (also for some unknown amount of
time).  However  we  do  know  that  between  the  time  he  left  Damascus  for  Arabia,  and  then
returned to Damascus and then left Damascus again, this time for Jerusalem, was 3 years. So
essentially everything we see happening in Acts 9 from verse 1 to verse 26 occurred over a
period of 3 years; that's about the best we can do without involving considerable speculation.
What did Paul do while he was in Arabia? We don't know. Some say he preached the Gospel
there  but  nothing  says  that  is  why  he  went  or  what  he  did.  Might  some  of  the  Jerusalem
Believers have fled to Arabia and so he went there to stay with them, or minister to them, safe
from  those  in  Damascus  who  wanted  to  kill  him,  perhaps  even  learning  from  them  or
instructing  them?  It  is  unknowable.    However  any  notion  that  during  the  3  years  away
that  Sha'ul  was  given  some  special  kind  of  education  by  Believers  to  prepare  him  for  his
mission doesn't fly. Nor is there any hint that Paul was like Moses in that God Himself gave
one on one instruction to Paul. Nor while away from his Pharisee associates did he transition
from  Judaism  and  become  a  "Christian"  (we'll  see  the  truth  of  that  play  out  in  coming
chapters of Acts). I can say this without reservation because there is no evidence or implication
that  there  were  any  disciples  at  all  in  Arabia  (although  for  certain  there  were  Jewish
communities in Arabia), and whatever disciples lived in Damascus were ordinary disciples and
not the leadership who tasked themselves as the teachers of the finer points of the Gospel
(we're specifically told that in Acts 6:2 and in Acts 8:1).
But more importantly it is because Paul was already a Torah scholar. He knew more about the
Torah of Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, and the Oral Traditions of the Pharisees than any
of those he was among. We must remember: what Paul learned upon coming to faith in Christ
was some new Oral Traditions (new Bible interpretations) that confirmed that Yeshua was the
Messiah; not that everything he knew was wrong and he had to start over from scratch. Even
what  he  had  to  relearn  concerned  primarily  the  very  narrow  issues  of  the  identification  and
nature of the Messiah and how salvation occurred.  Paul didn't need 3 months, let alone 3
years,  of  training  to  be  an  effective  preacher  of  the  Gospel.  And  it  is  not  as  though  some
extensive blueprint for a new religion, complete with new doctrines, had been created by the
Jerusalem Believers in the few short years since Messiah's death and ascent into Heaven; a
blueprint that Paul needed to be taught. Paul was already a noted Bible expert and trained in
teaching. That is why his letters dominate the New Testament and he is considered in authority
over  the  Believing  congregations  in  the  Diaspora;  he  deals  with  Scripture  passages  and
doctrine  in  organized,  articulate  and  deeply  spiritual  and  practical  ways  that  could  be  very
difficult for Jews of his day, as well as for modern and even early Christians, to understand
because of his high-level academic background and his thorough knowledge of the Tanakh
(the Old Testament).
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
And by the way; I hope by now Seed of Abraham Torah Class listeners understand that there
was  no  New  Testament  in  existence  during  Paul's  era.  Nor  did  Paul  think  he  was  part  of
writing one. It would be around 100 years after Paul before a New Testament was proposed
(and at the time that proposal was considered heresy), and 150 years after Paul before one
was actually formulated and declared by the gentile Bishops. They chose some of Paul's and
Peter's  letters  that  had  been  written  to  various  congregations,  along  with  some  Gospel
accounts and a few other documents that they felt were the most reliable (out of the many that
were  floating  around),  to  form  this  New  Testament.  Thus  everything  Paul  quoted  and
interpreted in his writings as regards Yeshua's advent and all that it means were based on the
ancient Hebrew Tanakh; not some new writings. And yet, when he explained his interpretations
he naturally used the terms and thought processes of his culture and his years of training in the
Pharisee discipline, and these revolved around Halakhah.
So it is about 3 years after Paul came to faith in Christ that we find him back in Jerusalem and
he wants to meet with the disciples (meaning the leadership) in Jerusalem. Paul is a natural
leader and so is most comfortable dealing with leadership as we see he used to deal with the
leadership  of  the  Sanhedrin;  naturally  that's  who  he  seeks  out.  However  just  as  it  was  in
Damascus, even 3 years later, the Believers in Jerusalem don't trust him. They didn't believe
that he had really become one of them. And although it isn't mentioned, his old associates
among  the  Priesthood,  and  the  ruling  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  no  doubt  would  have
considered him a traitor; so Paul finds himself in a bind.
There was one Believer, though, that was willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt: Bar-
Nabba.  He takes Paul to the emissaries (meaning the leadership). This brings us to another
issue that some Bible commentators see as a discrepancy. In Galatians 1:18, 19 Paul says
that  when  he  went  to  Yerushalayim  he  met  ONLY  with  Peter  and  with  James,  Yeshua's
brother. Yet here in Acts 9 the inference is that he was taken to meet with most or all of the 12
disciples. I want to point out that in the case of Acts 9 we likely have Luke using second hand
information (he was not an eye witness) and telling the story in broad and general terms; while
in Galatians 1 we have Paul giving his own account of the same story and being more specific.
It would be like me saying that on such and such a day my wife went to the Supermarket to do
grocery shopping. But when she recounts the story she says that she went to the Supermarket
and bought milk and eggs. I told the story in a general way; she added specific detail. My story
could be construed by others to mean that she bought many different things; but in reality she
only bought a couple of items. Either way she went to the Supermarket. In fact it may be that
Luke didn't even know exactly who among the Believers' leadership that Paul met with; but
later Paul in his own letter to the Galatians says it was only with 2 leaders, Kefa and Ya'acov.
And at this time Peter and James are the top 2 leaders of The Way.
Paul did in Jerusalem as he had done in Damascus; after meeting with Kefa and Ya'acov he
went around preaching about Yeshua (no doubt with their permission). Although it doesn't say
so  specifically  Paul  would  have  taught  in  some  of  the  400  or  so  Synagogues  that  crowded
Jerusalem at this time. Most of the Synagogues were Hellenist, so that explains why it was
specifically the Hellenist Jews that started to make attempts to kill him. I'm wondering if it is
occurring to anyone other than me that somehow the Judaism of Paul's era seems to have
forgotten all about the Torah Commandment that "Thou shalt not kill"? Somewhere along the
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
way since the Babylonian exile, because the teachings of Rabbis and Sages had superseded
the  actual  teachings  of  God  in  His  Word,  matters  became  confused  and  it  was  deemed
justifiable to take the life of someone whose doctrine didn't match your own if the issue was
deemed fundamental enough. It is interesting that never will we encounter the accusation that
Jewish Believers had left Judaism, so that is why they could be murdered. Not once will we
hear of a Jew being told that he cannot both be a Jew and worship Yeshua as the Messiah. So
how much their doctrines disagreed didn't disqualify Believers as being Jewish. I'm sorry to
say that we have similar problems among Christians and Messianics today and the reason for
it now is the same as it was in the New Testament era: the identity of Messiah. But today Jews
do  indeed  accuse  Jewish  Believers  of  giving  up  their  Jewishness,  and  gentile  Believers
demand that Jews minimize or abandon their Jewishness to worship Christ. 
The teaching of God's Word then, as now, had become almost passé. I'm not sure whether
the disinterest of the congregations in the Holy Scriptures has led to Pastors and Rabbis not
bothering to learn and teach the Scriptures; or if it is Pastors and Rabbis who find it easier and
more efficient to preach manmade doctrines and social issues than the Bible so the people
assume  that  they  are  one  in  the  same.  But  today  we  find  all  sorts  of  new  traditions  and
doctrines   among   Believing   congregations   that   turns   God's   actual   Word   on   its   head.
God demands that we execute convicted murderers; most of Christianity and Judaism says
that mercy and compassion demands that we not. The Lord says marriage is one man to one
woman; large and growing segments of Christianity and Judaism say that as long as love is
involved marriage is however we choose to define it; and this list goes on.
So while we can look on with alarm and disgust at the Believers in Paul's day being singled
out for death by other Jews over doctrines of Judaism, and wonder how worshippers of the
God of Israel could do such a thing, we first need to look in the mirror and ask how Believers in
Yeshua, the God of Israel, could adopt the ideas and behaviors that many of us have that are
so contradictory to God's written instructions. In both cases the answer is the same: manmade
doctrines and traditions eventually overturned God's Word.
In verse 30 the Believers in Jerusalem somehow learn about the plot against Paul and get him
out of town before it can be carried out. Paul is sent first to Caesarea and then to Tarsus, the
town  of  his  birth  where  his  parents  and/or  family  lived.  Caesarea  is  referring  to  Caesarea
Maritima  a  bustling  port  city  located  around  60  miles  northwest  of  Jerusalem.  I've  taken
hundreds of people there on tours to Israel, and it is truly breath taking. It was a crown jewel in
many  of  Herod's  building  projects,  2nd  only  to  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem.  The  city  was
thoroughly Roman in design, architecture, engineering technology, and purpose. It contained a
pagan Temple, a hippodrome, a large amphitheater, and the most modern of ports. It served
as  the  provincial  seat  of  Roman  governance  of  Judea.  But  it  also  had  a  large  and  wealthy
Jewish population. It is clear from Paul's final destination, Tarsus, that the reason he went to
Caesarea was to get ship passage to Tarsus.
Tarsus would give Paul a good base from which to launch his mission to the gentiles. He would
have easy access to all points of the compass from there, and he would have had a friendly
environ to host him in the meantime. As a native of Tarsus and as a Roman citizen, he had
every advantage and would make good use of it. And no doubt by now Paul was learning to be
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
a little more measured in how he approached the issue of the Gospel as he brought it to both
Diaspora Jews and gentiles. Another wonderful lesson for us is just under the surface here.
Paul was given his marching orders directly from God: take the Good News of Yeshua to the
gentiles. So far as we know, up to now, there was nothing more specific than that. So when
God gives us an assignment it is up to us to get up and get moving. Pray as preparation, but
don't  expect  the  assignment  to  be  accomplished  supernaturally.  Think.  Assess.  Learn.
Organize. Do. God gave each of us a brain, and certain abilities. Sometimes the Lord will give
us  unusual  backgrounds  and  circumstances  that  give  us  a  unique  opportunity  to  reach  a
certain  segment  of  society,  or  to  accomplish  a  task  that  perhaps  others  couldn't.    Don't  be
afraid to be who you are, to draw on your life experiences, and to use your abilities and assets
in service to the Lord.
Verse 31 says that after Paul's departure, throughout the Holy Land the Messianic community
enjoyed peace. The intent is not to say that it was because of Paul leaving that Messianics
enjoyed peace; but rather that on a timeline it was after Paul departed that things also calmed
down. But it also means that those zealots who were so determined to harass and destroy the
Yeshua followers had calmed down and this period of quiet gave the Believers a chance to
spread the message without fear. 
Notice in this same verse that it speaks of the Believers "living in the fear of the Lord". A better
more literal translation of the Greek is not "living" but rather "going" in the fear of the Lord. I
point this out because at this point in Jewish history the Biblical phrase "walking in the fear of
the Lord" or "going in the fear of the Lord" had become a standard expression in Jewish life
that meant to denote faithful observance to the Halakhah; Jewish law. Remember what I told
you that the word Halakhah means? It means "the path that one walks".   So the idea is that
"walking in the fear of the Lord" is "the path that one walks". See how that fits together? And
in that era, Halakhah consisted of a combination of Torah Law, Oral Law and customs that
Judaism said establishes the path that one ought to walk.
Among  scholars  a  phrase  of  this  type  is  call  a  Hebraism.  That  is,  just  like  we  might  call  a
phrase like "don't let the cat out of the bag" an Americanism because it is used nowhere else
but in America, it has a meaning among Americans that goes beyond what the words mean in
their   literal   sense;   but   only   Americans   know   what   it   means.   After   all,   this   particular
Americanism has nothing to do with cats or bags; it merely means to keep something secret. A
Hebraism does the same; there are sayings that have a certain meaning only within Hebrew
society, and the saying doesn't necessarily mean exactly what the individual words seem to
say. I bring this up because the New Testament is chocked full of Hebraisms that can be hard
to spot because they are first expressed in Greek and then further translated to English. Thus
we can look at the literal meaning of those words and get the wrong impression unless we
recognize it as a uniquely Hebrew expression. So in the NT whenever we see the expression
of going, or walking, or living in the fear of the Lord, it is actually a Hebraism that is referring to
being faithful to the total body of Halakhah.  And of course, this was considered as the most
pious, God-fearing thing that a Jew could do.
Verse 32 now transitions away from Paul and back to Peter, the unquestioned leader of The
Way at this time. He was traveling around, ministering to the Believers who were scattered in
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
groups around the Holy Land. He came to the town of Lud; Lud is also known as Lydda. This
was  a  large  Jewish  city  in  the  Roman  province  of  Samaria,  about  25  miles  northwest  of
Jerusalem. Here Peter would perform another healing miracle.
The subject was a man named Aeneas who, we are told, had been paralyzed for 8 years. The
most common reason for sudden paralysis in an adult in this era was a Stroke. Aeneas was a
Believer. Peter went into his room, and prayed over him in the name of Yeshua the Messiah. In
fact the form of the prayer is a command for Aeneas to be healed of his paralysis. Clearly since
Aeneas  was  a  Believer  living  amongst  other  Believers  many  prayers  for  his  healing  would
already have been sent Heavenward. But Peter had been given special authority by Christ to
do miracles. Since the man had been bed ridden for 8 years, Peter's command to "get up, and
make your bed" is actually a bit light hearted if not humorous. Many non-Believers in the area
heard of this, and saw Aeneas healed, and this brought them to faith in Yeshua. The added
significance  is  that  this  occurred  in  Samaria  so  many  Samaritans  lived  there.  And  we've
discussed before the animosity between Jews and Samaritans. No doubt those who came to
faith involved both Samaritans and Jews.
From there Peter was called to Yafo, also called Jaffa and Joppa. In Yafo lived a young lady
named  Tavita.  Tavita  is  Hebrew  for  gazelle.  The  Greek  word  for  gazelle  is  Dorcas  and  so
occasionally we'll see the name Dorcas in our Bibles. English Bibles usually call her Tabitha.
She was known as a good woman who helped others; however she suddenly took ill and died.
Because in Hebrew society burial must be accomplished by sundown of the day the person
passes away, they quickly washed the body, wrapped her in linen cloth, and laid her on her
bed. So take notice that in the case of the paralyzed man in Lydda and now with the deceased
woman in Yafo, both are Believers. Thus in both cases the local community fully knew that if
He wanted to the Lord could heal not only paralysis but even bring the dead back to life. Who
better to be summoned then, than Peter?
Upper rooms were common on houses as a rather easy way to add on more living space since
all roofs were flat roofs. Often the upper rooms were guest quarters. It was customary for a
Hebrew to be laid out in their own bed in their own room should they die. That it was an upper
room changes none of that.
Verse 39 explains that Peter immediately went to Tavita's bedside, and next to her bed were
sobbing widows. The likely significance that there were several widows present is that often
widows were hired to come and be part of the customary mourning rites. They were usually
available, and many needed money, so a small fee would be paid. So it had become rather
customary to employ widows as professional mourners. These widows were no strangers to
Tavita as they each displayed the clothes Tavita had made and given to them; this tells us that
these widows were indeed poor.
Peter  wasted  no  time;  he  sent  the  widows  away  and  prayed  over  Tavita.  Just  as  Kefa  had
ordered the disabled Aeneas to get up out of his bed, so he orders the deceased Tavita to get
up out of her bed. Immediately she opened her eyes and sat up. Folks, our God has the power
over life and death! Death is no obstacle for Him and this is a hope that we have that is more
than only a wish; it is a promise. As Believers we will still die; but it won't be permanent. We
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
will live again and our God has but to think it to make it so.
Peter actually follows a Biblical pattern here. This is not the first time in the Bible that a Prophet
of God has been used to bring the dead back to life. Elijah did it. Elisha did it. And of course
Yeshua did it. And each time the pattern was that the corpse was lying on their bed, and the
Prophet ordered everyone to leave the room. The Lord was beseeched through prayer by the
Prophet, and in His sovereign will God acted by raising that person from the dead (just as we
see here with Tavita).
One can only imagine the joy as Peter took her hand and led her to her many friends who
anxiously awaited. No doubt many harbored hope that Tavita would be returned to them; but
how many actually thought it would happen? Was it for Tavita's sake that the Lord reanimated
her lifeless body? No. Tavita's eternal future was secure. The reason for this miracle is stated
in the next verse. 
   CJB Acts 9:42 This became known all over Yafo, and many people put their trust in the
Lord. 
God's purpose for the miracles of Aeneas and Tavita was to demonstrate His power, His love,
His authority over everything seen and unseen. Many who saw these things happen with their
own eyes could not resist and they too accepted Yeshua into their hearts.
This chapter ends with the notice that Kefa stayed in Yafo for an undetermined amount of time,
being hosted by Shimon, a leather tanner. We'll learn more about Shimon next time, but for
now just know that a leather tanner was pretty much the lowliest craft a person could practice.
The tanning fluid used in those days was so putrid in odor that they usually set up shop by the
sea in hopes the wind would help some. But it also meant that the tanner wore a permanent
stench that no amount of bathing or incense would solve.
Peter,  then,  the  head  of  the  rapidly  growing  Yeshua  movement,  and  so  loved  by  God  and
given such awesome authority by Christ, didn't stay in a lovely home with a wealthy person of
status  in  the  community.  Instead  he  chose  the  hospitality  of  the  lowliest,  least  respected
craftsman in Jewish society, who usually wasn't even permitted near other folks.
We'll begin Acts chapter 10 next time. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 23, Chapter 10
Acts chapter 10 is one I have been looking forward to teaching for some time. It gets into an
important  subject  that  causes  significant  tension  between  Christians  and  Jews,  and  within
Christianity  and  Messianic  Judaism;  it  is  the  issue  of  whether  the  Torah  food  laws  are  still
binding. Yet, on the other hand, today I will show you that while Acts 10 is used in mainstream
Christianity  to  teach  that  the  Levitical  food  laws  have  been  abolished,  in  fact  this  is  a  red
herring. That is, this chapter actually has nothing to do with kosher eating whatsoever. And the
reason for this misconstruing of the meaning of this chapter is that Christian commentators (all
gentile)  usually  don't  have  an  inkling  of  what  Judaism  was  about,  nor  what  an  important
role Halakhah continued to play in the lives of New Testament Jews as it had for at least the 2
centuries leading up to the birth of Christ.
We've  been  discussing  the  term  Halakhah  for  several  weeks  and  I  hope  by  now  you  all
understand what Halakhah means and what Halakhah is: it is the overall body of Jewish laws
that controlled every aspect of Jewish life and behavior. It consisted then, and continues to
consist to this day of a fusion of 3 sources: the Torah of Moses, ancient Jewish customs, and
most  importantly  it  was  dominated  by  rabbinic  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Bible
interpretations within the institutional Church go by the name of doctrines. But within Judaism
they are known as Oral Torah or as Traditions.
Just as Christian doctrines form the subject and apology for virtually every sermon given in a
Church  each  week,  so  does  Halakhah  form  the  subject  and  apology  for  everything  that  is
taught and practiced within the Synagogue. And in the New Testament era nearly every Jew,
whether  living  in  the  Holy  Land  or  out  in  the  Diaspora  (except  for  Sadducees  and  the
priesthood),  was  connected  to  the  Synagogue  system  in  the  same  way  that  nearly  every
Christian in modern times is connected (whether loosely or firmly) to the Church. I draw this
Church and Synagogue parallel for the express purpose of creating a familiar mental image for
you to give you a meaningful idea of how the Jews, Believers or otherwise, practiced their faith
and formed their theology in the time of the Apostles.
While Acts chapter 9 was mostly about the making of the new Believer Sha'ul (Paul), about
two-thirds of the way through the chapter we saw a transition to Kefa (Peter); Acts chapter 10
remains with Peter. When last we saw Peter he was staying in the home of Shimon a leather
tanner,  following  two  recorded  miracles  he  performed.  The  first  miracle  involved  a  Believer
named Aeneas who had been paralyzed for 8 years, and thus was a bedridden invalid; likely
due to Stroke. The second involved a much beloved female Believer named Tavita who had
caught  ill  and  died  suddenly.  Let's  be  clear  that  what  we  have  in  the  Book  of  Acts  is  Luke
weaving together a history of the disciples of Christ following His resurrection. But the history is
not exhaustive and it is not meant to record every act of every disciple; nor is it a daily journal
of their lives. It is a Reader's Digest style summary using certain highlights that Luke chose to
present an early history of Christian origins that particularly pointed out the powerful workings
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
of the Holy Spirit within the Believing Community. The point being that many more miracles
would have occurred than the few that Luke speaks about; and Peter no doubt healed more
people  than  what  we  find  only  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  So  Luke,  being  a  scholar  and  an
accomplished writer and story teller, and under the spiritual control of the Lord, has selected
certain events for us to know about and there is a purpose behind them.
Therefore it should not go unnoticed that of the two miracles recorded in Acts chapter 9, one
was  a  male,  the  other  a  female.  And  as  big  a  miracle  as  it  was  for  the  Lord  to  restore
movement for the paralyzed man, I think we can all agree that it is (at least from the human
standpoint) an even more startling miracle to bring a dead woman back to life! And in a culture
and era of male domination, God has made it a point in the Bible since the Book of Genesis to
show us that he values men and women equally, even if He assigns different roles to each.
It is also interesting that in both miracles the action took place with the subjects lying in their
beds. In fact we noticed that earlier prophets who brought the dead back to life used a similar
pattern whereby the subject was laid on their bed.  And in both cases in Acts 9 the healer
insisted  that  the  room  was  emptied  of  bystanders.  This  was  not  to  be  a  spectacular  public
display that put the focus on the human agent of healing; this was to be a quiet private moment
that rightfully gave the true Heavenly healer the glory.
These 2 miracles took place in Yafo, also known as Joppa, and Peter was still there as Acts
chapter 10 opens.
Let's read Acts chapter 10 together.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 10 all
Peter has been reacting to God's direction by travelling around the countryside of Judea and
apparently by plan arrived in Lud. But unexpectedly he had been called from Lud to Yafo. Now,
equally unexpectedly, he is about to be called from Yafo to Caesarea Maritima, in earlier times
known as Strato's Tower.
Here  we  witness  a  sea  change  occur  in  the  history  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  history  of
redemption, as gentiles are suddenly no longer only pictured as the antithesis and opponents
of  the  Hebrews,  but  suddenly  gentiles  are  the  targets  of  God's  mercy.  He  wants  them  fully
included in His Kingdom that will be ruled by a Jewish Messiah and King, Yeshua. Although in
chapter 8 we saw the disciple Philip bring Christ to the Ethiopian gentile, here we have a most
unlikely candidate who has opened his heart to the God of Israel; Cornelius a Roman army
officer. What is so fascinating is that a Roman soldier was emblematic of the oppression the
Jews were suffering under. It was Roman soldiers that the Roman government counted on to
bring the Roman ways to the many foreign nations that formed the Roman Empire. Thus every
Roman controlled nation had garrisons of Roman soldiers stationed there, especially if there
was resistance to Roman occupation (as there was by the Jews). So if you were a Jew hearing
about what Peter did in going to Cornelius you would have been even more astounded and
angrier  than  when  these  same  Jews  learned  of  the  Believers'  outreach  to  those  filthy  half-
breed Samaritans.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
Can you imagine what the other Jews would think if a Jew in the * death camps went to a
* guard, showing him kindness and sharing with him that righteousness could be his, and
he could become part of the community of God, if he trusted the God of the Jews? That is a
reasonable  analogy  of  what  is  happening  here  with  Peter  and  Cornelius  and  why  it  was
controversial.
Cornelius was a Centurion; a commander of a hundred. Centurions were the glue that held the
Roman military together. Six of these units of a hundred formed what was called a cohort. And
10 cohorts typically formed a legion of 6000 fighting men. Luke in fact tells us of the specific
cohort that Cornelius belonged: the Italian Regiment. A Centurion usually received 10 times
the  pay  of  a  common  soldier.  But  even  more  Centurions  had  a  seniority  system  so  they
weren't  all  of  equal  rank  even  though  they  held  the  same  title.  When  we  see  here  that
Cornelius  had  a  couple  of  slaves  it  meant  that  he  was  probably  one  of  the  more  senior
Centurions and so had more wealth.
It  is  logical  that  this  military  unit  was  stationed  in  Caesarea  Maritima  as  it  was  the  Roman
center  of  government  for  ruling  the  province  of  Judea.  At  this  time  Caesarea  was  majority
gentile  Roman,  although  it  had  a  sizeable  Jewish  population  as  well.  Cornelius  is  given  a
glowing portrayal using 4 descriptive characteristics. First, he was devout. This means that he
was faithful to God and he led his household in the same way. Second he feared God; this is
an  expression  that  most  scholars  today  have  turned  into  the  familiar  label  "God-fearer"  to
indicate a gentile who followed the God of Israel. However there is no evidence that God-fearer
was any kind of a formal or technical term or title in that era, or a named group that someone
belonged to. It is just an informal description. Third he is described as a giver of alms; charity.
Cornelius  was  a  generous  giver  and  charity  was  seen  as  one  of  the  highest  principles  of
Godliness by Judaism. That it is specifically stated that his alms were given to Jewish people
endeared Cornelius to the local Jews. And fourth he is said to have prayed to God continually.
That a person prays often was, especially in that era, an indication of great personal piety.
One  of  the  things  for  us  to  notice  here  is  that  Cornelius  was  not  hiding  his  devotion  to  the
Jewish God. He was open because he was not in any danger for his beliefs. Rome was quite
tolerant of all the religions in the empire, and Roman soldiers were permitted to adopt the local
religion if they so chose. Naturally the element of Caesar worship had to be retained, and of
course full loyalty to the Roman government was expected. But outside of that Roman soldiers
could worship any gods they chose to including the Jewish God. 
Verse 3 says it was the 9th hour, meaning 3 in the afternoon, that Cornelius had a vision. This
was a standard Jewish prayer hour because this was a standard time for afternoon sacrifices
at the Temple in Jerusalem. The vision was of an angel who spoke to him. Cornelius is said to
have stared at the angel and said, "What is it Lord"? Most Bibles will use the word Lord with a
capital "L" here, which is reserved for a theophany; that is an appearance of God. Thus some
claim that this is Yeshua speaking to Cornelius. I don't think that is correct, since this being is
referred to as an angel. Thus I don't believe that the term lord was referring to God.  Little "L"
lord, used commonly, is just another way of saying "sir". It is sign of respect; not an indication
that it is God. And that is what we have here. So the CJB has it right.
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
It is clear that this vision occurred while Cornelius was praying because the angel says that
God has heard his prayers. The statement that "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a
memorial before God" is telling, especially when we think back to Leviticus and we hear of the
smoke of the burnt offerings wafting up to the heavens as a sweet aroma to Yehoveh. The
thought behind what the angel told Cornelius is probably best expressed by a passage from
the Book of Hebrews.
CJB Hebrews 13:15 Through him(Christ), therefore, let us offer God a sacrifice of praise
continually. For this is the natural product of lips that acknowledge his name.  So the
concept  is  that  while  this  gentile  God-fearer  Cornelius  is  not  permitted  to  offer  sacrifices  of
atonement at the Temple altar, his prayers and his deeds of kindness have ascended to the
God  of  Israel  much  like  the  smoke  of  the  burnt  offerings.  Even  more  it  is  a  fulfillment  of  a
profound statement that the great Prophet Samuel had made 1000 years earlier as regards the
Lord's attitude about sacrifices.
CJB   1  Samuel  15:22  Sh'mu'el  said,  "Does  ADONAI  take  as  much  pleasure  in  burnt
offerings and sacrifices as in obeying what ADONAI says? Surely obeying is better than
sacrifice, and heeding orders than the fat of rams.
While  it  might  not  be  entirely  accurate  to  portray  Samuel's  statement  as  prophetic,  we
certainly see with Cornelius, and in the angel's message to him, a fulfillment of the principle
that the only purpose for sacrifice was to atone due to a human failure to be obedient to God in
the first place. Obedience negates the need for a sacrifice. The Essenes at Qumran in their
Dead Sea Scrolls Community Document said essentially the same thing:
1QS  9:4-5  ".....the  offering  of  the  lips  in  compliance  with  the  (Law)  will  be  like  the
pleasant  aroma  of  justice;  and  the  perfectness  of  behavior  will  be  acceptable  as  a
freewill sacrifice....."
The  Essenes  were  looking  through  the  Law  and  seeing  the  spirit  of  the  Law.  They  were
forced  to  contemplate  the  sacrificial  system  deeply,  at  least  in  their  eyes,  because  they
considered the Temple and its Priesthood so corrupt and worthless (which indeed it was at this
time)  that  they  abandoned  it  and  so  believed  something  had  to  exist  beyond  the  sheer
mechanics of sacrificial ritual. Thus Cornelius's pious attitude of constant prayer and his action
of generous charity to God's people was, in God's eyes, better than the animal sacrifices that
he was prohibited from making because he was a gentile.  So what is happening is that before
the Apostle Peter gets the divine message that barriers between Hebrews and gentiles are
falling, Cornelius is given the hint that a relationship with Yehoveh that had been reserved only
for Hebrews is now being offered to gentiles. Peter would be the bearer of the Good News to
Cornelius of the conditions that had to be met in order for that relationship to happen.
So in verse 5 the divine messenger to Cornelius told him to send some of his men to Yafo to
fetch Peter.  He orders two of his slaves and one of his military soldiers to go and ask Peter to
come, and to safely escort him to Cornelius.
Peter now has a corresponding vision to Cornelius's; and it is very unsettling to Peter. And it
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
has  been  unsettling  to  much  of  the  Church  ever  since  this  vision  was  written  down  and
recorded for us. It was about noontime the next day when Peter goes up on the roof of Shimon
the Tanner's house for his regular prayer time. Almost all houses in this era were built with flat
roofs and they served as another floor of the house. Going up there gave Kefa some privacy.
Now verse 10 is actually one of the most overlooked, but key, passages in this chapter. It says
that while Peter was up there, he began to feel hungry. In fact we are told that he hoped to eat;
and further, that downstairs a meal was being prepared. So where was Peter's mind when he
went up to the roof to pray? It was on food! This is the natural context to the vision Peter is
going to receive.
While  he  was  on  the  roof,  hungry,  fixated  on  food,  he  goes  into  what  the  Greek  says
is ekstasis. It is where we get the English word ecstasy or ecstatic from. Most English Bibles
translate  the  word  to  trance;  that  is,  Peter  went  into  a  trance.  Webster's  Dictionary  says  a
trance  is  a  daze,  or  a  stupor,  or  a  hypnotic  state.  Probably  this  is  an  acceptable  meaning
provided we understand that this is a God-induced condition in which a person is transported
beyond his normal physical state and consciousness to a place that he can perceive things
that are of another dimension, but it seems to him as though he is perceiving them in the real
world  using  his  normal  senses  of  sight,  hearing,  touch,  etc.    Peter  sees  Heaven  open  and
descending from Heaven is something like a rectangular piece of fabric with 4 corners. It is
important that we understand that what Peter says in his ecstatic state is greatly influenced by
God. That is, Peter's words aren't necessarily his own; God is intervening in both sides of the
dialogue. Peter is in a spiritual trance; he is not having a dream.
Peter's  ecstatic  vision  is  symbolic;  but  as  Peter  says,  it  was  also  a  puzzlement  to  him.  It
wasn't at all straightforward in its meaning. The Heavens opening up is a Biblical expression
that means to reveal God's glory from on high. That we are told that the cloth had 4 corners is
also important. In Hebrew thought the number 4 is indicative of the world and its 4 compass
directions. So the 4-cornered cloth represented something concerning the entire world and its
inhabitants. Now it is common in Hebrew Roots and in Messianic Judaism to say that the 4
corner cloth that came down was a Tallit, a prayer shawl. Perhaps. But it would have been
awfully easy to just say so if that was the case. Further, while today we tend to see prayer
shawls  as  external  garments  that  are  used  for  religious  purposes  and  then  put  away,  in
Peter's  day  it  was  worn  as  a  sort  of  cloak  between  a  man's  underwear  and  his  outer
garment.    That  is,  they  were  part  of  everyday  dress.  So  where  I'm  going  is  that  it  seems
terribly unlikely that it was visually a Tallit as we know them today that Peter saw; thus it is
described as "something like" a large sheet or piece of cloth.
In this cloth were an assortment of 4 legged animals, crawling creatures and wild birds. All
crawling  creatures  and  almost  all  wild  birds  are  not  permissible  for  food.  Some  4  legged
animals are permitted, others are not. Beyond that brief description we know no more about
what the animals were that were riding on that sheet. Peter is instructed to kill the animals and
to eat them. Let me pause for a second: what is the context for Peter's vision? He was hungry,
yearning for food, and in fact a meal was being prepared downstairs so he would have smelled
the odor of the food being cooked as he prays upstairs. So is it surprising that this ecstatic
vision involves eating? Hardly.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
But Peter recoiled from the instruction to kill and eat because he says that he has never eaten
food that was of this kind. And what was this kind? The passage says in Greek that it was
koinos and akathartos.  Our CJB says it means it was unclean and treif. Treif is Hebrew that
literally means torn, in the sense of an animal that was torn to death by a wild beast. And such
meat, even if it was a type of animal that was normally permissible for food, is not to be eaten
according to the Law of Moses if it was attacked and killed by a wild beast. However the CJB
translation is a poor one. Koinos means common, and akathartos means unclean. Common
means something that is not holy. Unclean means something that is not ritually pure. Common
and unclean are entirely separate issues and are treated differently by God's laws. However in
reality what we see here is Peter making a response that likely is a combination of citing God's
Torah law and citing Tradition; but also as we'll shortly see, there is a disconnect between the
terms Peter uses and the kosher status of the animals offered as food. To begin with there is
nothing  in  God's  law  against  eating  something  common  (in  fact  the  term  "common"  is  not
used in reference to food; that is, "common" is not a food classification). Yet, we find that word
used here in this conversation.  On the other hand there is indeed a prohibition against eating
something unclean. In a few verses (next week actually) when we see what the conversation
between  Yehoveh  and  Peter  meant,  if  we  understand  both  the  Greek  terms  koinos  and
akathartos and we understand Halakhah, it becomes much clearer.
So let me say it another way: the issue facing Peter is primarily about Halakhah. But since
Halakhah consists of the actual Torah of God, plus Traditions, plus customs then we have to
untangle  something  that  to  Peter's  mind  was  supposed  to  be  tangled.  That  is  Peter  and
Judaism  made  little  practical  differentiation  between  the  Torah  of  Moses,  Traditions  and
customs. They were seen as essentially one in the same. And to help us grasp that, I'll point
out  that  Christianity  generally  sees  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  Church  doctrines  as  one  in  the
same, even if Christians don't always consciously consider the effect of such an attitude.
Stay with me; this is important. The Torah of Moses shows us that all objects, including people,
are in God's eyes in one of three states: holy, common, or unclean. Holy means set apart for
God. Common means things that are not set-apart for God; but that doesn't in any way mean
that common things are evil or wrong. It just means that these common things aren't given the
special status of holy. Unclean speaks of things that would otherwise be acceptable to God,
but for any number of reasons are in a state of ritual impurity and in this state of unclean they
cannot be used for service to God. Thus where the CJB will say unholy instead of using the
word common, that is not entirely wrong, but a) that is an incorrect translation of the Greek and
b)  it  gives  us  the  wrong  impression.  For  a  gentile  Christian  especially,  unholy  presents  a
mental  picture  of  something  being  wicked  or  bad;  something  that  is  opposed  to  God.  But
common  doesn't  mean  wicked,  and  so  as  we  think  of  the  term  common  in  our  day  it  also
doesn't mean unholy.
In Biblical terms gentiles are common, while Hebrews are holy. Hebrews are imputed with a
status  of  holy  because  beginning  with  Abraham  the  Lord  set  Hebrews  apart  from  all  other
people on this earth (gentiles) for Himself. Being set apart for service to God is the definition of
holy. Gentiles having a status of common does not mean that gentiles are bad; and it certainly
does not mean that they also automatically have the status of unclean. Rather, gentiles are just
not sanctified, not holy (not set apart) for God. Of course Christ provided a means for gentiles
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
to cross over that status barrier and that is what Peter was soon to find out.
But  Peter's  response  to  God's  instruction  to  kill  and  eat  is  also  somewhat  mysterious
assuming Luke has chosen the proper words to record this event. And I assume he did since
this is God inspired. That is, when it comes to describing whether edible items (food) are God-
authorized  food  for  Hebrews  (kosher)  then  the  issue  is  whether  that  food  is  categorized  as
permissible or prohibited. If it is prohibited, then it is simply not food. Ever. If it is permissible,
then it is food. However there is no category called "common" as regards food EXCEPT in a
kind of off-handed way and in one instance. And this reality is central to the meaning of our
story. I don't want to complicate matters too much but if I don't say something about it I'll get
some bad email.
According to the Torah Law, some of the meat and produce brought by Hebrews for sacrifice
was to be set apart and given to the Priests as payment for their services. This all depended
on what kind of sacrifice it was, and it depended on the occasion. This particular portion had to
be  eaten  only  by  priests  and  it  usually  had  to  be  eaten  at  the  holy  precinct,  meaning  the
Temple  grounds.  Thus  this  food  portion  for  the  priests  was  considered  especially  holy  (set
apart). Now if, for instance, the sacrifice was a lamb and some of it went to the priests then it
was considered holy food. But if a lamb was NOT used for sacrifice, and a regular Hebrew
killed it, cooked it and ate it for a meal, then it was NOT holy food (because it hadn't been
dedicated to God). It was perfectly kosher food, it just wasn't holy. However because it was
not  holy  doesn't  then  make  it  common,  except  in  an  off-handed  sense  that  it  wasn't  made
holy. So the important point is this: common was not a food category; common isn't a term
applied to food. It is only that regular Hebrews could NOT ever eat holy food; that would have
been sin. Holy food was reserved exclusively for the priests. And the only holy food was food
that had been offered for sacrifice at the Temple.
So  when  Peter  says  he  has  never  eaten  common  (koinos)  food,  then  it  doesn't  make  any
sense, since common isn't a food word in the first place; and besides all Hebrews (except for
priests) ONLY ever ate food that wasn't holy. So if common is just semantics indicating food
that had not been set apart as holy for the priests, then it is further confusing because the
ONLY food Peter would have ever eaten was common (not holy) food. Yet, Peter insists he
has never eaten common food. So then what did he eat?!
 As for eating unclean food? Of course; no Hebrew would knowingly eat unclean food. But
understand; unclean is not the term that defines the list of what edible items Hebrews cannot
eat or can eat. That list is the list of permissible foods and prohibited foods. For instance a cow
is permitted, but a horse is prohibited for food. But that is not the same as clean and unclean.
The Biblical Torah food rules works like this: food on the permitted list can be eaten but it must
be  dealt  with  properly.  It  must  be  raised  properly;  if  an  animal  it  must  be  slaughtered  and
butchered properly; its blood drained properly and it must be handled and stored properly. If
the permitted food item is not dealt with properly it can become defiled and thus it becomes
unclean. So clean and unclean doesn't define which things are allowed for food; it only deals
with the handling of permissible food. Handle food wrong, and it becomes unclean.
What has made this so difficult for gentiles (and many Jews as well) to understand is that in the
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
usual way of speaking the terms unclean and prohibited have become interchangeable; and
this can get very confusing. I won't go on with this, because I don't want to get bogged down.
But it matters greatly in this story.
So for certain when we look at the original Greek, Peter says he has never eaten common or
unclean food (two different things); and because it was animals and not produce in the lowered
sheet obviously Peter means he's never eaten common or unclean meat. Yet, that presents a
problem  since  because  Peter  isn't  a  priest  the  only  meat  he  has  ever  eaten  was  common
(meaning not holy). What gives? I sure hope you're focusing and paying attention, because
now it gets a bit more complicated.
God responds to Peter's refusal to kill and eat what is in the sheet from Heaven by saying that
Peter should not call common (koinos) that which God has made clean (kathartos). Our CJB
has it wrong when it says: "Stop treating as unclean what God has made clean". That is, the
CJB makes it sound that something was formerly unclean, but now God has cleansed it. That
is not what the passage literally says, and that is not what the passage means. Rather the Lord
is  literally  telling  Peter  not  to  call  common  things  unclean.  And  this  is  actually  just  a  basic
Torah  principle;  common  things  are  merely  common.  From  the  Torah  perspective  common
things  in  their  natural  state  are  clean.  Common  things  were  not  created  unclean;  common
things are not considered unclean by God and can only become unclean if they are improperly
used or are ritually defiled. Once again; the term common also doesn't actually apply to the
issue of kosher animals (animals that are fit for food for God's people).
Thus on the surface, we have a conundrum; the words don't seem to be coherent. The visual
imagery and the conversation sure seems to be about food animals; but after Peter refuses to
kill and eat, some of the terms used by God and by Peter aren't terms that apply to kosher
food; the term koinos, common, in particular doesn't apply.
God  told  Peter  not  to  call  common  things  unclean  for  a  second  time.  Saying  or  doing
something twice in the Bible means that it has great significance. That this entire sequence
was repeated 3 times validates that it was divine.
Confused about what just went on? Don't worry; so was Peter. The verse says that Peter was
puzzling over the meaning of the vision he had seen when suddenly Cornelius's men show up.
It is usually said about this verse that Peter was puzzled because he couldn't imagine why
God would tell him to kill and eat unclean animals. I'm here to tell you that this is not what
puzzled Peter. His confusion was that while food at first seemed to be the topic, suddenly the
terminology of the conversation switched mid-stream and terms not used for food started to be
used; both by God and by Peter. Recall; Peter was in a God-induced trance so what came out
of his mouth was not his own. Peter was essentially observing a conversation between himself
and God.
In a few more verses, Peter is finally going to understand what this bewildering ecstatic vision
was all about. And that is what we'll discuss next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 24, Chapter 10 continued
It is said that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So I suppose for me as a Hebrew Roots
Bible  teacher,  Acts  chapter  10  looks  like  one  of  those  places  in  the  Bible  that  needs  to  be
attacked with great vigor. Therefore as we enter our 2nd week studying Acts chapter 10, we'll
continue  to  move  deliberately  and  carefully  dissect  this  chapter  as  it  plays  a  crucial  role  in
Christian and Messianic doctrine.
I suspect that what we discussed last week concerning especially the 2nd paragraph of chapter
10 (about the sheet with the animals coming down from Heaven) was challenging to absorb
due  to  the  many  nuances  that  are  present  there  and  the  difficulties  of  using  terms  that
Christians  aren't  used  to  hearing.  If  it  was  challenging  or  confusing  for  you  don't  feel  bad
about it; it is indeed complex. That said, it is critical that we understand the intended meaning
behind the 4 legged beasts and the other creatures in the sheet that descends from Heaven as
thoroughly as we can because frankly it has been poorly interpreted and taught for centuries
by some of our greatest and most recognized Bible scholars. This is due to two factors: 1) a
built-in denominational and doctrinal bias that ignores the plain meaning of passages, and 2) a
lack of knowledge about Judaism, the Synagogue, Halakhah, and ancient Jewish culture in
general  that  prevents  an  otherwise  superior  Bible  scholar  from  seeing  what  is  actually
occurring in its historical context.  The result has been some Christian doctrine that is not only
incorrect,  but  it  fosters  anti-Semitism  and  the  powerless,  casual  Christianity  that  we  see
present in our day.
I  want  to  review  with  you  a  bit  from  last  time  and  to  add  some  additional  information  and
explanation in hopes of helping you to grasp this as best you can before we continue with the
next several verses of Acts chapter 10. It is a little like the importance of first being comfortable
with basic math (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) before moving on to Algebra.
I'll begin by giving you an example of the nature of the problem that Bible students wrestle
with in trying to discover the truth of Acts chapter 10 by quoting to you from perhaps the most
authoritative modern commentary on the Book of Acts in publication today, as authored by the
venerable F. F. Bruce. I ask you to listen carefully to what he says about the nature and plain
meaning of this passage; but then notice how despite admitting the truth he does an about face
and reverts to his doctrinal stance as an obvious self-contradiction. In his Commentary on the
Book of Acts in reference to Acts 10:9-19 F. F. Bruce says this:
"The divine cleansing of food in the vision is a parable of the divine cleansing of human
beings  in  the  incident  to  which  the  vision  leads  up.  It  did  not  take  Peter  long  to
understand this: 'God has taught me', he says later in the present narrative, 'to call no
human being profane or unclean".
So Bruce fully acknowledges that the vision Peter witnesses is a parable; that is, it is not literal
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
but  rather  it  is  a  simple  story  using  commonly  known  objects  and  items  symbolically  to  get
across a point. The sheet full of animals is meant to represent something else entirely. Let me
give you an example of how a parable works using one that we're all familiar with, the parable
that Yeshua told about the 10 virgins.
CJB Matthew 25:1 "The Kingdom of Heaven at that time will be like ten bridesmaids who
took their lamps and went out to meet the groom.
2 Five of them were foolish and five were sensible.
3 The foolish ones took lamps with them but no oil,
4 whereas the others took flasks of oil with their lamps.
5 Now the bridegroom was late, so they all went to sleep.
6 It was the middle of the night when the cry rang out, 'The bridegroom is here! Go out
to meet him!'
7 The girls all woke up and prepared their lamps for lighting.
8 The foolish ones said to the sensible ones, 'Give us some of your oil, because our
lamps are going out.'
9 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both you and us. Go to the oil dealers
and buy some for yourselves.'
10 But as they were going off to buy, the bridegroom came. Those who were ready went
with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut.
11 Later, the other bridesmaids came. 'Sir! Sir!' they cried, 'Let us in!'
12 But he answered, 'Indeed! I tell you, I don't know you!'
13 So stay alert, because you know neither the day nor the hour.
If we don't notice that this is a parable, and if we don't recognize that Yeshua is employing
commonly understood terms and characters and objects used within Jewish culture to concoct
a fanciful and memorable story to make His point, then we leave this passage deciding that He
is instructing His followers about literal grooms, virgins, lamps and olive oil. So if this wasn't a
parable then what other conclusion can we arrive at but that if you are not a Jewish virgin, this
simply doesn't apply to you? And if you are a Jewish virgin, you urgently need to acquire a
couple  of  lamps  and  stock  up  on  a  ready  supply  of  olive  oil  to  fuel  them  if  you  expect  to
succeed in getting married. But of course it is a parable and so the people and objects (the
virgins and the lamps) are symbolic of something else.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
Now let's apply this to Acts chapter 10.  F. F. Bruce agrees and unequivocally states that the
vision of the sheet with the animals and the instruction to kill and eat is a story (in this case a
vision) told as a parable. That is, the scene uses objects and circumstances familiar to Jews to
make  a  point.  But  like  with  the  parable  of  the  10  virgins  that  doesn't  actually  mean  for  the
hearer to think that this is all about virgins and lamps, so Peter's vision doesn't actually mean
for the hearer to think that this is all about a sheet and some unclean animals, nor is it about
killing and eating them.  Rather it is about something else entirely; which is how all parables
work.
A  couple  of  sentences  later  after  Professor  Bruce  acknowledges  that  Peter's  vision  is  a
parable (which of course it is), and the meaning has to do with the acceptance of gentiles, he
then turns right around and says this:
"Yet the cleansing of the food is not wholly parabolic; there is a connection between
abrogation of the Levitical food laws and the removal of the barrier between Jews and
gentiles."
I'm not intending to single out F.F. Bruce; however his comment is representative of so many
others. He (as do most Christian commentators) approaches the entire New Testament with
the viewpoint that the Levitical food laws (as well as all other Torah laws) have been abolished,
and so everything that happens in the New Testament must fit within that understanding no
matter  if  the  text  says  something  entirely  different.    Yes,  Bruce  agrees,  Peter's  vision  is  a
parable.  Yes,  Bruce  agrees,  the  animals  are  symbolic.  Yes,  he  agrees,  Peter  himself
acknowledges that this has nothing to do with animals or food but rather this is about admitting
gentiles into the fold. However, in the opinion of Bruce and of many other gentile Bible scholars
this is equally about God abolishing the kosher food laws. So I suppose if that is the case then
the parable of the virgins must be equally and literally about virgins and lamps. The parable of
Jesus using the seeds falling onto rocky soil to characterize Believers must be equally and
literally about seeds, rocks and soil, and so on. I hope you can see this odd conclusion makes
this  one  parable  (Peter's  vision),  out  of  all  other  parables  in  the  Bible,  to  operate  entirely
differently whereby the fanciful objects that are symbolic suddenly become real and literal. Why
would Bruce and others claim such a thing? Because it is his and their foundational Christian
doctrine  (regardless  of  what  the  Bible  actually  says)  that  gentile  Christians  have  no  duty  to
follow God's food laws, because Christ abolished the Law (something which Christ explicitly
said He did NOT do!) Let's never miss an opportunity to revisit this foundational teaching of
Messiah Yeshua.
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
This statement made by Yeshua couldn't be more definitive. He bluntly says He didn't abolish
the  Torah  (the  Law),  and  then  He  expands  upon  it,  and  then  He  warns  against  teaching
against  what  He  just  said.  So  admittedly  this  statement  forms  the  nucleus  of  my  worldview
about  Yeshua  and  the  relation  of  the  Law  of  Moses  to  Believers,  and  from  it  I  have  full
confidence to challenge Church doctrines that are not in compliance with this commandment
from  Christ.  Outside  of  Salvation  there  is  no  other  issue  of  this  magnitude  than  our
understanding the place of the Law of Moses in the life of a Believer. And while I don't have all
the answers about HOW to do it, without doubt the Law of Moses remains and we are to obey
it. And when we don't obey, we sin.
Now let's revisit the complex issue of the conversation between Peter and God (when Peter
was in a trance and essentially having what we might call an out-of-body experience). This is
important because it explains his vision on Jewish terms, which of course is how it is told. After
the heavenly voice tells Peter to kill and eat the unclean animals in the sheet, Peter responds
with  "no"  because  he's  never  eaten  such  things  (no  doubt  Peter  thought  it  was  a  test
otherwise he wouldn't have emphatically refused God's order). In Acts 10:14 Peter adds the
statement that he's never eaten anything common or unclean. The CJB along with most other
English Bible versions replaces the word "common" with either "unholy" or "unclean". Some
Bibles  will  replace  the  word  "common"  with  "profane".  Unholy,  unclean  and  profane  are  all
incorrect  translations.  The  Greek  word  is  koinos  and  it  means  "common"  and  that  is  the
proper  translation.  It  is  the  same  word  from  which  we  get  the  type  of  Greek  that  the  New
Testament  is  written  in:  Koine  Greek,  meaning  common  Greek.  The  Greek  of  everyday
language and conversation.
In  Biblical  terms,  however,  "common"  is  not  an  adjective  that  means  something  that  is
regularly done or is ordinary; rather "common" is a spiritual status assigned to certain objects
and people. The 3 possible states of spiritual status for humans and objects (as spelled out to
us  in  the  Torah)  are:  holy,  common,  or  unclean.  Holy  means  sanctified,  set  apart  for  God.
Common  means  something  that  has  not  been  set  apart  for  God  (but  it  doesn't  mean  evil,
wicked, bad, or unclean). Common is kind of a neutral and natural state that exists in between
holy and unclean. And then the 3rd possible spiritual status is unclean. Unclean is a condition
of defilement that means an object or a person is not suitable for use by God; and to try to use
an object or person it in its unclean state for such a purpose is indeed wicked. Unclean is a
condition that is caused by something; nothing in its naturally created state is unclean.  
Unclean food is food that has in someway been contaminated or mishandled. Unclean food is
otherwise  kosher  food,  but  something  has  ritually  defiled  it;  thus  unclean  food  must  not  be
consumed.  What  is  important  for  us  to  understand  is  that  there  is  no  such  designation  as
"common" food. Common is not a food category, nor is it a God-ordained condition of edible
items. Common doesn't apply to food. Holy food is a food category, and it is kosher food that
has been used for altar sacrifices. Only priests are allowed to eat certain portions of holy food
that has been brought as a sacrificial offering. So regular Jews (like Peter) can NOT eat holy
food; ever.
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
Rabbi  Joseph  Shulam  points  out  that  there  is  a  food  category  called  chullin  that  refers  to
kosher food that has NOT been used for sacrifices and thus regular Jews can eat it. It is the
category name for every day food that regular Jews eat. So the rule is that regular Jews eat
chullin food, while only priests can eat holy food. In fact according to God's laws the ONLY
food regular Jews can eat is chullin food. So Shulam says perhaps the word "common" is
being used in place of "chullin". However if that is true, then Peter's statement becomes all
the  more  strange  because  Peter  claims  that  he  has  NEVER  eaten  food  from  the  very  food
category (chullin) that is the ONLY food category a regular Jew is allowed to eat (Peter was
not a priest). I hope you're beginning to see the dilemma of this verse.
But there is an obvious solution to the dilemma. I told you last week that in the end, what is
happening here is that this vision is a parable, and so the food isn't the subject but rather it is
merely the symbol of something else (soon we learn that "something else" is gentiles). This
understanding then explains why a term (common) that doesn't apply to food but does apply
to human beings, is being used in the vision of the animals. And this is also why Peter was so
perplexed over the meaning of this vision because taken literally it makes no sense. The image
doesn't match the narrative.
Let's re-read a portion of Acts 10.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 10:17 – 29
Typically Bible commentators say that the reason for Peter being bewildered about the vision is
because God told him it was OK now to just forget the food laws and from here on he can eat
anything he wants to; but Peter simply couldn't accept that. But as I just demonstrated, that
wasn't the case at all. For one thing Peter had heard directly from Yeshua's mouth that the
Torah wasn't changed in the least, let alone abolished. Rather Peter was bewildered because
the terms applied to the food in his vision weren't food terms; they were terms reserved for
describing the spiritual status of humans and objects. As he was no longer in his trance and
was now pondering this strange vision, the men that the Centurion Cornelius sent to fetch him
arrived at Shimon the Tanner's house and asked about Peter. The Holy Spirit tells Peter that
these 3 men are looking for him, and that God has pre-planned this meeting so Peter doesn't
need to be alarmed but he does need to go with them. So at this point Kefa doesn't know what
is  going  on  or  what  is  supposed  to  happen.  Under  the  circumstances  if  it  was  me  I  would
assume this was somehow connected to the vision and I imagine Kefa assumes that as well.
As Peter goes down from the roof to meet these men he asks their purpose. They reply that
they are here on behalf of the Roman Centurion Cornelius and that he is an upright man and a
God-fearer. This means to Peter that Cornelius is a gentile who worships the God of Israel, but
he has not been circumcised. That is, Cornelius has not gone so far in his beliefs that he has
converted and become a Jew. These men go on to explain that an angel appeared to their
master and told him to send for Peter, and that they were assigned to go to Yafo and escort
Peter back to Caesarea. There was no demand involved; it was all just matter of fact. No doubt
if Peter had not had his vision, and if the Spirit (in some unnamed way) hadn't told Peter to go,
he would have been too fearful to go voluntarily.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
It needs to be stated that at this moment Peter had no idea what God was up to. He had no
inkling  that  gentiles  could  be  admitted  to  Christ's  Kingdom  and  could  attain  the  same  holy
spiritual status as the Hebrews. Why is that? Because the teachings of the Synagogue were
that gentiles were unclean; this was not disputed among Jews. It wasn't that the Jews hated
their Roman oppressors so they simply didn't want to associate with them and so called them
unclean as kind of a nasty epithet. Rather it was a given among Jews that God saw gentiles as
ritually unclean. But the truth is that according to the Torah gentiles were not created unclean;
they were created and classified by Yehoveh as just not holy; instead gentiles were created
spiritually  common.  And  if  we  go  back  to  our  discussion  of  the  vision  of  the  animals  in  the
sheet then we understand what God was telling Peter. God wasn't telling Peter that at one
time gentiles were unclean, but now He has made them clean. Rather He was telling Peter that
He made (He created) gentiles spiritually common, and thus Peter (and by extension, all of
Judaism)  had  no  authorization  to  change  the  classification  of  gentiles  to  unclean.  God  was
straightening out Peter's theology. This was not new theology or changed theology. This was
how it had always been since God declared Abraham as holy and set apart, and thus at that
moment  divided  and  separated  the  human  race  into  2  parts:  holy  Hebrews  and  common
gentiles.  But  the  Synagogue  authorities  had  created  a  doctrine  that  overturned  God's
commands, and now God was dealing with it beginning with Peter and Cornelius.
Peter left with the men, but some of the other brothers (referring to Believers) tagged along.
This was an unusual situation and it showed wisdom for Peter to not go it alone. We find out in
the next chapter that 6 Believers went along with him. While Peter was traveling (about a 2 day
journey)  Cornelius  was  gathering  his  relatives  and  close  friends  to  his  house  to  hear  what
Peter  had  to  say  to  them.  He  understood  that  whatever  it  was  it  would  be  highly  important
since God Himself had arranged all this.
As  Peter  arrives  he  sees  the  throng  awaiting  him.  I  imagine  it  embarrassed  him  to  have  a
Roman Centurion fall on his face before him; and this was in front of all those people. So Peter
quickly says to get up; he's only a man and not to be worshipped. Entering this gentile's home
was unfamiliar territory; such an act was unthinkable to a Jew. And yet here he was, and at
God's instruction to boot. Peter feels he needs to explain the situation to Cornelius and his
family and friends before things get underway. And it is important that we hear what he says in
the way he meant it.
Verse 28 in the CJB has Peter saying this:
CJB Acts 10:28 He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have
close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit
him, is something that just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person
common or unclean;
However that is a very loose translation of what was said. Here is one that sticks more to the
actual meaning of the Greek:
RSV Acts 10:28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to
associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
not call any man common or unclean.
So Peter says it is unlawful to be doing what he is doing, which is to associate with, or go into
the dwelling place of, a gentile. The Greek word being translated as unlawful is athemitos. It is
a word that means to do something that is illicit, or breaks a law code, or is criminal. Peter is
not  referring  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  he's  referring  to  Halakhah;  Jewish  Law.  Tradition.  So
immediately Peter deals with the issue of the purity laws as it pertains to gentiles; a touchy
subject to say the least. Peter understood and believed that Cornelius was a God-fearer; a
gentile that worshipped the God of Israel. So idolatry was of no issue. Nonetheless it didn't
change Cornelius's status from being a gentile so ritual purity issues remained as far as Jews
were  concerned.  Food  was  an  especially  big  issue,  of  course,  as  it  was  the  central  part  of
hospitality. But food wasn't the only show stopper from the Jews' perspective. As I mentioned
idolatry was another major issue as it was standard for gentiles to have god images in their
homes.  Blasphemy  also  was  an  issue  as  were  the  loose  sexual  morals  of  gentiles  as
compared to those of the Jews.
But  then  Peter  says  that  God  has  shown  him  that  he  should  not  call  any  man  common  or
unclean.  Again,  the  Greek  word  koinos  is  used  meaning  common;  and  the  Greek  word
akathartos is also used meaning unclean. So in the intervening 72 hours since Peter's vision
and his arrival at Cornelius's home, the meaning of the vision-parable has become clearer to
Peter; this is all about gentiles and their spiritual status before God.
Yet, while it is rather easy for us to understand why Peter would say that God showed him not
to  call  any  man  unclean,  it  is  less  easy  to  understand  why  he  would  also  say  that  no  man
should be called common. Recall that there are only 3 possible spiritual statuses for a human:
holy,  common,  or  unclean.  So  on  the  surface  it  seems  as  if  Peter  is  saying  that  God  has
eliminated 2 of the 3 possible spiritual status conditions for humans (common and unclean),
which only leaves holy. So are we to take from this that Peter, and God, now see all human
beings  on  this  planet  as  holy?  No,  of  course  not.  So  what  exactly  does  this  mean  to
communicate? First of all, we have here humans talking in the usual way; neither Peter nor
Cornelius are theologians or scholars. So saying "any man" is not meant to be precise as in
"every single human being in existence". What Peter and God are saying is that a) a gentile is
not unclean and shouldn't be called as such. And b) that while common has been considered
as the natural spiritual status for gentiles, that indeed being elevated into the holy status (like
Hebrews are) is possible for gentiles. So gentiles aren't permanently relegated as holding the
"common"  status  without  hope  of  ever  being  upgraded  to  holy.  But  no  doubt  Peter  didn't
understand the breadth and depth of this new revelation. In fact it would be mostly Paul that
would try to articulate what this meant for gentiles, and then of course the relationship between
Jews and gentiles, in light of Christ's advent.
I  do  want  to  repeat:  this  was  NOT  new  theology.  This  was  NOT  that  Christ's  death  had
changed the spiritual status of gentiles from unclean (because gentiles weren't unclean).  It
was  only  new  Halakhah  for  Peter  and  for  virtually  all  Jews.  God  was  only  reinforcing  and
instructing about what had always been. He was not changing the status of gentiles; they were
still common. Rather the Jewish Synagogue leaders had overturned God's law on the subject
of gentiles, and now God was overriding the wrong doctrine of those Synagogue leaders; and
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
oh my, the trouble that was going to lead to!
But (and it is not clear to Peter yet that this is the case) gentiles who accepted Christ could be
elevated from their status as common to holy, and they could remain as gentiles. Was this the
first time, then, that gentiles could leave behind their common status and attain a holy status
(like the Hebrews enjoyed)? No! Gentiles had always had the option of leaving behind home,
family and nation and becoming a Hebrew. Such an offer was open to both male and female
gentiles  (Ruth  being  one  of  the  most  famous  cases  of  an  unmarried  woman  making  the
decision on her own to become a Hebrew, as she was a foreign widow). But the only means
for  a  gentile  to  gain  holy  status  before  the  coming  of  Christ  was  to  become  a  Hebrew.
Yeshua's death and resurrection indeed changed that. Now through faith and trust in Him as
the Messiah and as God's Son, gentiles could attain the spiritual status of holy. They did not
have to first become Hebrews; but it took time before this understanding took hold among the
Believing Jews.
This raised another sensitive and contentious issue because to become a Hebrew a male had
to be circumcised. And from the Jewish Believers' viewpoint, why would a gentile want to have
a Jewish Messiah if he didn't also want to be Jewish? Since for Jews circumcision was the
primary outward symbol that separated Hebrews from gentiles, then it still made no sense to
most  members  of  The  Way  how  a  gentile  could  hope  to  accept  Yeshua  if  he  wouldn't  also
accept circumcision. And in a few more verses we see that issue arise in force as we'll hear of
the Circumcision faction intervening. And this faction was embedded within the body of Jewish
Believers. So already we see that the Body of Believers was divided; at first it was divided into
Hebrew  speaking  Believers  and  Greek  speaking  Believers.  Now  we  see  that  of  those  two
groups  some  formed  the  Circumcision  faction  that  believed  that  while  gentiles  could  accept
Yeshua,  it  didn't  change  the  requirement  for  them  to  be  circumcised  and  therefore  to
essentially  become  Jews.  In  other  words,  in  their  minds  Christ  enabled  gentiles  to  have
Messiah Yeshua for Salvation but they had to stop being gentiles in order to do it. It is not at all
unlike the bulk of Christianity that has for 1800 years determined that Christ is for gentiles and
while  a  Jew  can  accept  Jesus,  first  he  has  to  renounce  His  Jewishness  and  essentially
become a gentile. One of the core missions of Seed of Abraham Ministries Torah Class is to
put  the  truth  to  this  wrong-minded,  manmade  doctrine.  Jews  do  NOT  have  to  leave  their
Jewishness behind to accept Messiah; Yeshua came as the Jewish Messiah.
We will finish up Acts chapter 10 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 25, Chapter 10 conclusion
We are still in Acts chapter 10. And while we'll finish it today, the issues that surface from its
God-inspired words are most challenging and profoundly important to our faith; so we'll keep
on  hacking  away  at  it  to  try  to  extract  from  these  passages  both  the  spiritual  truth  and  the
practical applications.
Jews well understand the primary issue underlying this chapter; it was the resolution of it that
befuddled  them.  But  gentile  Christians  have  a  hard  time  even  discerning  the  nature  of  the
actual  issue;  and  if  we  don't  properly  understand  the  issue  then  we  will  misunderstand  the
outcome.
We finished up at verse 28 last time and to refresh our memories it says this:
CJB Acts 10:28 He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have
close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit
him, is something that just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person
common or unclean;
The underlying issue that is being dealt with in Acts 10 is ritual purity especially as concerns
Jewish  relations  with  gentiles.  At  this  point  in  history  Traditions  (Oral  Torah)  had,  by  now,
substantially distorted what the Lord had ordained in the Torah about the ritual purity status of
gentiles.  Thus  Acts  chapter  10  is  God  in  the  process  of  straightening  that  out,  much  as
Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Matthew was also God straightening out wrong
minded Traditions on a wide array of subjects.
Commentators like to say that the main issue in Acts 10 was about Peter (and other Jews)
eating with gentiles; that's only true to a point. Food was, indeed, seen as perhaps the most
serious,  and  preventable,  opportunity  for  a  Jew  to  become  ritually  defiled.  Knowing  which
animals could and could not be eaten for food was easy and every Jewish child knew it by
heart.  It  was  the  intricate  rules  about  the  handling  of  the  food  that  was  problematic  and
Tradition complicated the matter. There was any number of ways that perfectly kosher food
could become unclean and therefore inedible through improper handling. It could happen from
the animal being raised incorrectly; or by it being slaughtered incorrectly; or by not properly
draining and disposing of the blood; or allowing it to come into contact with something else that
was  ritually  unclean  (including,  especially,  a  ritually  unclean  person)  because  ritual  impurity
could be transmitted from object to object.
Middle Eastern hospitality always demanded that a guest was presented with food. So should
a Jew venture into the home of a gentile, for them it would be like going into the contagious
disease ward at a hospital. It was a big risk because even if the food they were offered was of
a kind that a Jew could normally eat, there was no assurance about how it had been handled.
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
Even more, Jews considered gentiles as naturally unclean. So whatever a gentile touched be it
food,  furniture,  clothing,  bedding,  the  floors  and  walls  of  their  homes,  anything,  the  Jews
believed those gentiles had transmitted their uncleanness to it and so it was nearly impossible
that  a  Jew  would  not  be  infected  with  ritual  impurity.  Not  only  was  the  mere  thought  of  it
disgusting, there would then be a cumbersome and at times expensive process to return to a
state of ritual purity using the remedies set down by the Law of Moses.  
Why were gentiles considered by Jews as automatically unclean? Academic Jews would say it
was primarily because gentiles were idolaters; they worshipped some other god than the God
of Israel. It was also because gentile females didn't follow the proper procedures at the end of
their  periods,  and  that  males  didn't  follow  the  proper  procedures  after  intimacy  with  their
wives, which could have cured the ritually impure conditions that resulted. But to the average
everyday Jew, gentiles are unclean because Tradition says they are; that's just how gentiles
were  created.  Yet,  what  about  the  God-fearer  gentiles  who  were  not  idolaters,  and  instead
worshipped  only  the  God  of  Israel?  That  presented  a  particularly  difficult  conundrum  about
which  there  wasn't  universal  agreement  within  Judaism.  Could  they  attend  Synagogues?
Could they dine with Jews? Could they go to the Temple? In the end it turns out that for Jews
of this era the conundrum was mostly about the perceived need for circumcision for God-fearer
gentiles. We'll get into that shortly after we re-read the final verses of Acts chapter 10.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 10:28 – end
The final few words of verse 28 have Peter saying that God showed him not to call any man
common  or  unclean.  How  did  God  show  him  this?  By  means  of  the  vision  of  the  creatures
inside a sheet being lowered down from Heaven. I'd like to put the final nail into the coffin of
the incorrect doctrinal teaching that the vision had to do with food; that is, I'm saying that this
vision  was  not  at  all  about  God  abrogating  the  Levitical  food  laws  as  is  standard  Christian
doctrine.  Rather  the  vision  of  the  unclean  animals  was  merely  symbolic  of  something  else
since  the  vision  was  essentially  a  parable.  I've  made  my  case  on  this  sufficiently  that  all  I
could do is to repeat myself at this point, so I'd like instead to quote to you from a revered
early Church Father, the Venerable Bede, an English Monk who lived and wrote about 700
A.D. This excerpt is taken from his commentary on the Book of Acts.
"I am amazed at how some people interpret this as having to do with certain foods that
were prohibited by the old law but that are now to be consumed, since neither serpents
nor  reptiles  can  be  eaten.  Nor  did  Peter  himself  understand  it  in  this  way.  Rather  he
understood it as meaning that all PEOPLE are equally called to the gospel of Christ and
that  nothing  is  naturally  defiled.  For  when  he  was  reproached,  he  explained  the
SYMBOLISM  of  this  vision,  not  as  giving  the  reason  why  he  ate  beasts  but  why  he
associated with gentiles".
Quite correct; while food was used for symbolism the vision was not about food. So while some
might say that when I teach you that the Levitical food laws were not abolished, and that this
vision-parable given to Peter certainly didn't do so (because this had nothing to do with food in
the first place), it is only because I have a Hebrew Roots or Messianic theology; but here we
have  a  gentile  English  Christian  monk  of  great  repute  saying  exactly  the  same  thing  1300
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
years ago and flabbergasted that some of his fellow Christians couldn't see that.
So  the  bottom  line  is  that  Peter  is  being  taught  that  God  does  not  create  anything  that  is
naturally  unclean;  that  is  nothing  is  unclean  in  its  naturally  created  state.  Rather  all  things
begin as ritually clean. So for something to become unclean, something has to happen to it.
Now before someone says, 'wait a minute, I thought a vulture for instance was an unclean
bird?'  No it is not. It is merely a bird that the Lord says is not permitted for food, and thus also
for religious purposes such as sacrificing. A vulture is not, of itself, unclean because clean and
unclean, versus permitted and prohibited are two entirely different matters that the Torah deals
with separately. A vulture is not permitted for food; but it is not inherently unclean.
Further, the God principle is that every created thing is created spiritually common. Common
objects and people can remain  in the spiritual state of common and clean, or they can be
elevated  to  holy  by  God's  decision.  Conversely  objects  and  people  that  are  common  and
clean can be degraded to unclean (usually by an act of man). But never can a man elevate the
common to the holy; that lies purely within the authority of God. What I just told you is perhaps
one of the most important God principles there is, and it is clearly stated in the Biblical Torah;
that is, this is not Tradition or custom nor is it speculation or allegory.
Paul said the essentially same thing in his own way, and in a slightly different context, in the
Book of Romans.
CJB  Romans  14:14  I  know-  that  is,  I  have  been  persuaded  by  the  Lord  Yeshua  the
Messiah- that nothing is unclean in itself. But if a person considers something unclean,
then for him it is unclean;
Here Paul admits that (like Peter) he had to be persuaded by the Lord that nothing is unclean
of itself (that is whether it is a person or an object God doesn't create anything unclean). He
had to be convinced (have his mind changed) because as a highly trained Pharisee Paul had
been taught otherwise. Pharisees (and all of Judaism for that matter) believed that gentiles
were, essentially, born as naturally unclean people. Thus another important God principle is at
play  in  our  story;  it  is  not  important  just  for  Jews  but  for  Believing  gentiles  as  well.  When
something is unclean, it cannot be made holy. First the unclean thing has to be restored to a
spiritual status of clean and common. And then from clean and common God can elevate it to
holy.
So  notice  in  this  passage  of  Romans  that  Paul  is  talking  about  a  person  believing  that
something is unclean. And if that person believes something is unclean then to him or her it is
unclean. But (and here is the kicker) this principle doesn't work the other way around. Paul
never says, "Oh yes, and vice versa". He never says that if you believe something is ritually
clean, but it is unclean, then for you it is clean. Yet that is usually read into this passage and
taught as though that is what he said. I hope you see that. This passage is only dealing with
unclean things, not clean.
You see, while there is no danger to us in considering something unclean and therefore we
avoid it (even if that object is in reality ritually clean), there is danger in assuming something is
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
clean (when God says the object is actually unclean) and we partake of it anyway. And that is
precisely what worried the Jews about coming into contact with gentiles. So the attitude was
developed: better safe than sorry. Better to err on the side of considering gentiles and all they
contact unclean (and thus avoiding them), than to consider them clean and be wrong, and thus
become ritually defiled.
I know this is so hard for us to wrap our minds around, but that is because this thought process
has never held a place in gentile Christian life or discussion. For some reason, centuries ago,
the  spiritual  states  of  clean  and  unclean  have  been  removed  from  Christian  thought  and
ideology. But it is Biblical and it is historical and it remains in effect. Gentiles have simply been
ignorant  of  it  because  it  is  explained  only  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  this  ignorance  has  at
times led to gross misunderstanding of some New Testament Scripture passages.
And  by  the  way,  Paul  is  not  talking  about  people,  here,  as  he  speaks  about  considering
something as unclean. He is talking about objects, mainly food. How do I know this? Because
in the next verse of Romans he says:
CJB Romans 14:15 and if your brother is being upset by the food you eat, your life is no
longer  one  of  love.  Do  not,  by  your  eating  habits,  destroy  someone  for  whom  the
Messiah died!
Please follow what I'm about to tell you. If you don't think the Biblical food laws matter, then
you probably won't be thrilled by what I have to show you (sometimes the truth is not easy to
swallow....forgive the pun). Notice (because this is usually taught backwards) Paul doesn't say
"if your brother is upset at the food you avoid". That is, this is not about if your fellow Believer
is upset because he sees you avoiding foods you think to be unclean. Rather Paul says, 'if
your brother is upset by the food you eat' (and remember, in the previous verse the context is
about considering something unclean). Think about it: would a brother ever become upset by
the food you eat if he thinks it is clean? Obviously not; so clean food isn't the context. Rather if
a  fellow  Believer  sees  you  eating  food  that  is  unclean  to  him,  even  though  you  don't  care
about following the Biblically kosher food laws, then it is selfish for you to eat food in front of
him that to him is unclean (Paul says it is not loving because it is upsetting to him). And yet this
verse is typically taught exactly the opposite; instead it is usually taught as Paul saying that if a
person considers the food to be clean, then it is the one who considers the food to be unclean
that is doing wrong and upsetting his brother. Let me put a finer point on it by giving you an
example of how this verse applies. If you come to my house at my invitation for dinner, and I
know you observe the Biblical food laws, but I still serve things that I know are unclean to you
yet I eat them anyway (even if I don't insist that you do the same), Paul says that is not a
loving thing for me to do. It is not you doing wrong because you won't eat the things that I
serve  you  that  you  consider  as  unclean;  it  is  me  that  is  wrong  for  putting  you  in  this
uncomfortable position. Romans 14:15 is not about what is avoided; it is about what is eaten.
This  passage  is  not  about  clean  food,  it  is  about  unclean  food.  This  principle  is  a  one  way
street and it is always presented in the Bible as a one way street. 
In our day and age, what we choose to eat has taken on greater significance not because of
scarcity (at least not in the Western world), but because of the issue of maintaining good health
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
and achieving longer life spans. People, including Believers, care greatly about their diet being
organic and healthy, but don't care about whether God says any particular food item should be
eaten at all. I can understand this for the secular world; but for Believers? My brethren, God
has specifically listed in His Word what is edible as food for us and what is not. The prohibited
list is small, and not at all hard to avoid. Your bodily health is of course important and you
should endeavor to eat healthy; but your spiritual health is more important and that begins by
being obedient to the Lord's commands. No matter, Acts chapter 10 isn't directly about food
any  way;  it  is  about  ritual  purity  as  regards  gentiles.  Thus  in  verse  29,  after  Peter  now
understands that salvation in Christ is for gentiles, too, and that God does not view gentiles as
inherently ritually unclean (and He ought to know), Peter asks Cornelius why he has bid him to
come. Cornelius's answer starts in verse 30.
Cornelius recounts about how he too had a vision and it occurred at the hour of the traditional
afternoon  prayers  (traditional  for  Judaism).  And  the  man  in  his  vision  (earlier  this  man  was
referred to as an angel) told him to send for Peter, and also told him where Peter was located.
So Cornelius was obedient, sent for him, and has gathered friends and family for surely God
has something important to say through Peter.
Peter now speaks. And in verse 34 he begins with a humble (and game changing) admission
by saying that NOW he fully understands that God is not partial only to Jews, but rather any
man from any nation or people who bows down to Him and does what is right (meaning right in
God's eyes) is welcome to Him. Peter didn't understand this except within the last 72 hours
as a result of the vision-parable God showed him. Up to NOW he did not think it possible that
gentiles could be saved in Yeshua's name. Just to be clear: God had not changed anything. It
is  only  that  Peter  had  had  it  wrong  all  his  life.  Gentiles  had  always  had  a  way  to  become
welcome to God. Christ's atoning death wasn't aimed only at getting Jews into the Kingdom; it
was aimed at all people on earth without exception. Christ's death and resurrection explained
how the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant that all the peoples of the earth would be blessed
through Abraham and his Hebrew descendants finally came about.
At verse 36 Peter makes the assumption that Cornelius is well aware of the ritual purity issues
between  Jews  and  gentiles,  and  also  is  somewhat  familiar  with  the  story  of  Yeshua's  life,
death and resurrection. Then Peter goes on to summarize the important events of Messiah's
life and mission. But let's not miss the underlying tone; Peter is making it clear that salvation
first came to the Jews, and now gentiles would hear of this salvation the Jews have as a result
of   their   Jewish   Messiah   from   Jewish   witnesses   to   Christ's   life   and   teachings.   Peter
emphasizes that point in verse 41 when he says:
CJB Acts 10:41 not by all the people, but by witnesses God had previously chosen, that
is, by us, who ate and drank with him after he had risen again from the dead.
It was Jews who were the chosen witnesses; in fact it was a select group of Jews among which
Peter  was  one.  Thus  while  Cornelius  and  other  gentile  God-fearers  are  acceptable  to  God,
gentiles should keep in mind that God's Word was given to the Jews 1400 years earlier; the
Savior is a Jew; those who know God's Word, and who protect it and tell others about it are
Jews; and salvation was first given to the Jews. Thus the Jews hold a place of preeminence
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
and leadership in the faith, and it is the Jews who were tasked with preaching and testifying
about Yeshua; not the gentiles. Paul would say essentially the same thing to begin Romans
chapter 3.
Romans 3:1-4 CJB
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? What is the value of being circumcised?
2 Much in every way! In the first place, the Jews were entrusted with the very words of
God.
3  If  some  of  them  were  unfaithful,  so  what?  Does  their  faithlessness  cancel  God's
faithfulness?
4 Heaven forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a liar!- as the Tanakh says,
"so that you, God, may be proved right in your words and win the verdict when you are
put on trial."
But perhaps the most important statement in Peter's talk to Cornelius and his household that
shows that Peter really gets what God showed him in his vision, is a statement in verse 43 that
forms the foundation for the congregational Body of Christ.
Acts 10:43 CJB  43 All the prophets bear witness to him, that everyone who puts his trust
in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
There is the Gospel of Messiah Yeshua in a nutshell. It is inclusive, it requires trust in Yeshua,
and through this will ones' sins be forgiven. I want to say it one more time; while this was a
revolutionary concept to Peter, he readily admits that he had had it all wrong up to now and in
fact all the OT prophets bore witness to Christ and what His coming would mean for everyone,
not just for the Jewish people.
While Peter was still speaking these words, says verse 44, the Ruach HaKodesh interrupted
him and fell on everyone who was listening. What this means is simple; Cornelius's gentile
household believed Peter's message, and they believed that Yeshua was Messiah, and they
accepted that the Messiah of the Jews was also the Messiah for the gentiles.
But now in verse 45 comes the issue that would prove to be one of the most contentious (and
most  misunderstood)  as  regards  salvation;  the  issue  of  circumcision  for  gentile  males  who
turned to Messiah Yeshua. We'll talk more about that in a moment, but first notice that the
circumcised who were present were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit fell upon this
group  of  gentiles.  That  one  of  those  gentiles  was  a  Roman  army  officer  was  even  more
astounding  since  this  man  was  the  most  visible  symbol  of  Rome's  oppression  upon  God's
people. Further these gentiles began speaking in tongues and praising God in ways that no
one who didn't know Him intimately could possibly do.
The CJB and others will add the word "faction" or "believers" to the word circumcision; those
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
words are not there in the original Greek. However in order for this phrase to make sense,
something  does  need  to  be  added  to  the  word  circumcision.  So  who  is  the  Circumcision
"faction" referring to? Since this is referring to Jews, naturally they were circumcised, Believer
or non-Believer. However we will be told in Acts chapter 11 that it was exactly 6 Jews who
went with Peter from Yafo to meet Cornelius. And that these 6 Jews were brethren, meaning
they  were  Believers.  So  among  these  6  Believers  who  accompanied  Peter  some  of  them
belonged  to  a  sub-group  of  Jewish  Believers  who  thought  that  God-fearers  needed  to  be
circumcised if they wanted to worship the God of Israel. And, what was behind this requirement
for circumcision was the issue of  ritual purity.
However we have to also understand what circumcision meant in that era; it meant that one
became an official Jew. A person literally converted from being a gentile to being a Jew. That
said, it would be a mischaracterization to say that those who insisted on the circumcision of
gentile God-fearers were a separate group (in the same way that Pharisees were a separate
group from the Sadducees). Rather they were members of the The Way but they held to a
personal  conviction  that  gentile  God-fearers  should  be  converted  to  Jews.  Further,  this  had
little to do with a gentile becoming a Believer and follower of Yeshua. That is, the circumcision
faction  did  not  come  into  existence  as  a  result  of  Christ's  advent,  and  then  demand  that
gentiles  convert  to  Jews  in  order  to  be  saved.  This  demand  for  circumcision  was  scattered
among adherents who belonged to various segments of Judaism, and The Way was (rightfully
so) considered as but one of these various segments of Judaism. This circumcision faction had
existed long before the time of Christ, because historically Judaism had become rather popular
in the Roman Empire and a fair number of gentiles wanted to worship Israel's God.
Thus to these Believers in Yeshua who followed Peter to meet Cornelius, the advent of Christ
didn't change anything as far as their perceived need for a gentile God-fearer to convert to
Judaism (by means of being circumcised). For them, belief in Christ was the natural path of
Judaism; not something different or separate. That is because the same thought process still
prevailed: why would a non-Jew worship a Jewish God and adopt a Jewish Savior? For Jews
of that day (and up to now, for Peter) the logic was impeccable. By a male gentile God-fearer
being circumcised, and thus becoming a Jew, that generally solved the concern about ritual
purity. It was going to be a very hard sell, especially for Paul, to get Jewish Believers of the
Circumcision faction to relent on the matter of circumcision for gentile Believers; and there has
never been much success in that regard to this day.
What we have here with the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius and his household is no less than a
second Pentecost event. The first Pentecost event was of course obedient to what Christ said:
"First to the Jew, then to the Greek". Thus it was only upon Jews that the Holy Spirit fell in
Jerusalem on that very special Biblical Feast day of Shavuot; and they spoke in tongues. Here
we have the same thing happen to a group of Greeks (gentiles). To all those present, including
those Jews of the circumcision faction, there was simply no denying it because they saw it with
their  own  eyes.  Whether  they  liked  it  or  not,  whether  they  understood  it  or  not,  these
uncircumcised gentiles had been received by God and the spectacular descending of the Holy
Spirit upon them presented undeniable proof.
Peter's  response  was  to  immediately  ask:  is  there  anything  to  prohibit  these  from  being
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
immersed? It reminds one of the Ethiopian eunuch who, upon accepting Yeshua as Savior,
asked Philip if there was anything that should prevent him from being baptized. So it is not that
Cornelius was the first gentile to be baptized or to receive the Holy Spirit. It is that Peter, the
head of the Body of Believers at this time, now realizes that this handful of isolated cases of
gentiles coming to belief, receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized, would not be unique but
rather it would become the norm.
Interestingly we hear of no protest from the Circumcision faction. And we hear of no demand or
expectation that Cornelius and his household would be circumcised. But as with so many long
held traditions and beliefs, no matter how misguided, they don't easily change or die. Thus
circumcision of gentile Believers is going to become, and remain, a stubborn issue within The
Way for the remainder of the New Testament.
It seems to have been left to Paul to do more than merely declare that circumcision of gentiles
was not needed to be accepted Christ worshippers; he would be the one to have to explain the
theology  behind  it.  And  once  again  let  me  point  out  that  for  Jews  of  this  era,  circumcision
wasn't   merely   an   issue   of   following   a   traditional   ritual   or   a   cultural   custom.   Rather,
circumcision meant one thing and one thing only: that one was, or was becoming, a Jew. And
with  circumcision,  one  didn't  just  become  a  Jew  symbolically,  nor  was  it  a  means  to  show
sympathy or solidarity with the Jewish people. One literally became a national Jewish citizen,
and would no longer identify as a gentile.
Paul  dealt  with  the  matter  of  circumcision  of  gentiles  from  the  most  important  aspect,  the
spiritual aspect, in Romans chapter 2. Let's close with what he said about it.
Romans 2:13-29 CJB
13 For it is not merely the hearers of Torah whom God considers righteous; rather, it is
the doers of what Torah says who will be made righteous in God's sight.
14 For whenever Gentiles, who have no Torah, do naturally what the Torah requires, then
these, even though they don't have Torah, for themselves are Torah!
15 For their lives show that the conduct the Torah dictates is written in their hearts. Their
consciences also bear witness to this, for their conflicting thoughts sometimes accuse
them and sometimes defend them
16 on a day when God passes judgment on people's inmost secrets. (According to the
Good News as I proclaim it, he does this through the Messiah Yeshua.)
17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rest on Torah and boast about God
18 and know his will and give your approval to what is right, because you have been
instructed from the Torah;
19 and if you have persuaded yourself that you are a guide to the blind, a light in the
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
darkness,
20 an instructor for the spiritually unaware and a teacher of children, since in the Torah
you have the embodiment of knowledge and truth;
21  then,  you  who  teach  others,  don't  you  teach  yourself?  Preaching,  "Thou  shalt  not
steal," do you steal?
22 Saying, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? Detesting idols,
do you commit idolatrous acts?
23 You who take such pride in Torah, do you, by disobeying the Torah, dishonor God?-
24 as it says in the Tanakh, "For it is because of you that God's name is blasphemed by
the Goyim."
25  For  circumcision  is  indeed  of  value  if  you  do  what  Torah  says.  But  if  you  are  a
transgressor of Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision!
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah,
won't his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 Indeed, the man who is physically uncircumcised but obeys the Torah will stand as a
judgment on you who have had a b'rit-milah and have Torah written out but violate it!
28 For the real Jew is not merely Jewish outwardly: true circumcision is not only external
and physical.
29 On the contrary, the real Jew is one inwardly; and true circumcision is of the heart,
spiritual not literal; so that his praise comes not from other people but from God.
What  did  we  just  hear  Paul  say?  He  says  true  circumcision  is  of  the  heart;  spiritually  not
literally. So fleshly circumcision was always meant as an outward symbol of something that
happened  internally  and  invisibly.  He  also  said  that  the  man  who  obeys  the  Torah  but  is
physically not circumcised (he is a gentile, not a Jew) will stand as a judgment against a Jew (a
circumcised  person)  who  disobeys  God's  Torah.  Circumcision  was  a  physical  symbol  that
anyone could wear whether they trusted and obeyed the God of Israel or not. But a man who
didn't  wear  that  physical  symbol  of  circumcision  (a  gentile),  but  did  trust  God  and  did  obey
God's Torah, God would declare as righteous and acceptable.
We'll begin Acts chapter 11 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 26, Chapter 11
Before we begin Acts 11, I want to take a breather to summarize the high points of our study
up to now so that we don't get too swamped in facts and new terms and lose our way. But
before I do that I feel it necessary to speak to you from my heart for a few moments. We have
spent 25 weeks, about 6 months, just getting through the first 10 of the 28 chapters of the Book
of Acts. And I have probably spent more time on Bible history, and the history of the Jewish
people, and delving into their culture, customs, and mindset and then trying to connect it all
together than any book I have ever taught. Most who are listening to me are gentiles; and thus
you have little idea what modern Jews, let alone the ancient Jews of the Bible are all about,
and you may also be thinking why should you even care to know? How does this help us to
understand God's Word and apply it to our lives?  I forewarned you of this approach at the
outset of our study because outside of teaching the Book of Acts in this way, I don't know how
else to extract its intended meaning.
Thus the reason for my long-winded and broad approach in teaching you about these matters
is that Acts is the structural bridge that spans two eras: the Old and the New Testament. It is
the  binding  link  between  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  advent  of  Messiah.  However  most
important for our proper understanding is that Acts is a 100% Jewish bridge. It is a bridge built
entirely  upon  the  bedrock  of  Jewish  society,  the  steel  of  Jewish  thought  processes,  the
connecting rivets of the Jewish religion of that era, and the labor of the historical traditions that
had  been  developed  and  nurtured  over  the  centuries  that  drove  Jewish  behavior  and
decisions. All the writers of the Old Testament were Jews (or more correctly, Hebrews), and all
the writers of the New Testament were Jews except for the God-fearer Luke who seems to
have  remained  a  Christ-believing  gentile  yet  threw  in  his  lot  with  the  Jewish  disciples  and
apostles of Christ, even becoming a traveling companion of Paul, and all that might have been
missing from him being a Jewish convert was circumcision.
I have often been asked what caused my wife and me to venture away from the mainstream
Christian  institutions  and  to  start  this  ministry  of  Bible  teaching  from  a  Hebrew  Roots
perspective.  A  way  of  teaching  that  challenges  things  we've  all  believed  in  at  one  time  or
another.  A friend of mine, Dr. Robert McGee, once said to me that sometimes we need to
pause and seriously examine why we believe what we believe. I've stated to close friends for
a very long time now that in my estimation most Christian institutions have backed away from
leading their flocks in a search for the truth and instead have encouraged their members to
uphold  and  defend  their  particular  doctrinal  status  quo.  That  is,  depending  on  how  long  a
certain denomination has been in existence, some time at their earliest inception a group of
leaders  decided  on  what  was  truth,  what  they  believed  in,  listed  them  and  called  them
doctrines, and set out to teach these doctrines as immutable. Except in the rarest cases, these
doctrines cannot be challenged; rather they must be accepted without question and adhered to
in perpetuity, or the dissenter is typically asked to go elsewhere. For these denominations, the
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
search for the truth ended the day their doctrines were posted because from their perspective
all the truth that existed had been found.  
Perhaps the main issue I have with that mindset is that it doesn't allow for the playing out of
the mysteries of Biblical prophecy, nor does it allow for ongoing progressive revelation and the
inevitable twists and turns it brings with it. Thus new information and new circumstances are
often  covered  over  or  willfully  ignored  because  they  may  contradict  long  held  doctrine.  The
unexpected return of Israel as a Jewish nation in 1948 is one such example.
Today the Bible is not usually taught in verse by verse, chronological fashion, nor is it taught in
its historical context. For one reason, in this era of hectic lives and short attention spans the
congregational audience usually has no patience for it (so I applaud you for hanging in there).
Rather  the  Bible  is  taught  according  to  what  scholars  call  apologetics.  Apologetics  are
arguments or reasoned justifications of something; usually a justification of certain established
religious  doctrines.  Therefore  if  a  Bible  passage  seems  to  say  something  different  than  the
denominational doctrine demands, then the Bible passage is either declared irrelevant for our
times, or it is allegorized in a well thought out way to make it conform to the unchangeable
doctrine. So once again; for many centuries, now, the issue has been less about searching for
God's  truth  or  embracing  a  new  revelation  with  an  open  mind  and  a  thirsty  soul;  but  more
about  defending  cherished,  familiar  beliefs  and  traditions  that  are  securely  locked  behind  a
door  of  denominational  creeds  and  doctrines.  If  Yeshua's  first  disciples  had  thought  and
behaved in that way, instead of being open to the new revelation of His coming and all that it
entailed, the faith we hold dear and count on would have been stillborn.
Rather, I want to be personally prepared and to help prepare you, for whatever comes next in
God's redemptive plan for mankind (and much has been promised and is yet to come). I don't
want to miss it, and I don't want you to miss it, because of closed minds and rigid manmade
doctrines.  Thus  here  at  Seed  of  Abraham  Torah  Class,  we  are  doing  our  best  (admittedly
imperfectly) to try to crack open, if just a wee bit, what has in many cases been a locked and
guarded door. And the key to this door is to understand these ancient people of the Bible, their
times and mindset, the intent of their words, and the context and circumstances in which they
uttered them, as found in the Holy Scriptures. I realize that this is often uncomfortable for you
because it is much easier to just settle on some basic matters and never have to address them
again. Most people come to Church to casually fellowship with other like-minded Believers and
to be emotionally uplifted; to feel better when they leave than when they arrived. They want
validation for what they have always believed. However, just as maturing from a child to an
adult forces us (hopefully) to reconsider things in life that at one time seemed simple and easy
to understand as children, but involve multiple shades of gray and conflicting principles as we
reach adult hood, so it is that as we learn of Christ and His sacrificial love that drove Him to the
cross, if we endeavor to mature in Him we will necessarily find out that certain God principles
and patterns aren't so straightforward or as easy to apply to our lives as we first thought.
And  sometimes  to  our  greatest  discomfort  we  will  also  find  out  that  certain  doctrines  were
originally  formed  due  to  human  agendas  in  the  past  that  are  not  so  apparent  to  the
congregation today, and once unearthed can be troubling. However our goal in learning God's
Word,  and  in  response  being  obedient  to  it,  should  not  be  about  our  search  for  comfort;  it
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
should be about our search for truth. And I can tell you from experience, the truth is not always
comfortable. God's Word is so wide and so deep that no man, no teacher, no Pastor, no Rabbi
has a corner on the truth, or knows all the truth, because God's way is to reveal more and
more of the truth in His good time; and so our search should be ongoing. Yet, there are things
we can reasonably test, and we can conclude and know with a certainty if we work at it, and at
times  this  leads  us  to  things  we've  assumed  were  truth  but  new  information  that  better
conforms with God's Word demands that we must now unlearn them. That takes courage and
persistence,  it  takes  faith,  and  it  takes  humbling  ourselves  before  the  Holy  Spirit  such  that
we're not so allergic to finding out that we may have been wrong about some important things
concerning our faith that we close our eyes and ears.
But as no other book ever written, the Bible tells us that if we will seek diligently for the truth
within its God inspired passages, we are guaranteed to find it. We are also told that the truth
will set us free. Free from what? From bondage to sin that began with a lie in the Garden of
Eden;  not  free  to  do  anything  we  feel  like.  Truth  sets  us  free;  freedom  is  not  gained  from
stubbornly (perhaps fearfully) holding on to humanly imposed doctrines and customs that have
been so warm and customary to us over the years that we have not had to think about them
twice. We've not been terribly motivated to ask ourselves why we believe what we believe.
That is, however, indeed what I'm asking you to do.
So what we've learned thus far in the Book of Acts are things that, for some, can be unsettling;
for others, informing and enlightening. For instance: that belief in Jesus Christ arose from the
religion of the Jews, just as Yeshua Himself was a hereditary, genealogical and cultural Jew.
The  religion  of  the  Jews  since  sometime  after  the  Babylonian  exile  is  what  we  today  call
Judaism, even though there is no evidence that during New Testament times, or before, that
the term Judaism was used to label the Jewish religion.
We also discovered that the religion of the Jews in New Testament times was practiced much
like  Christianity  is  practiced  in  modern  times.  That  is,  Judaism  consisted  of  a  number  of
factions that shared a few commonly held and fundamental beliefs among them, but also many
more beliefs that were at opposite ends of the spectrum (such as if bodily resurrection was
possible). Further, because of the Babylonian exile some 600 years prior to New Testament
times, and because the vast majority of exiled Jews had voluntarily decided to remain in the
various foreign lands to which they were sent, there was a distinct split in how Judaism was
practiced  between  the  Jews  who  lived  in  the  Holy  Land  versus  those  who  lived  out  in  the
Diaspora (that is, the Jews who lived in foreign lands). The Jews living in the Holy Land were
outnumbered 20 to 1 by the Diaspora Jews. However, the Diaspora Jews in general looked to
Jerusalem  for  spiritual  direction  because  that's  where  the  Temple,  the  Priesthood,  and  the
Sanhedrin were located.
We learned that there were other factional splits in Judaism as well, and these factional splits
play significant roles in our New Testament stories and their outcomes. The most familiar one
to Christians is the split between the Sadducees and the Pharisees; the two most predominant
social/ religious/political parties of the Jews. But the cause of this split is not apparent without
understanding  basics  of  Judaism  and  Jewish  society  in  that  era.  It  was  the  aristocratic
Sadducees  who  operated  the  Temple,  controlled  the  Priesthood  and  ran  the  Jewish  High
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
Court:  the  Sanhedrin.  But  it  was  the  learned  Pharisees  who  were  the  overseers  of  the
Synagogues. Thus the Synagogue and the Temple were rivals and held little in common. The
Synagogue  looked  much  like  a  typical  Church  looks  with  its  building,  seating,  speaking
platform,  and  authority  structure.  The  Synagogue  is  where  Rabbis  and  others  taught  their
doctrines and Bible interpretations and the Synagogue was the center of daily Jewish religious
life. There was only one Temple but there were hundreds and hundreds of Synagogues. And
there was a Synagogue present generally wherever a Jewish community of sustainable size
would spring up.
Especially for the Diaspora Jews who lived hundreds, and in some cases a thousand miles or
more, away from Jerusalem it wasn't usual that they would ever in their lifetimes come to visit
the Temple for a Biblical festival or to sacrifice there; it was simply too expensive, too time
consuming, too dangerous and too impractical. So their attachment to their Jewish religion was
to their local Synagogue. When people went regularly to worship and have fellowship, even in
Jerusalem, it was usually not to the Temple but to their Synagogue. So we must necessarily
understand that for Yeshua and for all His followers, as well as all regular Jews, theirs' was
the world of the Synagogue, and only on certain ceremonial occasions did they venture to the
Temple and interact with the priests.
The  central  doctrinal  tenets  of  the  Synagogue  can  be  summed  up  in  one  Hebrew  word:
Halakhah. Halakhah was a merging and mingling of the Biblical Torah, Traditions, and ancient
customs. It was their manual not just for their religion, but for their everyday behavior. It was
not  a  written  manual  yet  (that  wouldn't  come  for  another  couple  of  centuries),  rather  it  was
taught orally and enforced by various Jewish religious authorities who didn't agree on many
important  matters;  this  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  several  factions  of  Judaism  that
developed and the never ending infighting that usually only amounted to passionate debate but
at times spilled over into violence. All the disciples and followers of Yeshua belonged to one
faction or another of Judaism, and to one Synagogue or another, so they didn't have a single
unified  mindset  even  after  coming  to  belief.  And  we  see  this  play  out  early  on  among  the
disciples as we hear of Hellenist Believers (Greek speakers) versus Hebrew Believers (Hebrew
speakers) who don't trust one another to impartially dole out money and food to the widows
among their group.
Despite their various levels of devotion to Judaism, for the Jewish people there was no getting
around the realty that in New Testament times the world was a gentile Roman world; the Holy
Lands  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Romans  and  the  Diaspora  Jews  lived  in  one  province  or
another of the Roman Empire. It had been this way for going on 2 centuries by the time of
Christ's execution. The Jews of the Diaspora by necessity dealt every day with the majority
gentile  world  and  its  many  complexities.  Like  the  proverbial  frog  in  the  kettle,  slowly  and
imperceptibly the Diaspora Jews found themselves looking and thinking more and more like
their  gentile  neighbors.  But  the  more  pious  and  zealous  Jews  of  the  Holy  Land  who  lived
nearer to the greatest symbol of their heritage, the Temple, and nearer to the power center of
Jewish religious authority, Jerusalem, tended to keep as much distance between themselves
and the gentiles as possible. It was in this context that a new faction of Judaism, one born in
the  world  of  the  Synagogue,  arose.  This  faction  believed  that  Yeshua  of  Nazareth  was  the
Messiah they had been waiting for. But, progressive revelation visibly demonstrated that He
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
was a different kind of Messiah than the long-held Jewish customs and traditions had said they
were to expect; He would not lead the Jews in a revolt against Rome, which was expectation
#1. Further, He was not a mere man; He was indeed a descendant of King David, but also He
claimed to be God. Even more perplexing, if not disappointing, He would achieve the goal of
bringing in the Kingdom of God, a Jewish Kingdom, through His death and resurrection; not
through his personal charisma and a series of stunning military victories that would liberate
Judah. More this would be a spiritual kingdom as opposed to a typical physical kingdom. Most
Jews  then  were  like  most  Christians  today:  this  simply  was  not  what  their  trusted  religious
leaders had told them a Messiah would be and do, so even the vivid reality of Yeshua and of
His miracles that so many of them personally witnessed didn't sway them. Maintaining their
familiar doctrinal status quo was what mattered, and it was also what was demanded by the
Jewish religious leadership; not accepting the newly revealed truth.  
Thus we find upon Yeshua's death that a small group of 12 disciples took up the cause as its
leadership,  and  their  particular  faction  of  Judaism  became  known  as  The  Way.  They  didn't
stop  going  to  Synagogue;  they  didn't  stop  going  to  the  Temple.  They  didn't  stop  practicing
their Judaism or stop obeying the Law of Moses. In fact on one particular occasion, the first
Shavuot  (Pentecost)  after  Yeshua's  crucifixion,  the  12  disciples  (all  Galileans)  were  in
Jerusalem  in  obedience  to  the  Law,  and  along  with  thousands  of  Diaspora  Jews  who  were
there  for  the  same  purpose,  saw  and  experienced  something  that  shocked  them.  The  Holy
Spirit  visibly  descended  upon  Yeshua's  followers  and  they  all  began  speaking  in  foreign
languages  that  they  didn't  know.  Peter  and  others  of  the  disciples  used  this  event  as  a
springboard to teach other Jews about Yeshua and what the coming of the Spirit meant, but
they were arrested by the High Priest and told to stop speaking about this Yeshua.
Not long afterward, a Greek speaking Jewish Believer from Samaria named Stephen went to
one of the 400 or so synagogues in Jerusalem to preach the Gospel to them, and they became
so incensed by what he had to say that they took him to the Sanhedrin. In a hasty kangaroo
court  trial,  he  was  convicted  and  promptly  stoned  to  death.  Immediately  following  this,  a
number of Jews in Jerusalem set out to destroy this new radical faction of Judaism and so the
terrified Believers fled Jerusalem to safer parts of the Holy Land and to nearby countries.
In response the Sanhedrin sent Paul, a strict Pharisee, after one particular group of Believers
who had fled to safety in Damascus, Syria. On the journey to arrest these Jesus sympathizers
Christ confronted Paul in spirit form, from Heaven, and Paul, although blinded, became the
newest Believer. The same zeal he had for rounding up and punishing Believers he would now
use to spread the Gospel message.
Back in the Holy Land Peter and James, Yeshua's brother, were the unquestioned leaders of
The Way. Peter was roving around, making new disciples of the Holy Land Jews and checking
in on the welfare of some of the scattered Believers, when he had a vision that would forever
change yet another fundamental mistake in his Halakhah-based Jewish theology. But before
he had his vision, a gentile Roman army officer named Cornelius had a visitation from an angel
telling  him  to  go  and  fetch  Peter  because  there  was  something  Peter  needed  to  tell  him.
Peter's vision happened shortly afterward. The vision was a parable; it involved a cloth sheet
being  lowered  down  from  Heaven  with  all  kinds  of  animals  in  it,  some  (if  not  all)  being
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
prohibited as food for Jews according to the Law of Moses. God told Peter to kill and eat. This
vision greatly confused Peter not only because of the instruction, but because the words used
didn't pertain to food; they pertained to people and to objects.
As  the  men  arrived  to  escort  Peter  to  visit  Cornelius,  Peter  suddenly  realized  what  this
vision/parable was telling him; first, it had nothing to do with food at all. Rather it was that Peter
(and all Jews) were to stop regarding gentiles as unclean. Why? Had God recently cleansed
gentiles and made them clean? No. God had created gentiles clean (as He does all things). If
fact gentiles represented a spiritual status the Torah calls common. Common was a perfectly
fine  status,  and  was  not  evil  or  wrong  and  certainly  not  unclean.  It  was  Judaism  that  had
developed  traditions  that  declared  that  gentiles  were  unclean  and  so  Jews  couldn't  have
anything to do with them or they would risk becoming ritually defiled.  Thus since God had
entrusted Jews with the Good News, then this faulty theology about gentiles would have to be
straightened out so that Believing Jews would go to the gentiles, and gentiles could be saved
as well.
While Peter is talking to Cornelius and his household, in a second Pentecost event, the Holy
Spirit visibly fell on these gentiles, indicating that they believed the Gospel message and that
God had accepted them. This stunned Peter and 6 other Jewish Believers who had come with
him. They never imagined it possible that gentiles could accept the Jewish Messiah, and that
God would accept them, without them first becoming Jews. But now that they had accepted
Christ, and the Ruach HaKodesh had fallen on them, ought they to be circumcised and so to
become official Jews? A number of Jewish Believers thought so, and our Bibles usually call
them the Circumcision faction. This would remain a contentious issue within The Way, and it
appears that Peter was as ambivalent about it as Paul was outspoken against it.
This pretty well sums up the road we've thus far traveled in the Book of Acts. With that, open
your Bibles to Acts chapter 11 and we'll continue our journey.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 11 all
This  chapter  opens  in  the  immediate  aftermath  of  Peter's  dealings  with  the  God-fearing
gentile, and new Believer, Cornelius and his household. And the tone of this passage is that
the  Jewish  Believers  really  didn't  know  how  to  handle  this  revelation  about  the  Holy  Spirit
falling  upon  gentiles.  And  the  Circumcision  faction  among  the  Believers  felt  that  although
salvation  in  Christ  had  without  question  come  to  the  gentiles  (as  evidenced  by  the  visible
nature of the Holy Spirit coming down upon Cornelius), they felt that the next logical step was
to become a Jew; and that was accomplished by circumcision. In fact the belief was that while
one could be saved as a gentile, one could not continue as a gentile.
It  is  not  surprising  that  it  was  in  Jerusalem  that  Peter  encountered  this  opposition  since
Jerusalem was the center of the original community of Believers, and it was still where the
leadership  of  The  Way  operated  from.  But  just  as  importantly  it  was  where  Judaism  was
practiced in its most fundamentalist extremes, and so the thought of gentiles having anything
to do with the God of Israel was not accepted. Peter may have understood from God that the
standard Halakhah of the Jews that said that gentiles were naturally unclean was wrong, but
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
that  isn't  something  that  is  easily  dismissed  by  other  Jewish  Believers  just  because  one
person says so. Old Traditions and ways of thinking die much harder than that.
Notice the complaint of verse 3 that is directed towards Peter: "You went into the homes of
uncircumcised  men  and  ate  with  them."  This  is  not  an  accusation  that  Peter  essentially
consorted with the enemy. Rather this is an issue of ritual purity and thus the leader of the
Messianic movement (Peter) has voluntarily subjected himself to becoming defiled and thinking
it alright. This did not settle well with the Jewish Believers in Jerusalem; after all shouldn't their
leader be the most pious and careful of them all (as an example to the others)? And please
keep  in  mind  in  all  of  our  lessons  throughout  Acts  (and  anywhere  you  read  in  the  New
Testament) that the term "the uncircumcised" is simply a Jewish colloquial term that means
gentile. So we see that the issue of circumcision is directly tied to ritual purity.
What about a male gentile getting circumcised solves that issue? It is because it is assumed
that the only reason for circumcision is to disavow one's gentile identity and to convert to a
Jew. Once someone is a Jew, then that person (male or female) can go into a Mikveh and be
ritually  cleansed  of  all  their  gentile  impurity  (something  that  they  could  not  do  before
circumcision).  Naturally  as  a  Jew  one  would  of  course  also  follow  the  Jewish  Halakhah  as
regards the purity provisions. Bottom line: God-fearer or not; Believer in Christ or not; the issue
of ritual purity that surrounds gentiles remains unchanged in the eyes of circumcision faction.
And in fact when we get to Acts chapter 15 and the famous Jerusalem Council whereby certain
rules  were  to  be  implemented  upon  the  growing  number  of  gentile  Believers  it  was  entirely
about purity provisions because these new Believing gentiles expected to worship with, dine
with, and have open fellowship with Jewish Believers. So the question was how the leadership
of  The  Way  could  assure  their  Jewish  brethren  that  they  wouldn't  become  defiled  by  being
around these gentile Believers. 
Starting in verse 4, Peter's defense for going into the home of a gentile and eating with him is
to tell the story of the vision/parable that he had when he was in Yafo at Shimon the tanner's
house. And so he tells it nearly word for word as we read it back in chapter 10. And when in
verse 8 Peter gets to the part about telling God "no" that he will not eat such things as were in
the sheet lowered down from Heaven, it is to make clear to Kefa's hearers (which was mainly
the circumcision faction) that he is no less strictly Torah observant than they are. So he was
just as horrified to hear this instruction from God as the circumcision faction is taken aback by
Peter telling them about the instruction. I need to comment here, as I did in chapter 10, that
Acts 11:9 is poorly translated in the CJB. Where it says:  "Stop treating as unclean what God
has made clean" it is incorrect. What it actually says is: "Stop treating as koinos what God has
made kathartos". "Stop treating as common what God has made clean".
I'm  not  going  to  go  back  through  our  last  3  weeks  of  study  whereby  we  talked  extensively
about the spiritual state called common; I'll leave that up to you to review it for yourselves. But
what  I  do  want  to  add  is  this:  I  can  tell  you  right  now  that  many  of  you  are  reading  this
statement as though God (through Peter) is saying that He has recently cleansed the gentiles
when  He  says  He  "had  made  (them)  clean".  And  you'd  be  wrong.  And  the  reason  you
automatically perceive it that way is because you still see it through the lens that pervades
Christianity,  which  say  a)  gentiles  were  unclean  and  so  God  had  to  cleanse  them,  and  b)
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
because you still want to relate this to the kosher food laws, which most Christian leaders say
is what Peter's vision was about (it wasn't), and c) because it is taught that the Levitical food
laws were abolished for Believers (but that is decidedly not so). Rather when God says that He
made  gentiles  clean,  He  means  that  indeed  He  created  them  (he  made  them)  as  clean
creatures. It was only Judaism, not God, who ever at any time declared gentiles as universally
and naturally unclean creatures. So God was rebuking Peter; not informing him of a change.
God was saying, 'Peter, I made gentiles clean, so don't you say otherwise or treat them in
such a way". Further, if a gentile (who naturally carries the "common" spiritual status) accepts
Christ,  he  or  she  is  elevated  to  the  same  "holy"  status  that  Jews  naturally  carry.  So  Peter
should  stop  thinking  of  Believing  gentiles  as  being  forever  stuck  in  their  "common"  spiritual
status; they are no longer common they are now holy as a result of their faith in Yeshua. And it
is not by means of a physical circumcision and thus converting to become a Jew that elevates
them to a holy status; it is God Himself who declares their elevation to holy.....nothing more.
Verse 15 is a telling statement. There Peter relates to his listeners that the Holy Spirit fell on
these gentiles "just as it fell on us at the beginning". That is, it was another Pentecost event.
Christ told the Jewish Believers to wait on something amazing that was going to happen before
they  began  their  ministry;  and  Peter  realizes  that  amazing  event  was  Pentecost.  It  was  the
starter's gun at the beginning of a race for the Jewish Believers. But in Caesarea Maritima that
same  starter's  gun  had  been  raised  and  fired  signaling  the  beginning  of  the  inclusion  of
gentiles. Always the motto had been, first to the Jews then to the Greeks. It seems that the
Jews' head start was over. Little did they know that soon the Jews would find themselves the
minority party of Christianity.
The  most  important  statement  about  Peter's  self-defense  to  the  circumcision  faction  for  his
associating with gentiles is in verse 17:
CJB  Acts 11:17 Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as he gave us after we had
come  to  put  our  trust  in  the  Lord  Yeshua  the  Messiah,  who  was  I  to  stand  in  God's
way?"
Peter basically says, it's not my fault. Peter doesn't second guess whom God deems worthy
of salvation. Peter doesn't choose who the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon; the Lord does. It also
kind of harkens back to Gamaliel's wise statement to fellow members of the Sanhedrin about
what they ought to do about Peter and this growing faction of Judaism that they did not start or
sanction. A group that followed and worshipped a deceased carpenter from Nazareth.
In Acts chapter 5, we heard this:
Acts 5:38-39 CJB
38 So in the present case, my advice to you is not to interfere with these people, but to
leave them alone. For if this idea or this movement has a human origin, it will collapse.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them; you might even find yourselves
fighting God!" They heeded his advice.
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
When the circumcision faction heard those wise words of Peter that of course were the truth,
they relented. How indeed can we call ourselves followers of God and then turn around and
question  who  God  chooses  as  His  own?  They  instead  began  to  praise  God,  and  a  chilling
reality settled in over them. In verse 18 we read:
Acts 11:18 CJB "This means that God has enabled the Goyim as well to do t'shuvah and
have life!"
That is: "This means that God has enabled the gentiles as well to repent and have life!"
We'll finish chapter 11 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 27, Chapters 11 and 12
Acts chapter 11 explains that after the incident with Cornelius and his household (when the
Holy Spirit fell in a Pentecost-like event upon this group of gentiles), that Peter went back to
Jerusalem  where  he  faced  a  barrage  of  questioning  and  skepticism  by  the  Believers.  They
were indignant that Peter, as their leader, would actually not only consort with a Roman army
officer, but even have the bad judgment to go into the home of this gentile. The issue for them
was that first of all, gentiles were the oppressors of the Jews. Second, everybody knew that
gentiles were ritually unclean and thus by going into the home of this Roman Centurion, Peter
(the leader of The Way) had knowingly defiled himself. But third, why would Peter think to want
to deliver salvation and the fruit of the Holy Spirit to non-Jews? So far as they were concerned
or knew, salvation was more than merely a uniquely Jewish concept; it was only available to
Jews.
We've spent several weeks now discussing perhaps the most universal and central tenet of
Jewish  society:  ritual  purity.  It  crossed  all  the  lines  of  Jewish  factionalism.  It  didn't  matter
whether  you  were  a  Hellenist  Jew  or  Hebrew  Jew;  a  Believer  or  a  Pharisee,  Essene  or
Sadducee. It didn't matter whether you lived at the religious center of the world, Jerusalem, or
in a small community far away in the Diaspora where Jews were a minority. Ritual purity was
the goal, symbol and cause for how Jews lived, and gentiles represented the antithesis of it. 
Peter's only possible defense was to relate to his fellow Believers the astounding events that
led him to make this equally astounding decision. So the first half of Acts 11 is dedicated to
essentially re-telling the story of Peter's vision of the sheet full of animals, and his relating of
the strange instruction from God to kill and eat. And then of his realization that the vision was a
parable and it had not to do with the ritual purity of food, but rather the ritual purity (or impurity)
of gentiles. And that he was telling these gentiles the Gospel of Yeshua when his speech was
interrupted by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon these same gentiles who even did exactly as
all the Jewish Believers in Jerusalem had done on that first Shavuot after Yeshua's death and
resurrection:  they  began  praising  God  and  speaking  ecstatically  in  languages  they  didn't
know!  And  thus  what,  exactly,  was  Peter  supposed  to  think  and  do,  especially  when  he
remembered that their Master Yeshua had told them that while Yochanon (John the Baptizer)
used to immerse people in water, that we will be immersed in the Holy Spirit?
At this point the Believers saw that Peter had indeed made his case; he had no choice in what
he did because the Lord had instigated it. So, in the best spirit they could muster, they quit
questioning Peter and his motives and instead began to praise God agreeing that while it might
make  no  sense  to  them,  the  Lord  has  chosen  to  allow  gentiles  into  the  fold.  However  as  I
mentioned last week, that in no way meant to them that the issue of ritual purity between Jews
and gentiles was now resolved. Thus we see in this chapter our author, Luke, informing us of a
sub-group  within  The  Way  that  on  the  one  hand  grudgingly  accepted  that  gentiles  could
receive salvation, but on the other that merely meant to them that the next step was for these
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
new gentile Believers to be circumcised and thus officially become Jews. It seemed completely
logical.  After  all,  many  gentiles  had  become  God-fearers;  that  is,  they  gave  up  their  Greek
gods and started worshipping the God of Israel. However, they remained gentiles. Therefore
obviously it was that Yehoveh had seen fit to take these God-fearers to another level by means
of  salvation  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  make  them  Jews!  All  that  remained,  then,  was  for  the
circumcision ceremony to formalize their conversion.
Let's re-read that last few verses of Acts 11.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 11:19 – end
For  the  moment,  then,  the  believing  Jews  of  Jerusalem  have  accepted  Peter's  explanation
and although not entirely settled about the matter of gentiles becoming Believers, they have
put it to bed for the time being. So Luke transitions to a different issue; that of those many
Jewish Believers who had fled Jerusalem on account of the persecutions that arose against
them after Stephen had been stoned to death. However as we look back in history, what is
really happening is that we are learning how the Good News was spread to foreign lands. And,
unfortunately, the God-pattern seems to be that the Gospel spreads best when the Believing
community  is  undergoing  tribulation.  I  see  nothing  in  modern  times  that  indicates  that  this
pattern has changed.
Verse  19  says  that  these  Jewish  Believers  from  Jerusalem  had  traveled  as  far  away  as
Phoenicia,  Cyprus,  and  Antioch  to  escape  persecution.  Phoenicia  was  a  sea-faring  people
whose main source of income was shipping. They were located on a thin strip of land to the
north  of  the  Holy  Land.  There  had  been  for  centuries  generally  good  relations  between
Phoenicia and Israel.
Others  went  to  Cyprus,  an  island  in  the  Mediterranean.  There  were  a  number  of  Jewish
colonies  in  Cyprus  as  it  provided  a  key  harbor  in  the  shipping  lanes.  In  fact  the  Barnabas
whose  name  is  mentioned  often  in  the  Book  of  Acts  originally  came  from  one  the  several
Jewish colonies of Cyprus.
Antioch also goes by the name of Antioch on the Orontes. Antioch was named after the hated
Syrian Governor Antiochus Epiphanies.  It was another place where sizable colonies of Jews
had settled for centuries. So the fleeing Believers of course went to places where they had
relatives,  or  perhaps  close  friends,  who  would  offer  them  shelter.    In  fact  Antioch  and
Jerusalem were bound quite closely together and there was frequent travel between the two
cities  such  that  the  Jewish  residents  of  each  city  had  an  unusual  comfort  level  with  one
another. It ought to be no surprise, then, that we are explicitly told that these Jewish Believers
from Jerusalem took the Gospel message only to fellow Jews living in these foreign Jewish
enclaves. 
Verse  20  tells  us  that  certain  men  from  the  Island  of  Cyprus  and  from  the  North  African
province  of  Cyrenaica  (modern  day  Libya)  also  traveled  to  Antioch  to  teach  about  Yeshua.
They  were,  of  course,  Jewish  Believers  but  they  weren't  among  those  who  had  fled  from
Jerusalem. So there was a great deal of evangelism directed at Antioch, because there was a
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
great  deal  of  Jews  living  there.  But  we're  told,  interestingly,  that  these  Believing  Jews  also
took the Good News to the Greeks; that is to gentiles. Had they heard about Peter's adventure
with Cornelius already? Unlikely. They apparently figured out for themselves that if gentiles in
substantial  numbers  were  accepting  the  God  of  Israel  that  they  just  might  also  be  open  to
accepting the Messiah of Israel. So while Paul is God's designated point man for taking the
Gospel to the gentiles, by no means was he in charge of the "mission to the gentiles" nor was
he the only Believer whom the Holy Spirit had moved to present gentiles with the Good News. 
Let me also point out something that is good for Bible students to know about the choice of
words used in verse 20. Here it says that the Believers from Cyprus and Cyrene spoke about
Yeshua   to   the   "Greeks".   We've   talked   on   numerous   occasions   about   the   Hellenists.
Hellenists are first and foremost Greek speakers, but second they have to one level or another
taken on Greek culture as their way of life. However in the New Testament, when we hear
about Hellenists, it is only speaking about Hellenist Jews. Jews, who have taken on the Greek
lifestyle, speak Greek as their first language, and in some cases they have accepted Yeshua.
So  the  terms  Hellenist  Jews,  Hellenist  Believers,  and  Hellenists  all  mean  the  same  thing:
Greek speaking Jews, some of whom became followers of Yeshua. But when the intention is to
refer to gentiles of the Roman Empire who speak Greek and live the regular Roman-Greek
lifestyle, then the term that the New Testament uses is "Greeks" rather than "Hellenists".  
The leadership of The Way in Jerusalem heard about a great number of Greeks accepting the
Lord  and  they  decided  to  send  Barnabas  (Bar-Nabba)  to  Antioch  to  investigate.  The  news
would have caught them completely unaware. It is likely that most if not all of these gentile
success stories were already God-fearers, so that made the task a bit easier since these God-
fearers  already  had  a  basis  for  understanding  what  the  Believers  would  tell  them  about
Messiah Yeshua. And, equally likely, the gentile God-Fearers of Antioch were already being
allowed some sort of limited access to the Synagogues, even though the ultra-pious Jews of
Jerusalem would have been quite against such a thing. What we're seeing here in Antioch is a
scale of evangelism to both gentiles and Jews that was without precedent.   
Barnabas  lent  a  needed  credibility  to  the  movement  in  Antioch  as  he  was  an  official
representative of the Apostles....the leadership. And true to his name, Bar-Nabba encouraged
the  new  Believers  to  stay  the  course  to  give  their  entire  selves  to  their  newfound  faith  in
Yeshua.  Let's  be  clear:  by  God's  grace  Barnabas  was  the  perfect  man  for  the  job.  Being
originally a Diaspora Jew from Cyprus, but now having lived in Jerusalem for some number of
years, he could more easily relate to the Diaspora Jews of Antioch and he was not so allergic
to  gentiles  as  were  his  Jerusalem  born  and  raised  counterparts.  Jerusalem  Jews  were  the
politically correct, ultra Orthodox Jews of that era, and so they had little tolerance for anything
outside of whatever Halakhah they had grown up under. They were more rigid, whereas the
Diaspora Jews were more flexible. And since The Way was still a movement in its infancy at
this point; so the complicated matter of also beginning to include gentiles into what had always
been thought was simply a recent and alternative sect within Judaism was going to require an
open mindedness not typical of Jerusalem Jews.
I am so grateful for Luke's characterization of Barnabas as a good man, full of the Holy Spirit
and trust. Because only with these attributes was he (and are we) able to recognize God's
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
grace in action such that it can shape our decisions and even change our minds over doctrines
and traditions that we at one time held on to so dearly but now need to be rethought. Rabbi
Shulam  unearthed  a  most  wonderful  passage  found  in  the  Dead  Sea  Scrolls  at  Qumran,  a
place I've taken many of you to. This passage is taken from scroll 1QS. The "1" indicates in
which  of  the  several  caves  it  was  found,  the  Q  indicates  Qumran,  and  the  S  indicates  the
document type and name. In this case it is the document of Community Rules; a document that
has  given  us  much  insight  into  the  philosophy,  behavior,  and  lifestyle  of  the  Essenes,  the
writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Please listen carefully to these beautiful and inspiring words
that I pray we would all regularly recall and keep near to our hearts.
"As for me, to God belongs my judgment; in his hand is the perfection of my behavior
with the uprightness of my heart; and with his just acts he cancels my iniquities.....if I
stumble, the mercies of God shall be my salvation always; and if I fall in the sin of the
flesh,  in  the  justice  of  God,  which  endures  eternally,  shall  my  judgment  be;  if  my
distress commences, he will free my soul from the pit and make my steps ready on the
path;  he  will  draw  me  near  in  his  mercies  and  by  his  kindness  set  in  motion  my
judgment;  he  will  judge  me  in  the  justice  of  his  truth,  and  in  his  plentiful  goodness
always atone for my sins; in his justice he will cleanse me from all the uncleanness of
the human being and from the sin of the sons of man, so that I can give God thanks for
his justice and The Highest for his mercy". 
There is no better description of the purpose and essence of Yeshua our Messiah and how we
are to respond to Him than what we just heard. It is no wonder that as we examine some of
Yeshua's  New  Testament  statements  and  terms  that  we  find  them  expressed  at  times
similarly, and at other times nearly identically, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such that the evidence
mounts  that  Yeshua  assuredly  spent  much  time  with  the  Essenes  who  saw  each  other  as
kindred spirits.
Verse 25 has Bar-Nabba, for some unstated reason, heading off to Tarsus in search of Paul.
Tarsus  was  around  100  miles  north  of  Antioch  so  this  was  no  small  journey.  For  whatever
reason he brought Paul back with him to Antioch. The passage says that Paul and Barnabas
(not  just  Paul)  met  with  the  congregation  (meaning  the  Believers)  and  taught  a  sizeable
number  of  them  and  did  so  for  about  a  year.  Probably  Barnabas  understood  that  God  had
ordained Paul as His special emissary to the gentiles and so it seemed appropriate that Paul
would be included in the evangelizing and maturing of the congregation in Antioch. But then in
verse 26 we are told this:
Acts 11:26 CJB Also it was in Antioch that the talmidim for the first time were called
"Messianic."
Or, more familiar to our ears:
Acts  11:26  RSV      ..........and  in  Antioch  the  disciples  were  for  the  first  time  called
Christians.
This is a very famous statement that we'll take a few minutes to examine. It tells us that it was
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
in Antioch that The Way was first given a different label by the Greek speaking Diaspora Jews
and gentiles than what they were known as in the Holy Land. And the CJB says that new name
was  Messianics;  but  virtually  all  other  English  translations  will  say  Christians.  This  is  a
complicated but important matter and explanation is needed to put this in the proper context
and to help reunite a centuries old divide.
The reason I want to address this is this: it is either said or implied in institutional Christianity
that it was in Antioch where gentile Christianity was born. The idea being that it was in Antioch
where Messianic Jews went one way, and gentile Christians went another way. While indeed
that eventually did happen, it didn't happen during the New Testament era, and it certainly did
not occur in Act 11:26 at Antioch. But the reason that it appears so is mostly one of language
translation issues, but also of semantics. So please give me your best focus for a few minutes
so I can explain this to you; it is important because what we see here in verse 26 has had an
enormously negative impact on Jewish/Christian relations.
The question is this: does the word "Christians" actually appear here? And if the word is not
Christians, what is it and why do all English Bibles insert the word Christians in verse 26?   Let
me  begin  by  explaining  that  as  more  and  more  people  are  beginning  to  understand,  our
Messiah was not called Jesus at the time of His birth because Jesus is an English word, and
English wasn't even invented until centuries and centuries later. Because He was Hebrew, he
naturally was given a Hebrew name at birth and that name was Yeshua. However in Greek His
name translates to Iesous. That is, in Greek it is a 3 syllable word just as His Hebrew name
Yeshua is a 3 syllable word. It is simply the normal way of language and language translation
that a name in one language can sound quite different in another language. That English says
Jesus (a 2 syllable word) is a great example of that.
Now; the words Messiah and Messianic are English sound-alike renditions of the Hebrew word
mashiach,   but   they   aren't   actual   translations   because   the   actual   English   translation
of mashiach is anointed one. The word Christian is really just an English sound-alike rendition
of  the  Greek  word  christianoi,  but  not  an  actual  translation  of  the  word.  Since  the  New
Testament was written in Greek, then we must understand that christianoi is but the Greek
translation  variation  of  the  Hebrew  root  word  mashiach.  This  fact  creates  some  serious
theological, doctrinal and historical difficulties for us because to the ears of non-Jews it seems
as  though  when  we  read  Acts  11:26  a  new  religion  (Christianity)  was  in  process  of  being
formed in Antioch and its members were called Christians because they were named after their
Master, Christ, and they were separate from The Way that was being led by Jews. So it is then
assumed or taught outright that beginning at Antioch gentile Christians separated themselves
and began attending Churches while Messianic Jews attended Synagogues. And then when
this  happened,  some  Jewish  Believers  labeled  as  Judaizers  tried  to  stop  this  separation  of
gentile Believers and instead draw them back to Judaism. None of this is accurate and much of
it is due to translation errors and cultural misunderstandings.
Here is the reality. When a Greek speaking Jewish Believer talked to other Greek speakers (be
they  Jew  or  gentile)  then  of  course  he  used  his  own  Greek  language;  and  so  he  used  the
Greek word christos when talking about Messiah Yeshua. Why did he say christos? Because
christos  was  the  Greek  word  for  the  Hebrew  word  mashiach.  Thus  christos  does  NOT
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
properly translate to the English word Christ (as it is normally taken today). In recognition of
this  fact,  some  newer  English  Bible  versions  (such  as  the  ESV)  are  trying  to  rectify  this  by
inserting  the  word  "the"  before  the  word  Christ.  That  is,  instead  of  saying  Jesus  Christ,  the
verse reads Jesus THE Christ. Why do that? Because christos is not a proper name, rather it
translates  literally  into  English  as  "anointed  one".  Jesus  Christ  is  not  Jesus'  first  and  last
name like Tom Bradford. Let me say this in another way to try and help. If I take the English
word Christ and want to say it in Greek, there is technically no Greek word for it. If I want to
translate the word Christ into Hebrew, there is technically no Hebrew word for it. But if I want to
translate the English words "anointed one" into Greek, there is a Greek word for it: christos.
And there is also a Hebrew word for it: mashiach. Thus: anointed one = mashiach = christos.
Not Christ. All Greek Bible manuscripts use the word christos when speaking about Yeshua;
not as his name, but rather as indicative of the position he holds. And His position is as the
anointed one.
What  has  happened  is  that,  unfortunately,  when  the  Greek  christos  was  given  an  English
rendition as christ, rather than christ simply meaning "anointed one", at some undefined point
in the history of the gentile church the term christ turned from being an office that Yeshua held
(the office of the anointed one), and it became a proper name. It is fascinating that even the
secular Wikipedia fully acknowledges this. By way of example we've done the same thing with
the word God. We've mistakenly made God to be God's name. God's name is not God. God
is actually an office or a title; God's name is Yehoveh or Yahweh depending on how you wish
to pronounce it. Somehow along the way Christ became Jesus's new, or alternate, name. It
would be as though President Obama's name suddenly just became President. And 100 years
from now whenever anyone said "President" it was taken to mean only Mr. Obama's personal
name. Or it would be as though Pastor Billy Graham's name suddenly became merely Pastor.
So 100 years from now when anyone talked about being a fan of Pastor, who is being talked
about  is  Billy  Graham  and  no  one  would  ask  "which  Pastor?"  Once  again:  Christ  is  NOT
Yeshua's  name.  The  word  Christ  has  become  a  misnomer  and  this  has  led  to  all  sorts  of
religious aberrations, including misunderstanding Acts 11:26.
As hard as this is to wrap our heads around, virtually everywhere in the New Testament that
we  find  the  word  Christ  (an  English  word),  it  is  technically  incorrect  or  at  the  least  quite
misleading. Rather it should say "anointed one". So if we were to go through our Bibles and
cross  out  the  word  Christ  and  replace  it  with  "anointed  one",  then  we'd  have  the  truer
meaning.  As  I  mentioned,  some  newer  Bibles  have  added  the  word  "the"  before  the  word
Christ to help the reader understand that christ is meant to be an office, not a name.  Thus
gentile Christianity has substituted a proper name (Christ), for an office (anointed one). And
since anointed one is a purely Hebrew Biblical concept, by avoiding saying anointed one it has
served to sever Yeshua away from his historical culture and identification and skew the New
Testament  to  seem  to  be  a  document  and  a  religion  made  for  gentiles,  while  the  Old
Testament is a document and a religion made for Jews.
Further it has caused us to have to separate the use of, and give different definitions to,  two
terms that really mean the same thing (just using different languages). But in fact, these terms,
Christian  and  Messianic,  are  perceived  and  used  as  very  different  from  one  another.  Each
group is a bit suspicious of the other, and not entirely sure that they believe in the same things.
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
In fact, because of the language issue, Messianic is a label that Jewish Believers in Yeshua
tend to call themselves, and Christian is a label that gentile Believers in Yeshua tend to call
themselves. To maintain the illusion of separation each group has given their religious leaders
different titles (Rabbi versus Pastor), and call their Messiah different names (Yeshua versus
Jesus). This needless division and misunderstanding all came about mostly due to language
barriers and human agendas. But it has also created a disastrous wall of separation between
Jews  and  Christians  for  centuries  and  it  is  going  to  take  a  lot  of  explanation  (like  what  I'm
giving to you now) to try to walk this back and create a different mental image when those
terms are used.
So as it pertains to our lesson today the bottom line is this: at the time we are reading about in
Acts when a Greek term was coined to indicate a follower of Yeshua, christianoi, that term
was NOT Christians as we find it written in most Bibles (especially in the sense we think of it
today). Christianoi was simply a Greek term that meant followers of the anointed one. This is
a term that the Jews of that era would have had no issue with since they of course understood
that Greek speakers wouldn't use Hebrew words to speak about Yeshua.....they'd use Greek
words.  And  that  this  Greek  term  christos  didn't  effectively  rename  Yeshua  to  Christ.
Remember the Greek name for Yeshua was Iesous. This renaming and misuse of the Greek
word christos occurred perhaps a century or more later, when gentiles finally wrested control
of the Yeshua movement away from Jews, and an agenda arose of making belief in Yeshua a
gentiles-only  religion.  Greek  christos  became  Latin  christus,  and  christus  seems  to  have
been mischaracterized as a proper name. And then from Latin to English the word became
Christ  and  thus  Christ-ians  became  a  label  for  the  gentile  followers  of  this  supposedly  new
religion that was created by a man name Christ.
Thus  we  have  the  reason  that  Jews  scoff  at  the  notion  of  becoming  Christians.  And  it  also
mischaracterizes  what  is  going  on  here  in  chapter  11  of  Acts.  Acts  11  is  not  the  birth  of
Christianity;  rather  what  we're  seeing  is  that  when  enough  gentiles  AND  Jews  (all  Greek
speakers)  in  Antioch  came  to  trust  in  Yeshua  that  they  coined  a  label  in  their  own  Greek
language  for  their  group:  christianoi.  And  the  closest  English  words  we  could  use,  most
literally,  to  accurately  translate  the  Greek  word  and  bring  to  us  the  intended  sense  of  Acts
11:26 would be something like "anointed one-ites". So perhaps the prime reason for Jewish
Believers   and   gentile   Believers   eventually   separating   into   distinctly   different   religious
organizations was essentially a mirage caused by language barriers.
Let's move on. Verse 27 might be more important to what comes next in Acts chapter 12 than
meets  the  eye,  because  it  tells  of  a  prophet  who  prophesied  that  a  famine  was  coming
throughout the Roman Empire. It is possible (although not certain) that this famine explains
some of the actions of Herod in chapter 12.
This prophet was named Agav that in Hebrew means grasshopper. The implication is that this
prophet was a member of The Way. That is why when he brought his prophetic message of the
coming famine to the disciples they believed him; and as a result the disciples determined to
provide  relief  (provide  charity)  to  their  believing  brethren  in  Judah.  They  would  collect  the
donations and send them with Barnabas and Paul to the Holy Land for distribution.
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
We are told that this famine actually did come about during the time of Claudius, as predicted.
Claudius was made Emperor of Rome in 41 A.D. at around the same time Herod Agrippa was
made King of Judah. In fact these two were friends and companions early in life, when Agrippa
as a young child was sent to Rome by his father to be educated in the ways of the Greeks.
This  further  explains  how  Herod  Agrippa  was  made  a  king  and  given  Judah  to  reign  over.
We'll discuss this more thoroughly in our study of Acts 12. Let's go there now.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 12 all
This chapter revolves around the activities of King Herod Agrippa. He was the grandson of
Herod the Great who ruled in the years leading up to the birth of Yeshua. There was no king
over  Judah  after  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great  in  1  B.C.  until  King  Herod  Agrippa  was
coronated by Emperor Claudius in 41 A.D. So for 40 years after the death of Herod the Great,
it was a series of Roman Procurators that ruled over Judah and the Holy Lands.
Agrippa was considered to be a Jew although genealogically he was just as his grandfather
Herod the Great was; he was of Idumean and Nabatean roots. Idumea was formerly Edom,
and the people there were descended from the line of Esau. Herod the Great's mother was
Nabatean; they came from Ishmael. So while Herod the Great was a Semite, there was no
Hebrew  (and  therefore  no  Jewish)  blood  in  him.  The  same  went  for  his  grandson  Herod
Agrippa.  However  this  fiction  of  his  Jewishness  was  useful  because  the  Jewish  people
convinced themselves that they now had a Jewish king.
Perhaps the main reason that the Jews were willing to be happily blind to the truth is because
Agrippa followed Judaism. He was known to celebrate every Biblical Feast, and to sacrifice on
the altar at all the appropriate times, and to respect the Priesthood and sanctity of the Temple.
Agrippa  was  quite  popular  with  the  Jewish  people  and  all  in  all  thought  to  be  a  good  and
decent King. Josephus described him as a devout Jew, known for his generosity to his Jewish
subjects. He resided in Jerusalem, at least part time, and his behavior was generally regarded
as mild as opposed to rash.
So here's the conundrum: why did Agrippa go after the Jewish Believers so violently that he
beheaded James (Jacob, Ya'acov actually) the brother of John? And more, why did the Jews,
or  better  Judeans,  express  glee  over  him  doing  this?  We're  not  told.  However  Bible
commentators usually say that it was because of The Way's belief in Yeshua as Messiah that
he did it and the Jews liked it. Yet there is no evidence that Agrippa was so religious that this
was any issue at all, or that there was mass persecutions by mainstream Jews against the
Believers.
All  along  it  had  been  only  certain  religious  zealots  that  wanted  to  decimate  this  new  rival
Jewish sect of Yeshua followers; not Jews in general. There is little doubt in my mind that King
Herod Agrippa didn't go after all the Jewish Believers, but only targeted the leadership (thus
we hear of James's execution and the arrest of Peter). Even more, I have little doubt that this
consummate politician saw the leadership of The Way from political eyes, not religious. These
leaders seemed to represent some kind of a threat to him.
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
The movement of Yeshua followers had grown large enough that it contained Jews of many
ilks' including zealots; that is, very reactionary Jews who were militant and used every cause
as a platform to fight against whatever they perceived as injustice. Peter was known as an
outspoken  leader  of  The  Way,  which  made  him  a  natural  target.  Kings  didn't  tolerate  civil
disturbances from their subjects. But the timing of this also suggests that the disturbances may
well have been in reaction to the predicted famine, since indeed Claudius was now in power as
the Roman Emperor and this is when the famine was to strike. This would also explain the
issue of Tzor and Tzidon when something caused them to get on the wrong side of Agrippa.
Historically they bought much of their food from the Holy Land and the issue of food was even
more critical to them at this time of famine.
Notice in verse 3 that it says that it was during the season of unleavened bread (that is the
Festival of Matza) that Agrippa arrested Peter. And then in verse 4 we're told that the King
planned on dealing with Peter after Passover. This is a great place to make a point that I've
made in our Festival lectures but haven't said too much about in our regular lessons.
By   this   time   in   history   the   terms   Unleavened   Bread   and   Passover   had   become
interchangeable. A Jew could say that it was during the Passover season, or during the season
of Unleavened Bread and it meant the same thing. The Jews were well aware that Passover
and Unleavened Bread (Pesach and Matza) were two entirely different God-ordained Biblical
Feasts. However, since Passover was a one day feast, and the week-long festival of Matza
began the day after Passover, then in common everyday speech they were spoken of as one
combined event. So some would call the entire festival period Passover, others would call it
Unleavened Bread and even switch back and forth within the same conversation. And we find
our New Testaments doing the same thing.
In Biblical reality, Jews were not required to come to the Temple for Passover. Rather it was
the Feast of Matza at which a pilgrimage to the Temple was required. However, if one was
going to be in Jerusalem for Matza, and since the first day of Matza was a Sabbath day that
prohibited travel, then the only solution was to arrive early. Since the day before the 1st day of
Matza  was  Passover,  then  any  traveling  had  to  be  completed  before  the  start  of  Passover.
Thus if Jews were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Matza, they automatically would be there also
for Passover. Agrippa didn't want to make a fuss and have an execution during these 8 days
of holy festivities, so he arrested Peter prior to the start of Passover, and when both feasts
were completed, he planned on dealing with him.
We'll continue with chapter 12 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 28, Chapter 12
We just barely got into Acts chapter 12 last week, and the first thing we see mentioned in the
chapter is that Herod Agrippa is now the King of Judah. The chapter will end with his death.
His grandfather Herod the Great was the first Herod to rule, but his death just after Christ was
born ended the rule of kings over Judah for 40 years until Agrippa was put into power by the
newly coronated Roman Emperor Claudius. In between Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa,
Roman procurators governed the Holy Land.
This is a good time to also recall that the so-called Jewish Kings Herod the Great and Agrippa
were not Jews, even though they called themselves such. They were of Idumean (Edomite)
stock  on  Herod's  father's  side,  and  Nabatean  stock  (that  is,  descendants  of  Ishmael)  on
Herod's  mother's  side.  The  Jews  mocked  Herod  the  Great  for  his  claim  of  Jewishness,  yet
they  accepted  Agrippa's  probably  because  he  seemed  to  genuinely  follow  Judaism.  It  is
interesting  that  to  this  day,  adhering  to  the  religion  of  Judaism  is  the  primary  test  for
determining whether a person is a Jew or not.  Ethnicity is often secondary.
Let's re-read this chapter in its entirety since we only made it to verse 3 last time.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 12 all
Verse 3 identifies the group who was pleased that James had been executed and Peter had
been arrested by Agrippa as Ioudaious. This Greek Word can mean two different, but related,
things.  It  can  mean  Jews,  as  Jews  in  general;  or  it  can  indicate  Judeans  more  specifically.
Judeans  are  Jews  who  reside  in  the  Holy  Land  province  of  Roman  controlled  Judea.
Sometimes the setting and the issue tells us which of these meanings is intended; other times
it is nearly impossible to know. The scene in verse 3 takes place in Jerusalem of Judea, and so
most likely the intent is to say that the Jews of Judea were the ones happy to see what King
Herod Agrippa did to James and Peter. There were more politically sensitive and religiously
motivated people in Judea than in the rest of the Holy Land because Jerusalem was the power
center of Judaism and so these Judean Jews paid more attention to all the latest intrigues and
issues, since the leadership was there to stir up trouble. But those Jews who lived outside of
Judea, in the countryside and in the Diaspora, were more interested in daily life and family.
Essentially, the Judeans were the inside-the-beltway Jews of the Holy Land (NOTE: inside-the-
beltway refers to the political class that resides and/or works in Washington D.C.).
Peter's arrest occurred during the springtime feast period of Passover, Unleavened Bread and
Firstfruits. Exactly at what point during this series of feasts we don't know. This means that
Jerusalem  would  have  been  crowded  beyond  measure  with  thousands  and  thousands  of
Jewish  pilgrims  coming  from  all  over  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Diaspora.  So  we're  told  that
Agrippa decided it would be best (politically) to wait until after Passover to deal with Peter; that
is, after all the crowds had left for home. I pointed out last week that by now it had become
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
common practice for Jews in usual everyday speech to refer to the entire sequence of the 3
spring feasts as either Passover or Unleavened Bread (Pesach or Matza). And just like we see
here in verses 3 and 4, the two terms aren't meant to be precise, but rather as general and
interchangeable,  even  in  the  same  conversation.  Once  the  crowds  left,  the  only  remaining
Jews would be the Jews of Judea, the ones that had more interest in seeing the members of
The Way being punished, and if possible, disbanded due to them not being politically correct
according to the religious doctrines of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.  
So Peter is under arrest and in a Roman prison. However the point is made in verse 5 that
intense prayer was being made on his behalf. David Stern makes a wonderful and salient point
about prayer. He says that in the few words of this verse we are taught something invaluable
about the nature of true, meaningful prayer, and the one who prays. He says that 5 points are
made:  1)  Prayer  should  be  intense,  not  casual.  That  is,  you  need  to  be  still,  focused,  and
purposeful rather than repeating mantras and form prayers that often are said without actually
contemplating what it is you're saying. I am one whose mind will sometimes wander when I
pray silently; so long ago I learned to pray out loud even in private in order to stay focused. 2)
When the verse says prayers were being made, it means prayer was ongoing. Prayer for Peter
wasn't  a  one-and-done  outburst.  I've  often  asked  myself  if  after  approaching  God  with  a
specific request, whether it is even right for me to keep repeating that same prayer need as
though  God  is  forgetful.  But  I  think  that  occasional  thought  really  just  reflects  my  worldly
thinking creeping in because, Old or New Testament, praying continually to God over a specific
matter is not portrayed as needlessly pestering Him; rather it is obeying and submitting to Him.
We are commanded to do so and it is entirely to our benefit. 3) Our prayers are to be directed
to  God;  not  through  an  intermediary.  Otherwise  our  relationship  is  not  with  Him,  it  is  with
another. And He has stretched out His hand to all who trust Him and offered us to come and
stand before the throne of Grace and speak directly to Him, and hear directly from Him. 4)
Prayer was made to God on Peter's behalf. That is, the prayer was not general; it was specific
concerning  Peter's  precise  difficulties.  I  have  often  said  that  I  really  don't  want  to  see  the
words "unspoken prayer" on our Prayer List. An unspoken prayer will be an unheard prayer,
and  thus  an  unanswered  prayer.  It  goes  against  every  Biblical  principle  to  essentially  pray
nothing. If it is too intimate to share, then don't; keep it between yourself and the Lord. But
often it is simply an issue of pride or fear of embarrassment that keeps us from being specific,
as we ask others to join us in prayer. Read the Psalms as David is open and honest (even
highly emotional) about his predicaments (sometimes self induced), and how he feels about it
all. It is a good model for us. 5) The community of Believers prayed for Peter. If we are truly
going to be a community of Believers then we need to share our joys as well as our concerns.
We  are  to  rally  around  one  another  especially  in  the  hour  of  need.  We  are  not  called  to
isolation. And we aren't called to be only concerned about our own needs. This is why I both
ask you to put your needs and the needs of others on our Prayer List and to be as specific as
possible. But also that when you receive the Prayer List that you take the time to pray for each
request individually.
CJB  James 5:16 Therefore, openly acknowledge your sins to one another, and pray for
each other, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and
effective.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
What follows in the next few verses is the result of the intense prayer made to God on Peter's
behalf. The Passover week of festivals was over, Jerusalem now more or less back to normal,
and this is when Agrippa planned to deal with Peter, no doubt intending to kill him. We don't
know exactly in which of the several prisons in Jerusalem Peter was being detained, so I'll not
speculate. What we are directly told, however, is that Peter was guarded so closely that two
Roman  soldiers  were  literally  chained  to  Peter  even  inside  his  cell.  And  there  were  more
soldiers stationed at the entrance to the prison. Peter was asleep, between the two sleeping
Roman soldiers he was chained to, when suddenly an angel appeared before him. It says that
a light shown in his cell; angels are almost always accompanied with light.
We are told that the angel literally tapped Peter's side to awaken him. It's not unusual for an
angel to make physical contact with a human being as when Jacob wrestled with an angel who
tapped  Jacob's  hip  and  dislocated  it  to  end  the  struggle.  The  angel  issued  instructions  for
Peter to hurry up, get dressed, throw on his robe and to follow him. It is clear that Peter, still
foggy from sleeping, wasn't at all sure what was happening or who was breaking him out of
prison, or even if it was actually happening. But somehow the chains fell off of his wrists and in
all the commotion the guards that lay next to him remained soundly asleep. Peter thought he
was dreaming. But as the minutes passed, and as Peter led by the angel walked right by the 2
guards stationed at the prison entrance, he began to suspect that this was for real.
We're  told  that  they  finally  arrived  at  the  Iron  Gate  leading  to  the  city.  Which  gate  is  often
asked, but since we don't know the location of the prison, we can't ascertain which city gate is
being described. Yet Luke's description likely means that in Peter's day both the location of
the prison and of the specific iron gate were so well known that there was no need to say any
more.  Let  me  pause  just  a  moment  to  remind  us  all  that  when  the  writers  of  the  New
Testament wrote, they weren't thinking in terms of speaking to readers far into the future, and
especially not thinking about communicating to gentiles (the exceptions being, in some cases,
John  and  his  Book  of  Revelation  and  Paul  in  some  passages  in  his  letters).  These  current
events  were  generally  being  recorded  for  the  use  of  people  in  the  Jewish  culture  in
contemporary  times.  While  the  Torah  was  written  specifically  for  the  purpose  of  future
generations having God's instructions at hand (as is stated in the Torah itself), no such claim
is  made  by  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  So  sometimes  places  and
locations that are mentioned are difficult if not impossible to pin down, and descriptions that
we'd love to have can be very sparse.   
The Iron Gate opened by itself, no doubt meaning that it was locked. It was customary that city
gates were locked once the sun went down to help keep the city residents safe from robbers
and marauders during the night. The angel continued to lead Peter down one street, and out of
danger, when suddenly he disappeared. That is when Peter knew for sure that this was God in
action.
Sort of buried in this narrative is a conundrum: why did God save Peter but let James die at the
hand of Herod Agrippa? This is the sort of thing that, if we've lived long enough, something of
this  nature  has  happened  in  our  lives  and  we've  wrestled  with  such  a  question.  My  father
fought in WWII, and when I could get him to even speak about it (which was rare and mostly
towards  the  end  of  his  life),  it  was  usually  about  some  dire  situation  in  which  for  some
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
inexplicable reason he survived, but many others around him did not. There seemed to be no
pattern, no rhyme nor reason for who was saved and who wasn't.  It was clear that he was
troubled by this, no doubt feeling guilty to be alive as others were dying around him. This is
mostly  the  reason  he  didn't  want  to  talk  about  it.  Why,  he  asked?  Why  did  he  make  it  and
others perished? They were no less valuable than he; and he was no better than them. Was it
pure serendipity? Wrong place, wrong time? One foot to left, you live. One foot to the right, you
die. Or was God in control and choosing this one to live and that one to die? I think it is easier
for us to sit in the safety of our sanctuary or our home and say confidently to ourselves that
"God is in control". But when it is happening to you, and as you look back, I suspect that the
experience alters how one thinks about it. For my father, a devout Christian man, he had no
answers; only gratitude and at times deep sadness, which would well up in him even 50 years
after the horrific events. He told me that as the war ended he became determined to be a good
man, and to live a good life, because that was his duty now that for whatever reason, the Lord
spared  him.  So  I  have  no  good  answers  for  you  as  to  why  God  chose  to  rescue  Peter  by
means of an audacious, supernatural rescue mission, but stood by and allowed James to be
wrongly convicted and executed. And this is where faith plays the biggest role in our lives as
worshippers  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  It  is  when  something  happens  and  nothing  seems
obvious, or even logical, as to the how and why; and there is nothing left but to believe that
either  God  oversees  everything  and  has  reasons  beyond  our  ability  to  comprehend,  or
everything is mostly just due to the luck of the draw. One way allows for realization of hope in
the mercy of our Creator; the other way leads only to despair and fear at the unpredictable
turns of fate.   
Peter made his way to Miriam's house; she was the mother of John called Mark. John Mark
was  a  cousin  of  the  disciple  Barnabas.  At  this  time,  especially  in  Jerusalem,  the  Believers
seemed to meet in homes, at other times in public places, and yet at other times in secret
hideouts  depending  on  the  current  social  and  political  circumstances.  Obviously  Miriam's
house was a known and regular meeting place for the core group of Jerusalem Believers, and
when Peter arrived the group was in the midst of prayer for Peter. No doubt Miriam's house
was larger than typical in order to be a suitable meeting place.  Peter goes up to the house and
knocks on the door and what comes next is almost comical.
Miriam's house servant, Rhoda, went to the door. Peter was calling to those inside and when
she heard him she instantly recognized his voice. But Rhoda got so excited that she ran from
the door and forgot to let Peter in because she was in such a hurry to tell the others that Peter
was here. They told her she was crazy, but she kept insisting; it seems to never have occurred
to her that all she had to do was go back to the door and open it to prove she was right. Finally
someone said, it's not Peter it's his angel. This remark gives me a good opportunity to talk
about how Jews thought about Angels in this era, but also to reveal another pet peeve of mine.
The  reality  is  that  as  much  as  Heaven  and  Angels  seem  to  be  hot  topics  in  every  age  of
Christianity, our present time included, it was also that way among the ancient Jews. And since
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  our  sole  divine  source  of  reliable  information  about  Heaven  and
Angels, it is disappointing to find that so little is said about either in the Bible. I can sum up
Heaven by saying it is a spiritual place that resides in another dimension; it is God's dwelling
place, it is eternal, it is beautiful, sin is not present there, Angels live in Heaven (when they're
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
not someplace else), and when a Believer dies, we go there. Outside of that, there's not much
else divulged. It is the same for Angels. We know they exist, they can appear in human form,
there  are  different  kinds,  light  is  usually  involved,  and  they  are  sent  by  God.  There  are
Archangels who seem to be at the top of a hierarchy of Angel ranks. That is not all, but it is
most of what we'll learn in the Scriptures about Angels.
Today, it is popular to think that when humans die, we "get our wings" and become angels. Or
that each of us has a guardian angel (or in the case of my wife, she says she has several very
tired  ones).    But  how  were  angels  created?  When?  How  many  are  there?  Are  more  being
made?  Do  they  exist  forever?  Are  there  really  different  kinds  or  do  they  just  have  different
jobs? What do they do? Are all Angels good Angels? What is a fallen Angel? These questions
and  more  are  common  within  Christianity  and,  again,  were  also  of  great  interest  to  ancient
Judaism.
The bottom line is that Angelology (the study of Angels), and the resultant doctrines that have
been  formed  about  Angels,  are  almost  entirely  the  product  of  the  imaginings  of  the  human
mind. And they haven't evolved that much over the centuries. In fact, I can say that generally
speaking  the  doctrines  of  Angels  as  found  in  Christian  tradition  came  almost  entirely  from
ancient  Judaism,  and  much  of  what  Judaism  believed  came  from  Persian  Angelology.  So  I
caution you to be careful in just what you believe about Angels, or read about Angels (and
Heaven for that matter) in the many books written on the subject because they consist almost
entirely of doctrines and personal opinions and outright fantasy usually presented as Biblical
fact. But how can a few sentences of Scripture about Heaven or Angels result in 400 page
books? Much is added and leaps of assumption are made and I highly question its real value
other than to distract us from spending time to learn what God has actually revealed to us in
His Word.
Thus when we read of some Believer in the crowd at Miriam's house comment that it can't
possibly be Peter at the door, but rather it is his angel, this is not to be taken as new Biblical
information  about  angels,  but  rather  as  what  Jews  in  that  era  believed  as  part  of  their
Halakhah.  And  the  Talmud  indicates  a  belief  in  Judaism  (at  least  by  some  Rabbis)  of  the
existence of personal, guardian angels for each and every Jew. The response of this Believer
about the person knocking at the door who sounds like Peter indicates another tradition that
guardian angels can take on certain characteristics of the human person they are assigned to.
But most of these thoughts about Angels amount to cultural superstition; becoming a Believer
didn't erase those thoughts.
Finally the startled crowd at Miriam's house thought to open the door and to their shock there
stood  Peter!  He  raised  his  hand  to  quiet  them,  and  then  went  about  telling  them  what  had
happened. He urgently wanted to get this information about his escape and well-being to his co-
leader of The Way, Ya'acov: or as he is called in our English Bibles, James the brother of
Jesus. And because it's an important piece of information and not trivia, just remember that
the Hebrew name Ya'acov translates in English to Jacob, not to James. So why do we find the
name James in our New Testaments? It happened upon the creation of the King James Bible.
In the New Testament, in honor of King James, the Bible editors substituted James for Jacob.
And it has remained so ever since.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
Now let me make a comment that I will say upfront is at least partly my speculation, but I think
it is well founded and will interest you. Here in Acts 12 we see how King Agrippa and the Jews
of Judea (not all of course, just the most politically correct and zealous) went on a murderous
rage against The Way, or better, against the leadership of The Way. We really don't have any
firm reason as to why this began. In any case, we do know from certain passages in the New
Testament and from extra-Biblical writings that the earliest Believers in Christ at times had to
meet in secret locations. This really occurred primarily in Jerusalem because elsewhere the
persecutions  against  the  Believers  weren't  so  intense,  or  didn't  exist  at  all,  so  as  to  make
hiding necessary.
We have seen already in the Book of Acts how the persecutions would come and go. And of
course, when the persecutions became intense the Believers would keep a much lower profile
than when the persecutions lost steam. Thus it is believed that the secret sign of the Icthys (the
fish symbol) came to use about now. Some years ago my wife and I made a discovery in a
garbage dump in Jerusalem that has had quite an impact on us. It was the result of a map
taken from an old back issue of Biblical Archeology Review, and a small book I read that told
about the discovery of the 3 part symbol that has become a major symbol of Hebrew Roots
and Messianic organizations: the fish, to the menorah, to the Star of David.
I have taken a few of you to this spot we discovered and God willing on our next tour we'll take
a few more of you there. It is off the beaten track and you won't find guides or tourists milling
around. It is an underground cavern with its secret entrance hidden at the bottom of a large
Mikveh that in recent times has been fenced off, with a concrete bunker built around it to keep
people out. It was there in that cavern that about a half-century ago an elderly Greek Monk
found pottery shards with the 3 part symbol scratched on them, and the same symbol etched
into the cave walls. The pottery has been scientifically dated and it goes back to the time of
James, Peter, and Paul. The cavern is substantial in size and its location is such that there is
little doubt that at times of persecution the earliest Jewish Believers (probably the leadership)
met underground here. I'll add a little anecdote that when I told Rabbi Baruch about it, he was
skeptical. I took him there, and it at least peaked his interest sufficiently that he went to the
Archeology department at Hebrew University where he was an adjunct professor at that time.
He told them my claims, and they verified that they were well aware of it, and that it was true
and accurate.
So as it concerns today's lesson, I speculate this: James (a different James) had just been
executed. Peter was going to be executed as well but God miraculously saved him. Upon his
escape Peter goes in the dead of the night to Miriam's house where Believers were stealthily
meeting  in  prayer  for  Peter.  He  gestures  for  them  to  be  quiet;  no  doubt  because  in  their
excitement  from  seeing  he  was  alive  they  were  making  too  much  noise  and  he  didn't  want
them to be discovered. Then in verse 17, he tells someone who is at the meeting to go and tell
James (Yeshua's brother) and other brothers about what happened. Then Peter left quickly
and escaped from Jerusalem. Why? Peter was an escaped prisoner and in danger; and in fact
all the Believers were in danger. Why didn't Peter go to James himself? James was in hiding.
The  brothers  spoken  of  were  the  leadership,  part  of  the  12  disciples.  Only  a  few  of  the
Believers in Jerusalem even knew where to find James. Peter likely didn't know how to find
James. I have every reason to believe that when the events of Acts chapter 12  were occurring
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
James was hiding in that cavern that we found in a garbage dump on top of Mt. Zion.  The
pieces fit together quite adequately to come to this conclusion.
In verse 18 we find the soldiers who had been guarding Peter were deeply disturbed to find
him missing; this was not going to end well for them. This is because it was Roman law that
the guards who allowed prisoners to escape could be held liable to suffer the punishment that
had been intended for that prisoner. Peter's fate was going to be death.
But in addition to worrying for their lives, they were confused and perplexed because they were
still wearing the chains that had been attached to Peter. How does a man lying between two
soldiers slip out of his chains, making no noise at all, get dressed, leave the cell, go through
another set of doors with other guards who see nothing, and escape? Sure enough, Herod
doesn't buy the guards' outrageous story. He has Jerusalem searched, no trace of Peter is
found, and so after interrogating the Roman soldiers they are executed for what Agrippa no
doubt thinks is their complicity in Peter's escape.
After this Herod Agrippa went to Caesarea Maritima for a time. Likely the trip had nothing to do
with Peter escaping because while he spent time in Jerusalem, he spent as much time if not
more  in  Caesarea,  the  seat  of  the  Roman  government  over  Judea.  He  was  likely  only  in
Jerusalem to participate in the festival days, now concluded. Caesarea carried the nickname of
"Little Rome", and he preferred being with the Roman aristocracy, which he had been since he
was a small child.
Next comes the lead-up to an interesting explanation of Agrippa's sudden death. Starting in
verse 20 we are told that Agrippa was quite upset with the people of Tyre and Sidon. These 2
cities were on the southern Phoenician coast, and had long friendly relations with Israel going
back to the time of David and Solomon. Israel was perhaps the primary food supplier for these
two major cities. We are given no hint as to what this grave offense was that caused Herod's
anger against these 2 cities. But it was so serious that a delegation of high officials came to
meet with Blastus, Agrippa's chief negotiator.
What made this all the more critical is that very likely this was when the prophesied famine that
the Believing prophet Agav predicted would occur during the reign of Claudius happened: the
timing lines up quite well for it. It's not that Israel was the only source of food for Tyre and
Sidon;   but   with   an   Empire-wide   famine,   food   was   scarce   and   expensive.   Kings   and
government  officials  set  the  food  prices  and  determined  where  the  supplies  would  go.  So
basically Agrippa used what was very likely a trumped up grievance against Tyre and Sidon at
the time of a food crisis in order to extract some special political concessions that would give
him more power over them or make him a wealthier man, or both. 
Blastus obtains what Herod Agrippa wanted from the delegation. And once accomplished it
was time to put on a big show. So Agrippa gets decked out in spectacular royal attire, sits on
his  throne,  and  certain  dignitaries  come  to  hear  Agrippa  make  a  speech  to  them.  They  of
course  respond  with  over-the-top  flattery  (something  he  fully  expected  and  demanded),  but
they even went so far as to say to him: "This is the voice of a god, not of a man!"  Then Herod
Agrippa made a fatal mistake; rather than deflecting such ludicrous honor as being as a god
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
(and  remember,  Agrippa  had  made  himself  as  a  representative  of  the  Jewish  religion),  he
accepted it. God struck him down and we're told that he was eaten up by worms.
That the punishment of his blasphemy was immediate made it clear to all that his was divine
judgment. This was no folktale that we see here in the Bible or is it an exaggeration. Josephus
writes about Agrippa's death and confirms what happened, the reason for it, and what he died
of. But let's also be clear that these words about worms don't necessarily mean that his death
was a result of having been eaten from the inside out by worms (but there is a hint that indeed
it could have). It is a standard understanding that when a corpse is put into the grave, that the
flesh is eaten up by worms. It is the natural result of death; decomposition. However it is also a
term that is used to describe especially the demise of the unrighteous, even though people
understood the same thing happened to anyone who died.
It  is  hard  to  know  what  the  disease  was  that  killed  Herod.  Josephus  tells  us  that  it  was
something  gastrointestinal.  There  actually  are  recorded  incidents  of  parasites  entering  into
humans and consuming people from the inside out. In any case whatever it was, it was painful
and gruesome.
As we near the end of the chapter we're informed that the Word of the Lord continued to grow
and  multiply.  No  doubt  now  that  Agrippa  was  dead,  the  persecutions  against  the  Believers
once again calmed down since once again a Roman procurator ruled and this meant that the
Sanhedrin  could  no  longer  run  around  and  incite  the  crowds  or  legally  execute  people  like
James and Peter. So essentially a contrast is drawn between this wicked man, Agrippa, who
tried to eliminate The Way, and the great success that God achieved through The Way despite
all the persecution.
The final verse of this chapter marks a turn from the focus being on Jerusalem and Jews, to
the Diaspora and gentiles. The disciples that had gone to Antioch, but returned to Jerusalem,
would take John Mark with them back to Antioch. Recall that their purpose for coming back to
Jerusalem was to bring famine relief funds from generous Believers in Antioch. How long they
would  stay  in  Jerusalem  before  returning  to  Antioch  (that  we  will  read  about  in  Acts  13)  is
unknown.
For the next several chapters the focus will shift to Paul and his missionary travels.
We'll begin chapter 13 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 29, Chapter 13
As we concluded Acts chapter 12 last week, the focus that had been mainly on Peter and the
goings-on in the Holy Land now shift to Paul and to the foreign lands that were home to the
majority of Jews. We have passed a new milestone in that the Lord has specifically instructed
the members of The Way, consisting almost 100% of Jews up to now, to take the Gospel to the
gentiles. In no way, of course, did this mean that evangelizing Jews was to diminish or come to
an  end.  It  is  only  that  a  second  front  has  been  opened  to  bring  the  promise  of  blessings
contained  in  Abraham's  Covenant  to  the  whole  world,  regardless  of  race,  ethnicity,  or
nationality.
When we closed Acts 12 we found Paul and Barnabas back in Jerusalem, bringing with them
money to help the Believers in Jerusalem get through a famine that had broken out throughout
the Roman Empire. This money was the result of charitable generosity from the Believing Jews
and gentiles in Antioch, Syria.
Let's read Acts chapter 13.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 13 all
Now back in Antioch, we are told that the Believing community there was served by prophets
and teachers and among these were Barnabas, Paul, a fellow called Shi'mon Niger, Lucius of
Cyrene and Manaen who had some undefined kind of relationship with Herod Agrippa (Herod
Agrippa had just recently died).
A  name  not  mentioned  is  John  Mark  among  these  teachers  and  prophets  even  though  the
ending verse of chapter 12 says he accompanied Paul and Barnabas. This is because John
Mark is really just a bit player; he is considered as a servant or attendant and so wouldn't be
mentioned as among the teachers or prophets. We know what teachers do, but in this context
what would be the purpose of a prophet? It seems that in this era prophets and teachers were
nearly the same thing. It is probable that a prophet was merely a more qualified teacher. In the
New  Testament,  most  references  to  prophesying  are  really  about  speaking  God's  written
Word (quoting the Hebrew Bible). About the only discernable difference between the two terms
seems to be that teachers were usually part of the local community and taught regularly; while
prophets tended to be itinerant and would wander from Synagogue to Synagogue offering their
insights. Both were held in high regard.
Among these teachers and prophets in Antioch we recognize Paul and Barnabas' names, but
the   others   we've   not   been   introduced   to   before.   Since   niger   is   Latin   for   black,
apparently Shi'mon was a black skinned man, but we don't know where he is from. Lucius is
from Cyrene, today known as Libya. We don't know whether Manaen is originally from Antioch
or he too has come from elsewhere. Just know that Manaean is the Greek form of the Hebrew
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
name Menachem.  All of these men were Jewish Believers.
Verse 2 explains that as they were worshipping and fasting together, the Holy Spirit told them
that  it  was  time  to  anoint  Paul  and  Barnabas  for  the  specific  ministry  that  the  Lord  had
previously  decided  for  them:  taking  the  Gospel  to  the  gentiles.  In  other  words,  there  was
nothing new that happened here. While I can't be sure, I believe that what is being described
as the "Holy Spirit telling them" is not a vision or a visitation or something audible but rather it
is  the  same  thing  that  modern  Believers  receive  especially  during  prayer  as  something  just
comes into our minds that we instinctively know is from God. Today it is common to say "The
Lord told me" thus and so. But in Acts, where the Holy Spirit is emphasized, the more common
way of saying the same thing was to attribute the thought or unction to the Holy Spirit.
It is also interesting that we often see worship or prayer accompanied with fasting as we do in
this passage. Just what form the fasting took is not clear. Some scholars believe that the word
"fast" meant it just as we think of it today: we refrain from eating food for some predetermined
amount  of  time.  Other  scholars  think  that  while  it  can  mean  that,  it  also  can  mean  denying
oneself other things for a brief time. That is, fasting didn't always have to do with food. In any
case fasting as part of worship or prayer was usual and customary in that era, and it seems to
have made the worshippers more able to hear and respond to the Holy Spirit. I have talked
with many Believers who tell me that indeed fasting with prayer does seem to heighten their
sensitivity  towards  God;  I  have  generally  found  this  to  be  personally  true  as  well.  Hilary  Le
Cornu points out that in the anonymous Jewish work titled the Apocalypse of Elijah we get a
good  insight  as  to  how  folks  of  that  era  viewed  the  expected  effects  of  fasting,  for  there  it
states:
"A pure fast.....releases sin. It heals diseases. It casts out demons. It is effective up to
the throne of God for an ointment and for a release of sin by means of pure prayer". 
Extreme fasting (again meaning denial of food and perhaps other things as well for extended
periods of time) was seen by especially pious people as a means to obtain a divine vision that
they sought. I don't recommend such an approach for both health and spiritual reasons. But
fasting was always to be accompanied with intense prayer or it served no spiritual purpose;
and with that I agree wholeheartedly.
It is also instructive that up to now we've mostly seen prophets  and teachers and Yeshua's
disciples  receiving  their  divine  marching  orders  by  means  of  an  oracle  from  an  angel,  or
sometimes  from  God  Himself,  and  at  other  times  from  Yeshua.  But  now  it  is  the  Ruach
HaKodesh that is credited.
I've often stated that there is much evidence to heavily imply that Yeshua, John, and perhaps
some  others  of  the  earliest  disciples  of  Yeshua  had  much  interaction  with  the  Essenes  of
Qumran. Many of the terms and thoughts expressed in some of the Essenes' documents (the
Dead Sea Scrolls) are mirrored in the words of Christ and other New Testament writers. And if
not  said  precisely  in  their  terms,  often  the  Essenes'  unique  theological  concepts  are
something that we'll find similarly explained in the New Testament. Here is one such example
concerning Essene theology about the Holy Spirit as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls document
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
that is labeled 1QH20.
"And I, the Instructor, have known you, my God, through the Spirit which you gave in
me, and I have listened loyally to your wonderful secrets through your Holy Spirit. You
have opened within me knowledge of the mystery of your wisdom, and the source of
your power....."
This was written several years prior to the birth of Messiah Yeshua; so what we have here is
strong  evidence  that  these  devout  men  living  in  the  desert  outpost  of  Qumran,  away  from
institutional Judaism, separated from the corrupt Temple and Priesthood, had already begun to
realize the critical importance of the work of God's Holy Spirit. What is also fascinating is the
concept  of  the  working  of  the  Spirit  within  a  man,  as  opposed  to  only  being  upon  a  man,
which up to now had been the way the Holy Spirit operated. Yet I'm also sure they had no idea
just  how  critical  the  presence  and  role  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would  soon  be  in  God's  plan  of
redemption once the Messiah appeared and then left.
Starting  in  verse  4  (and  going  through  Acts  14:26)  we  are  told  about  Paul's  first  four
missionary journeys. But he and Barnabas did not go until the Believing leadership in Antioch
anointed  them  in  prayer  and  laid  hands  on  them.  This  served  to  essentially  officially
commission   them   and   to   signify   agreement   with,   and   recognition   of,   the   Antioch
congregation's  leadership  to  Paul's  and  Barnabas'  mission  to  the  gentiles.  Thus  we  see
something  we  need  to  keep  in  mind:  Paul's  missionary  journeys  were  sanctioned  and
supported by the congregation of Believers in Antioch; not by the leadership and congregation
of Believers in Jerusalem of which Peter and James were the leaders.
So Sha'ul and Bar-Nabba went to the local sea port of Antioch, called Seleucia Peiria, and
from there sailed to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Cyprus was only about 60 miles by
sea from Seleucia, so it wouldn't have taken long. However, since the progress of these ships
was  dictated  by  wind  and  weather,  each  time  a  journey  was  undertaken  the  time  of  travel
varied.  This  would  be  a  good  time  to  mention  that  whether  by  sea  or  by  land,  there  was  a
season for travel and a season to avoid travel if possible. Generally speaking it was desirable
to travel and to ship goods between the end of May and the middle of September (in modern
calendar terms). But from mid-September to mid November, and then from mid-March to the
end of May the weather could be severe and quickly changeable; so while travel and shipping
didn't  entirely  cease,  it  was  best  to  avoid  these  periods  if  at  all  possible  because  the  risks
greatly increased. We should keep this in mind as we hear of Paul's journeys and it may give
us a clue as to the times of year he was traveling.
Further, there were no such things as ships that were purely commercial passenger vessels.
Rather all ships were cargo carriers, and so when a person booked passage on a ship, they
didn't   have   a   nice   cabin   or   have   hot   meals   served   to   them.   So   depending   on   the
circumstances, one could find themselves sleeping on the deck, or laying on top of the cargo in
the  hold.  If  there  were  any  kind  of  creature  comforts,  those  belonged  to  the  ship's  crew.
Usually  a  passenger  had  to  bring  their  own  food  and  provisions  if  they  expected  to  eat.
Flexibility in travel plans was important because the route could change in a moment's notice
if there was a business opportunity to take advantage of, or wind or weather forced a change.
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
However  as  uncomfortable  and  risky  as  sea  travel  was  for  passengers,  it  was  also  an
inexpensive mode of transportation. Thus Paul and Barnabas didn't need too much in the way
of funds from the Antioch congregation to pay for their sea travel on their mission trips.
Verse 5 explains a basic format for where it is that Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the Good
News; they went to the local Synagogues. Naturally. There were no such things as "churches"
(in the standard way we think of them), just as there were no such people as "Christians" in
the sense of a movement of gentile Jesus worshippers that were separate and apart from Jews
and  The  Way.  The  first  place  they  went  upon  reaching  Cyprus  was  Salamis.  No  doubt
Barnabas was leading the way because Cyprus was his home. Here we have mention of John
Mark and his role as a "helper". John Mark was a cousin of Barnabas.
It  is  often  said  by  Bible  Commentators  that  the  reason  that  Paul  always  first  went  to
Synagogues was to fulfill Yeshua's instruction to His disciples of "First to the Jews....then to
the Greeks".  While I can't entirely discount this, I doubt this was really on Paul's mind. After
all, Yeshua had told him that he was to be the emissary of the Good News to the gentiles, and
then  he  (and  Barnabas)  were  commissioned  in  Antioch  and  sent  off  to  fulfill  that  particular
mission. He went to the Synagogues because the first gentiles he approached were already
God-fearers (they were halfway there, so to speak), and out in the Diaspora there was overall
less  resistance  to  the  idea  of  gentiles  coming  into  Synagogues  to  worship  with  Jews.  A
traditional day of communal gathering and worship on Shabbat had been established and it
was well known; and it was common that visitors and itinerant prophets would come to the
Synagogues  to  teach  or  speak.  In  other  words,  there  was  a  ready-made  organization  and
system  that  Paul  could  tap  in  to.  And  remember:  The  Way  was  merely  another  sect  of
Judaism, and there was no stated goal (not even by Paul) of someday setting up non-Jewish
houses of worship for gentiles, nor especially was there a goal of severing worship of Yeshua
away from Judaism as a distinct new religion. But more, the Diaspora Jews were generally
Hellenists. That is, they were Greek speakers who lived a Greek lifestyle. Greek society loved
to hear and debate new ideas, so they weren't shy about allowing various speakers into their
Synagogues. This is why Paul and Barnabas were usually welcomed, even if at times after
being heard they were chased out of town.
And by the way; it is interesting to note that Synagogues were more at home in foreign lands
than they were in the Holy Land. The oldest Synagogues unearthed have been found in places
like Macedonia and Italy. And the reason for this is obvious: the Synagogue was invented and
created by Diaspora Jews for use by Diaspora Jews in their foreign nations. They had existed
in a very similar form to what Paul was visiting for more than 3 centuries. So Synagogues were
merely a familiar and accepted part of the landscape to gentiles even if most had never set foot
in one of them.
After spending some unstated amount of time in Salamis, they then journeyed a little over 50
miles to the southwest coast (still on Cyprus) and the city of Paphos. Here they had a run-in
with a sorcerer named Elymas. This is the Greek name for Bar-Yeshua (which means son of
Yeshua). This is in no way referring to the Messiah nor is it mocking Him. Yeshua was among
the  most  common  names  for  Jewish  males  at  this  time.  Paphos  was  no  doubt  selected
because it was the administrative governing center for Cyprus. Thus we hear that this Jewish
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
sorcerer Bar-Yeshua was associated with the Roman proconsul Sergio Paulus who is said to
be an intelligent man. It was common for government leaders to have seers and diviners in
their employ as Romans were a very superstitious people. What is also notable is this Elymas
is a Jewish magician; something that is staunchly prohibited in the Torah of Moses, with the
punishment for practicing magic being death.
The  gentile  Roman  proconsul  was  interested  in  hearing  Paul's  message  about  the  God  of
Israel;  but  the  Jewish  magician  opposed  it.  So  the  zealous  and  outspoken  Paul  lit  into  the
magician telling him that he was the son of the devil and that since he was opposing the Lord a
curse of God would laid upon him. Paul's tirade was specifically because this magician was a
Jew  and  should  have  known  better  than  to  practice  this  forbidden  trade.    Immediately  the
sorcerer lost his eyesight and had to be led around by his hand. Notice how similar this is to
what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. The early Church Father Venerable Bede
says  of  this  that  "Paul,  remembering  his  own  case,  knew  that  by  the  darkening  of  the
eyes, the mind's darkness might be restored to light". 
It  seems  as  though  Paul  calling  Bar-Yeshua  "son  of  the  devil"  is  very  likely  one  of  those
hidden Hebraisms in the New Testament that we have talked about. That is, this is a Hebrew
expression that is masked because of its translation into Greek (and from there into English).
Remember who Paul is addressing: a JEWISH magician. So Paul probably is calling him a
known and familiar Hebrew epithet: Ben Belial. Even in Hebrew Belial carries an ambiguous
meaning;  however  it  revolves  around  the  concept  of  being  worthless  and  wicked.  So
sometimes Ben Belial is translated in English as son of worthlessness. It is easy to see then
how  in  Greek  it  would  be  translated  as  huios  diabolos.  Most  literally  this  Greek  phrase
translates to "son of slandering" or "son of siding with evil". It is common in translation that
one language has no direct equivalent in another language, so you have choose something
that is pretty close but likely does not express the precise meaning.
The Roman governor was impressed by what Paul seemed to have done to Elymas and he
was  now  all  ears.  He  listened  intently  to  Paul's  message  and  we're  told  that  he  believed
because the message was perhaps the most profound thing he had ever heard. Yet what he
believed  in  and  exactly  the  level  at  which  he  accepted  it  is  ambiguous.  That  is,  was  it  the
Gospel that he heard, or was it more about the God of Israel in general? And while he believed
what he heard, did this amount to believing that Paul was saying the truth, or was it a saving
belief?  We  don't  know.  We  don't  hear  anything  about  the  Holy  Spirit  coming  upon  the
governor nor an instruction to be baptized. So I doubt that this meant that the Roman governor
accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior.
After some indeterminate amount of time that the three remained on Cyprus, at some point
they found a ship to take them to the Asia Minor coast of Pamphylia and the city of Perga.
Perga was the major metropolitan city of the region. It was there that John Mark left Paul and
Barnabas and returned to Jerusalem. No reason is given for his leaving. But later in Acts we
hear  that  Paul  was  pretty  unhappy  with  John  Mark  for  leaving  them  and  regarded  it  as
abandonment.  So  there  were  some  underlying  problems  that  had  developed  between  John
and Paul (remember, John and Barnabas were family, so no doubt this dust-up also caused
friction between Barnabas and Paul).
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
Verse 14 explains that from Perga Paul and Barnabas went to Pisidian Antioch. And, as usual,
they waited for Shabbat and then went to the local Synagogue. This is a different Antioch than
the one in Syria. In fact, there are 15 or 16 known places called Antioch, because they were all
named in honor of Antiochus Epiphanies. We are told that they had to cross over a mountain
range  to  get  there,  so  no  doubt  they  timed  their  trip  to  avoid  the  winter  snows  and  spring
downpours. The distance between Perga and Antioch of Pisidia was over 125 miles, so the
travel time would be about a week in decent weather.
As with everywhere they've gone thus far, there is a Jewish community in Antioch of Pisidia. It
isn't that nearly every town in the Roman Empire had a Jewish community; it is that Paul and
Barnabas intentionally targeted those cities and towns with a sufficient number of Jews in them
that  could  support  a  Synagogue.  It  was  typical  procedure  on  Shabbat  that  the  Torah  Scroll
would be removed from its Ark, and then rolled out and read. Notice how verse 15 says that
"after the reading of the Law and the Prophets...." The Law is synonymous with the term The
Torah.  So  after  reading  the  weekly  Torah  Portion  (that  is,  a  section  of  Genesis  through
Deuteronomy), then next is the reading of the Haftarah, which is a series of Scripture readings
from the Prophets. The word Haftarah may sound like it is connected to the word Torah, but it
isn't. The word means something like "parting" or "taking leave". No one knows exactly when
this Tradition of meeting on Sabbath in Synagogues began, nor when the customary service of
reading a portion of the Torah followed by a reading from the Prophets originated. But what we
do know is that it happened before New Testament times because we're reading about it right
here in Acts 13 verses 14 & 15.
It was also customary that following the two readings of Scripture, a short comment would be
made by either the Synagogue President or later in Synagogue development, the Rabbi. Often
the floor was opened to the congregation to see if someone had something they wanted to say.
The  readings  would  have  been  in  Greek,  taken  from  the  Greek  Septuagint  (the  Greek
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible).  During  Paul's  era,  most  Synagogues  didn't  have  assigned
teachers per se. There might be a few different men who were regularly called on to teach. But
even then the teachings following the readings weren't exegetical Scripture study; rather they
more  resembled  a  moral  teaching  on  some  aspect  of  Jewish  life.  Remember:  Judaism
revolved then, as it does now, around Halakhah; Jewish Law. And Jewish Law is a fusion of
the  Torah  of  Moses,  Traditions,  and  customs.  So  Scripture  study  as  we  know  it  in  Seed  of
Abraham Torah Class wasn't the usual mode at Synagogue. When it did occur it took place at
a Beit Midrash, which was a house of study.
So those who presided over this Synagogue in Antioch then offered for Paul and/or Barnabas
to offer a word of encouragement to the congregation. Paul responded by going to the raised
platform, the Bema, and he began to speak. His opening words are revealing: he addresses
his audience as 1) men of Israel (Israelim) and 2) God-fearers. Men of Israel mean Hebrews;
Jews. God-fearers mean gentiles who worship the God of Israel, but they have not converted
to becoming a Jew. So here is proof that at this particular Synagogue, gentiles were allowed to
join the Jews and apparently there were no serious issues of ritual purity that concerned the
Jewish congregation. This was not so in all the Synagogues of the Roman Empire, and it was
the opposite case in the Holy Land and especially in Jerusalem. This reality will play a major
role in what happens at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Paul now goes into a speech that
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
brings back memories of the speech that the martyr Stephen gave in his defense before the
Sanhedrin. It is essentially a historical survey of Israel's past to make a point.
Paul  begins  with  the  first  of  Israel's  Patriarchs,  Abraham,  because  upon  God's  election  of
Abraham we have the birth of the Hebrew people. A series of important theological points is
made that truly ought to be labeled Christianity 101. These are the basics for understanding
the history of our faith; and so when one realizes that Abraham was the root and that he was
also the first Hebrew, then we have every justification we need to defend the definition of our
faith as truly and accurately a "Hebrew Roots" faith.
When Paul says that God made the people "great" when living in Egypt, he means "great" in
the sense of "many", not of merit. I want to pause for a moment and have you hear what the
editor of the Complete Jewish Bible, David Stern, says about the concept of God choosing the
Hebrew people out of all the other people on this planet, to be set apart for Himself. Because
God "choosing" one over the other is often taken as a matter of pride, when it should be the
opposite.
"While it is possible that some Jews like some Christians, become proud to be chosen, I
think many find it embarrassing and wish like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" that God
"would  choose  somebody  else  for  a  change".  But  only  if  I  take  chosenness  to  imply
superiority do I become either embarrassed or proud. The right attitude, the one taken
by  Sha'ul  and  by  the  writers  of  the  Tanakh,  is  that  Israel's  election  by  God  is  not
predicated on any special quality in Israel but entirely on God's grace, rightly defined
as God's undeserved favor. Being aware of this favor as undeserved should make us
humble without embarrassing us". 
In verse 17 when we see Paul speak of God leading Israel out of the land (of Egypt) "with an
out-stretched arm", it means that God rescued Israel with judgment against those who were
hindering His people. And then after delivering His people from bondage God cared for them
out in the desert for 40 years, after which He destroyed 7 nations in Canaan to pave the way
for Israel to inherit the land the 7 nations had inhabited (the list of these nations can be found
in Deuteronomy 7). The land of Canaan was not a gift of conquest from God to the Israelites; it
was  a  gift  of  inheritance.  Why  an  inheritance?  Why  not  as  a  spoil  of  war?  Because  God
already owned the land; He had hundreds of years earlier promised to give it to Abraham; it
became  Abraham's  land  the  instant  God  promised  it.  All  that  remained  was  for  Abraham's
descendants to possess it. So the Lord merely evicted the unlawful squatters, and then turned
over to the rightful inheritors (Israel) that which He had long ago bequeathed to them. For God
is a Father to His children, Israel and that's what fathers do.
Verse 20 says that the process of Israel living in Egypt and then God rescuing them and taking
them  through  the  desert  and  dispossessing  the  Canaanite  squatters  took  450  years.  This
number is given in round terms; it is not to be taken as precise. After that the Lord gave Israel
Judges (shofetim) to rule over them. The age of the Judges lasted through Samuel who was
part Judge, part prophet. But the people of Israel wanted a king like their gentile neighbors, so
God  gave  them  Saul,  a  member  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  Let's  take  another  brief  pause  to
make an interesting connection. In Genesis 45, which is part of the story about Joseph and his
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
brothers  coming  to  Egypt  to  buy  grain  from  him,  we  read  about  how  Joseph  gave  his  little
brother Benjamin 5 times as much food, clothing and silver as he gave to his other brothers. In
Egypt 5 times the regular portion was the royal portion. But why would Joseph give the royal
portion to Benjamin? Is it because they had the same mother? Is it because Benjamin is the
only  brother  not  guilty  of  selling  Joseph  in  to  slavery?  It  is  certainly  not  because  Benjamin
would become the inheritor of the nation of Israel; that would turn out to be an older brother,
Judah.  Whatever  was  Joseph's  true  motive  at  the  time,  in  the  end  it  is  because  this  was
prophetic of Saul of the tribe of Benjamin becoming the first king (the first royalty) of Israel.
But then comes an important turning point: after 40 years God removes Saul and turns the
throne  over  to  David  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  This  now  sets  the  stage  for  David's  messianic
descendant who would deliver Israel all over again. King David was chosen because he will do
what  God  wants  him  to  do,  and  this  is  because  David  was  a  man  after  God's&nbs