From: https://torahclass.com/ (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 own heart.
Remember: in the Bible any reference to the heart is not about emotions or warm feelings. In
that day and age, the heart organ (the lev) is where the ancients believed that our thought
processes (our mind) existed; they didn't know then that it occurred in the brain. So God is
saying that David is a man after God's own mind. That is, David wants what God wants.
Then in verse 23 the messianic promise is fulfilled. God promised David that his bloodline
would never end and we read of that promise in a number of places in the Bible but the first
place it is recorded is in 2nd Samuel 7.
2Samuel 7:9-16 CJB
9 I have been with you wherever you went; I have destroyed all your enemies ahead of
you; and I am making your reputation great, like the reputations of the greatest people
on earth.
10 I will assign a place to my people Isra'el; I will plant them there, so that they can live in
their own place without being disturbed any more. The wicked will no longer oppress
them, as they did at the beginning,
11 and as they did from the time I ordered judges to be over my people Isra'el; instead, I
will give you rest from all your enemies. "'Moreover, ADONAI tells you that ADONAI will
make you a house.
12 When your days come to an end and you sleep with your ancestors, I will establish
one of your descendants to succeed you, one of your own flesh and blood; and I will set
up his rulership.
13 He will build a house for my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever.
14 I will be a father for him, and he will be a son for me. If he does something wrong, I
will punish him with a rod and blows, just as everyone gets punished;
15 nevertheless, my grace will not leave him, as I took it away from Sha'ul, whom I
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
removed from before you.
16 Thus your house and your kingdom will be made secure forever before you; your
throne will be set up forever.'"
Then Paul says, and in keeping with the promise to make David's throne secure forever God
has brought to Israel the descendant from David who will sit on that throne forever and His
name is Yeshua.
My daily prayer is that Yeshua will come back very soon to occupy that throne of David,
forever. We'll continue with Acts 13 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 30, chapter 13 continued
We'll continue today in this rather long chapter 13 of the Book of Acts, although we won't
quite finish it. There is much to be learned from this chapter about the person of Paul, and
about the formation of the Gospel, and how Paul views its effect upon the lives of both Jews
and gentiles.
So our focus has shifted from Peter and the Holy Land, to the Apostle Paul and the foreign
lands where the bulk of the Jewish population resides. His mission to evangelize the gentiles
has begun in earnest. But what we find is that at least at this point, the gentiles he is speaking
to are God-fearers (gentiles who worship the God of Israel), because they attend the Greek-
speaking Jewish Synagogues of the Diaspora. We have also learned that while Paul is God's
designated emissary to the gentiles, he is neither the only one nor is he in charge of the gentile
mission. And, it is not as though he has neglected his fellow Jews; by default, since his main
theater of operation is synagogues, he of course speaks at least as much to the Jews as he
speaks to the gentiles.
At a synagogue in Antioch Paul is given an opportunity to address the congregation (a mixed
congregation of Jews and gentiles), and he begins by giving a brief summation of the
redemption history of Israel that reminds one of what the martyr Stephen said before the
Sanhedrin. Logically he begins with Abraham, the first Hebrew, and in but a few sentences
advances quickly from Abraham, to Egypt, the exodus, the conquering of Canaan and the
subsequent era of the Judges. Next he jumps to King Saul, the 1st king of Israel, and then
quickly to King David.
Let's re-read of portion of Acts chapter 13 so that we can establish the context for today's
lesson.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 13:22 - end
What is Paul's point in repeating a history that surely at least the Jews in the crowd already
have a working knowledge of? It is this: it is that the Old Testament and the Gospel of Yeshua
confirm one another. To pretend (as is regularly done in modern times) that the Gospel
doesn't rest upon the Torah and the Prophets, or to preach that the Gospel stands alone,
independent of all that came before it, stands somewhere on a scale between false and
foolish. Let's tuck away into our memory banks just who is speaking and is using Israel's
history, and the purpose of the Torah and the Prophets, to base his argument and justification
of Yeshua as the Messiah. It is the same Paul that institutional Christianity has for so many
centuries said no longer has a regard for the Torah or the Prophets, believes that the Torah
and the Prophets are dead and gone, and proclaims that Yeshua has replaced all that came
before Him. The same Paul that Christianity says teaches that the gentile Church has replaced
Israel. Thus the conclusion is that all that matters for Christians begins with the Book of
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
Matthew and the teachings of the earliest gentile Church Fathers.
Well, here is what one of those early gentile Church Fathers, John Chrysostom, said on the
subject of Paul and his viewpoint about the place of the Torah and the Prophets; a piece that
was written around 400 A.D. Taken from his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Chrysostom
says this:
"Notice how (Paul) weaves his discourse from things present, and from the prophets.
Thus he says, 'from this man's seed according to the promise', and then adduces
John again, saying, 'By condemning, they fulfilled all that was written'. Both the
apostles as (the) witnesses of the resurrection, and David (also) bearing witness. For
neither do the Old Testament proofs seem so cogent when taken by themselves, nor the
later testimonies (the New Testament) apart from the former. Therefore it is through
both that he makes his discourse trustworthy".
I agree on most points with Chrysostom. My disagreement with him is that he makes it sound
as though Paul was quoting and comparing Old Testament passages to New Testament
passages, and that is not at all what is happening. The proof of this is that the New Testament
would not exist until nearly one and one-half centuries following Paul's death. Rather,
everything Paul is teaching to the congregation at Antioch is taken ONLY from the Tanakh, the
Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. Thus Chrysostom also makes it sound as though the
revelation of the Gospel is a recent event, and the Old Testament knows only to anticipate its
eventual coming. The reality is that the Gospel is pronounced and developed in the Old
Testament; and the New Testament merely identifies who the anointed one is that is both the
agent and administrator of the Gospel, and now that the anointed one has come and gone
what this means for mankind.
But Chrysostom's main point is that Paul clearly says that the Old Testament and the New
Testament depend on one another, as least as concerns the Gospel message. And that a
Bible without the New Testament is only half the story; a Bible without the Old Testament is
only half the story. A Bible without the New Testament leaves one still in anticipation of
discovering who the Messiah shall be; a condition that Judaism suffers under to this day. A
Bible without the Old Testament leaves one without the basis for understanding the Gospel, for
what a Messiah is or does, for how it is that we are to live these redeemed lives, and what our
faith roots are (they are Hebrew faith roots). This is what mainstream Christianity suffers under
to this day. A Bible is not a Bible unless it contains both Testaments and both are given equal
weight and relevance.
In verse 23 Paul speaks of the one who will be the agent and administrator of this Gospel in
terms of being a result of the "promise". What promise is he speaking about? The promise
given to the Fathers of Israel, the Patriarchs; the promise that was first given to Abraham. This
promise was pronounced in Genesis 12:
Genesis 12:1-3 CJB
1 Now ADONAI said to Avram, "Get yourself out of your country, away from your
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
kinsmen and away from your father's house, and go to the land that I will show you.
2 I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and
you are to be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you
all the families of the earth will be blessed."
It is the last few words of that promise that reveals the Gospel message; but it is pretty hazy
and contains little substantive information. Thus it is important especially for Believers to
understand that the guarantee of the Gospel (whatever it would eventually amount to) was
given to, and would happen through, the Hebrews (the first Hebrew being Abraham). And yet,
Paul spent a fair amount of time in his historical summary speaking about a different part of the
promise made to Abraham, the part about the land. That part was expounded upon by God to
Abraham a little later in Genesis in chapter 15.
Genesis 15:18-21 CJB
18 That day ADONAI made a covenant with Avram: "I have given this land to your
descendants- from the Vadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River-
19 the territory of the Keni, the K'nizi, the Kadmoni,
20 the Hitti, the P'rizi, the Refa'im,
21 the Emori, the Kena'ani, the Girgashi and the Y'vusi."
Thus God defines the specific land that is included in the promise and He does it by defining it
according to land currently occupied by 10 named people groups. All together this area of land
is called the Land of Canaan. So Paul is demonstrating that the land and the people and the
promise and the Gospel (and therefore Yeshua) are all organically and inseparably connected.
Remove any one of these elements, and what remains is incomplete. Thus, says Paul in verse
23, in keeping with His promise, God, through David (a descendant of Abraham), has brought
forth this deliverer (this anointed one) who is the agent of the promise; and this deliverer's
name is Yeshua.
Let me pause for just a moment to tell you something that I think can help you to better
understand the attitude of Judaism towards Christianity and towards Jesus. In a direct reaction
and retaliation against Paul naming Yeshua as the Messiah, contained in a central part of
Jewish liturgy that is practiced in every synagogue service is what is called the Amidah. The
Amidah is a really a prayer, but it consists of a number of blessings that are recited by the
congregation. Among these several blessings is one called the birkat ha-minim, or in English,
the benediction against the heretics. This blessing was created by Judaism because the
Messianic Jews and then the Christian gentiles associated Jesus with King David. That is,
Jesus is the expected anointed one and deliverer who would come from the line of King David.
To combat this, the birkat ha-minim blessing was added to the Amidah and it speaks against
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
this association between Yeshua and David as heresy. And one of the ways it breaks this
connection between King David and Jesus is by declaring that the messiah will be none other
than King David himself! Whether we want to attach the term resurrected or reanimated or
reincarnated, that is what is intended by declaring that King David himself will be the Messiah.
We find the root of this concept recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud in the Tosefta Berakoth
section (Berakoth means blessings). This is why Judaism demands that regardless of how it
may be worded in the Holy Scriptures, David is to always be seen as a perfect man who never
sinned, because they understand (as do we) that according to Holy Scripture the messiah must
be perfect and never sin. There could be no better example for us of why certain erroneous
beliefs are formed when a rigid doctrine is created by humankind to accomplish a specific
agenda, and then theologians work backwards from that doctrine by twisting and turning
Scripture passages in order to try and validate it.
So after identifying Yeshua as the messiah and as King David's descendant, Paul then speaks
about the role that John the Baptist played by immersing people (Jewish people) as a means
of preparing the way for Messiah Yeshua. The important point made in verse 24 is that the
immersion, the baptism, was made not in Yeshua's name but rather as symbolic of the
worshipper having made a decision to repent from his sins. In other words, whereas in
Messianic Judaism and in Christianity, when we are properly immersed there is no need to be
immersed again, here with John the immersion he gave was essentially only a preliminary
immersion. So contrasted with today when we are immersed into the name of Yeshua as our
Savior, Lord and King, but also as a declaration of us having repented from sin, John's
immersion was ONLY concerning repentance, NOT salvation. Paul said that John the Baptist
asked "what do you suppose I am?" And then said that someone would come after him of
immeasurably greater worth than he. So what John accomplished was the first step of a two
step process. Step one: repent from your sins. Step two: identify with Yeshua as the one who
pays the price for your sins and ritually purifies you. Today, because the Christ has appeared
and made known who He is and what we must do, it is a one step process. One immersion is
sufficient for all of these purposes.
Up to this point, we could probably characterize everything Paul has been telling his audience
as history, theory and theology. But now he makes practical application. To the congregation
he essentially says: this applies to you! It is for YOU that Abraham was given the promise. It is
for YOU that King David's line was chosen to bring forth the Messiah. It is for YOU that
Yeshua, who came from that line, died on the cross as the fulfillment of the promise God made
to Abraham. Even those who constitute his audience are spelled out: 1) sons of Abraham's
family (Hebrews) and 2) God-fearers (gentiles who worship the God of Abraham). All are
included. Racial, ethnic and national boundaries have been crossed as concerns the work of
the Messiah.
Paul now condemns those who condemned Yeshua. I want to point out that he specifically
calls out the Jews of Jerusalem as bearing responsibility; not all Jews in general. Yes, the
crucifixion happened in Jerusalem, so obviously it was the Jerusalem Jews who called for it.
But we've discussed for awhile now that the Jews of Jerusalem were, in general, those who
desired to be at the power center of Judaism, which was in Jerusalem. So they paid more
attention to political issues and religious matters. They were more concerned about the details.
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
They were more activist. And this is where the greatest concentration of zealots lived and
operated. And, of course, Jerusalem is where the Romans had the most problems with the
Jewish people; not out in the countryside and certainly not in the Diaspora.
And why did these Jerusalem Jews do this dastardly thing of turning against one of their own;
Jesus of Nazareth? Because, says Paul in verse 27, they didn't recognize who Yeshua was.
And why didn't they recognize who Yeshua was? Because they didn't understand the
Scripture readings taken from the Books of the Prophets that were read every Shabbat in the
weekly synagogue service. And so ironically, by not listening, not paying attention, and thus
not understanding, these Jerusalem Jews unwittingly brought about the prophecies concerning
Yeshua by their very act of condemning Him. These prophecies that apparently flew right over
their heads plainly tell of such things as:
1. Yeshua would be hated by His fellow Jews for no good reason. This was prophesied in
Isaiah 49:7.
2. A friend would turn against Him and turn him over for execution. This was prophesied
in Psalm 41
3. The price for his friend's betrayal was 30 pieces of silver. This was prophesied in
Zechariah 11:12
4. Yeshua would be executed by means of crucifixion as predicted in Psalm 22:17
5. He would be buried in a rich man's tomb. This was predicted in Isaiah 53:9.
6. He would arise, alive, from the grave. This was prophesied in Isaiah 53:9 & 10 and in
Psalm 2.
7. He would ascend to God and sit at the Father's right hand in Heaven. This was
prophesied in Psalm 16:11, and in Psalm 68.
And there is much, much more. So why didn't these Jews who regularly went to synagogue
week after week, year after year, and heard the Haftarah reading of the Prophets, and heard
these prophecies, and had the opportunity to ask questions, and saw Yeshua in person and
what was happening before their very eyes, not connect the painfully obvious dots? How did
the learned Torah scholars, and the priests, and the teachers, and the synagogue leaders miss
it? The event that the entire Torah pointed towards, that the Prophets said they longed to see,
happened and most of the Jews of Jerusalem were not only blind to it, they helped bring about
the most unsavory parts of the Prophets' prophecies and were completely unaware of their
personal involvement. What did Messiah say as He hung there, in agony, as thousands of the
very people He came to save mocked Him?
Luke 23:33-34 CJB
33 When they came to the place called The Skull, they nailed him to a stake; and they
nailed the criminals to stakes, one on the right and one on the left.
34 Yeshua said, "Father, forgive them; they don't understand what they are doing."
They didn't understand. Or perhaps, they wouldn't understand because they didn't want to
understand. Here, then, is my greatest fear for those who sit before me today, and who are
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
listening to my voice online, and for those who sit in pews and comfortable chairs in Churches
worldwide; a fear that is spoken by the same one who asked forgiveness for those who were
persecuting Him unto death, but ought to have known better.
Matthew 7:21-23 CJB
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only
those who do what my Father in heaven wants.
22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name?
Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?'
23 Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers
of lawlessness!'
Those Jews who insisted on Yeshua's crucifixion were obviously oblivious to the very
prophecies they were helping to fulfill, as well as to the prophecies Yeshua came to fulfill. And
so many who fill the pews of houses of worship today are in danger of missing out on the
prophecies of God, maybe even being the subjects of some of the prophecies in a very
unbecoming way, because they don't pay attention to what is happening right in front of their
eyes. Because they don't seriously study, and so don't know, God's Word. Leaders and
teachers are much to blame because their flocks aren't taught God's Word. Rather manmade
traditions and doctrines are taught as holy and true.
The unfortunate truth is that many of us prefer to hear teachings that make us feel better about
ourselves, and often we are attracted to houses of worship that tell us what we want to hear.
We seek out and accept only the most comfortable doctrines; ones that fit our personal
lifestyles, make our lives easier and validate our wants and desires. And then only rarely do we
ever compare them to Holy Scripture to see if these doctrines are correct. The Jews of
Yeshua's day got their teaching in synagogues; there, they were taught Halakhah (a fusion of
Bible, doctrine and custom). Most Jews considered Bible, doctrine and custom as one in the
same and any questioning of the status quo was considered as heresy; just as most Christians
in modern times consider Bible, doctrine and custom as one in the same and so few question
the status quo. And when the Jerusalem Jews insisted that Yeshua should be executed, it was
because they had no interest in knowing the truth; only in practicing their religion. The same
ones who filled the synagogues, without fail, every Shabbat, demanded the death of their
prophesied Messiah. And when He comes again (and he IS coming), an enormous number of
self-proclaimed Believers will find themselves rejected by Messiah because they had no
interest in the truth; only in practicing their religion.
I suppose I ought to say I'm sorry for being so blunt and so tough and so judgmental; but time
is too short and the consequences too great to beat around the bush. I want us all to develop a
healthy fear of God. I want us all to examine ourselves and question why we believe what we
believe. I want us all to mature in the Lord and to obey Him even when it means real lifestyle
changes. I want us to discover by learning God's Word where we might be wrong, and if we
are, to change our minds. And that is because whether in death or in life our day of reckoning
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
is nearly upon us. We don't know the day or hour, anymore than did those Jews of Jerusalem
who condemned themselves by condemning their own Savior. But by believing the doctrines of
men over the Word of God, we put ourselves in the greatest danger.
In verse 32 Paul explains that the very purpose of him and of other disciples of Yeshua who
have come to Antioch is to bring this Good News of Yeshua that was promised to the fathers.
What fathers is he speaking of? When the Bible speaks of "the fathers", it is referring to the
Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So Paul says that the Gospel was first presented to
Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob. Long before Moses. Long before the designated Prophets,
God was progressively revealing His plan of salvation, but always through His chosen people
the Hebrews. Then, interestingly, Paul points out some verses from a specific Psalm; a Psalm
that was very popular in that era. Let's read this short but powerful Psalm so that we have the
entire context.
READ PSALM 2 all
I realize that you and I have the benefit of hindsight, but how can anyone in Paul's day read
this Psalm and not understand that this cannot be about some human earthly king? Could
David or some other king really have thought that every nation in the world would want to come
against him, and that to serve the God of Israel is the same as serving this king? And that the
statement in this Psalm about those who take refuge in this person will be blessed by God
could not possibly be talking about taking refuge under a regular king (unless delusions of
grandeur were running rampant in that king's mind)? Yet, somehow, this striking prophetic
Psalm and many other Bible passages like it were misconstrued and glossed over. Likely they
were allegorized (as we do too much of today) to make them fit the current doctrine.
Verse 34 brings up a point that Paul will use to make a common sense argument. It is that
Yeshua arose from the dead and did not suffer from any decay. The gruesome reality is that
the reason for embalming is to interrupt the natural decaying process that begins immediately
upon death. Jews weren't embalmed. The lack of decaying in Yeshua's body is an important
piece of evidence for Paul. Further, Paul quotes another messianic passage from Isaiah 55:3
that says that the anointed one will receive things promised to David. So here is more proof
that despite the claim in the birkhat ha-minim of the Amidah that David himself will be the
messiah, that manmade tradition goes directly against Scripture and this passage in Isaiah is
one such example.
So says Paul, David died, was buried and indeed his body decayed (he speaks of it as
common knowledge). But the anointed one of God was raised from the dead without suffering
decay. Ergo, David cannot possibly be the Messiah.
Paul now draws a * conclusion from all the evidence he has presented. He says that it is
through Yeshua that one can receive forgiveness of sins. He goes further (and I suspect that
what he is about to say may have been the hardest part of his conclusion for the Jews at this
synagogue to accept). He says that if anyone puts their trust in Yeshua, then they can be
forgiven sins that even the Torah of Moses could not forgive. It is hard to express in words the
highest regard that all Jews, no matter their location, had for the Torah and for Moses. So to
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
say that someone or something could do more than the Torah or Moses could do.....well, those
were fighting words. So what does Paul mean by this? There are many laws and
commandments listed in the Torah (Judaism says there are 613 of them). For each law there is
a prescribed remedy should that law be broken. For simple theft, for example, the stolen goods
had to be returned along with a 20% penalty. And the thief was required to go to the Temple
and offer an animal sacrifice in addition. If the perpetrator had a contrite heart, and did these
things, he was forgiven for his sin. It was like that for almost all Torah laws.....but not for every
law. For some laws the crime was considered by God as to be so grave that the only remedy
was for the perpetrator's life to be forfeited. That is, no amount of compensation to a victim,
and no altar sacrifice for atonement could be performed. Forgiveness was impossible.
Among the sins for which the Law of Moses offered no means of atonement were things such
as murder and adultery. The Bible also says that high handed sins cannot be atoned for. That
is, these are the worst of the worst sins, and they are those sins that are committed in an
intentional, rebellious, heinous, blasphemous way. So a sin that might otherwise have had a
means of atonement (such as for manslaughter) might be elevated to murder if it was
committed in a high handed way, and thus no means of atonement was available. Paul says
that even high handed sins that could not be atoned for in the Torah by an altar sacrifice could
be atoned for by trust in Messiah Yeshua.
This passage is more controversial than it might seem. The rather standard mainstream
Christian take on this passage is that it means that the Torah of Moses could in no way justify
a sinner. That is, these Bible interpreters make justification the point instead of atonement. As
usual, this is because these particular interpreters choose to begin with a manmade doctrine,
and then work backwards from it to try and validate it. The doctrine in this case is (in a nutshell)
that there is no real forgiveness available in the Torah, ever. Forgiveness is only in Jesus
Christ. That doctrine is contradictory to the plain teachings of the Torah, so the doctrine's
purpose is to demean the Torah as worthless, faulty from its inception, and now (thankfully)
dead and gone. This passage in Acts 13:39, at least to me, is plainly worded. And in
investigating the Greek (where the key word is dikaioo), the plain meaning of the word is
righteous, not justify. It speaks of Yeshua being able to make righteous a person who
committed crimes (broke certain Torah laws) for which there was no remedy in the Torah. It in
no way implies that every Torah law broken had no remedy to bring that person back to a
righteous condition (by being forgiven). But that is what many interpreters say that this
passage means. If that is true then we have a real quandary on our hands because we gets
dozens and dozens of statements like this example in the Torah concerning when a person
sins (breaks a Torah law) and then performs the prescribed sacrifice of atonement.
Leviticus 4:32-35 CJB
32 "'If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he is to bring a female without defect,
33 lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it as a sin offering in the
place where they slaughter burnt offerings.
34 The cohen is to take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 30 - Chapter 13 cont.
the horns of the altar for burnt offerings. All its remaining blood he is to pour out at the
base of the altar.
35 All its fat he is to remove, as the fat of a lamb is removed from the sacrifice for peace
offerings; and the cohen is to make it go up in smoke on the altar on top of the offerings
for ADONAI made by fire. Thus the cohen will make atonement for him in regard to the
sin he committed, and he will be forgiven.
Over and over, more times than I can count, this is the standard formula in the Torah for
explaining the procedure for when a person sins. And the result, if performed sincerely and
properly, is always forgiveness. So real forgiveness occurred under the Levitical sacrificial
system. Therefore it cannot be that the Law never actually gave forgiveness and restored
righteousness. What we see, however, is that in the Law of Moses God grades sins based on
their seriousness. The greater the sin, the more costly the sacrifice. From a cheap dove or
pigeon for a minor sin, all the way up in steps to the most expensive, a mature adult bull, for a
major sin. What this shows us is that despite the standard Christian bumper sticker doctrine
that a sin is a sin is a sin; that stealing a candy bar is no worse to God that murdering your
neighbor, because both are sins, is simply false on every level. There are less and more
serious sins, and they thus require various levels of atonement reflected by the cost of the
animal involved as well as lower and greater levels of punishment and other consequences
that are required. But, for the worst of the worst sins, blasphemy, adultery and murder, the sin
is so serious that no atoning sacrifice can be costly enough so no sacrifice is prescribed. The
perpetrator is cut off from God forever, and from his physical life forever (he is executed).
Paul explains that Yeshua can even atone for sins such as these, for which under the Law of
Moses forgiveness was not possible. And as much as I personally count on the nearly limitless
capacity of messiah to blot out my sins, there is still a limit.
Mark 3:28-29 CJB
28 Yes! I tell you that people will be forgiven all sins and whatever blasphemies they
utter;
29 however, someone who blasphemes against the Ruach HaKodesh never has
forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin."
But the other caveat that must be added is this: just as the Torah Law usually required a
consequence paid by the perpetrator to the victim for his crime, in addition to the sacrifice paid
to God that forgave him NOT for what he did to his earthly victim but rather for the trespass he
committed against God, never does the Torah kind of forgiveness or the Yeshua kind of
forgiveness negate the earthly consequences of our sins. God may forgive our eternal penalty,
but our earthly penalty usually remains. A murderer does not escape execution even as a
Believer in Yeshua. But he can escape eternal damnation, on a spiritual level. Trust in Christ
is not a universal Get Out of Jail Free card. Our actions still have consequences.
We'll conclude chapter 13 and get into Acts 14 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 31, Chapters 13 and 14
At Pisidian Antioch (there were many Antiochs), Paul said this to the synagogue congregation
he was addressing as recorded in Acts 13:38 and 39:
Acts 13:38-39 CJB
38 "Therefore, brothers, let it be known to you that through this man is proclaimed
forgiveness of sins!
39 That is, God clears everyone who puts his trust in this man, even in regard to all the
things concerning which you could not be cleared by the Torah of Moshe.
We discussed this statement at length last time because it is the molten core of our faith. But it
is also crucial to help us understand the historical Paul, and what he means when he speaks
about how he views the Law in some of his several letters that form the New Testament
Biblical books that we call the Epistles. I'll do little more than summarize as to the plain
meaning of verses 38 and 39. Clearly, no matter which English translation you might choose to
read, the crux is that Paul says that there are things in the Torah of Moses for which
forgiveness was not possible using the Torah system of atonement. However, trust in "this
man" (Yeshua) can clear you of those formerly unforgivable sins. The mainstream Christian
thought on this verse is that the Torah didn't forgive any sins at all; ever. Only Yeshua can do
that. That head-scratching conclusion is a good example of a manmade doctrine that has been
formed to satisfy a certain agenda, and then regardless of what the Bible might say, the
Scripture is contorted or allegorized to uphold the doctrine.
We looked last week at Leviticus 4:32-35 as an example of the Torah claiming that if the sinner
had a contrite heart and if he followed the ritual procedures (meaning offering a sacrifice) then
that sinner would be forgiven of that sin. Lev. 4:35 states: Thus the cohen will make
atonement for him in regard to the sin he committed, and he will be forgiven. This same
statement is made numerous times in the Law of Moses, so it cannot have been a translation
error nor can it be anything but an established God-pattern. Obviously the Bible tells us that
the sacrificial system offered actual forgiveness for sins, so logically it cannot be that Yeshua
represents the first time in history that men could achieve forgiveness of sins. Rather, as the
self-evident reading of Acts 13:39 states, there were certain sins in the Torah of Moses that
could not be forgiven; but Messiah Yeshua can forgive them.
Although I've said it before in our earlier studies of the Old Testament books, it warrants
repeating: either forgiveness of sins occurred as a result of an animal sacrifice properly
administered through the Levitical priesthood, or it didn't. If an animal sacrifice didn't provide
forgiveness as promised, then the Torah is simply wrong. So if the sacrificial system failed to
atone for sins as the Torah claims, then God created and gave to the Israelites a broken
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
system or He deceived Israel into believing that the animal sacrifices forgave sin, but they
didn't. And since God Himself gave Moses the Torah, then the bottom line is that God must
either have made a mistake or He changed His mind. And both of these possibilities are as
unthinkable to Christianity as they are to Judaism. Once again: Paul is pointing out that it is
only that Yeshua could forgive sins that the Torah sacrificial system was not designed to
forgive; sins such as idolatry, adultery, and murder. In fact the Mishnah says that there are 36
sins for which no animal sacrifice can provide forgiveness.
But what we also see in verses 38 and 39 is a fundamental understanding of Paul's theology.
It is that Yeshua's kind of forgiveness is better and more all encompassing than the kind of
forgiveness available in the Torah of Moses. Let's look it at this way: there are two sides of the
divine ledger of justice that the Torah deals with: on one side is a series of written laws that are
to be obeyed. On the other side of the ledger is what to do when one of those laws is
disobeyed. The sacrificial system for atonement only dealt with the side of the ledger of what to
do when a law is disobeyed. This side of the ledger is also called the curse of the Law because
it deals with negative consequences for breaking the Law. Thus it is the same with Yeshua; He
only came to deal with the side of the justice ledger that had to do with what happened when a
law was disobeyed; the side that deals with the curse of the Law. This is why during His
Sermon on the Mount, after addressing a few Torah laws and explaining their deepest
meaning and intent, He then paused in Matthew 5:17 – 19 to declare that the side of the justice
ledger that established the many laws and commandments that forms the Law of Moses is not
what He came to deal with. Or as the passage says, "I did not come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets". Ending or editing the list of divine laws in the ledger was not His purpose. Thus
when Paul speaks of The Law and of the forgiveness of Messiah, it is in this context that he
means it. It is on the side of the ledger that deals with the consequences of breaking the Law
whereby Paul establishes the concept that Yeshua is better than the remedies the Law can
provide when it comes to forgiveness. Therefore Yeshua is the answer to the curse of the Law;
not to the Law itself.
Let's re-read the final few verses of Acts 13.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 13:30 – end
After explaining to his mixed audience of Jews and God-fearing gentiles about Yeshua being
the one that the Abrahamic Covenant promised, and that He forgives sins, Paul issues a stern
warning. And he does it by borrowing a passage from Habakkuk chapter 1. The warning is
that in Yeshua God is doing an astounding work that is hard to believe even when someone
thoroughly explains it. But for those who mock what God has done, the eternal death penalty
awaits them. And by the way; the wording of this passage as quoted is excellent evidence that
Paul was teaching from the Greek Septuagint because this is the precise form it uses there.
The Hebrew Bible form of this passage is slightly different (the biggest difference is that it
doesn't add "you mockers"). And, it is to be expected that Paul would teach from the Greek
Septuagint since he is, after all, dealing with Greek speakers in foreign lands.
Here's the thing: Paul is essentially declaring Yeshua to be God even though He doesn't
explicitly say so. Every Jewish child knew that it was only God who could forgive sins, so when
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
Paul says that Yeshua could forgive sins, they instantly understood the implication. Messiah
Yeshua found Himself being questioned because He said He could forgive sins.
Mark 2:5-7 CJB
5 Seeing their trust, Yeshua said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6 Some Torah-teachers sitting there thought to themselves,
7 "How can this fellow say such a thing? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins
except God?"
No doubt Paul's teaching about forgiveness of sins in Yeshua was primarily responsible for
Paul being beaten and run out of more than just a few synagogues and towns. For the Jews
who just couldn't accept the great work that God had done, this statement seemed like
blasphemy and idolatry.
Shulam and Le Cornu have done a wonderful job of digging through the Dead Sea Scrolls
documents, and by doing so have found many writings that sound exactly like the Gospel
message. This makes sense; the Essenes separated themselves from the Temple and the
Synagogue and studied the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) diligently. It is therefore not surprising
that they would find Messiah or someone like him in the passages of the Prophets. Listen to
this passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls document that is essentially a midrash (a
commentary) on the book of Habakkuk:
Habakkuk 1:5.......... Look traitors, and behold, be astonished, shocked, for in your time a
work is done which you would not believe if it was reported. The interpretation of the
word concerns the traitors with the Man of the Lie, since they do not believe the words
of the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God; and it concerns the traitors of
the new covenant since they did not believe in the covenant of God and they
dishonored His holy name. They will not believe when they hear all this is going to
happen to the final generation, from the mouth of the Priest whom God has placed
within the Community, to foretell the fulfillment of all the words of his servants the
prophets, by means of whom God has declared all that is going to happen to his people
Israel.
The Teacher of Righteousness is a clear parallel concept to the anointed one, the mashiach,
even though there is no evidence that the Essenes thought that Yeshua of Nazareth was their
expected Teacher of Righteousness. They thought this Teacher would be one of their own.
Paul's speaking so struck the hearts of many of the congregation in Antioch that they pleaded
with him to come back on the next Shabbat and teach again. Remember: within Judaism
Shabbat had become a day when the most pious of the Jewish community would meet
together at their synagogue for prayer, worship and study. This was Tradition, not Torah Law.
You won't read about a communal worship meeting on the Sabbath in the Old Testament
because the Tradition had not yet been established by the close of the Old Testament. So we
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
should never take meeting on Shabbat as Biblically directed. That said, there is certainly
nothing wrong with it, and meeting on Saturday, or Friday after sundown, is a good and proper
thing for any Believer to do. It is clear that Yeshua went to the synagogue on Shabbat, and we
find the disciples doing the same thing not because Yeshua did it, but because it was the
cultural norm just as Sunday service is a Tradition for the Christian world and has become the
cultural norm.
It is important to see that Paul's approach to telling these Jews and gentile God-fearers of
Antioch about Yeshua and the Gospel was to treat them with respect and to not accuse or
demean them, or to incite them. Instead he taught them, by beginning with Abraham and
explaining the road to redemption through the Patriarchs, then David, down to Yeshua. He did
this in terms and history that Jews, and gentiles educated in the Jewish religion, would
understand and find familiar. Later when Paul is talking to other gentiles who are not God-
fearers (pagans), and so don't know the slightest thing about the God of Israel, he takes a
different approach and uses terms that he knows they will understand.
Paul would come back to Pisidian Antioch and apparently his emphasis this next time was to
encourage them to hold fast to what they had learned. Speaking to a congregation, making
some Believers, then leaving and coming back later to encourage them seems to be a pattern
of Paul.
Verse 45 speaks of many Jews who had heard Paul but had not believed; they came against
Paul and tried to disrupt his mission. The reason for their upset is that they felt Paul was
blaspheming. I mentioned earlier that no doubt the blasphemy began with the idea that Yeshua
could forgive sins, meaning He was God; and that is really the crux of the matter for Jews to
this day. However the next verse lends credence to the thought that some of these Jews who
came against Paul were upset at the inclusion of gentiles. Because in answer to the upset and
accusations of the non-believing Jews, Paul said this in verse 46:
Acts 13:46 CJB
46 However, Sha'ul and Bar-Nabba answered boldly: "It was necessary that God's word
be spoken first to you. But since you are rejecting it and are judging yourselves
unworthy of eternal life- why, we're turning to the Goyim!
This issue of gentiles is admittedly a bit difficult to understand since God fearing gentiles were
already a part of this synagogue congregation before Paul and Barnabas arrived. So perhaps
the upset was that it was one thing for gentiles to come and worship the God of Israel as
invited guests, but it was quite another for them to become delivered and sanctified by a
uniquely Jewish Messiah. In other words, it is one thing to allow a foreign immigrant into your
country to work and pay taxes; it is quite another to offer them citizenship and all the rights that
citizens have. It is my opinion that all of these objections concerning gentiles boils down to the
issue of circumcision, which is the mechanism by which a foreigner can covert to a Jew. And
as we are seeing develop, Paul especially is outspoken against the need for a gentile to
become a Jew in order to be grafted into the Jewish covenants with God, and therefore enjoy
the benefits of salvation. There is no doubt in my mind that what we'll study in Acts 15 is
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
directly tied to this issue of the conversion of gentiles, the ritual purity issues they cause, and
their eligibility to be saved by the Jewish Messiah.
As verse 48 says, the gentiles were very happy to hear this message from Paul, and especially
when he quoted Isaiah 49, which he applied to this direct situation whereby Paul and Barnabas
were the light for the goyim. But then later in verse 48 comes a few words that have been the
spark behind the creation of the Church doctrine of predestination. The words are: "....and as
many as had been appointed to eternal life came to trust." I have checked this in the
Greek and in a number of English translations and they all come out the same. The words
seem to say that God appointed many to eternal life and it was they who came to trust. And by
extension, those who God in eternity past did NOT appoint to eternal life, did NOT come to
trust in Yeshua. The doctrine of predestination says that from eternity past God determined by
His own will who would be saved and brought into the Kingdom of God and who wouldn't. This
doctrine is a mainstay of Calvinism. The famous Westminster Confession defines this doctrine
as meaning that God, "from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". And then Ephesians 1:11 is
usually quoted.
Ephesians 1:11 CJB
11 Also in union with him we were given an inheritance, we who were picked in advance
according to the purpose of the One who effects everything in keeping with the decision
of his will.....
In other words the doctrine of predestination says that the course of human history is
irrevocably set; everything that you or I will ever be or do has long ago been decided, and
whether we will be saved or not has already been predetermined. Therefore the idea of choice
is an illusion; God has supernaturally hardwired each of us to make all the choices He wants
us to make. It may seem to us like we're choosing by our own human free will, but in fact we
are like pre-programmed computers who do only what our programmers built us to do.
Depending on which denomination you came from, their doctrine of predestination will take
vastly different forms from other denominations. Some deny predestination altogether; others
(like Calvin) essentially make every detail of life and history written before our birth. A kind of a
middle ground approach is along the lines of God pre-knowing (as opposed to predetermining)
what each person would do, and whether that person would choose to follow Yeshua or not.
There is no doubt that these passages from Paul smack of the thought of predestination.
Where might Paul get such an idea that all has been predetermined by God; the destiny of
human history, and the destiny of each and every human, was set in stone before Adam and
Eve? In Paul's day, there were 3 main streams of Jewish thought and religious philosophy:
that of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. The Sadducees denied any
interference whatsoever by God into human affairs and choices. The Pharisees said that
indeed some things are predestined by the will of God, but that other things are determined by
each man's will and God foreknows what they will be. The Essenes believed like Calvin:
everything was pre-ordained by God, and it is only for each man to live out that predetermined
destiny to find out what that destiny was, but only after the fact.
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
So clearly Paul either believed as the Pharisees did (he was after all a Pharisee), or he
believed as the Essenes did. I don't want to turn this lesson into a debate on predestination,
but unfortunately this issue confronts us right here. Without going too deeply into the matter,
here is what I think Paul believed, and what I believe. The Essenes version (which is the same
as Calvinism) essentially cancels human free will other than for the most trivial of choices
(chocolate ice cream over strawberry, for instance). I don't see that in Paul the person or in his
writings. Rather he is all about each individual making choices. Even his statement in Acts
13:46 where he says: "It was necessary that God's word be spoken first to you. But since
you are rejecting it and are judging yourselves unworthy of eternal life- why, we're
turning to the Goyim", the idea is that the Jews he spoke to chose to reject his message,
therefore choosing to forgo eternal life, and therefore as a result he is taking that same
message to the gentiles. There is a definite tone of choosing as individual choices of the free
will. Choosing and turning, in fact, are two of Paul's typical themes in his letters: he exhorts us
to choose to do God's will over our own, and to determine to turn from evil to good. If these
aren't acts of the human will then I don't know how to define what a human will does, or why
God equipped us with one.
It is indeed a frustrating pattern we find with Paul that he tends to make a strong statement that
seems unequivocal, only to turn around at another time and say something a bit different, but
just as strong, about the same subject. If you search on the internet you'll see many Christian
websites that have entire sections about where they see Paul in direct conflict with Yeshua on
certain subjects. Or Paul conflicting with Paul; in other words, he contradicts himself. I don't
think either of these are the case, but it is easy to see why it seems that way. We've spent a
great deal of time on Paul the person and we find that the most influential thing in his life,
outside of his personal experience with Yeshua, is the synagogue and those who run the
synagogue, the Pharisees. These influences didn't just suddenly depart from him, even if
some of his theology concerning the Messiah certainly changed, simply because he learned
and accepted that Yeshua is the Messiah.
Paul thought as a Pharisee because he was a Pharisee, and salvation didn't change that. I
see Paul as occupying that Pharisaical middle ground on predestination; that is, some things
are indeed predetermined by God, but other things are not. Exactly which is and which is not,
is not entirely clear. We have here a mystery that we can debate and never really know for
certain. But this much merely common sense can lead us to: why would Christ say that the
Gospel must be taken to the ends of the earth if everyone is already predestined to choose
one of two options? Those who we tell and reject were predestined to reject so they were born
to go to *. Those who we tell and accept were predestined to salvation, so no matter what
happens they will be saved before their death. If this is true, then evangelistic efforts of
Churches around the world, and the suffering and discomforts that the Apostles went through
were rather pointless exercises. If this is the case, then a cruel game is being played with us as
little more than hapless marionettes being manipulated by a God of serendipity; and that is not
the God that I know and that is not the God that Paul describes.
To end chapter 13 we learn that a group of the non-believing Jews went to some of the female
God-fearers and incited them to persecute Paul and Barnabas. It is interesting that the women
are characterized as having high social standing. Well-off women in that era, especially the
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
aristocrats, had lives of leisure and their husbands controlled every financial aspect of the
marriage. However, one area outside the family that women were often permitted to enter into
was as benefactors to various social and religious groups. So we'll find that not only in the
history books but in our Bibles well-to-do women hosted meetings in their homes, or gave food
or clothing to the poor or supported some cause or another; usually things that their husbands
had little interest in but gave the woman a sense of value and worth.
We must also notice that since the term "persecution" is used quite often in the New
Testament, it had a wide range of intensity from mere harassment up to violence and murder.
Here it seems to mean mostly harassment that involved the emissaries being told to leave
because they were no longer welcome. Paul and Barnabas chose to leave. As we'll see later,
they often went back to places that they had been treated poorly, so they were anything but
timid or fearful men. Apparently in consultation with the Holy Spirit they decided that the best
course of action for now was to leave. They had, after all, established a core group of Believers
in Pisidian Antioch, and that was a very good start. So they left for Iconium in hopes of doing
the same. Let's move on to chapter 14.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 14 all
As was their habit, Paul and Barnabas went to the local synagogue in Iconium, and were given
a chance to speak. Many trusted as a result: Jews and God-fearing gentiles (pagan gentiles
would not be attending synagogues). Iconium was a major Roman city located about 95 miles
east of Pisidian Antioch, situated at a crossroad of major trade routes. A sizeable Jewish
community lived there no doubt due in part to the business opportunities.
But as many as had come to believe, a sizeable number of Jews were also opposed and upset
at the Gospel message of the disciples so they sought an alliance with the local gentiles to stir
up trouble against Paul and Barnabas. As always, we have to wonder what the major upset
was about. Out in the Diaspora, the issues of religion were less apparent than they were in the
hyper-sensitive religious environment of Jerusalem; but religious issues remained nonetheless.
In Jerusalem the issues were mostly about internal, highly nuanced doctrinal matters within
Judaism that involved factional infighting. But outside of the Holy Land the issues of religion
were more about Judaism versus the various pagan religions that dominated the Roman
Empire.
I think it can be challenging for Christians and Bible students to understand what it sounded
like to pagans of the New Testament era when the Jews told them about their One-God, and
then when they spoke harshly against the evils of idolatry. You see the concept of idolatry only
exists in a religion whereby idols are forbidden; and that prohibition of idols is generally
restricted only to Judeo-Christianity. In other words, up to New Testament times it was only
Jews who leveled the charge of idolatry, because in all other religions the use of idols was
usual, normal and customary. To be chastised and told by a small but vocal minority who lived
their lives in nonconformist ways that you are evil for having your cherished household idols,
and for sincerely worshipping the Greek/Roman gods and goddesses that practically everyone
did, including your esteemed political and social leaders, didn't sit well with the majority who
felt good about those idols and their religion.
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
Jews showed open contempt for the pantheon of gods that dominated every gentile society
they lived among in the Diaspora, and it made the citizens of the Roman Empire feel like Jews
and Judaism were cultish isolationists who thought that everything they did regarding the spirit
world was right, and everything everyone else did regarding the spirit world was not just
different, but wrong. The gentile Roman society on the other hand was quite tolerant of the
many different religious beliefs and god systems, including Judaism, unless the Jews became
too radical and irritating to their way of thinking.
And it must be realized just how different and separate from all other of the world's religions
Judaism was and remains. The Roman Historian Tacitus who was born at the time of the
events we are reading about in the Book of Acts said this about the Jewish religion: "The Jews
regard as profane all that we hold sacred". Let that sink in for a moment. The Romans may
have been pagans in the eyes of the Jews; but they certainly didn't consider themselves
pagan. The Romans, in general, were quite religious. They prayed regularly, they had
Temples, they sacrificed, they tithed, and they believed in divine beings superior to
themselves. They saw themselves as generally pious and good people. But the Laws of Moses
were so contrary to most religious customs that existed in the Roman Empire, and the Jews
were so different in what they ate, what they wore, and in their religious observances; and so
resistant to recognize or join in the pagan religious observances of their neighbors, that they
were often seen as aloof, unfriendly, uncooperative and highly intolerant. Greeks and Romans
were open minded towards religion; Jews were closed minded. And of course in our time, just
as 2000 years ago, the qualities of tolerance and open mindedness concerning all things
(including morals and religion) were highly valued by society in general. So when a certain
religion, like Judaism or Christianity, comes along and turns up their noses at tolerance and
open mindedness, or refuses acceptance of all religions and all holy books as good, then the
followers of that religion are looked down upon by others as hateful and backward; a societal
problem to be dealt with.
And just like today, most Jews in the Roman Empire tried very hard to walk a fine line between
observing their religion, and having a live and let live attitude towards their pagan neighbors.
So when Paul and Barnabas come along and upset the apple cart (pretty much wherever they
went), they were none too welcome by the majority of Jews or gentiles. And that as much as
any reason is why we see Paul attacked and run out of town as almost routine. But he never
gave up, because the cause was greater than himself.
Let us end with this thought. The Book of Revelation reveals that the End Times will be much
like the time of the Roman Empire. And especially so as to the challenges that worshippers of
the God of Israel will face. So as Believers living in the 21st century what shall we do? Shall we
do what society wants us to do? Shall we learn from history to compromise and do as the
Romans did and join in their tolerance for anything and everything as what they saw as an
expression of love and intelligence? Shall we agree that faith in anything is a good and equal
faith to our faith? Shall we practice our faith as a purely private matter and keep it private by
not revealing any element of it in public or at our workplace.....sometimes not even to friends or
family?
Or shall we do as the Jews of Paul's day and in the years thereafter, and stubbornly adhere to
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 31 - Chapters 13, 14
our faith even though the world will misunderstand and think us as aloof, intolerant, unloving
and isolationist? Here is what our Savior had to say about this challenge.
John 15:17-21 CJB
17 This is what I command you: keep loving each other!
18 "If the world hates you, understand that it hated me first.
19 If you belonged to the world, the world would have loved its own. But because you do
not belong to the world- on the contrary, I have picked you out of the world- therefore
the world hates you.
20 Remember what I told you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted
me, they will persecute you too; if they kept my word, they will keep yours too.
21 But they will do all this to you on my account, because they don't know the One who
sent me.
We'll continue in Acts 14 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 32, chapters 14 and 15
Our study of Acts chapter 14 today puts us at the halfway point in our study of Acts, but it also
essentially completes the contextual background for understanding what comes next in pivotal
chapter 15. So we'll look at a few things closely today to make sure we have a good handle on
that all-important context. Chapter 15 is usually described as the convening of the Jerusalem
Council when Peter, Paul, and James meet with others of the Jerusalem leadership of The
Way to expressly deal with the contentious and thorny issue of including gentiles into the
movement. I don't think it was Luke's purpose, necessarily, to write Acts in such a way as to
create a build-up into this decisive moment; but rather because his writings are divinely
inspired, that is how it turned out in hindsight.
Let's waste no time and jump right in to this chapter by re-reading it in its entirety.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 14 all
Barnabas and Paul are now in Iconium, having been forcefully ushered out of town from
Pisidian Antioch. Following their usual pattern, they went immediately to the local synagogue
and had a measure of success is persuading some members of the congregation (both Jews
and gentile God-fearers) to believe in the Gospel message. However those Jews who rejected
the message (the majority) went to local gentiles in hopes of gaining their support to increase
the pressure against Paul and Barnabas so that they would leave.
It seems that as modern readers of this account we are always left in the lurch in trying to
understand exactly what it was about Paul's message that caused such a fury among Jews
and gentiles, generally everywhere he went. We discussed that a bit last time, but I want to
bring it up again because it is important that as thinking human beings, and particularly as
Believers, we contemplate the "why" behind the anger and violence that was leveled
especially against Paul (but that others of the disciples suffered as well). The "why" of it plays
a significant role in the outcome of the Jerusalem Council that follows in the next chapter. And I
can assure you that the "why" wasn't merely one thing; and also that who exactly the upset
parties were was largely dependent on whether those parties were Jews, or God-fearing
gentiles, or pagan gentiles. That may sound like a lot for us to take on; but I think it is important
because as followers of Messiah each one of us has been commissioned to spread the
Gospel. We're not to leave it up to others. And as such, we need to realize that different
people will respond differently to our message depending on their background, their current
religion, their age, their ethnicity, and even the current politically correct societal mindset. In
America about the only real danger we face in evangelizing our family or our community is to
be shunned. But in other parts of the world, to evangelize brings the likelihood of being
attacked and perhaps even killed.
So the first thing I ask myself is: why if these folks didn't like Paul's message didn't they just
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
walk away or tell him he's wrong or merely ignore him? First of all, the local pagan gentiles of
the Roman Empire proudly held a religiously tolerant attitude. Our modern Interfaith movement
would have loved them; they counted all religions, all gods, and all holy books as equally valid
and worthwhile. But Jews seemed to the pagan gentiles as embodying the opposite of all their
Roman values. The Jews showed no respect for the other religions and their many gods, and
insisted that there was only one God in existence, and that was their own: the God of Israel.
Everything about the Jews reeked of exclusivity; they had their own way of eating, their own
special day of the week in which they refused to work; they didn't have home altars or make
sacrifices; they didn't participate in the popular and customary national festivals to the gods,
and they even had visible success in getting not just a few gentiles to abandon the mainstream
religions and to join Judaism. The Diaspora Jewish community had learned how to balance the
dual needs of operating peacefully within a gentile-dominated society and observing their
Judaism. So for the pagan gentiles, Paul was a Jew who seemed quite radical and irritating.
He represented the epitome of intolerance and contempt for anything other than what he
believed in; and this hateful attitude threatened the local civil stability and peace of the
ethnically diverse Roman Empire. So the solution was to silence him or drive him out of town.
For the gentile God-fearers, they had been taught by their Jewish teachers to obey and rely on
Halakhah: Jewish Law. In some cities they were allowed to join in the local synagogue even
without undergoing a circumcision and thereby becoming Jews, so they greatly valued this
privilege and the accompanying relationship with the Jewish community. While younger people
today might not realize it, it was only a few decades ago in America that a substantial part of
one's identity depended upon where you attended Church. Thinking back to my youth, I
cannot recall ever hearing of a person in whatever community I lived that was an atheist. In
fact a person who claimed Christianity but didn't attend a Church was looked down upon with
suspicion. And which Church you attended had much to say about your socio-economic status,
and whether you were part of the in-crowd or operated on the fringes of local society. This
same social dynamic applied to an ever greater extent in the Roman Empire in New Testament
times. So God-fearing gentiles who abandoned their mainstream pagan religions and joined
the Jews put their social status and relationships, especially with family and friends, at great
risk; a gentile adopting the Jewish faith brought real and tangible costs along with it.
Now along comes this fellow, Paul, telling the synagogue congregation that at least some of
their theology was wrong. Even more, while Paul said that the God-fearers didn't have to
become Jews to be saved by Yeshua, the Circumcision faction among the Believers told them
the exact opposite. Whichever way these God-fearer gentiles decided on the subject, and
which way the Jews among their congregation felt the gentiles must choose to remain in
fellowship with them, would have a great effect on their relationship with their Jewish friends as
well as with their gentile friends. It was a Catch-22 for God-fearers; no matter which way they
chose, there would be negative repercussions.
For the Jews, they too adhered to Halakhah (that fusion of Torah Law, Traditions and
customs) but at a far higher level than the God-fearers. So Paul's message was difficult for the
Jews to hear. The issue of the Messiah was hugely contentious; there was a regular stream of
self-proclaimed Messiahs who came and went in those days. And very little about this Yeshua,
who had lived so far away in the Galilee, measured up to what Jews were taught to believe a
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
Messiah would be and do. But without doubt the part of the Gospel message that turned so
many Jews to violence against Paul and other followers of The Way was their insistence that
this Yeshua was not only Messiah, He was God. This, to most Jews, was blasphemy and
idolatry at an almost unimaginable level.
It is common today, especially in Israel and among the Orthodox, to characterize a Christian
who evangelizes Jews as attempting to steal their souls. The Jews are quite serious about this
accusation. Thus in Israel to even speak about Yeshua to a child under 18 years old is a
serious crime for which you can be arrested and sentenced to prison. This would have been
the same mindset that the majority of the Diaspora Jewish community would have had against
Paul and the other evangelists: to their thinking if they accepted what was proposed about
worshipping a deceased carpenter from Nazareth it would have destroyed their relationship
with Yehoveh. And since blasphemy and idolatry were punishable by death according to the
Law of Moses, it seemed perfectly justifiable to them to try to kill Paul. This was in no wise
murder from their perspective; it was justice. In fact it was probably viewed as an act of mercy
when Paul was merely beaten up and chased out of town and told never to return.
So whether pagan, God-fearer or Jew, the bottom-line issue against Paul and The Way was
that the Gospel message was a radical message of invitation to blasphemy and an incitement
for civil instability. So with that understanding let's continue with verse 3 of Acts 14.
What Paul and Barnabas did in response to the threats and the persecution was the opposite
of what most of us might do today if faced with the same thing: they remained in Iconium and
continued to preach the truth. In fact, they stayed for a long time and they didn't seek
compromise; they spoke out boldly. But let's not overlook that what seemed to buy them time
and attention was the miracles that accompanied what they preached. Miracles are generally
used in the Bible as an affirmation of something; in this case, it was an affirmation of the truth
of God's love for all the peoples of the earth that was at the core of what Paul and Barnabas
were teaching. Even so the people of Iconium were divided towards their message. There is a
subtle change here that shouldn't go unnoticed: we are told that the people of the CITY were
divided about them; not that the people of the synagogue were divided. This means that Paul
and Barnabas were no longer preaching in the synagogue but rather in various places in and
around the city of Iconium. This also means that they were no longer preaching to gentile God-
fearers who were already devoted to the God of Israel; they were now taking their message to
pagans who were entirely ignorant of the Holy Scriptures.
However in time (we don't know how much time), the opposition grew fierce enough that there
were plans made to do serious harm to Paul and Barnabas. They learned of the plans and left
Iconium for the cities of Lystra and Derbe. This time there is no mention of going to a
synagogue to preach; most likely because these two Roman towns had no synagogues. So as
they are preaching to a mixed audience of Jews, God-fearers and pagans, they run across a
local man who was crippled since birth. In a description of the account of the healing of this
lame man by Paul, it sounds much like the one we heard about Peter's miraculous healing of
a lame man earlier in Acts. There is little doubt in my mind that of the many miracles we are
told that Paul brought about, Luke chose to report on this one exactly for the purpose of
drawing a parallel between Paul's and Peter's ministries. Why? Because he was intent on
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
demonstrating an equality of mission, authority, devotion, ability, and faithfulness between
Peter and Paul. Luke, the gentile God-fearer, had a vested interest in showing that the Apostle
to the Jews, Peter, and the Apostle to the gentiles, Paul, were on the same level in God's eyes
because Jewish Believers and gentile Believers had been placed by God onto the same level.
So when Paul sees that this gentile cripple in Lystra is believing what he hears Paul
proclaiming about Yeshua, he has enough faith to obey Paul's order to stand......for the first
time in his life.....and indeed he is healed. The crowd went wild with enthusiasm. This crowd
consisted mostly of Lystrans who spoke their own dialect, so when they began happily
shouting Paul had no idea what they were saying. It turned out that these people thought that
Paul and Barnabas were gods. Of course they would think that; we all interpret what we see
and hear within the context of our own familiar culture, language, experiences and
circumstances. They thought Barnabas was Zeus and Paul was Hermes. And this in itself is a
great lesson on the difficulties of crossing cultural boundaries and languages; none more so
than when dealing with our Bible. Paul and Barnabas meant one thing (that was meant within a
Hebrew cultural context) but it was understood by the Lystran locals in their Lystran cultural
context. This is what has happened within Christianity as we have a faith that is based entirely
on a Hebrew cultural religion, but for centuries has been re-interpreted in a gentile cultural
context. Here the Lystrans got it so wrong that while it produces a comical scene for us, Paul
and Barnabas nearly had a nervous breakdown because of it.
I've often said that if our thoroughly Jewish Messiah Yeshua came back today and walked into
a typical western Church, He would be astonished (and confused) by what He sees because
much of it looks nothing like what He meant or intended. And this is because Christianity in
general contends that historical and cultural context ought to play no role in interpreting the
Holy Scriptures. This is why the Church rails at the notion of our faith coming from Hebrew
roots. And it is why Seed of Abraham Torah Class exists; to try to recover at least some of
what was intended even if we have no goal of re-establishing a Biblical-era culture.
The fact that we are told that the locals thought they were Zeus and Hermes is also interesting
because these were gods from the Greek pantheon of gods. Their Roman equivalents were
Jupiter and Mercury. Therefore Lystra was more allied with a Greek lifestyle than a Roman
lifestyle. So the comedy continues as the local priest of the temple to Zeus comes running to
greet his god (Paul), bringing with him animals to be sacrificed in his honor. When Paul and
Barnabas finally figured out what was happening, they were horrified. They protested that not
only were they not gods, they weren't divine men. Rather they are ordinary human beings just
like all of those in the crowd.
That Paul's audience is pagan means he can't talk to them like he would to God-fearers.
These pagans know nothing of the Prophets or the Law of Moses, so Paul speaks to them in
terms of natural revelation. That is, it is self-evident that God exists because of all the good
things He does for the peoples of the earth, like bringing rains that grow crops to provide them
with food. Paul says that in past times the Lord overlooked these pagan lifestyles and allowed
people to walk in their own ways. But that is changing.
The so-called 7 Noachide Laws are the perfect example of natural revelation for any human to
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
see and go by, regardless of whether they have the Torah to consult. However here in Acts
14:16, Paul is referring to this natural revelation in a very narrow sense. The previous verse
says: "turn from these worthless things to the living God who made heaven and earth
and the sea and everything in them". In other words, for the moment Paul is only interested
in establishing that the God of Israel is the Creator of all things. Thus the natural revelation of
water that just falls from the sky on its own; and the miracle of food that spontaneously grows
out of the soil provides sufficient proof that no people, anywhere, has any excuse for not
acknowledging Yehoveh as the Creator God.
I want to pause for just a moment to make a comment about Paul and what he says in Acts
and in his epistles. Whom he is talking to and what the setting is matters greatly. When he is
talking with Jews, he speaks in one way because they have a Hebrew background that
includes familiarity with the Prophets and the Law of Moses so he can explain and persuade
using Scripture. However when he talks with gentiles, and especially if they are pagans, then
he is going to use broad terms that aren't meant for us 2000 years later to tear apart and
minutely examine the words. And especially those statements should not be used to formulate
a Church doctrine. In other words depending on his audience Paul super-simplifies matters
even using language that is general enough that pagans who know nothing of the Torah or the
Prophets, and certainly nothing of the Patriarchs or the covenants or of redemption, can grasp
the gist of it even if what they get is fairly limited. So here in Acts Paul is talking to people who
are totally ignorant about the Hebrew faith. Unfortunately many would also have had their
stereotypical views of Jews reinforced, and no doubt were quite insulted when Paul referred to
their precious sacrificial offerings that they brought to Paul, and to their sacred ceremonies and
the idols and the priests that were involved, as "worthless things". Paul indeed spoke the
truth; but it was said too severely. Paul's harsh mouth got him into trouble on numerous
occasions.
The crowd backed off from making sacrifices to Paul (thinking he was Zeus) but then we hear
of some of the unbelieving Jews from Pisidian Antioch and from Iconium who had opposed
Paul in their home towns, coming to Lystra to foment trouble for him there. They incited the
crowd in Lystra who no doubt was still stewing over having been told that their cherished
religious system and icons were worthless. They stoned Paul and he apparently went
unconscious as he was pelted. Everyone thought he was dead, but he survived it and the next
day we are told he went right back into Lystra. Even so it must have been just to make a point
that he wasn't going to be intimidated as he and Barnabas left the following day for Derbe.
We are told that he proclaimed the Good News "in that city". This implies that Derbe also did
not have a synagogue and so he preached to the townspeople in the city streets. We know
nothing more of what went on there except that some of the residents became Believers. After
that he retraced his journey, going back the way he came, and stopped to visit the Believers he
had made in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. The stated purpose was to strengthen them. No
doubt this was needed after seeing their leader, Paul, beaten and driven out, and this would
have made them fearful. Throughout the New Testament we see much suffering and tribulation
placed upon new Believers such that it was fairly normal for Believers of this era to be treated
roughly. Thus Paul tells them that it is through many hardships that we must enter into the
Kingdom of God. How at odds this is with so much preaching in modern times that seems to
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
imply that if we come to Christ we can expect a happy path, our lives made free from disease
and troubles, from here forward. Understanding that accepting Messiah could cause us more
trouble than before we came to faith rather changes our purpose for seeking salvation from
being self-focused to being God-focused; from wanting our problems to be solved and living a
comfortable life, to being ready to serve Our Lord no matter how uncomfortable that service
might be, or what the cost to us is.
But since Paul and Barnabas knew they would be moving on, it was necessary to institute a
proper structure within each Believing group so that it could function as a community of
Believers in their absence. So Paul and Barnabas chose certain men to be the elders (the
leaders) and anointed them with prayer. Then they left for Pamphylia. In the province of
Pamphylia they spoke in the city of Perga. From there they went to the seaport of Attalia (still in
Pamphylia). They arranged passage on a ship that took them back to Syrian Antioch, where
their missionary journey had first begun. Upon arrival they reported all that had happened to
the Believers of the Antioch synagogue, and that they had successfully evangelized many
gentiles. They stayed on at Antioch for some undetermined amount of time, no doubt to rest
and recuperate and for themselves to be strengthened.
Please note that Paul's center of activities was the synagogue of Antioch on the Orontes, just
as Peter's center of activity was Jerusalem in the Holy Land. The leadership of The Way
resided in Jerusalem, with James being the supreme leader. So it was the Diaspora Jews and
God-fearing gentiles who were funding Paul's mission to the gentiles. So let me say that
another way: there were 2 headquarters of evangelism in this era: Orontes Antioch and
Jerusalem. And, as you can imagine, those Believers who were James and Peter-led didn't
see eye to eye with those Believers who were Paul-led on every issue. This is another key
piece of the puzzle to grasp as we now enter Acts chapter 15.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 15 all
Paul and Barnabas are still in Antioch on the Orontes when some Jews showed up uninvited
and began to teach that a gentile who wanted to trust in Yeshua for salvation had to be
circumcised. That is, these gentiles had to convert and become Jews. Please note that these
were Believing Jews who came from Judah who formed the Circumcision faction. Those Jews
from Judah were under the influence of the Jerusalem leadership of The Way, and so here we
see an example of the conflicting viewpoints between the Jewish Believers of the Holy Land
versus the Jewish Believers of the Diaspora.
Before we embark on a nearly word by word study of Acts Chapter 15, I think it is good to
balance it with a very brief report from Paul about his perspective on the Jerusalem Council
(which is the central event of Acts 15), as he tells it in Galatians chapter 2. Remember: what
we get in Acts is Luke's perspective on what occurred, and he was not an eyewitness. Rather
he gathered credible reports from a number of sources after the fact (apparently quite soon
after the fact). But in Galatians we are hearing from one of the participants in the Jerusalem
Council, Paul, and he gives us his personal viewpoint on what occurred.
READ GALATIANS 2:1 – 10
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
Paul explained that the Jerusalem Council meeting was a leaders-only meeting. And he
emphasizes that it was convened in private. There is a reason when privacy is a large concern
and Paul was very concerned about all the work he had done with the gentiles from the
perspective that if the official leadership of The Way didn't sanction it and give their blessing to
it, then it was all for nothing. There is no hint of what he might have done if he hadn't received
the favor of the leadership. But as we have gotten to know Paul, and learn about his iron will,
and fearless self-confident sense of being right, one wonders if he would have submitted or
might he have rebelled, gone his own way, and formed his own separate faction of Believers.
Thankfully things turned out well and we'll never know.
But the bottom line is that Paul knew from being a Pharisee who resided in Jerusalem, and
knowing the ultra-pious and rigid doctrinal stances that Jerusalem Jews often took on religious
matters, that there was a real danger of a split. So in obedience to a revelation (that told him to
go to the leadership in Jerusalem) he went with some anxiety.
We find out in Galatians that young Titus accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem
leadership did not force Titus into having a circumcision to remain a member of the group.
Remember: ALL the leadership of The Way were Jews, and Titus was a gentile. This decision
to not require circumcision for Titus was no doubt a huge relief for Paul, because it told him
most of what he needed to know: the leadership of The Way was not supportive of the
Circumcision faction's insistence that Believing gentiles essentially had to be made into
Believing Jews. In fact Paul claims that those who came to Antioch insisting on circumcision for
the new gentile Believers were "pretenders". This is a term that we'll see Paul use in a few of
his epistles and we need to be cautious about how we take it. That is, Paul sees those who
disagree with his theology too much as not sufficiently genuine in their Messianic faith to be
counted as a Believer. It is very difficult to ascertain if Paul means it in the extreme sense that
they literally were not, and never were, actual Believers but rather they intentionally
masqueraded as Believers in order to infiltrate and do harm. Or, from Paul's perspective,
perhaps a "pretender" was someone who sincerely saw themselves as a Believer in Yeshua,
but was sincerely wrong. That is what these so-called "pretenders" believed was too off base
from the correct doctrine to rightly consider them as legitimate Believers. And when I weight it
all out, it is my opinion that this is more what he means. That is for Paul a "pretender" is kind
of a negative epithet thrown at professing Believers (particularly professing Jewish Believers)
who don't measure up to Paul's standard of belief in order to qualify as true Believers in his
eyes.
And we see in Galatians that Paul had mixed feelings about the leadership in Jerusalem. In his
mind (and again, Paul came from a strict Pharisee background) some of these leaders sure
didn't look like the kind of leaders he was used to submitting to. But as he says, "they added
nothing to me". In other words, they didn't put any rules or burdens upon him (something he
no doubt feared could have been the result).
Rather, the super organized Paul describes the results of the Council as confirming his place
as the primary emissary to the gentiles and Peter's place as the primary emissary to the Jews.
This was a two-edged sword. That is, organizationally it made Peter and Paul co-equals, with
Peter in charge of one task, and Paul in charge of another. On the other hand it shows a
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 32 - Chapters 14, 15
definite division had developed and so Peter and Paul would naturally be compared and
contrasted to one another in every imaginable way: authority, intelligence, rate of success, etc.
This goes back to my statement that in Chapter 14 of Acts, as Luke tells us about Paul's
healing of the lame man in Lystra, that the purpose of reporting on this particular miracle (out
of the many more that were not reported on), it was to help establish Peter and Paul as equals,
with one having no more influence than the other.
It is fascinating to me that in the gentile Western Church Paul's preeminence became the
norm. And why is that? It is obvious: Paul's mission was to the gentiles while Peter's mission
was to the Jews. And the Church didn't like Jews. Paul's statements have become the basis
for the bulk of Church doctrine, while Peter is left to be a more likable and impulsive fellow who
Jesus loved and trusted, but little more. Of course Peter is also considered as the founder of
the Catholic Church. This is also no doubt why very early on in Christianity, as the Church
Father John Chrysostom testifies to in his commentary on Acts, the Book of Acts was barely
known within the Church. That is, the Church had elevated Paul's thoughts generally above
any others' thoughts in the Bible. But the Book of Acts makes Peter to be equal to Paul.
Something had to give.
Next week we'll begin in earnest to dissect Acts chapter 15.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 33, chapter 15
In a typical English Bible translation the first 14 chapters of Acts contains about 12,400 words.
Chapters 15 – 28 (the end of the book) usually contain about 12,500 words; so indeed where
we sit today as we study this pivotal 15th chapter of Acts is at the physical and literal center of
the book. But more significant than that, this chapter is pivotal because it deals with the one
thing that will cause Judeo-Christianity to explode onto the world scene in a way unrivaled in
history: and that one thing is the question of gentile involvement in the Yeshua movement.
It is ironic that the subject of gentile involvement, which was decided at this Jerusalem Council
that we'll spend considerable time with, was to debate how (or even if) gentiles could be
included in this exclusively Jewish religion that at the time was but a branch of Judaism. But
within 100 or so years the contentious issue became how (or even if) Jews could be included
in (what had somehow become) an almost exclusively gentile religion. How did this amazing
reversal happen? It all started here in Acts 15.
Many Bible commentators say that the issue was not if gentiles could be included but rather on
what basis; that is misleading because at the heart of the matter of including gentiles in The
Way was the issue of circumcision. And at the heart of the issue of circumcision was
conversion. And at the heart of the issue of conversion was ritual purity. So the issue is far
more complex as it regards gentiles than meets the eye. We'll re-read this chapter in its
entirety momentarily but first lets define some important terms.
Circumcision was critical to Judaism because it was critical to inclusion in the Abrahamic
covenant. Circumcision was the sign that a person wanted to be part of the terms of that
covenant. And what made the Abrahamic Covenant so important was that it 1) divided the
world into two groups and established one group as those people that God calls Hebrews. 2) It
set apart a special land for this set apart group of people to inherit and dwell upon. 3) It set up
a special relationship between God and the Hebrews by which Yehoveh would protect and
favor them above any other people of the other group (called gentiles) by blessing those
gentiles who blessed and comforted the Hebrews, but would also punish and harm any
gentiles who cursed (that is, they troubled or opposed) the Hebrews. And 4th) in some special
undefined way the Lord would bless all the families of all the people on the earth through
certain of Abraham's Hebrew descendants. And for anyone who wished to sign on to the
terms of this covenant, God instituted ritual male circumcision. Those males who underwent
circumcision would be made part of God's set apart people; those who refused circumcision
would be excluded from God's set apart people. So circumcision was a tangible, physical sign
that males wore that they were indeed entitled to the benefits, and subject to the
consequences, of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since this is central to the debate and decisions of
Acts 15, let's revisit exactly where this requirement of circumcision was founded. Turn your
Bibles to Genesis 17.
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
READ GENESIS CHAPTER 17:1 – 14
The issue of circumcision is actually all about conversion. That is, a person converts from
being one thing to another and different thing. Upon the establishment of the Abrahamic
Covenant, all the human inhabitants on earth found themselves belonging to one of two
groups: Hebrews or gentiles. So essentially the act of circumcision moves (it converts) a
member from the gentile group to the Hebrew group. Male infants born to a Hebrew had to be
circumcised at 8 days old in order for them to remain in the Hebrew group. But if a person was
born as a gentile and wanted to become part of the Hebrew group they had to be circumcised
in order to signify their conversion. Thus the debate of Acts 15 centered on whether or not a
male gentile who accepted Yeshua as their personal Messiah had to covert; they had to leave
the gentile group and move to the Hebrew group because belief in Yeshua belonged solely in
the Hebrew religious sphere. And for males the mandatory outward sign and proof of this
conversion was circumcision of the *.
But behind this insistence by some members of The Way that gentiles had to convert to being
Jews in order to worship Yeshua was the sensitive issue of ritual purity. In simple terms, the
issue of ritual purity decided if a person was clean or unclean in God's eyes. But the issue of
ritual purity is not dealt with in the Abrahamic Covenant; rather it is dealt with in the Covenant
of Moses: the Law. Jews knew and practiced the ritual purity laws, but gentiles didn't. And
since one of the underlying principles of ritual purity is that impurity can be transmitted through
physical contact, then gentiles were considered as high risk for being impure and thus causing
others to become impure. That made it a high risk matter for a Jew to associate with gentiles;
or at least that's what Tradition said.
But now it gets a bit more convoluted because Judaism mainly looked to Halakhah (Jewish
Law) for their instruction on ritual purity; not so much to the Law of Moses any longer. We have
talked often about Halakhah but its definition bears repeating: Halakhah was a fusion of the
Biblical Law of Moses, with manmade traditions that had been developed, and with Jewish
cultural customs that had arisen over the centuries. The traditions were essentially
commentary on Holy Scripture; but they became even more than that. The Traditions
established firm doctrines (rulings that were made by Jewish religious authorities) that dictated
every behavior of a Jew. And as one can easily imagine, the all important issue of ritual purity
was front and center and thus many intricate rules about ritual purity were created. Even
before the New Testament era, Tradition dictated that gentiles were inherently unclean and so
Jews should not associate with them lest they become polluted. And yet even within Judaism
the extent of uncleanness associated with gentiles, and how permanent or solvable this
problem might be, was not universally agreed to.
In a famous dispute over Halakhah between Rabbi Eliezer of the School of Shammai versus
Rabbi Joshua, we read this: "Rabbi Eliezer says: all gentiles, they have no share in the
world to come as it is said the wicked will return to sheol, even all the nations who
forget God (Psalm 9:17). However Rabbi Joshua said to him, Since the verse says who
forget God this means that there are righteous among the nations who have a share in
the world to come."
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
Thus various members of The Way would have held somewhat different perspectives on the
matter of the inclusion of gentiles, as did their revered teachers and sages. So even at the
Jerusalem Council, as they were debating about circumcision, conversion, and ritual purity, it
was Halakhah that would be their primary guide; not the Law of Moses all by itself. And this is
because just as it is in modern Christianity, in the minds of individual Christians, Church
doctrines and what the Bible says are essentially considered as one in the same. They
supposedly say the same thing, mean the same thing, and demand the same thing. In casual
conversation Christians usually don't make a differentiation between Scripture and doctrine.
And in the New Testament, the Jews didn't usually make a differentiation between the Holy
Scriptures and their Traditions. So in the New Testament when the term "The Law" is used,
most of the time (but not all the time) it is referring to Halakhah, and not only to the Biblical
Torah, the Law of Moses. What is challenging for us is to discern when the use of the term The
Law means the Law of Moses by itself, or when it means Halakhah in general. I realize how
difficult this is for gentile Christians to wrap our minds around; it is simply not how we think and
the terms seem foreign to us. But it is how the New Testament Jews thought, and it is how the
writers of the New Testament thought. And until we can grasp this we will continue to
misconstrue what is being said and as a result construct some strange doctrines that in no way
reflect the Biblical intent or truth.
So to sum it up: circumcision is the God-ordained sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and it
requires the physical removal of the male *. Conversion is changing from one thing to
another thing, and so circumcision was the requirement to signify that a change from being a
gentile to being a Jew (a Hebrew) had occurred. According to the mindset of Jews and
Judaism in the New Testament era, ritual purity (a requirement of the Biblical Torah and of
Halakhah) could only be attained and maintained by Jews. Thus a gentile usually could not be
ritually clean. Therefore contact with a gentile brought-on ritual impurity along with its
consequences to a Jew (something no Jew wanted to contend with). However that was not the
teaching of the Biblical Law of Moses; rather it was the teaching of the mainstream Halakhah,
Jewish Law, that was a merging and mingling of the Law of Moses with manmade traditions,
and with ancient Jewish cultural customs. So I promise you, the short and concise reporting of
Luke about the Jerusalem Council consists of greatly abbreviated summations partly because
he expects his readers to be mostly familiar with all that we've just discussed. Since we're
not, we're going to take the time to pull this chapter apart piece by piece.
Let's read Acts chapter 15 together.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 15 all
The first verse of this chapter rather well sums up the dilemma and the cause of this meeting of
the leadership of The Way in Jerusalem with Paul and the other visiting members of the
Antioch congregation. It was that "some of the brothers", meaning Jewish Believers in Yeshua
who lived in Judea, formed a contingent and traveled to Antioch of Syria to inform the gentile
members of the synagogue at Antioch that Jewish Law required them to be circumcised if they
wanted to be involved with the Jewish community, and especially if they wanted to join in the
Jewish religion. To be clear: 1) these were Believing Jews who came with that message. It is
regularly taught that these were not Believers, rather they were Pharisees and/or Judaizers
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
(meaning Jews who rejected the Gospel). Later in verse 24 James verifies that those who went
to Antioch to demand circumcision indeed "went out from us but without our authorization". 2)
They were from the Jerusalem area; and 3) they were teaching that belief in Messiah Yeshua
by gentiles required conversion, which was signified by having a circumcision. So essentially
the idea was that while gentiles could learn about the Gospel, and about salvation, and about
the Jewish Savior Yeshua, they could not complete the process of becoming saved except
they become Jews. Thus salvation was for gentiles only in so far as receiving the Gospel as
truth was the beginning of a process that culminated with their rejection of their gentile identity
and the taking on of a new Jewish identity.
As verse 2 says, this raised a ruckus between Paul and Barnabas and that group of Believers
who were part of the Circumcision faction who came demanding circumcision of the gentiles.
Both sides of this argument had reasonable and educated positions. This was not the mean
people against the nice people or an issue of ethnic bigotry. This was not the intolerant versus
the tolerant. And it was not the ignorant against the educated, nor was it the Pretenders
against the actually saved. Remember, no such thing as a New Testament existed at this time
to provide guidance over this sticky issue, and wouldn't for another 150 years. As these
various thorny theological and cultural disputes arose for The Way, they had to think about
them, pray about them, debate over them, wrestle with them and then come to some
conclusions because each case required an answer. While we have the benefit of the inspired
conclusions that they eventually reached about important matters of living out our faith, they
were making it up as they went along and it was a rocky process.
The resource they relied on the most to make their decisions (outside of the Holy Spirit) was
Halakhah. That might sound odd to us; but what else was at their disposal? They fully
intended on operating within the long understood and mostly settled matters of Jewish religious
doctrines because much had already been written and discussed about the issue of gentiles.
But also recall that it had not been all that long ago that God went to great lengths to get the
Apostle Peter straightened out about the issue of fellowship between Jews and gentile God-
fearers by means of that strange vision and even stranger conversation between Peter and
God. This incident amounted to new revelation to Peter and the Believing community, even
though it was actually the Lord taking Peter (and Judaism) to task for ignoring His Holy
Scriptures on this matter and inventing their own doctrines. That one incident indeed was
useful for doctrinal decisions for The Way however by no means did it explicitly address or
settle every doctrinal matter about gentiles being included in the faith, nor especially about how
Jews and gentiles were to relate to one another. Much more development of doctrines on
these delicate issues was needed.
Jewish Believers appeared by now to generally accept that the Gospel could be taken to
gentiles. And that perhaps, with proper precautions, Jews could associate with gentiles and not
be made ritually unclean. But that didn't settle the matter to many of them about the most
fundamental principle within Judaism; circumcision. So the congregation of the Antioch
synagogue decided that the best course of action was to send Paul, Barnabas and some
others to Jerusalem to consult with the leadership of The Way to decide how to proceed, no
doubt assuming that those representatives of the Circumcision faction who came to Antioch
had been sent with the blessings of the Jerusalem leadership.
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
Let me also interject that while to us it might seem as though we have here some extraordinary
event about to occur (the Jerusalem Council) that has little precedence in Judaism, it was not.
These sorts of disputes over doctrinal matters were an ongoing happening in Judaism and did
not represent anything out of the ordinary. In fact what we see happening here is quite typical
of the kinds of proceedings we find recorded in the Talmud when there is genuine doubt in
ascertaining the proper Halakhic ruling on some subject or another. Those in the lower
echelons of the religious leadership would take their issues to the higher leadership, and then
the higher leadership discussed it amongst themselves and set down rulings. The rulings
became laws and precedents that were meant to be followed on all similar cases in the future.
The distance from Syrian Antioch to Jerusalem was around 350 miles following the route that
Paul and Barnabas took; it would have taken from 3 to 4 weeks depending on traveling
conditions. Clearly their intent was to stop in and visit some Believing congregations along the
way, which they did, so they weren't in a terrible hurry. The general reaction of these
congregations in Samaria and Phoenicia was joy at hearing the great success that Paul and
Barnabas were having among the gentiles. So at every turn we hear of a welcoming attitude of
Jews towards gentiles who come to faith in Yeshua; of course what that looked like and how it
would evolve was likely not very clear to them. In verse 4, when they arrived in Jerusalem they
were greeted with enthusiasm and welcomed by both the lay Believers and the leadership of
The Way who were anxious to hear their stories of evangelizing the gentiles. However some
Pharisees among them spoke out that it was necessary that these new gentile Believers were
circumcised. Obviously this didn't catch Paul by surprise since this was the very reason he
had come to Jerusalem.
So that we are not confused by terms: these Pharisees spoken of here are Believers. Just as
in Christendom a person can identify with a particular denomination, and separately with a
certain political party, and even more identify what level they see themselves on the social
scale (middle class, upper class, and so on) that doesn't necessarily affect whether they are
still a Christian. Paul was a Pharisee and a Believer; he did not stop being a Pharisee because
he became a Believer. These two designations were not mutually exclusive. Many Pharisees
became Believers, but of course they brought with them a predetermined set of beliefs and
perspectives through which they viewed the Scriptures and their trust in Christ and what it
meant concerning any number of theological and ritual issues. And there were numerous
schools of thought within the Pharisee party so it is not like they all held the same viewpoints.
It is a sad mistake in Christian circles to shake our heads in disgust at the mention of the
Pharisees. We usually have a bit of an unfair mental picture of who they were, what they
believed, and how they were regarded by the people. Josephus in his book Antiquities insists
that the Pharisees were admired for living modestly, for the respect shown to their religious
elders, for their knowledge and wisdom, and as such they were very influential among the
townspeople. The Pharisees were known for teaching and practicing the highest ideals of
Judaism. In fact Dr. David Flusser says that there were 7 well defined and named types of
Pharisees; some were known for their hypocritical behavior and super critical attitudes; others
for their willingness to be reasonable and helpful for even the most menial of tasks and for the
benefit of the lowliest of people. And for the most part, they were the synagogue authorities.
The lesson for us is that it is never wise to define an entire group according to the behavior of a
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
few (whether that behavior is positive or negative).
So this Believing Pharisee says that the new gentile Believers must be circumcised and must
begin obeying the Law of Moses. But don't be fooled; this is not at all saying that Believers
should specifically follow the Law of Moses, but not have to follow the Traditions and customs.
Every group of Jews, just like every group of Christians, follows the Bible according to their
group's interpretations of the Scriptures. Every denomination of Christians and every sect of
Judaism is given its distinct identity due entirely to their varying interpretations of the Bible.
Within Judaism, HOW they follow the Law of Moses is reflected and defined in their Tradition.
Within Christianity, HOW we follow the Bible is reflected and defined in our doctrines.
Beginning in verse 6, the debate on this serious matter of Halakhah as it applies to Believers
and gentiles begins. After discussion went on for some time, Peter stood up to speak. What we
find in the next few verses is that essentially Peter, Paul and Barnabas form one side of the
argument, while these Believing Pharisees of the Circumcision faction form the other. James,
the supreme leader of The Way, is the moderator and tries to guide the council towards a
solution. Peter, having had the mind-changing experience with God where he became
persuaded that gentiles were not inherently unclean (as Jewish Tradition says they were), and
then went to the God-fearer Cornelius's house and was amazed as the Holy Spirit descended
upon a group of gentiles, relates the meaning of this experience in view of the subject at hand.
He says that in his view the entire matter of gentile inclusion was settled some time ago as a
result of this experience, and that as a leader of the group, and as the disciple who went to the
gentiles with the Good News, it is only logical that it would have been to Peter that God
revealed His will on the matter. And by God sending the Holy Spirit to the gentiles it indeed
revealed to Peter that the Lord sees no distinction between gentiles and Jews, and that these
gentiles' hearts were cleansed not by rules of Halakhah, but by their trust in Messiah.
Peter is not saying that God no longer sees the world in terms of Jews and gentiles; rather he
is saying then when it comes to the means of salvation, God makes no distinction. Later, in the
Book of Romans, Paul will express the same thought this way:
CJB Romans 3:1 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.
Yet (as concerns circumcision and thus conversion to being a Jew), Peter says in verse 10 that
even though God has eliminated any distinction for salvation between Jews and gentiles that it
would be wrong for this council to put a yoke on the neck of these new gentile disciples, which
neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. The part about the Good News of salvation
being equally for gentiles and for Jews is not difficult for us to understand. But the statement
about a yoke upon the necks of the gentiles that was too much for the Jewish people to bear is
going to take some explanation. And let me begin by telling you that because we are Western
Christians, we instantly view this statement in a negative light. But Jews would have
understood it quite differently.
Rabbi Joseph Shulam puts it this way: "The metaphor of the yoke is typically employed in
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
rabbinic literature to indicate Torah observance as a sign of acceptance of God's covenant".
In the Torah we'll find the term yoke (ol in Hebrew) used in a few settings such as the yoke of
Heaven, the yoke of the Commandments, and the yoke of the Torah. Due especially, I think, to
the sadistic style of slavery that we used in our past, the metaphor of the yoke conjures up
people as beasts of burden, and a yoke as a rough, uncomfortable, back breaking instrument
of brutality. But that is not how Peter means it, or how the Bible means it, nor is that what it
meant to the Jews. A yoke is a device that connects and directs. The yoke harnesses the
labors of the creature to the direction of his master. It is not meant to harm or to oppress; it is
meant for two wills to act as one. Thus a person who is yoked to Heaven is connected to
Heaven and directed by Heaven; they aren't oppressed by Heaven. A person who is yoked to
the Torah is connected to the Torah and directed by the Torah; they aren't oppressed by the
Torah, and so on and so forth.
Another reason (other than cultural) that modern Christians see the metaphor of the yoke as
negative and bad is because it is typically compared to Yeshua's statement that His yoke is
easy and His burden is light from Matthew 11. My point is that in Judaism the term yoke
doesn't mean anything oppressive any more than Yeshua's own yoke was seen as
oppressive. Listen to the context of Yeshua's statement:
Matthew 11:28-30 CJB
28 "Come to me, all of you who are struggling and burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
What are the struggles and burdens? The struggles and burdens of life; the heartaches, the
uncertainties of tomorrow, our afflictions, the guilt we bear for our past deeds, the knowledge of
our inability to measure up to God's standard.
Notice how Yeshua says to take His yoke upon yourself. Again, the yoke is meant in a positive
light, as a typical Jewish metaphor meaning to connect yourself to Him so that you take your
direction from Him. Connect to Yeshua and allow Him to steer you. Yeshua says to yoke
(connect) yourself to Him and learn from Him, and that in this connection you will find rest.
Everyone knew what it meant, it was a customary Jewish expression, and Jews thought of it as
something pleasant and desirable. Yeshua is merely employing a standard, recognizable,
every day part of Jewish thought and language to make an illustration. I do that every week
when I teach you; I employ sayings and word pictures that we all understand within our culture
to make a point. Yeshua is saying to come and connect yourself to Him; that He will release
you from your current struggles and not give you new ones. Many of the several Messiahs who
came and went during His day wanted a following and demanded loyalty and obedience. What
He was NOT doing (and it is present nowhere in the context of this passage) is comparing His
yoke to the Torah, or to the Law of Moses. That is, the source of the struggles and burdens He
wants to free us from isn't the Law of Moses. That thought is simply not present in Judaism
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
and it is not present in Matthew 11. But Christians have for centuries read that into the
passage.
Let me tell you something: Jews then and now do not think of Torah observance as a burden;
they think of it as a privilege and a joy. It is Christianity that has created this image of Torah
observance as some type of primitive, ugly, oppressive weight that brings people low. But
let's talk a bit more about the term burden. Burden of course can speak of a heavy load, but in
common speech it also means to hamper, or to impede. So when Peter speaks of avoiding
placing a yoke on the neck of the new disciples that is too much to bear, the idea is to not
hamper the new gentile Believers with too much too soon. And, by the way, as we get further
in Acts 15 and hear the council's conclusion and read the letter that was sent to the Antioch
congregation, it bears out this interpretation.
And then Peter once again speaks of the main thrust of the Gospel message in verse 11:
Acts 15:11 CJB 11 No, it is through the love and kindness of the Lord Yeshua that we
trust and are delivered- and it's the same with them."
So the thought is not that the Torah Law is just too hard to keep for Jews, so it will be
impossible to keep for gentiles. Rather in relation to the subject of Salvation for gentiles it is
that it is only through the love and kindness of the Lord Yeshua that we trust and are thus
delivered (saved). And, says, Peter, it is like that for us (Jews) and so it is like that for them
(the gentiles).
Let me also point out that it is little more than common sense to not expect a gentile who was
born and raised as a pagan; a person who until recently knew nothing of the God of Israel, or
of the Torah, or what sin is or what a Messiah is; to accept a Jewish Savior (a miracle in itself)
and then to just suddenly have to begin to apply to their lives everything that it took Jews all
their lives to learn. It would be too daunting and discouraging and unfair. It would be setting
them up for failure. In fact the Rabbis of Peter's era had essentially the same view he held
about not hampering gentile proselytes when they converted to Judaism. As found in tractate
Yevamoth of the Talmud we read this:
Our Rabbis taught: "If at the present time a man desires to become a proselyte, he is to
be addressed as follows: What reason have you for desiring to become a proselyte; do
you not know that Israel at the present time are persecuted and oppressed, despised,
harassed and overcome by afflictions? If he replies: I know and yet I am unworthy, then
he is accepted forthwith and is given instructions in some of the minor and some of the
major commandments. And as he is informed of the punishment of transgression of the
commandments, so is he informed of the reward granted for their fulfillment. He is not,
however, to be persuaded or dissuaded too much."
The point is that it was the position of Jewish Law, Halakhah, that a gentile proselyte to
Judaism was to be brought along slowly and not have too much expected of him other than for
a few minor and major commandments, which the community leadership felt was minimum and
fundamental. These he would have to understand and do immediately. The rest would come in
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 33 - Chapter 15
time, being taught and discipled by the community, and he would be expected to grow at the
best rate each individual could. His requirements to adhere to all the commandments of the
Torah was not abolished; rather it was postponed until he reached sufficient maturity to be able
to comprehend and do without being completely confused and overwhelmed.
We're soon to find out that Peter's advice in this regard would be heeded, no doubt because
it fit right in with the current mindset of mainstream Judaism of their day. The issue then for the
Jerusalem Council would be which minor and major commandments should the new gentile
Believers have to follow immediately. But also, how would these new converts then learn about
the remaining commandments?
We'll continue with Acts 15 next week and see how those questions were decided.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 34, Chapter 15 continued
As we continue in our study of Acts chapter 15 we'll find ourselves taking a few detours much
as we did when studying the Torah. This is necessary to address issues and subjects that are
subtly woven into the fabric of Acts 15 so that we extract from this chapter the intended
meaning. And no, we won't be finishing Acts 15 today.
I have explained a number of times that the primary issue that created the perceived need for
this Jerusalem Council to convene was circumcision (as far as we know, it is the first meeting
of its kind for the Messianic Believers). And this arose due to the desire of gentiles, and at the
instruction of Christ, that gentiles were to be included in the Yeshua movement. But an almost
as significant issue was that the places where gentile Believers met were the same
synagogues where the Jewish Believers met. And this created a problem of ritual purity in the
minds of many Jews. At the bottom of the ritual purity issue was circumcision. Circumcision
and ritual purity are (from the Jewish perspective at least) welded together into a single issue.
And that issue is what we see developing in the lead-up to Acts 15. So let's begin today by
having a deeper discussion on the matter of circumcision.
From the purely earthly, physical aspect the act of circumcision is a procedure that removes
the * from the male reproductive organ. For mature males, it is a painful and highly
uncomfortable procedure filled with not just a little anxiety. For many centuries it has been
practiced by various ethnic groups and races for all kinds of purposes (some religious, some
societal). Thus for many cultures who practice circumcision it is performed on infants; the Bible
commanding that it be performed on the 8th day of life. Be aware that in some other of the
world's societies it is considered as a rite of passage into adulthood, so around the age of
13-15 male adolescents will have a circumcision procedure. In the Western world some
Christian denominations have historically seen it as a religious observance. In other cases it
was seen as a beneficial medical procedure to keep males healthier. More recently the medical
benefits versus health risks have been challenged, and some nations (especially some
European nations) have banned the procedure altogether as they have lately deemed it to be
nothing more than a primitive form of mutilation. Of course the reality is that few males in
Europe were still having circumcisions anyway; therefore it is blatantly obvious that this new
law banning circumcision was aimed directly at the only group who practiced circumcision as a
required religious rite: the Jews. In other words it is just another thinly disguised European anti-
Semitic attack upon Jews.
The first mention of circumcision is in Genesis chapter 17 and it is directly attached to the
Abrahamic Covenant. Let's read this together. Turn to Genesis chapter 17.
READ GENESIS CHAPTER 17:7 – 14
Notice some important features about this covenant that requires circumcision. 1) Circumcision
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
is the sign, the outward affirmation, of being a participating member of the covenant. This is not
a tradition or custom; it is not a manmade device. It is not an option. It is commanded by God.
2) Those that bear this sign represent God's set-apart people as created by the Abrahamic
Covenant. Those who refuse the sign also refuse the covenant with its many benefits, and thus
they are excluded from God's people. 3) This sign applies not only to Hebrews, but to gentiles
who have in one way or another become attached to the Hebrews (in Gen. 17 the attachment
is by being a slave .....remember that no Hebrew can own a Hebrew slave, so this is specifically
referring to foreign gentiles as the slaves). But as time goes on we'll find other ways in the
Torah that gentiles could become attached to the Hebrews. 4) While circumcision is not a
manmade doctrine, it is performed by men on other men. It is physical, external and fleshly.
However, as with all the signs and devices and rituals that God would give to the Hebrews
(especially as He gave them to Moses on Mt. Sinai), these were to be outward symbols of
inward spiritual traits and/or they are earthly representations of how things operate in the
spiritual realm of Heaven. Moses was told that the Wilderness Tabernacle and its furnishings
were modeled after Yehoveh's heavenly throne room, for instance. I characterized this God-
principle very early on when we first began to study the Biblical Torah and named it the Reality
of Duality. That is, there is generally speaking a spiritual counterpart for most all physical
things. And that the spiritual came first, the physical was modeled after it, and so the spiritual
would necessarily be more perfect and complete than anything that could be fashioned or
accomplished in the physical sphere. Thus everything that is physical is by definition an inferior
copy when compared to its spiritual original and counterpart. And, it is the same with the act of
circumcision.
Circumcision ought to have been an outward sign of something that occurred deep within the
spirits of the Hebrews; that was God's intention. Later the same was to happen with the Torah
(the Word of God). While the Torah was presented to humankind (Hebrew humankind) on
stone tablets, yet it was written by the spiritual finger of God. And it was intended by God that
the Torah would be written on our inward parts.....our spirits. This is not some nice poetic
thought coming from your Pastor; this is what Holy Scripture tells us. Turn your Bibles to
Deuteronomy chapter 6.
READ DEUTERONOMY 6:1 – 9
So the Lord made it the responsibility of humans....again, Hebrew humans.....to write the Laws
of Moses onto their own hearts. History shows us that few heeded that commandment, and so
we see that very quickly the Hebrew people attempted to perform and obey all the laws and
commandments that God gave to them by mechanically following them as one would follow a
recipe from a cookbook. But soon they were skipping steps and substituting ingredients
because these commands were not written on their hearts, meaning the commandments had
not become integrated into their being as part of their human spiritual DNA. So even though
they may have been able to perform many of these commandments according to the letter of
the law of the Torah, without these commandments being written on their hearts they were
NOT able to perform all of them, nor perform them according to the spirit of the Law.
Thus the Lord needed a remedy for this failure of faithfulness by His set-apart people. The
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
remedy would eventually be pronounced in the Book of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:30-33 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.
33 No longer will any of them teach his fellow community member or his brother, 'Know
ADONAI'; for all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest; because I will
forgive their wickednesses and remember their sins no more."
So what did God say was the main feature of this new covenant with Israel and Judah? He
said that HE would write the Torah on the hearts of His people. The thing that He ordered the
Hebrews to do for themselves in Deuteronomy 6, but which they did not do (to write the Torah
upon their own hearts), He has now graciously taken it upon Himself to do it supernaturally.
This is a new covenant about the Torah; it is not about creating a new and different Torah that
replaces the former one.
So the issue the Lord is always pursuing in humanity is for us to follow Him and relate to Him
FIRST in our hearts (our minds) because it is our hearts that are necessarily the point of
connection between His spirit and our spirit. It is the spiritual connection that is most vital. It is
the spiritual that drives and controls the physical.
The ancient Sages and Rabbis recognized this fact about not having the Torah written on their
hearts, even if over the centuries, when the following of the Law of Moses gave way to
following Halakhah, and the earthly and physical came to dominate Judaism, the spiritual
became almost trivial and the physical rituals and behaviors became everything.
Back in the 18th century Rabbi Schneur Zalman, who lived in Russia, and was the first Rebbe
of the Chabad movement within Judaism, wrote a fascinating discourse on the subject of
circumcision because he thought that it was at the heart of reforming Judaism. The Chabad
movement formed exactly because many Jews felt that Judaism had abandoned it spiritual
component, and they wanted to recapture it. He had several marvelous things to say about
circumcision, some of which merely reminds us of the rather traditional viewpoint of Judaism,
but he also makes points that every Messianic Believer and Christian Bible student ought to
pay attention to.
The first thing Rabbi Zalman notes is that circumcision of the heart is related to repentance.
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
God first said that Hebrews were to circumcise themselves AND to write the Torah on their
own hearts; but when they failed, it became necessary for God to do it for them in the form of
circumcising the heart. Once the heart was circumcised, then the Torah Law could be carried
out to its fullest and in the highest spiritual sense. Why? Because repentance is the key and an
uncircumcised heart is not capable of repentance. Without repentance, obedience to God is
impossible. And what do we call the lack of obedience to God? Sin. So without an
uncircumcised heart, sin will continue to rule over us.
The next thing he says, I shall directly quote to you from one of his letters:
"Besides the physical deed, circumcision reflects a spiritual service. We find two
references to this concept in the Torah. One verse 6declares, "You shall circumcise the
* of your heart." The second declares, 7 "The L?rd, your G?d, will circumcise
your heart," i.e. there are two aspects of circumcision: one is performed by man in his
striving to elevate himself from below to above. This service necessitates the
circumcision of the heart, i.e., the service of repentance as it is written, 8 "You shall
return to the L?rd, your G?d." This return is expressed through the fulfillment of Torah
and its commandments, and will lead to the future redemption, as our Sages
declared, 9 "If the Jewish people turn to G?d in repentance they will be redeemed and if
not, they won't be redeemed."
So, the good Rebbe says that somehow, sometime, the Lord must do a miraculous work from
Heaven, and that work is to circumcise the hearts of His people. This will enable repentance.
And the repentance will enable redemption. Doesn't that sound a great deal like the Gospel
message: first repentance, then redemption?
Paul took up the theme of circumcision of the heart in contrast with circumcision of the
*, and how it relates to Jews versus gentiles, in Romans chapters 2 and 3. Let's read
some of that now. Keep in mind what we've learned in Acts up to this point, what the problem
is that has caused this council of Believing leadership to convene in Jerusalem (gentile
inclusion and the question of circumcision), and what Rebbe Zalman just said about the
absolute need for circumcision as the road to repentance, and how repentance is the gateway
to redemption.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 2:17 – 3:4
Here Paul is plainly talking to the Jews in his audience. Next he goes into a speech about what
circumcision is and is not. First notice that by definition the term "the circumcised" means
Jews. And the term "the uncircumcised" means gentiles. But in Paul's dissertation we have to
grant him that the gentiles he is speaking of are God-fearers; they are worshippers of the God
of Israel (they aren't pagans). Further, since Paul's concern isn't standard God-fearers but
rather specifically gentile Believers in Christ (God-fearers who also believe Yeshua is
Messiah), then the contrast and comparison he is drawing is between those who have had a
circumcision (and are by any definition Jews) versus those who have not been circumcised
(and so by any definition are NOT Jews).
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
And His argument is that a Jew who claims to know and follow the Torah, but disobeys it, is
less acceptable to God than a gentile who doesn't know anything about the Torah but
inherently obeys its principles. In fact, won't a gentile (he says) be counted by God as a TRUE
Jew because he obeys the Torah principles? But a Jew who disobeys the Torah will be
counted by God as though he is a gentile (meaning that from the spiritual aspect he is set
outside of the set-apart people). And, says Paul, that is because God counts as Jews those
who have circumcised hearts and not only circumcised foreskins.
Then moving on to Romans 3, just so his listeners don't confuse the ideal-spiritual with the
earthly-physical, Paul makes it clear that Jews and gentiles don't actually trade places or trade-
in their Jewish bodies for gentile bodies or vice versa. And gentiles don't gain Jewish national
citizenship because they have a circumcised heart; nothing physically changes because of a
circumcised heart. Jews stay Jews, and gentiles stay gentiles, and in fact Jews continue to
hold their preeminent place because God gave the Jews (the Hebrews, actually) His written
word (the Torah). So the conclusion is that the matter of circumcision comes down to a spiritual
issue of the heart when it comes to a relationship with God; when it comes to repentance; and
(in this context) when it comes to redemption (salvation). Please notice that this entire matter
of a circumcised heart was already understood in Judaism; it was not a new concept. It was
understood by many of the deep Jewish thinkers that a circumcised heart was needed for
repentance and then repentance was needed for redemption. Rather Paul was merely applying
this principle to the issue of where gentile God-fearers (or better, gentile Believers in Yeshua)
stood in relation to the Jewish people and to God.
But never miss this point: circumcision is all about the Abrahamic Covenant. And redemption,
especially concerning salvation in Christ, comes out of the Abrahamic Covenant. Further,
circumcision of the heart is the ONLY means by which a gentile can join in the spiritual benefits
of the Abrahamic Covenant. And who circumcises the heart? God. But it goes no further than
the spiritual benefits. A Jew who is circumcised of the * is the means by which he can
join in the physical, earthly benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant (he may be part of the
physical, earthly covenant people, the Hebrews, and he may also be a joint inheritor of the land
that God gave to Abraham); but it goes no further. Rather Jews must also have circumcised
hearts as the ONLY means to join the spiritual benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant. And what
are the SPIRITUAL benefits for both Jews and gentiles? Forgiveness of sins (even sins that
the Torah of Moses and the sacrificial system can't atone for) and eternal life with God (that up
to now had never been available). And all this is provided by that special seed of Abraham that
the Abrahamic Covenant promised would indeed bless all the families of all the peoples on
earth. And who is that seed of Abraham? Yeshua HaMashiach.
And that my friends is why circumcision is such an important topic, a complex topic, in both the
Old and New Testaments; it is why it is such a significant topic for the Jerusalem Council; and
it is why Paul goes into an elaborate explanation (more than once) about what circumcision
actually is from both the physical and the spiritual aspects, what it means, and how central to
repentance and redemption it is. And every bit of what we just learned is spelled out in God's
Word. But how would we ever know if we never seriously studied the Torah and the Old
Testament or trusted in its continuing relevance? We could accept this truth as a Church
doctrine, simply because the Church authorities tell us so and we have elected to submit to
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
their knowledge and authority. But isn't it better to actually see it develop for ourselves? To
find it clearly pronounced in God's Word, and not merely written as a short bumper sticker
doctrine on a Church program?
With that understanding in mind, let's continue on now with our study of Acts chapter 15.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 15:12 – 21
Let's remember that Barnabas and Paul, who have targeted the gentiles for evangelism, are
speaking before a group of leaders of The Way who are Jerusalem based. So Barnabas and
Paul have their main experience in spreading the Good News with the gentile community; but
they are the exception. Peter sides with them as well (to a point) because Peter has taken the
Gospel to both Jews and gentiles, and he had the amazing experience of his vision of the cloth
descending from Heaven with animals in it, whereby he learned that God considers the
gentiles to be clean, and not inherently defiled. So it is with respect and admiration that we
read that the council remained quiet as Paul and Barnabas had their say on what were
emotionally charged and hotly contentious theological issues of circumcision and gentile
inclusion. Paul related the many miraculous things that God did among the gentiles as proof
that the Lord approved and was leading the way to bring the gentiles on board.
Once Paul and Barnabas have concluded their report the supreme leader of The Way, James,
Yeshua's half-brother, stands and addresses the Council. He begins by referring to
what "Shimon" spoke about regarding the gentiles. Shimon is referring to Peter (called Simon
Peter at times). And essentially what James is doing is going over the evidence presented and
in doing so explains why he is going to rule on the matter the way that he will. This is the
classic way that rabbinic councils regularly met to discuss matters of Halakhah (Jewish Law),
and it is also how the chief Rabbi issues his final ruling. It would naturally go this way because
the Council saw itself as existing and operating fully within the context of a council of
authoritative elders making a ruling of Halakhah that would govern their specific sect of
Judaism.
So James says that one of the strongest pieces of evidence in this case was presented by
Peter. James' key words to help us understand his position on the matter begin verse
14: "Shimon (Peter) has told us in detail what God did......" So for James the issue resolves
itself because it is clear that God directly intervened with Peter and Cornelius and God stated
what His will is on the matter. This was not hearsay, then; this wasn't even an issue of
Scripture interpretation. God stated to Peter that gentiles were not unclean. And after some
time of contemplating what Yehoveh's decision meant in the larger picture, Peter came to the
conclusion that we read back in Acts 10:34, which he has relayed to the leadership of The
Way.
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.
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
So now James connects prophecy with what Paul, Barnabas and Peter have experienced and
reported on to the Council (their successful evangelizing of gentiles) as he quotes from Amos
9. And he says that what the Prophets have said about the inclusion of gentiles into God's
Kingdom was predicted and so it is coming to pass..... right now.
Let's detour again for just a moment. James' own brother was Messiah Yeshua; and how
terribly difficult that must have been for him to accept. It is very hard to have a familial
relationship or even a friendship relationship with someone in which over an extended period
of time you see one another as peers and equals, only to have one of you suddenly elevated in
authority and status or even accomplishment well above yourself and others. Countless novels
have been written about the broken relationships, envy, hatred, even revenge that sometimes
comes from such things. But at the same time, when James was finally able to come to
acceptance and submission to the truth of his own brother as not only the deliverer of Israel,
the mashiach, but also as divine (can you imagine such a thing in your own family?), it made
James sensitive and moldable, enabling him to view Biblical prophesy in real, tangible terms
(not just theory) and apply it to current events. That is something that most Jews simply could
not bring themselves to do (not even the intellectual elite), and it shows up especially in the
vast bulk of the Jewish people refusing to connect the prophecies about a coming Messiah to
Yeshua; so they missed it entirely and the Jewish people suffer from it to this day.
But because of Messiah's advent and all that came with it, James as well as the leadership of
The Way were on the look-out for just this very thing; prophecy that was being fulfilled right
before their eyes. They were expecting more prophecy to come about and they wanted to
recognize it. I attempt to occasionally intertwine prophecy into our lessons in order that we
understand that we are living in an age of prophetic fulfillment the likes of which has not been
seen on this planet since the close of the New Testament. Essentially, all prophetic fulfillments
ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and from then forward went into hibernation
until it exploded back into action upon the re-birth of the nation of Israel in 1948. In fact, within
Christianity, those almost 1900 dormant years caused trust in Biblical prophecy to turn into
skepticism; and that skepticism overflowed into the commentaries and doctrines that underpin
the mainstream Christian denominations as we know them in our time. So while End Times
prophecies about the Tribulation and Armageddon are all the rage, they tend to be mostly
Western gentile Christian focused and wherever Israel and the Jewish people are spoken of in
these prophecies, much of Christianity scratches out the word Israel and inserts the word
"Church". Thus the happenings today with Israel, the migration of members of the 10 Lost
Tribes back to Israel, the persecution of the nations upon Israel, the battle for Jerusalem, the
rise of Islam and more are regularly overlooked as not connecting with the prophecies that
obviously speak of these very events...at least to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
But the Jerusalem Council was indeed looking at everything that was happening and
comparing it, eyes wide open, to Scriptural prophecies to see if it appropriately fit. And when it
did, they accepted it even if they didn't fully understand it, and even if it didn't necessarily sit
well with them. The inclusion of gentiles was not something that most Jews, or even most of
the disciples, particularly welcomed. Rather the Jews were looking for vindication of their
status as God's set-apart people. They were not looking for God's grace to be poured out
upon the very people that were oppressing them.
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 34 - Chapter 15 cont.
This prophecy of Amos that James quotes speaks of rebuilding the fallen tent of David. It was
the coming of Yeshua, a royal descendant of David, who rebuilt David's legacy and his fallen
tent. But as a result, says Amos' prophecy, the rest of mankind (non-Hebrews) will seek the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the gentiles will accept God's offer. So James sees
what is happening with Peter, Paul and Barnabas as the fulfillment of Amos 9.
Therefore for James the question now becomes: what do we do about it? How does the
Council mold the Halakhah of The Way in such a manner as to remove any barriers or
impediments to God's prophetic will playing out with the gentiles? That is what we'll cover
next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 35, Chapter 15 continued 2
As we continue our examination of Acts chapter 15, I'll remind you that we are spending an
inordinate amount of time here because this chapter is so crucial to a correct understanding of
our faith. But this chapter is also divisive because there are perhaps more differing Church
doctrines derived from this chapter than most any other chapter in the New Testament. And
since there are a number of opposing Church doctrines about the topics that are addressed
here, then obviously they can't all be correct. But on the other hand could it be that none of
those differing doctrines are right? That is, that not a single mainstream institutional Church
doctrine has it right concerning the meaning of the outcome of Acts 15? You can be the judge
of that once we've concluded this study of chapter 15.
We've worked diligently to establish the proper context for dissecting this chapter, which is all
about the famous Jerusalem Council meeting to decide on what basis gentiles could be
included in this Hebrew faith of Believers in Yeshua of Nazareth. To put a finer point on it: what
does this chapter tell gentiles, especially, our obligation is to the Law of Moses? To ascertain
this we've gone on a few detours to flesh out various of the main characters in this chapter,
the true meaning and ultimate effect of circumcision, what the social and political
circumstances of the day were, who Paul is and why he thinks as he does, and now I want to
spend a moment explaining the organization and methodology of the Jerusalem Council itself.
I've said on a few occasions that it is a fundamental error to read this Jewish document,
constructed within the confines of a Jewish society, and to this point played out mostly by
Jewish people, as though Jewish cultural and historical contexts play no role when interpreting
it. When we read and interpret these words through a 21st century Western gentile mindset, we
distort the situation and the meaning of what actually occurred. Thus notice in Acts 15 how
religious doctrinal decisions were made: it was done by means of a leadership council. The
leadership council consisted of some unspecified number of men (but it was probably 12). And
when for whatever reason there was a vacancy on the council, the remaining members
nominated a replacement and then voted on a majority-rules basis (we saw this exact thing
happen in the opening chapter of Acts). What we see happening in Acts 15 is that the
leadership council of The Way is meeting in private session, and after those leaders have had
their chance to contribute to the discussion, then a decision is rendered based on majority-
rules (meaning the majority of the council). Of course it is typical that the supreme leader's
opinion (in this case, James) carries much weight as to what the others will ultimately decide.
Why did the leaders of The Way organize themselves in such a manner? Because it is
precisely how the Sanhedrin operated and also how the various leadership councils of each of
the sects of Judaism operated. We must go forward understanding that what is happening with
this Jerusalem Council is in no way a repudiation of Judaism, or how Judaism was governed,
or was it an attempt to establish an organizational structure that was entirely new and unique.
And it is critical to understand that the issues that this Jerusalem Council of Believers was
1 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
dealing with in Acts 15 were quite narrow in scope, specific and targeted, and the manner in
which they dealt with them was customary for Jewish culture of the 1st century A.D.
The mindset of the Jerusalem Council members was much like it is today in the mainstream
Church in America. All but the oldest established Church systems in America operate quite
democratically. Even though there is inevitably a leadership council, most serious matters are
brought before the membership at large and voted upon with a majority decision settling the
matter. Some Churches even choose their pastor in this way. A couple of years ago a member
of this congregation came to me and told me that he was quite upset because the membership
didn't get to "vote". He reminded me that we live in America, and America is a democracy; in
America average citizens vote. And unless the way this body is governed is changed to
something more democratic, he was leaving. I explained that Seed of Abraham is ruled by an
elder board; and that we have 5 members who decide policy and financial matters, and who
vote with a majority-rules outcome. And that if he will look at the New Testament he will see
that this is precisely the way it was done in Yeshua's day with the early Church. He did not
see that as acceptable within the mold of American-style democracy and society and followed
through with his threat. It seemed unthinkable to him (un-American, if you would) to do it any
other way. He had fought for America in the Korean War and felt that democracy belonged as
the governing method of the Church as well as for American government. I tell you this not as
a criticism of this person, but rather to say that members of groups often expect to organize
and come to decisions based on the norms and customs of whatever society we are part of; it
is simply an unconscious assumption, a knee-* reaction. To do what is always done in our
particular society seems "right", and to do otherwise can feel like it is "wrong".
Point being that everything we see happening at this Jerusalem Council was normal and
customary within Judaism in the Holy Land for that day so there was no controversy over their
governing body and its protocols. There is no attempt by the leadership to declare the standard
way of Jewish religious institutions doing business and coming to decisions as wrong and thus
a new way was being created. There is no thought by the leadership of The Way to separate
themselves from mainstream Judaism; quite the contrary. The only part of mainstream 2nd
Temple Judaism that they wished to challenge was the part that denied Yeshua and so was
still waiting for the Messiah to come. The remaining laws and observances such as continuing
to sacrifice at the Temple, tithing, kosher eating, participating in the festivals, and honoring
Shabbat went on uninterrupted and unchanged among the Believers. In fact in Acts 21 a
demonstration of Paul's continuing allegiance to normative Judaism was arranged by James
so that those Jewish skeptics who accused Paul of abandoning the principles of Judaism and
denouncing the Law of Moses could be publically refuted. Paul gladly accepted the challenge
and went to the Temple to conduct a standard vow offering sacrifice done in accordance with
the strictest rules of Halakhah of his day.
So with that in mind, let's re-read part of Acts chapter 15.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 15:19 – 29
After listening to the various viewpoints on the issue of admitting gentiles to the congregation
of Believers, James, the supreme leader, sums up how he believes the council ought to rule.
2 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
Let's be clear on the core issue that the council was debating:
Acts 15:5-6 CJB
5 But some of those who had come to trust were from the party of the P'rushim; and
they stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe
the Torah of Moshe."
6 The emissaries and the elders met to look into this matter.
What is the stated matter that Luke says is why the council in Jerusalem was convened? It was
the thorny issue of circumcision for gentile Believers. But what have we learned is the result
when a gentile is circumcised? He becomes an official Jew; he ceases being a gentile. And
what is it that fundamentally changes when he becomes an official Jew? Since he is no longer
a gentile, then he is no longer considered inherently ritually unclean.... provided he follows all
the laws of Jewish Halakhah (that all Jews are required to follow) regarding ritual purity. So
James's recommendation, and what was ultimately decided, actually concerns the bottom line
issue of ritual purity. And for mainstream Judaism circumcision was the solution for the
inherent ritual defilement that was the "natural" lot of gentiles. Why is ritual purity so important
to Judaism? Because ritual defilement is shameful, it can be most inconvenient to go through
the process of returning oneself to a state of ritual purity, and one person's defilement can be
transmitted to others by physical contact. So if uncircumcised gentile Believers are still
inherently unclean, then they certainly can't be allowed near to Jewish Believers (the
circumcised) let alone can they be allowed into a synagogue.
To backtrack just a bit so we don't get lost in a forest of facts: after Peter's vision/experience
in Acts 10 of the sheet full of animals being let down from Heaven, and then watching as the
gentile Roman army officer Cornelius and all his household had the Holy Spirit fall upon them,
Peter came to realize the folly of the Jewish manmade tradition that gentiles were inherently
unclean.
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.
Please notice that God didn't change anything; rather God demanded that Judaism (beginning
with the Believers) changed to reflect His will. Some months and years later, Peter brought that
same message to the Jerusalem Council. So when it became his turn to speak on the matter of
circumcision for gentile Believers he said to his fellow leaders:
Acts 15:6-9 CJB
6 The emissaries and the elders met to look into this matter.
3 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
7 After lengthy debate, Kefa got up and said to them, "Brothers, you yourselves know
that a good while back, God chose me from among you to be the one by whose mouth
the Goyim should hear the message of the Good News and come to trust.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore them witness by giving the Ruach HaKodesh to
them, just as he did to us;
9 that is, he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their heart by trust.
Then as the debate in Jerusalem draws to a close, James stands up and concludes:
Acts 15:19-20 CJB
19 "Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim
who are turning to God.
20 Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by
idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.
Notice how it says, the "Goyim who are turning to God". Is this referring to God-fearers;
Gentiles who had already accepted Judaism and the Jewish God but are now becoming
Believers in Yeshua as well? No. This is referring instead to pagan gentiles; those who had
been worshipping one of the many false gods but due to the message of the Apostles they are
now in the process of turning to the God of Israel. In a sense, they have begun the process
but they are not all the way there yet. They understand very little; however in some miraculous
way they do understand just enough so that they know they need salvation and that the Jewish
Messiah Yeshua is the answer. In today's vernacular we would call them Seekers. Using the
wonderful New Testament metaphor of being born again, they have only just exited the birth
canal.
So James agrees with Peter (and of course with Paul and Barnabas) that it would be a counter-
productive impediment to require very much from gentiles who only recently accepted Christ
after lifetimes of worshipping false gods. For one reason, they know nothing of the Holy
Scriptures. They have no familiarity with the Prophets or the Torah. They have not been
attending a synagogue. This entire thing was new to them. They didn't know the concepts, the
words, the history, nothing. Yet the witness of the Holy Spirit confirms that their trust and belief
in Yeshua is real and sincere. But even more, these gentiles lived in foreign lands, a long way
from Jerusalem. So what should The Way require of them? The important thing was to get
them trained in the ways of Yehoveh. But mainstream Jewish Halakhah said that gentiles (the
uncircumcised) can't get too near to Jews, and of course shouldn't enter a synagogue lest
they pollute everyone and everything with their inherent gentile uncleanness. Why is entering a
synagogue going to be so important for these new gentile Believers? Because it is in
synagogues where they will learn God's Word. Thus deduces James:
Acts 15:21 CJB
4 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
21 For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with
his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat."
In other words, the Council will immediately require of them only that they do the 4 listed things
as a sort of basic allowable minimum. However, because there are synagogues everywhere in
foreign lands where Moses has his words (the Torah) read and taught every Shabbat, then
there are plenty of resources available for these gentiles to learn about Holy Scripture in order
to obey God and live the redeemed life; it doesn't have to occur practically overnight, all at
once, because if it was even demanded of the gentiles it is physically impossible.
But why those particular 4 things that James chose? Because with the new understanding that
Peter brought to the Council that contrary to Jewish Tradition God says that gentiles are NOT
inherently unclean, that still doesn't mean that gentiles are immune from becoming unclean
through wrong behavior (just like Jews can become unclean by wrong behavior). That is, these
new Believing gentiles must meet some required minimum standard of ritual purity so that they
can be considered ritually clean by Jewish standards, otherwise they cannot enter into the
synagogues where they can be assimilated into the Believing community and (most
importantly) they can be taught the Torah.
The 4 things that gentiles must not do (notice that these are all negative commandments, that
is these are things they must not do as opposed to things that they must do) are 1) abstain
from things polluted by idols; 2) refrain from fornication; 3) do not eat animals that have been
strangled to death; and 4) refrain from blood. So did James just kind of make these rules up?
Did he figure it out on his own that foreign gentiles must not do these 4 things if they wanted to
be associated with Israel? No! He took it directly from the Torah.
In Leviticus we read this:
Leviticus 17:8-14 CJB
8 "Also tell them, 'When someone from the community of Isra'el or one of the foreigners
living with you offers a burnt offering or sacrifice
9 without bringing it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to ADONAI, that
person is to be cut off from his people.
10 When someone from the community of Isra'el or one of the foreigners living with you
eats any kind of blood, I will set myself against that person who eats blood and cut him
off from his people.
11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make
atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life.'
12 This is why I told the people of Isra'el, 'None of you is to eat blood, nor is any
foreigner living with you to eat blood.'
5 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
13 "When someone from the community of Isra'el or one of the foreigners living with you
hunts and catches game, whether animal or bird that may be eaten, he is to pour out its
blood and cover it with earth.
14 For the life of every creature- its blood is its life. Therefore I said to the people of
Isra'el, 'You are not to eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is
its blood. Whoever eats it will be cut off.'
First this says that only meat offered before the altar of God can be eaten. The logical
conclusion being that meat offered to idols cannot be eaten, because meat offered to idols
cannot also be offered to God.
Second, the slaughter of animals according to Torah Law must be quick, humane, and done in
such a way as to completely drain the creature of blood. The reason that pagans strangled
animals to death to eat them was not to be exceptionally cruel; rather it was precisely so that
the blood would remain in the animal. Then the animal would be "aged" by hanging (that is the
animal flesh would be allowed to decay a little with the blood still in the animal) and only after a
few days was the animal taken down, skinned and butchered. This produced a particularly
desirable flavor that pleased the palette of many cultures; however it violated the Law of
Moses.
But for our purposes, what is the result of disobeying these 4 particular Laws of Moses? The
offender becomes rendered ritually unclean. And notice that this applies not only to the
community of Israel but also to "the foreigners living with you". Gentiles.
As to the prohibition against fornication; immediately Leviticus chapter 18 deals with sexual
immorality (and remember, when the Scriptures were originally written, there were no such
things as chapters and verses; they have been artificially added many centuries later by
scholars to make study and reference easier). So there is no break between chapters 17 and
18. Leviticus 18 begins:
Leviticus 18:1-7 CJB
1 ADONAI said to Moshe, 2 "Speak to the people of Isra'el; tell them, 'I am ADONAI your
God.
3 You are not to engage in the activities found in the land of Egypt, where you used to
live; and you are not to engage in the activities found in the land of Kena'an, where I am
bringing you; nor are you to live by their laws.
4 You are to obey my rulings and laws and live accordingly; I am ADONAI your God.
5 You are to observe my laws and rulings; if a person does them, he will have life
through them; I am ADONAI.
6 "'None of you is to approach anyone who is a close relative in order to have sexual
6 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
relations; I am ADONAI.
7 You are not to have sexual relations with your father, and you are not to have sexual
relations with your mother. She is your mother- do not have sexual relations with her.
And the next several verses list more prohibited sexual activities. The term fornication in the
New Testament was used in two ways: one that was meant in its technical sense, which is to
have unlawful sexual intimacy between unmarried people. But the second way is that it
became a general catch-all term that referred to all prohibited immoral sexual activity between
humans, married or unmarried. That is the sense it is meant here; it was a general instruction
prohibiting immoral sexual activity of any kind (and of course what was deemed immoral was
to be defined by the Torah, not by the social norms of these former pagans' cultures).
The point is this: far from James abolishing the Law for gentile Believers (and sort of
manufacturing his own rules, as he saw fit, for gentile Believers), he pronounced that the Law
as found in Leviticus applies also to these gentile Believers...circumcised or not. And what are
the common traits regarding these 4 rules? One, they were for Israel and for the foreign
gentiles that attached themselves to Israel to obey. And two, violating any of these 4 named
laws resulted in ritual defilement.
But now let's address this matter from a merely common sense perspective. Sadly, it has
been the institutional Church's position for many centuries that 1) James abolished the Law for
gentiles and established a new set of rules for Christians, and 2) that these 4 things represent
the sum total that gentile Believers are obligated to obey. Ask yourself a simple question: if that
is the case, then I suppose that murder and manslaughter are now OK for gentile Believers,
right? Stealing and fraud is OK because James says nothing about it. Coveting must be OK as
is drunkenness, assault and battery, homosexuality, abortion, polygamous marriage (or no
marriage at all), and on and on because none of these are mentioned here. Our common
sense says that cannot possibly be the case. But the standard response to this rhetorical
question is always: 'well, if Christ instructed us about something, then we have to add that to
James's list, but if He doesn't say it then that's all we are obligated to do'. Let's think that
through for a minute. If that is so, then how about this famous instruction from the lips of Our
Savior?
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.
7 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
Did Yeshua not just instruct all of His followers to obey the Law? Just as it was formulated long
before He came, and with no changes at all? If we are only to go by the 4 things that James
instructed, and then we add whatever Christ instructed, we find ourselves right back at square
one because Christ's instruction is that He did NOT abolish any minor or major element of the
Law, and that if anyone (not any JEW, but any ONE), teaches that it's OK to disobey the Law,
or she or he purposely does NOT obey the Law because they have decided it doesn't apply to
them, then they shall be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Considered the least
by whom? By Jesus Christ. I readily admit that Yeshua does NOT say that disobeying the Law
excludes you from the Kingdom of Heaven. So obeying the Law is not a requirement to
become saved, nor within certain boundaries is it required to stay saved. We are saved by
grace and grace alone. Disobeying the Law is called sin (and this is re-emphasized as such in
1John 3:4) and Messiah atoned for our sins. However, if you'd like to receive any rewards in
Heaven at all; if you want to hear our Lord and Savior greet you with the welcome words: "well
done faithful servant, you've run a good race", then He says you must use the intended spirit
of the Law of Moses as your standard of living and behavior. A Law He says during His
Sermon on the Mount that He did not come to abolish or to change in the slightest way; a Law
that He fully expects us to follow if we intend to enter Heaven with anything but the least status
possible to be accepted there in the first place.
Everything that Yeshua said, His brother James is following and not undoing. First, James
says that circumcision (which meant becoming a Jew) is not needed for these gentile seekers
to be saved. It was trust that saved the Jews, and so it is the same trust that saves the
gentiles. Second, even though these gentiles are now saved, and they remain as gentiles
(uncircumcised), ritual purity still matters and it is still required of them starting with adhering to
the 4 listed prohibitions (all of them taken directly from the Law of Moses). But later, since the
entire word of Moses (the Torah) is taught in synagogues throughout the known world, these
ritually clean foreign gentile Believers who begin their walk with Yeshua by following these 4
basic rules, can also now attend synagogues where they can be taught the rest of the Law of
Moses and over time adhere to it more and more as they mature.
To better enable you to make a decision for yourself what all this means for modern Christians
and Messianics, I will add this comment and then give you my opinion. These 4 rules are not
only taken directly from Leviticus in the Law of Moses (as I showed you), they also represent 4
of the basic rules of natural law. And in Judeo-Christianity a traditional name for natural law is
the Noachide Laws. Let me say clearly that you will not find the subject heading of "Noachide
Laws" in the Bible, nor a specific organized listing of natural laws and/or Noachide Laws in the
Bible. Rather they have been deduced by the great Jewish sages of old and by the early
Church Fathers.
The impact of the natural law or the Noachide Law is that it was created before there was a
division of humanity into Hebrews and gentiles. So these laws are universal. In the Talmud,
Tractate Sanhedrin 56a, we get this statement on the subject:
"Our rabbis taught: 'The sons of Noah were given seven commandments: practicing
justice and abstaining from blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery and
eating flesh torn from a live animal.' Rabbi Chananyah ben Gamaliel said: 'Also not to
8 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
drink blood taken from a live animal'."
And of course as we read in Leviticus 17 and 18, these specific laws that James pronounced in
Acts 15 were specifically said to be not only for Hebrews, but also for the foreign gentiles that
have attached themselves to Israel. Have Christian gentiles attached themselves (ourselves)
to Israel? Paul says we did, whether we realize it or not.
Romans 11:13-24 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.
19 So you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 True, but so what? They were broken off because of their lack of trust. However, you
keep your place only because of your trust. So don't be arrogant; on the contrary, be
terrified!
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he certainly won't spare you!
22 So take a good look at God's kindness and his severity: on the one hand, severity
toward those who fell off; but, on the other hand, God's kindness toward you- provided
you maintain yourself in that kindness! Otherwise, you too will be cut off!
23 Moreover, the others, if they do not persist in their lack of trust, will be grafted in;
because God is able to graft them back in.
24 For if you were cut out of what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to
nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be
grafted back into their own olive tree!
9 / 10
Acts Lesson 35 - Chapter 15 cont. 2
My opinion then is this: what the Jerusalem Council decided is that circumcision of gentiles in
order to attain ritual purity is not needed, and never was. Circumcision was not an issue of
ritual; rather it was an issue of conversion from being a gentile to being a Jew. So the final
decision was that one did not have to be a Jew to be saved by Yeshua, nor does one have to
be a Jew to be ritually clean.
However: the Biblical ritual purity laws do matter for Christian gentiles from the standpoint of
following God's Law and thus rightly affecting our behavior.
Did James go against his brother Yeshua's teaching that He did not come to abolish the Law?
No. James merely chose 4 basic commandments from the Law of Moses that also reflected
basic principles of natural law, which especially the newest and least indoctrinated of gentile
Believers are to follow even if they don't understand why. However, as the new Believers
mature over time, their maturity is to come primarily from learning God's Word, beginning with
the Torah. And by definition, this is a lifelong learning process.
From the first days of Seed of Abraham Torah Class, my Board can tell you that our goal has
not been to address Seekers (although, praise the Lord, we have indeed seen many come to
Messiah here). Almost all modern Churches have decided to mold their messages and
services around Seekers and I think they generally do a good job of it. Rather we are about
maturing those who already believe in the God of Israel and love His Son Jesus Christ. But,
that maturing in our faith necessarily involves learning God's Torah along with all of His
Word....Old and New Testaments. And that also necessarily means obeying His laws and
commandments as best we can, in whatever stage our journey with Him might be; and within
our best understanding of how to live out the spirit of those laws in a modern Western culture
and in the circumstances of our time in history.
We'll continue with Acts 15 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
10 / 10
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 36, Chapter 15 continued 3
Last time we looked closely at Acts chapter 15 verse 20, where the supreme leader of The
Way, Yeshua's brother James, says this referring to the new gentile Believers living in
Antioch:
Acts 15:20 CJB 20 Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from
things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood.
This statement was part of a momentous decision by the Jerusalem Council to not require
circumcision of gentiles who want to worship Yeshua as Savior and God. Essentially this
meant that they could remain as gentiles and not covert to Jews. We also learned that far from
some newly concocted set of rules for Christians, this list of 4 prohibitions was taken directly
from the Law of Moses, which we traced to Leviticus chapters 17 and 18. But even more, the
concept of gentile proselytes at first not being expected to follow the entire Jewish
Halakhah, nor even the part of Halakhah that was the Law of Moses, was already well
understood within Judaism as evidenced by recorded case law in the Talmud. Rather, the
concept was that the new gentile Believers would be given a few basic commandments to
obey (the most fundamental ones that were directly related to ritual purity), and over time as
they grew and matured in the faith they would be taught the Torah in synagogues and more
would be required of them; but each at his or her own pace. So the point of requiring
immediate implementation of those 4 rules was this: without keeping ritually clean, the gentile
Believers couldn't enter into a synagogue or have table fellowship with Jews.
Is this not a most wise approach even if we don't see such a method necessarily given to us in
the Scriptures as a direct commandment? Modern day Christians and Messianics need to take
note of this as we evangelize and mentor new Believers. People who have only recently come
to know the Lord are like toddlers who have only recently learned to walk and talk. It would be
foolish, if not unkind, to next expect them to quickly graduate to marathons and give eloquent
speeches or elaborate explanations of their faith. Or better, to expect their behavior to change
overnight to something that meets our standard of godliness. Rather they must be embraced,
given some basic instructions to follow, and then fed a steady diet of God's Word. As they
grow in God's Word they can be gradually encouraged to follow more of God's
commandments fully and with more consistency. This does not mean that their sin is excused
or papered-over; but it may mean that sins due mostly to an ignorance of God's ways are
explained in a merciful and loving manner rather than the new Believer being condemned for
his or her trespasses. It is really no different than how we raise children; we don't expect
kindergarteners to behave like high school students. Maturing is a long process that takes
nurturing, time and patience.
Let's re-read Acts 15 starting in verse 22.
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 15:22 – end
Once the leadership council had made their decision and decided on a course of action, the
next step was to communicate it the Antioch congregation; this was customarily accomplished
by sending an official written letter. So the leadership announced their decision to the local
Messianic Jews in Jerusalem, and together they recommended some men to go to Antioch
and deliver the letter. They sent a fellow named Y'hudah (Judah) also called Bar-Sabba and
also another man named Sila; Judah was this person's Hebrew name, while Bar-Sabba was
his Aramaic name. These men were not part of The Way's leadership council but they
probably were more or less the first rung of leadership on the leadership ladder. Why did they
elect to send men from Jerusalem to go with Paul and Barnabas? Because they wanted to
authenticate that this edict came directly from the leadership council. After all; what
precipitated this council meeting in the first place was that a self-appointed group of Believers
who firmly believed that gentiles had to be circumcised and thus converted to Jews, went out
from Jerusalem to Antioch implying that what they demanded was a doctrine subscribed to by
the Jerusalem leadership of The Way. Since this letter was a reversal of that doctrine, then the
Jerusalem Council must have felt that the strongest possible proof of authenticity was needed.
Let's talk for a minute about the first of the 4 prohibitions for the gentile Believers. The words
are: to abstain from "things" polluted by idols (or in the letter it says "sacrificed to" idols). This
is usually taken to pertain to food; but food isn't the only thing that was offered to idols.
Everything from family pets, to clothing, to wine, to jewelry and charms were offered to pagan
idols. So this rule is rather all encompassing. That said, food was perhaps at the top of the list
as concerned ritual purity for Jews so at the least this instruction included food and likely was
zeroing in on food items that had been offered to idols. Nonetheless, underlying this rule is the
issue of idolatry and idol worship was the mainstay of all pagan religions.
As we discussed last time, the rule against fornication is used in the sense to mean any kind of
immoral sexual activity (immoral according to the Torah of course). Let that sink in for a
moment when we think about James establishing 4 rules, but according to Christian doctrine
he was also abrogating the remainder of the commandments of the Torah for gentile Believers.
There are many laws in the Torah that when used together define immoral or illicit sexual
activity; there is not just one. God is careful in His Word to define these terms but you have to
search the Torah from Genesis through Deuteronomy to pull out and list all of God's rules
about human sexual activity. So by whose standard of sexual morality did James intend that
gentile Christians were to go by when determining what is lawful and what it not for them? How
does a person define what fornication is and what it is not? According to what set of law
codes? Roman law codes? Of course not; Believers are to go by God's law code and that is
found in the Torah. So while this rule about fornication might seem like only 1 simple
commandment, in fact it necessarily incorporates several laws of Moses.
The rule against strangling a food animal is similar; it may sound like only 1 simple rule, but
there are several laws of Moses that deal with how to kill food animals for the sake of ritual
purity. There are also the aspects of killing food animals that deals with being humane to
God's creatures. So once again, while we see one general rule about killing a food animal in
fact the standard for this one rule is contained by aggregating a number of the laws of Moses,
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
which is of course what these new Believers would have been expected to abide by.
So what we see is that the 1st rule and the 3rd rule are mostly aimed at food. It breaks God's
food laws to eat an animal that was offered to an idol (that is, to a false god). It also breaks
God's food laws to strangle a food animal to death before eating it. And then finally there is the
4th rule, and it too at least partially applies to food. That 4th rule says to abstain from blood. So
3 of the 4 rules applies to what makes food kosher; and what makes food kosher is all about its
ritual purity, at least beyond what God says is permitted versus prohibited items to eat in the
first place. I'll say it again: 3 of the 4 rules set down in Acts 15 for gentile Christians to obey
are related to food and diet. And all these rules are derived directly from the Torah. Interesting;
I thought the Christian doctrine was that all kosher food laws were done away with, at least for
gentile Christians? But here are 3 standard kosher food laws that gentile Christians are told
that they must obey, says the Jerusalem Council.
But that is not all that the issue of blood deals with. "Blood" is a sort-of Jewish shorthand that
deals with several issues. Whether animal or human, blood is sacred. The spilling of human
blood has to be dealt with in a certain way or it is against God's Torah, just as the spilling and
use of animal blood has to be dealt with in a certain way or it is against God's Torah. Different
commentators will argue that the prohibition against blood in Acts 15 is speaking only of
murder, or it is speaking only about blood as relates to food; still other commentators say it is
covering both. No doubt this rule in Acts 15 is ambiguous in its scope. What we can know for
sure, however, is that the sentence is constructed in a way such that the prohibition against
blood is directly connected to animals that are strangled (such that the blood from the animal is
not drained from it); however that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't also include
homicide and other matters of human blood. So my opinion is that it is certain that it refers to
how food animals must be slaughtered and then the treatment thereafter of the animal blood
(such as not using the blood as food); but it is likely that it also intends to extend to the laws
concerning the spilling of human blood. And this rule against blood is encompassed by
numerous Torah laws that call out what murder versus manslaughter is; what unjustified
versus justified killing of a human is; even down to the matter of menstrual blood and blood
that is spilled during child birth. So the issue of blood is quite broad and is defined by several
separate laws and commandments in the Torah, some involving food, some involving humane
treatment of animals, and others still that deal with homicide.
The bottom line is that these 4 laws that James pronounced are in fact but the naming of
categories that include dozens of laws in the Torah. Not only are these categories derived from
the Torah, but without the Torah definitions and instructions we have no standard for even
knowing what these 4 laws mean or how to apply them. So it is quite ingenuous for
commentators to claim that by James establishing these 4 rules that he has effectively
replaced and abolished the Law of Moses for gentiles.
The heading of the letter to the gentile Believers begins in verse 23 and it opens by saying that
the leadership of The Way (sometimes they are called the emissaries, which is a designation
for the original 12 disciples), and some other leaders called the elders, are the authorized
writers of the letter and that they consider themselves as "brothers" to the gentile Believers.
This is meant in a warm and friendly way to indicate a close relationship; not that suddenly
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
these gentile Believers share a gene pool with the Jewish leadership as a result of all involved
having received the Holy Spirit.
And they begin their letter by distancing themselves from their fellow Jewish Believers who
went to Antioch without proper authority and telling the gentiles that they had to be
circumcised. The important point is that it is specifically stated here that indeed the
Circumcision faction went out from this group of Believers and members of The Way; and that
we learn that some of them were Pharisees doesn't alter that fact (Paul was also a Pharisee).
Thus in Galatians 2, when Paul says in verse 4 that these men of the Circumcision faction are
"pretenders", we need to understand that Paul is being typically Paul; he uses a harsh tone
with his choice of terms. But we also need to realize that while he seems to question these
men's faith because of their belief in circumcision for gentiles, James the leader of The Way
obviously doesn't question their faith; he just doesn't agree with their doctrine about
circumcising gentiles. And the letter also confirms that the men who are delivering the letter are
fully authorized to do so.
Then verse 28 essentially tells the gentiles what we already know; that the first 4 things that
are immediately required of them are abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, blood,
strangling animals and sexual immorality. When we carefully read this passage we find that not
one word is said to directly refute the claim of the Circumcision faction that gentiles must be
circumcised in order to worship Yeshua; the subject of circumcision is not even mentioned.
Rather the issue of circumcision is only implied by saying that if the gentiles will obey these 4
prohibitions that they will be doing the right thing. This is where things have, in my opinion,
taken a strange and unwarranted turn in Christianity. I can recall telling my teenage sons that
going to school and getting good grades is what they should focus on because it would form
the basis for so much of their future. So to put that thought in the vernacular of this letter to the
gentiles, if my sons would go to school, study hard and get good grades, then they would be
doing the right thing. Does that sound to you like I meant that all other house rules or
requirements for their lives are hereby abolished and the only requirement I have for them is to
go to school and get good grades? Or that all boundaries and limits for them are hereby
erased as long as they go to school and get good grades? I can promise you that they didn't
take it to mean that. They still had to be obedient, they still had to be home at the time given to
them, they still had to bathe, they still had to clean their rooms, etc. The point is this: does this
instruction actually imply that the gentiles should abide ONLY by these 4 things and to
permanently ignore all else? Does it say or imply that nothing else matters for gentiles, or that
everything else has been nullified for gentiles? No it doesn't; it just says that if the gentile
Believers will do these 4 things they will be doing well in the sense that the gentiles will be on
the right track. That these 4 rules are the alpha and omega of everything that a gentile
Believer (a Christian) should or should not do from now on is in no way implied here; but that
meaning has been erroneously read into the passage by Christianity for many centuries in
order for Christians to separate themselves from Jews and from the Old Testament.
I pray that you are seeing that on every level it is illogical to take this letter in Acts 15 to the
extreme that Christians now have only 4 new rules to follow, and thus the Law of Moses has
been abolished by James, brother of Christ. For one thing, without knowing the Law of Moses
we don't even know what these 4 rules mean or how to carry them out. And if the Law of
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
Moses is abolished, these 4 rules are necessarily abolished right along with it (as well as the
10 Commandments, for that matter). And by the way, there is something I want to alert you to
that is most pertinent to us in our day and time. Due to the rapidly increasing influence of Islam
in the West, it is now common to find meats in our markets and at restaurants that are clearly
labeled as "halal". A good Muslim will not eat meat unless they are certain that it is halal.
Halal is essentially the Islamic version of Kosher. The issue is this: part of what makes meat
halal for Muslims is that during the meat processing it has to be dedicated to Allah. Specifically
during the process, a Muslim religious authority will recite a prayer over the meat; this prayer of
dedication to Allah is called the tasmiya or shahada. I hope that unnerves you because since
Allah is a false god, then doesn't that seem to be at the heart of the matter of the Acts 15 rule
against eating things dedicated to idols, since idols are nothing but depictions of false gods?
Until recently, we've not had to be concerned about eating meat dedicated to idols (something
that Christianity has long seen as an irrelevant relic). But up pops Islam, along with a
movement of tolerance to appease their religion, and suddenly this rule becomes quite
pertinent to us again. Let me state this clearly; if you eat halal approved meat, you are eating
meat that has been dedicated to an idol...to a false god....Allah. I strongly advise you against it.
The story of Acts 15 winds down quickly; we are told that the 2 envoys Judah and Sila
accompanied Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch, a congregation meeting was convened, and
the letter read to them. The people, we are told, were delighted with its encouragement. No
doubt the term "the people" meant both Jews and gentiles because this ruling solved issues
for both groups. It meant that adult gentile males did not have to go through the grueling
experience of circumcision, and it meant that they did not have to disavow their gentile identity
and become Jews, which could have far reaching effect on their families, friends, and
businesses. For the Jews it was clear that their religious authorities, the Jerusalem Council,
decided that if the gentiles would obey those 4 rules then the issue of ritual purity was
overcome, and so the Jews no longer risked defilement by associating with these gentile
Believers.
We're told that Judah and Sila were prophets and so they said much to encourage and
strengthen the brethren. The term prophet as used here doesn't mean someone who could
predict the future, and it doesn't mean a man that God called to deliver a new oracle. By now
the term had evolved such that it mostly meant a person who taught God's written word.
Prophets were usually itinerant preachers, if you would, and considered as among the most
authoritative, knowledgeable and wise when it came to discerning the Holy Scriptures; so they
were welcomed and honored.
In time Judah and Sila left to go home to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas remained in
Antioch. These 2 disciples have created quite a bond with the synagogue in Antioch, and we
can see their allegiance to the people there on display. But after a little more time passed, Paul
suggested to Barnabas that it would be good if they went and visited the other congregations
of Believers that they had set up in a number of towns. Barnabas wanted to include his relative
John Mark in the mission trip. It is pretty clear that the leadership in Jerusalem was not
controlling Paul and Barnabas' ministry; rather Paul and Barnabas decided in concert with the
Antioch congregation what they would do. It would be too strong to characterize this as a split;
but at the same time it is clear that in Jerusalem the Believers' main concern is the Jews,
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
while Paul's main concern is the gentiles. How one went about preaching the Gospel, making
new Believers, discipling and mentoring them, would necessarily be different depending on if
you were witnessing to gentiles or to Jews. And it would also be different depending on if the
Jews lived in the Holy Land or in some foreign land. So there were disagreements in doctrine
and we need to take that into account as we read Paul's Epistles. Paul is always coming from
a certain perspective due to his mission and agenda, and it wasn't always the same
perspective as Peter's or James's. And when we hold their writings up to comparisons on
common issues, we'll see subtle but important differences.
I want to pause for just a moment to make a point about evangelizing. It is one thing to bring
the Good News to our gentile friends and neighbors in America, and it is another to bring that
same Good News to Jews in Israel. And, yes, depending on the circumstances there can also
be a 3rd variable when bringing the Good News to Jews in America. To take different
approaches, using different people, to evangelize these different groups is not only wise it is
Biblical as we see here in Acts.
Many years ago, after several trips to Israel, I began to understand why the success rate of
Christians coming to Israel to spread the Gospel was so poor. It was because most Jews in
Israel don't want to hear much of anything from a Christian, and it is very hard for comfortable
and structured Americans to relate to the never ending turmoil and chaos of Jewish Israel. The
Israelis also see Christian naivety in believing that we can take our American gentile methods
and assume that we can just transplant them to Israel. There are other reasons as well for
failure that is certainly not all the missionaries' fault, but rather also results from the closed
ears of those to whom the message is being brought. But the point is that there is no one-size-
fits-all method for spreading the Gospel. And the extent to which certain doctrines are
exercised and how they are followed also necessarily varies depending on your audience, their
culture, and present circumstances.
I realized that the only way that would bring true success in taking the Good News to the Jews
of Israel was if Believing Israeli Jews were the ones doing the evangelizing. It also must be
done in the language of Israel: Hebrew. Adding those two elements break down many barriers
for which gentile Christians have no means to attack so the list of those who can do this task
effectively is quite narrow. For example I personally know a few American missionaries who
have lived in Israel for years and years; and they have learned little to no Hebrew. And they
live in neighborhoods where other Americans live so that they feel more comfortable, English is
spoken, and there are stores that accommodate their Western tastes. What do you think that
says to the people of Israel? Does that say I'm one you, and I'm in solidarity with you? Or
does it say not only am I not one of you, but I don't find it worth my while to learn to speak
your language or live under the same conditions as you live. But, thanks be to God, Seed of
Abraham Ministries has 2 ministries in Israel, completely staffed by Believing Jews most of
whom were either born in Israel or immigrated to Israel, and all who speak Hebrew. They are
having good success in establishing relationships and in demonstrating the love and care that
comes with knowing Yeshua as Savior. They are also rehabilitating a very tarnished reputation
that Christians have created over the centuries in dealings with Jews. But their approach
wouldn't be very recognizable in America, and probably wouldn't be very effective for taking
the Gospel to American gentiles. But even more, it is quite culturally specific and so our staff
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
does things that many Churches simply would not approve of.
And I will tell you honestly that because of these cultural differences there is always a bit of
underlying tension present because dealing with Israeli Jews is so different than dealing with
American gentiles. While it is immensely gratifying that Seed of Abraham is so diverse, yet
cohesive, in our goals, it is also no easy trick to keep these various parts operating within
different cultures, with the proper level of co-operation that is needed, and teaching the proper
doctrine. It is necessary to give the 2 missions in Israel as much freedom as possible to
operate within their unique culture, allowing them to choose how best to achieve their goal of
bringing Yeshua back to Israel, and not to burden them with ways and thoughts that seem so
normal and ordinary here, but are foreign and at times counter-productive over there.
I tell you this to better help you understand the philosophy and goals of Seed of Abraham
Ministries, but also to offer a good modern day metaphor for what we see happening at this
juncture in Acts 15. There are indeed underlying tensions between Paul in Antioch and those
Believing Jews who operate out of Jerusalem and have James and Peter as their leaders. And
now we see that there is an underlying tension between Paul and Barnabas over family issues.
This doesn't mean that someone is right, so the other must be wrong. It is just the typical
social dynamics of humanity at work; and being a Believer in Yeshua.....even an
Apostle....doesn't immunize us from having these challenges.
Barnabas wants his nephew John Mark to come with them; Paul doesn't because he doesn't
feel he can count on him since on their last missionary journey John Mark abandoned them (at
least that's how Paul spoke about it). Frankly, I'm not entirely certain that John Mark is a
Believer; nothing explicitly says he is. Rather his mother is a Believer, and his uncle Barnabas
is as well, but one isn't a Believer merely through association. It's like a friend said the other
day: sleeping in the garage doesn't make you a car. Paul is a stickler for loyalty and for pretty
rigid adherence to doctrines he thinks are right. No doubt this is largely the result of his
Pharisee background, but I think it is also partly due to his inherent personality. Paul is all
business, and it seems John Mark isn't. So Paul and Barnabas part company, with Barnabas
and John Mark taking a ship to Cyprus.
It was customary for the disciples to travel in pairs, so with Barnabas out of the picture, Paul
asks Sila to join him. They departed for Syria and Cilicia where Paul had established Believing
congregations. Back in verse 33 we're told that Sila and Judah returned home from Antioch,
so apparently Paul sent word to Jerusalem and asked Sila if he would join him. The wording of
verse 40 suggests that Paul left Antioch alone, and must have met up with Sila somewhere
along the journey.
Paul left armed with an important new doctrine to use as he sought to make new Believers of
the gentiles, especially. It was that they didn't need to convert to being a Jew to accept the
Gospel message. Paul no doubt also had to convince the Jews that if the gentiles would
abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, from strangling food animals to
death and from blood, an official Halakhic ruling made in Jerusalem said that these gentiles
would be ritually clean. This was critical for rapid growth in the number of gentiles that would
join the movement.
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 36 - Chapter 15 cont. 3
While the circumstances of Paul and Barnabas's split are nothing righteous or edifying, the
end result was that instead of a single team of Paul and Barnabas going out, now two teams
began plowing the fertile ground of the gentile world. While this dispute that was serious
enough to break up the very effective team of Paul and Barnabas is somewhat uncomfortable
for us to read about (we want to think better of our faith fathers), it reminds us that they are not
special or different; they're just human. Whatever set them apart from others was their God,
not their merit. Yet, God used their acrimonious parting for good, and each team went on to
win many souls for the Kingdom of Heaven.
We will begin Acts chapter 16 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 37, Chapter 16
Today we will study Acts chapter 16, which is often called Paul's 2nd missionary journey.
Before we do, I want to take just a short time to sum up what we learned from Acts 15 as it will
significantly affect the taking of the Gospel to gentiles.
Acts 15 revolved around the so-called Jerusalem Council, which was a meeting of the
leadership of The Way in their headquarters, Jerusalem. The subject of the meeting was
circumcision as regards the many new gentile Believers, almost all of whom resided outside
the Holy Land in the many provinces and nations that formed the far flung Roman Empire. The
question put before the Council was this: should gentile followers of Messiah Yeshua be
required to become Jews? It was the act of circumcision of the * for males that marked
a person as abandoning their gentile identity and instead taking on a new Jewish identity. This
operation in the flesh was anything but an idealistic show of sympathy or solidarity with the
Jewish people. A person who was circumcised literally, tangibly, and legally became a Jew, no
different than a Jew who was born as a Jew and had always lived as a Jew.
Ancient and modern Christian commentaries regularly discuss circumcision of gentiles as
Judaizing. And invariably the perspective is that what a gentile Believer is doing by being
circumcised is that he is buying into a worthless Jewish ritual that represents being obedient to
Jewish Law. So essentially there is an unholy mixture being formed between Christianity and
Judaism. I hope you can see by now that this was not the issue, meaning or intent for
circumcising gentiles; rather it was to convert these Believing gentiles to full-fledged Jews (or
better, to Jewish Believers).
Why did so many Jewish Believers think that gentile Believers ought to be circumcised? First
was that it seemed self-evident to them that the Yeshua movement that spawned The Way
was nothing more nor less than a new sect of Judaism. The founder of the movement was a
Holy Land Jew: Jesus of Nazareth. The only thing that gave this particular sect of Judaism its
peculiar identity that made it different from the other sects of Judaism was their belief that
Yeshua of Nazareth was the long awaited Messiah. All other commonly practiced elements of
Judaism that tended to be recognized regardless of which Jewish faction one might belong to,
members of The Way also practiced. We don't have to speculate if this is true; we read of this
in Acts chapter 21.
Acts 21:18-20 CJB
18 The next day Sha'ul and the rest of us went in to Ya'akov, and all the elders were
present.
19 After greeting them, Sha'ul described in detail each of the things God had done
among the Gentiles through his efforts.
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
20 On hearing it, they praised God; but they also said to him, "You see, brother, how
many tens of thousands of believers there are among the Judeans, and they are all
zealots for the Torah.
When the term "the Torah" is used in verse 20 in our Complete Jewish Bible, the Greek word
is nomos and it is more literally translated as "law" and usually written as "Law" in English
Bibles. So the sense of the meaning here probably mostly points towards Halakhah (that
indeed includes the Law of Moses), or as it is more popularly known, Rabbinic or Jewish Law.
The point is that the Jewish Believers (especially those living in the Holy Lands) kept right on
being Jewish and observing all the same customs, traditions, and Biblical Laws of Moses as
they always had.
So the idea was that if a person wanted to be part of this new sect of Judaism of course they
would have to be Jewish. Thus a non-Jew must be circumcised in order to become a Jew.
The second reason that Jewish Believers thought gentiles ought to be circumcised was
because gentiles created ritual purity issues for Jews. Even though Peter learned in a direct
revelation from the Lord in Acts 10 that God did not consider gentiles as inherently unclean,
nonetheless because gentiles obviously didn't observe the Torah laws that defined proper
ritual purity (and what to do if one became defiled), then the practical matter of Jews
associating with Believing gentiles had to be dealt with. Since gentile Believers went to (or at
least wanted to go to) Jewish synagogues, then these gentiles put the Jewish congregation
members at risk of becoming ritually unclean. So the solution was painfully obvious (pun
intended): circumcise these adult Believing gentiles and make them Jews! Problem solved.
Yet, Peter's vision and the Holy Spirit visibly falling upon the gentile Cornelius and his
household made it clear that from God's perspective gentiles didn't need to be turned into
Jews to worship Messiah Yeshua. Fine; but if not circumcision then what else could be done to
solve the ritual purity issue? The result was that 4 rules (all prohibitions) were to be
immediately required for gentile Believers: they must not involve themselves with things
sacrificed to idols (mainly this applied to food), and they must not commit any sort of immoral
sex sin (fornication), and they must not strangle food animals to death, and they must observe
the Torah laws concerning blood. In reality each one of these 4 "rules" represented a category
of behaviors (as defined in the Law of Moses) such that if gentile Believers scrupulously
obeyed them (just as their Jewish counterparts were already doing), then they would be seen
as ritually clean and able to attend synagogue meetings and have table fellowship with Jewish
Believers.
We learned that every one of these 4 rules was taken directly from the Law of Moses; and that
all of them involved food in one way or another. We also learned that nothing contained in the
decree issued by the Jerusalem Council said, or implied, that gentiles had no other obligations
than these 4 rules or that the Law had been set aside for gentile Believers. Rather, as stated in
Acts 15: 21 For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim
him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat." So the idea was that
the 4 rules was the beginning point for gentile Believers: it was the entry exam. If they followed
these 4 rules, then they could attend synagogues. And it was in synagogues where they would
learn the Law of Moses from the Jewish synagogue teachers and over time these gentiles
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
would gain the knowledge and discipline to know and obey more and more of the Biblical Law.
So now a huge problem has been solved: gentile Believers could remain gentiles, and they
could attend Jewish synagogues if they followed the dictum of the Jerusalem Council (which,
by the way, was not so simple and easy as it appears on the surface to modern day
Christians). But it was also great news for the Jewish Believers who now didn't have to be
concerned that they were going to be ritually defiled by these sincere, but possibly unclean,
gentiles. Now armed with this decision, Paul had the needed basis to begin his second
missionary journey knowing that he had official sanction to declare to the gentiles that there
was no requirement for them to be circumcised and thus become Jews in order to be saved by
Yeshua or to worship and fellowship at synagogues. But please note something else: there
was also no suggestion or hint that if a gentile WANTED to be circumcised and become a Jew
and worship Christ that he should not (it was a matter of personal choice). However (as a
principle) from the aspect of standing with God and with salvation in His Son Yeshua, to be
circumcised offered no additional benefit for a gentile. So if a gentile's motive for circumcision
was to somehow achieve extra merit, then to be circumcised for that reason was wrong-
minded.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 16. I want you to watch for a subtle, but interesting, twist in
these passages. I told you way back in our Introduction to Acts that we would eventually run
into what scholars call "the we passages". That is, almost every paragraph in Acts is told from
the perspective of the author reporting that a certain Bible character did thus and so. This was
marked by saying that "they" did this, or "he" said that and so on. But there are places when
the author of Acts (who is Luke) says "we" and "us", obviously including himself in the action.
In other words, while Luke writes the Book of Acts mostly using the testimony of witnesses and
borrowing from source documents created by others, there are a few times when Luke was
actually present when certain things took place. So we know, as here in Acts 16, that Luke was
not only personally acquainted with Paul, be he actually accompanied Paul on some of his
adventures. We find such an instance here in chapter 16, at verse 10.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 16 all
Verse 1 introduces Timothy who will, 150 years later, have 2 Bible books named for him. Paul
ventured, apparently by himself, from Antioch of Syria to Derbe and Lystra; there he met up
with Timothy. And by the way, since I read from the CJB, older versions of the CJB had a
misprint and left out the word Derbe; newer editions have corrected it. The Bible text is not
clear in which of Derbe or Lystra that Timothy resided; nor is it clear if Paul knew of Timothy
before he left Antioch, or only learned of Timothy once he arrived in the Derbe/Lystra region.
We learn very little about Timothy in Acts 16 except that his mother was a Jewish Believer and
his father was a pagan gentile. We don't know if Timothy's father was dead or alive as he
plays no role in the story; and frankly it is not even certain that his parents were married.
However we do know that Timothy was a disciple of Christ.
The Book of 2Timothy chapter 1 tells us a little more information about him; his mother's name
is Eunice and his grandmother is Lois; both are Believers. It is generally speculated that both
of these women came to belief in Yeshua at the time of Paul's 1st missionary journey to Derbe
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
and Lystra. I agree as that makes sense because when else might they have had an
opportunity to hear the Gospel other than from Paul? What is super important not just for this
story, but for the Books of 1st and 2nd Timothy, is that Timothy's mother was a Jew; and I'll
show you why that is important.
Verse 2 explains that the Believing Jews in Lystra and Iconium spoke glowingly about Timothy,
so Paul wanted Timothy to come with him on the remainder of his journey. But before that was
confirmed Paul insisted that Timothy get circumcised. And the passage says that he did that
"because of the Jews living in that area" who knew that Timothy's father was a pagan gentile.
So even after the vision of Peter with the cloth full of animals, and what with Cornelius being
visibly anointed with the Holy Spirit, and with the recent decision of the Jerusalem Council to
not require circumcision (a meeting that Paul attended), Paul nonetheless insisted that
Timothy was circumcised. Why? Was this an act of hypocrisy on Paul's part? Many Bible
commentaries say it was; some early Church Fathers work hard to exonerate Paul by saying
that he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. He did it for the sake of taking the Gospel to
gentiles, and so that sort of overrides any kind of wrong attitude or fleshly attempt to smooth
the pathway into Jewish synagogues by having his gentile companion circumcised, and thus
converting Timothy to a Jew. Let's hear what the early Church Father Chrysostom said in his
Catena on the Acts of the Apostles:
"Before blessed Paul, who himself had received circumcision, sent Timothy to teach the
Jews, he first circumcised him in order that Timothy, as teacher, might be more
acceptable to his audience. So Paul actually engaged in circumcision in order to abolish
it....."
So here we have the example of a Church Father who could only find a way out of his self-
imposed doctrinal dilemma that circumcision is inherently bad, by saying that Paul engaged in
it for the sole purpose of ridding Judaism and Christendom from it!
The first issue we run into in trying to understand this issue with Timothy is really a basic one;
but it is perhaps the crux of the matter. Was Timothy born a gentile or a Jew? Most Bible
commentaries assume that he is a gentile and of course this fact is especially difficult for them
to deal with because here we have St. Paul demanding that this young gentile man is
circumcised before Paul will make him part of his missionary team; something that seems to be
in direct opposition to the decision of the Jerusalem Council. But I'm here to tell you that the
solution is not so difficult: Timothy wasn't a gentile; he was born a Jew.
Jews determine if a child is Jewish according to the birth mother, and NOT the birth father. I
will confess that this issue is controversial especially when it comes to gentile scholars who will
debate on exactly when matrilineal descent became the Jewish custom; and no matter what
the Jewish custom might be, just how it is that God determines whether a person is a Jew or
not. We'll not go too deeply into this as several fine books have been written on the general
subject of "what is a Jew?" Is it a race? Is it a religion? Is it a nationality? Is it a mindset? Is it
an identity that a person can merely choose at their own will and change at another time? So
we could get easily bogged down for a very long time in this issue.
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
Josephus and other writers of that era assume matrilineal decent (the mother's side) for
determining the Jewishness of a child. The Mishna Kiddushin and Tosefta Kiddushin seem
also to advocate for determination according to the mother. And then there is also this passage
in the Bible in the Book of Ezra that heavily implies the same:
Ezra 10:1-3 CJB
1 While 'Ezra was praying and making confession, weeping and prostrated before the
house of God, a huge crowd of Isra'el's men, women and children gathered around him;
and the people were weeping bitterly.
2 Sh'khanyah the son of Yechi'el, one of the descendants of 'Eilam, spoke up and said to
'Ezra, "We have acted treacherously toward our God by marrying foreign women from
the peoples of the land. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Isra'el.
3 We should make a covenant with our God to send away all these wives, along with
their children, in obedience to the advice of Adonai and of those who tremble at the
mitzvah of our God; let us act in accordance with the Torah.
Clearly the case being reported here in Ezra is of Jewish men marrying gentile foreign women
and then producing children from these unions. The ruling is that Ezra understands that
because these children were born to gentile women, then they too must be sent away with
their mothers. Why? Because despite having Jewish biological fathers, these children have
gentile biological mothers thus making them gentiles.
So it works like this: the child of a Jewish mother and a gentile father is a Jew. The child of a
gentile mother and a Jewish father is a gentile. If a gentile woman converts and becomes a
Jew (as did Ruth), and she and her Jewish husband produce a child, that child is a Jew
because the mother is a converted Jew.
Dr. David Stern in his Jewish New Testament Commentary adds this interesting tidbit:
"The importance of tracing Jewishness through the mother increased when Jewish life
became disrupted and Jewish families were broken apart by conquerors and
persecutors. The rabbis reasoned, first, that where Jewish women were being abused it
might be impossible to determine who the father was and therefore whether he was
Jewish; and second, that since a child's loyalties are often determined by the mother
because she spends more time with him, a child raised by a Jewish mother and a
gentile father is more likely to be brought up loyal to Judaism than the child of a Jewish
father and a gentile mother who will not give him the early training that builds such
devotion".
I think, along with Dr. Stern, that it is highly likely that in our story that this Diaspora Jewish
woman Eunice thought little of the consequences of marrying a gentile man. She and probably
her mother Lois were fully assimilated into the gentile Roman Empire and so weren't
particularly observant Jews. Their family had lived in gentile lands for centuries since the
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
Babylonian Exile, and so any connection they may have had with their Jewishness was distant
even if acknowledged. We see this among Jews today with perhaps most Jews (even in Israel)
having little to no allegiance to their ancient Hebrew heritage. They will marry anyone from any
ethnicity or religion that they happen to fall in love with. In which religion (if any) that their
children are raised is unimportant to them. But the more strict Jews in ancient times, as now,
will only marry other Jews, and insist that the entire family follow Judaism and be taught its
ways.
Probably coming to belief in Yeshua (compliments of Paul) brought a true change of heart for
Lois and Eunice as they suddenly realized the great value of being Jewish. What is it that Paul
said about the privilege of being a Jew?
CJB Romans 3:1 - 2
1Then 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.
But for some things in life, finally realizing the advantage of their Jewish heritage seemed too
late; after all Timothy was the innocent product of an illicit marriage that certainly wouldn't
have been sanctioned in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus even though Timothy was
technically a Jew (because his mother was a Jew), because he had a gentile father (it was the
father that was responsible to see to it that his son had a b'rit milah, a circumcision), then
Timothy wasn't circumcised even though by Jewish law he should have been circumcised
many years earlier, on the 8th day after his birth.
So the bottom line is this: Paul was not being hypocritical and converting a gentile to a Jew;
Paul was validating Timothy's valuable Jewish birthright. Timothy was born a Jew but he had
not been circumcised according to the Law of Moses. Paul felt that if Timothy was going to be
an effective Jewish evangelist, he would have to be true to his Jewish heritage and to the Law
of Moses. Very likely it was not Paul who personally performed the delicate operation; he
would have sought a mohel, a person who specialized in doing circumcisions (and this would
have been needed especially on an adult).
My take on this is not a new one. The early Church Father Augustine, who lived at the same
time as Chrysostom, says this in a letter to another early Church Father, Jerome:
"As to Paul's circumcising of Timothy, performing a vow at Cenchrea, and undertaking
on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed
rites with some who made a vow, it is manifest that Paul's design in these things was
not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances that
salvation is given under the Christian dispensation. His intent was to prevent people
from believing that he condemned, as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those
rites that God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it and as shadows
of things to come. For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
concerning him (Paul) that he taught people to forsake Moses. This would be by all
means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of
Christ......for Christ said "If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he
wrote of me."
I'd have to say that the evidence is that at least some of the early Church Fathers based their
devotion to God's Word on the same basis that we at Seed of Abraham do; that is, upon a
Hebrew Roots of Christianity devotion. That is precisely what Paul was practicing when he
insisted that Timothy was circumcised.
I want to also point out something that I hope is becoming obvious to you; what I have been
teaching you about circumcision is more than an interesting but no longer relevant Bible
principle. Satan, and by extension our own evil inclinations, somehow knows exactly where the
underlying structure of our faith is most vulnerable. These are the places in our understanding
where if successfully attacked and conquered can do the most destruction to the Body of
Christ. The matter of circumcision of one of these vulnerabilities. Remember: Biblically and in
actuality, it is the Covenant of Abraham that promises the Messiah (there called the seed of
Abraham) who will bless all the people of all the families on earth. Let me repeat that: Jesus
Christ derives from the promise of the Covenant of Abraham. And the Covenant of Abraham
requires, and is predicated upon, circumcision. No heart circumcision, no membership in the
Covenant of Abraham. No membership in the Covenant of Abraham, no salvation in Christ. As
I showed to you in lesson 34, circumcision of the * is the outward physical symbol of the
inward spiritual circumcision of the heart. Circumcision of the heart is the only path to
repentance. Repentance is the gateway to salvation. No circumcision of the heart; no
salvation. Paul laid that out eloquently in Romans 2. And what has happened over the
centuries? We have a Church that has been enticed by Satan, and by our leaders' own evil
inclinations, to toss the Covenant of Abraham into the dust bin of history like a soiled diaper.
And along with it has in recent times trashed circumcision that is the God-ordained sign of
participation in the Abrahamic covenant. The rationale is that both things are just too Jewish for
a Christian to suffer. May those who have ears to listen, hear.
Verses 4 and 5 say that "they" went on through the towns, delivering the decree of the
Jerusalem Council. "They" is referring to Paul, Sila, and Timothy. Let's remember that Sila
was one of two chosen emissaries to accompany Paul back from Jerusalem to Antioch to
verify the contents of the letter relieving gentiles from having to become Jews to worship
Christ. So no doubt as the trio roved from town to town and synagogue to synagogue, it was
Sila who was the celebrity. As a result of this decision that assured the Jews that gentile
Believers wouldn't ritually defile them, and the same decisions assured the gentiles that they
didn't have to become Jews to be ritually clean enough to attend synagogues, the Yeshua
movement was strengthened and their numbers grew steadily. A manmade barrier had been
removed and the results were stunning.
As they continued on their travels we are told that they traveled through the region of Phrygia
and Galatia (Galatia is, of course, the namesake of the letter to the Galatians penned by Paul).
But we are told that they went in this direction because the Holy Spirit prevented them from
going to the province of Asia (do not confuse this with the modern Continent of Asia). Let me
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 37 - Chapter 16
mention that although most Bibles say "Phrygia AND Galatia" that this is an error. It was not
two regions, but rather it was a territory within a region and it was known as Phrygia-Galatica.
It was here that Iconium, Lystra, Derbe and Pisidian Antioch were located. So it is no mystery
why Paul journeyed throughout Phrygia-Galatica; this was where he had been before and had
made many Believers in several towns. So as was his custom, he was now going back to
these same congregations to check on their progress.
It is a curious statement to say that the Holy Spirit prevented him from going to Asia; for one
reason, there is no explanation of what occurred that "prevented" the three from going. It is
not uncommon among Believers to this day to see plans disrupted only to lay the cause at the
feet of the Lord as the one who is the sovereign disrupter. That is, we see it as God's will that
something happens or doesn't happen. It may be something like that that Luke is speaking
about; or perhaps it is that during prayer there was an unction of the Spirit that moved among
the prayer partners such that they all agreed that for whatever reason Paul, Sila and Timothy
should alter their plans. In any case, they saw their inability to go to Asia as God's will and
didn't fight it.
They had been traveling westward, and so now (with their plans changed) turned northward.
Bithynia was a highly civilized and much populated area in northwest Asia Minor that had many
Roman cities, but also numerous Jewish settlements. The disciples kept going, but yet another
divine "STOP" sign was encountered, and this time the verses tells us it came from the Spirit
of Yeshua. Again, it is difficult to understand just what this meant. We only come across the
term "Spirit of Yeshua" a couple of times in the New Testament. It may well be that in prayer
the Spirit that spoke to them actually identified himself as Yeshua; and considering that it was
Paul who was leading the expedition that could make sense. After all; he was the one who,
when on the road to Damascus before he was a Believer, was blinded by a bright light and
confronted by Yeshua who openly identified himself as such. So perhaps either by name or by
method or both, Paul thought it to be Yeshua who blocked their way.
They then decided to pass through Mysia and travel to Troas. Alexandria Troas was a seaport
town and it held the status of a Roman colony; so it had a Roman government there, operating
under Roman law. There Paul had a vision and this time it was not a warning to avoid going to
a particular place, it was a command to go to an area Paul had apparently not included in his
plans. He and his companions were to pass over the Aegean Sea and into Europe. Paul's
ability to speak fluent Greek, and his rather unusual standing as a Roman Citizen (unusual for
a Jew) was about to come in very handy.
We'll continue to follow Paul on his 2nd missionary journey next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 38, Chapter 16 continued
The significance of Acts chapter 16 is that it is what scholars call Paul's 2nd missionary journey,
and in it we see Paul extending the geographic and ethnic range of his Gospel message
beyond the areas where Jews had substantial colonies, and into the more far flung regions of
the vast Asian continent. This did not by any means indicate that he was no longer
evangelizing Jews; but it did mean that he would be dealing with gentiles who had less
familiarity with Jews and thus with the Jewish religion. A good way to think of it is that the
gentile population Paul would now deal with was mostly pagan, while in his first missionary
journey a goodly portion of gentiles he had spoken to were already God-fearers and so they
had some knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Jewish history, and Jewish Tradition and customs
(Halakhah).
Paul was traveling with Sila, that Jewish representative of the Jerusalem Council who had
been sent in an official capacity with the letter outlining the conditions by which a gentile
Believer could become a member of The Way but without converting and becoming a Jew.
After leaving Antioch and arriving in the area of Derbe and Lystra, Paul recruited a young man
of unusual faith and maturity to accompany him. We discussed at length last week that while
many Christian commentaries on Acts assume that Timothy was a gentile Believer and so Paul
requiring Timothy's circumcision was either hypocritical or as John Chrysostom said, it was
"Paul engaged in circumcision in order to abolish circumcision". But as I demonstrated to you,
given the fact that we are specifically told that Timothy's mother was a Jew, then by the rule of
matrilineal descent Timothy was born as a Jew, not as a gentile. It is only that because
Timothy's parents were fully assimilated into the local gentile culture, and because Timothy's
father was a gentile, that Timothy had not received the required circumcision on his 8th day of
life as was the Torah commandment. So since Paul and Sila were going to be dealing with a
number of different ethnic groups in their journey (some Jewish, some gentile), and since the
subject of the Gospel that Yeshua was the Messiah and was also God was already
controversial, they certainly didn't need to add any side issues such as this Jewish man
(Timothy) not being circumcised. There is no hint that Timothy resisted this; but I can also
assure you that he did not relish the procedure. At his age it was painful and dangerous; and
no doubt many days passed afterward before he was physically able to go traveling with Paul.
As we saw in verses 4 and 5, Paul's first encounters were with synagogue congregations
where he had already established a core group of Believers. This was Paul's custom to
occasionally go back and revisit established groups; but no doubt it was also so that Sila could
see for himself what the Spirit, through Paul, had already accomplished with the gentiles.
Verses 6 through 8 show a great deal of direct intervention by the Holy Spirit especially
concerning where and where not the disciples should venture to spread the Good News. In fact
we are told that the intervention "prevented" the group from going to the region of Bithynia and
instead they found themselves at Troas, a port city.
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
Let's re-read a substantial portion of Acts 16.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 16:9 – end
At the port city of Troas Paul had a vision; it was not another contact with the Holy Spirit but
rather it was the vision of a man from Macedonia beckoning him to come to Macedonia and
"help us" (the "us" no doubt meaning Macedonians in general). Paul knew immediately that
the disciples ought to go, and of course the Spirit-directed circumstances had put them at
exactly the right place at the right time to catch a ship across the Aegean Sea to get to
Macedonia. In modern day terms, they would be traveling into Europe; however in Paul's day
the term Europe would not have been used.
I want to point out something that can have practical application for us all; and that includes the
managers, administrators and business people among us. Paul's missionary journeys display
a methodology of flexible planning. That is, his mindset is one of careful planning as well as
maintaining an openness to let God move as He wills it. The balance between those two
elements (planning versus divine guidance) will necessarily vary depending on the
circumstance; and it will especially depend upon whether the activity is secular or it is ministry.
Secular plans will tilt towards more human planning, while ministry will tilt towards more divine
guidance. But either way, a Believer must incorporate both elements into all of our goals and
endeavors. Any error usually comes in misunderstanding how to apportion these two elements;
or believing that only one is necessary. For instance: in a secular business, long range
planning and doggedly sticking to that plan is usually the best course for success. But applying
that same determination and rigid planning to a ministry is a recipe for disaster, just as no
planning at all will end in disappointment.
At Seed of Abraham it is common for people to ask me what my Five Year Plan is; and when I
tell them that it would fit on a Post-It note they wonder how a person with a corporate
management background could operate in such a way. I can tell you frankly that it is very hard
to turn over things to God that you've been used to controlling. I've always had a keen
interest in the Apostle Paul because I feel like we have kindred temperaments. Paul is a
natural control enthusiast (I prefer that to control freak). He is strong with his words, sometimes
rising to the point of being rash and needlessly offending people. Yet his words are articulate
and thought provoking, full of facts and information. Paul can be defensive at times, but he is
also always decisive; he doesn't fret over decision making. And when Paul makes a decision
or a pronouncement there is no wavering; he is certain that he is right. Paul looks towards the
future; he doesn't live in the past. He is a crusader; nothing energizes Paul like the cause of
an underdog. And he is willing to take that cause to the bitter end, no matter the cost. Paul is
dedicated and sincere; what you see is what you get. But he doesn't do well on committees;
he makes a better dictator.
That sure doesn't sound like the kind of a person who is sensitive to the Holy Spirit or one that
is suited to ministry for the God of Israel; yet here we see exactly that. Paul plans everything in
advance; his missionary journeys weren't accomplished willy-nilly. And I see no evidence that
any human could derail him from those plans. However he is ready and eager to alter his well
thought-out plans in favor of God's direction anytime the Spirit confronts him. So the moral of
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
the story for Believers is, always plan but always hold those plans lightly. To wander through
life like a feather blown by unseen wisps of turbulent air is usually not the best policy. But to
make rigid plans and follow them through with a tunnel vision towards the goal is also not
usually good policy either. That famous Beatle, John Lennon, once said in song: life is what
happens while you're making plans.
On the other hand to say that our lives are God's responsibility, and then to shun planning in
general and instead choosing to live moment by moment letting the future take care of itself, no
doubt will eventually lead to deep regrets and bitter tears or even resentment towards God
(and not a great deal of success either). We have our responsibilities and God has His as
regards our lives; it is a co-operative venture. Paul is far from perfect; yet he shows an
extraordinary ability, especially given his Choleric temperament, to balance intelligent and
practical strategic planning with a sensitive and obedient attitude towards the Holy Spirit. That
is very much on display here in these verses.
Verse 10 reveals something of a surprise; it turns out that Luke (the writer of the Book of Acts)
is with Paul, Timothy and Silas in Troas. This verse is one of those "we" verses we discussed
last time; that is notice how Luke says "we lost no time getting ready to leave for Macedonia".
What is important then is that at least starting at this point of Paul's second missionary
journey, much of what we read comes from an eyewitness and it is not derived from interviews
or documents. Thus we'll see a bit more detail at times during the remainder of chapter 16
than we're used to seeing, because by being a party to the missionary journey what Luke saw
was not filtered through someone else's worldview. I also think that we can reasonably deduce
that Luke gives us the best insight into the historical Paul; that is, Paul the person. And this is
most valuable to us as we read Paul's many epistles that dominate the New Testament.
Speaking of epistles: it is on the western shore of the Aegean Sea where Paul will plant a
number of Believing congregations in places that we're more familiar with in terms of the New
Testament books that are named for them. Because there we find the towns of Philippi (Book
of Philippians), Corinth, (Book of Corinthians), and Thessalonica (Book of Thessalonians).
Along with Berea (which Paul mentions but doesn't have a letter addressed to them as a Bible
book), these places and their Believing congregations are like the spokes of a wheel that
emanates from their hub at the center: Ephesus.
Since every commercial shipping vessel was wind powered, then it was the winds that would
determine the length, and sometimes the route, of a sea journey. It was 150 miles from Troas
to Neapolis, which the 4 disciples accomplished in only 2 days; so the winds were favorable.
However those favorable winds worked against them in the return trip as we're informed in
Acts 20 that it took 5 days to make the same crossing, only in reverse. From Neapolis the next
stop was Philippi, a city name after the father of Alexander the Great. Philippi was a Roman
colony; this term has a distinct meaning. A Roman colony is one that operates under Roman
religion and Roman law. Philippi was a logical stop for the well-organized Paul because it
contained a substantial Jewish population, as did Thessalonica and Berea. So after a few days
in Philippi, on Shabbat the 4 disciples went to a place where they were told that people met for
prayer. Obviously this was referring to prayer to the God of Israel for they would not have
wanted to go to a prayer service to the pagan gods. Our CJB says in verse 13 that a minyan
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
met there. A minyan is a group of 10 or more; 10 people is considered the minimum for a
proper synagogue prayer service. The word minyan doesn't actually appear here in the Greek
texts and you won't find it in other English Bibles; yet in Hebrew terminology inserting the
word minyan here makes sense. Especially in settings away from a synagogue, when it is time
for one of the three daily prayers, Jews try to pray in a group and that group must be 10 (or
more). And by the way, Jews won't necessarily demand that all the participants in a minyan
are Jews. I have been invited by Ultra-Orthodox Jews, on a couple of occasions while flying to
Israel, to come and participate in prayer with them in order to form a minyan (which I happily
did), as there weren't enough Jews on the plane to muster up 10. And, yes, they full well knew
I was a gentile and I was a Christian. So it should not be surprising that in verse 14 we find that
many of the people at this prayer place in Philippi were women. One was named Lydia, a
dealer of purple cloth.
Lydia was from Thyatira, and this region was well known for their fine purple cloth expertise.
The issue in this craft was the creation of the purple dye, and for Jews especially the color
purple played an important role in ritual items that involved threads and fabric. In fact this
particular shade of purple was called in Hebrew tekhelet, and it was required for the cloth
partitions that separated the inner chambers of the Tabernacle, as well as for the making of
tzitzit and for ephods. It was also used for the fringes that hung from the hems of certain
ceremonial robes. This particular color was not easy to obtain; the most desired source of it
came from murex shellfish found along the eastern Mediterranean coastline. However in
Thyatira the dye was made from the fluid of a plant: the madder root. So, all in all, it is not
surprising that Lydia had formed an association with the local Jews as they would have been
among her best customers.
Lydia believed Paul's message of salvation in Christ. Lydia was already a God-fearer so she
had a good basis to understand Paul's teaching on Yeshua. Lydia must have been the head of
her household as we are told in verse 15 that when she was immersed, so then was her entire
household. Perhaps she was a widow, maybe divorced, we don't know. Let me explain
something that will help you not only in understanding what is happening here, but also is
customary to this day in Middle Eastern families. The head of the household is revered and
powerful; they lead and can make binding decisions for household members, in a way that has
become obsolete in the West. Therefore whatever religion the head of the house subscribes to,
the remainder of the household automatically follows. So even in regards to Lydia's household
being baptized, do not get a mental picture of all those people having a heartfelt and sincere
belief in Yeshua as Lord and Savior. The head of the house was baptized and began to follow
Christ, so it was customary that the remainder of those in the household were obligated to do
the same. Let me say it in another way: whatever religion the head of household adopts
automatically becomes the religion for the entire household. For a household member to refuse
to conform is the height of rebellion and could cause an enormous rift.
In just a few more verses (in verse 31), understanding how this custom works will help us to
understand what was actually taking place when we are told this:
Acts 16:31 CJB
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
31They (meaning the disciples) said, "Trust in the Lord Yeshua, and you will be saved-
you and your household!"
This verse has actually led to a Christian doctrine among some congregations that says that if
the head of the house (usually a male) will accept Yeshua, then God will deem the entire
household as saved as well. This is a misunderstanding; rather it is only that in some ancient
and modern day societies, the household merely accepts whatever the leader of the home
decides. It is more about social family dynamics than religion and actual belief.
Now a Believer, the gracious Lydia offers hospitality to Paul and his 3 companions. Hospitality
was the supreme virtue not only in the Middle East but in most of the known world. Paul and
his friends were not staying in convenient roadside inns as they traveled; they either slept
under the stars or in the homes of folks who offered them hospitality. So we shouldn't be
especially surprised that a well-to-do businesswoman would offer her home for a place to stay.
In Verse 16 Luke re-injects himself into the story as he says "we were going to a certain place
of prayer" when suddenly the disciples encounter this slave-girl who had a snake-spirit in her.
And her owners made good use of her occult abilities by charging folks to have their fortunes
told to them. So Luke was eyewitness to this event. But before we continue with that story I'd
like to make a point. Over and over we have been informed that is was on Shabbat that the
congregations gathered at synagogue, and it was on Shabbat when the Torah was read. But
realize that while Shabbat was the "big day" when most pious Jews went for communal prayer
and worship, it was not the only day when prayer, worship, and teaching occurred. In the
Mekhilta Vayassa we read this revealing report that upholds what is known from Tradition and
other Jewish sources:
"It was for this reason that the elders and the prophets instituted the reading from the
Torah for the Sabbath and for the second and fifth day of the week. How so? They read
on the Sabbath, and they skip only one day after the Sabbath. Then they read on the
second day, and skip the third and fourth. They again they read on the fifth day and skip
the day preceding Sabbath."
Thus it is true that in Yeshua's day, those who were the strictest followers of the Torah went to
the synagogue 3 days per week to meet and hear the Torah read: Shabbat, Monday and
Thursday. Orthodox Jews today go daily to pray and read the Torah.
Now for the demon possessed slave girl. It seems like almost every English Bible translation
translates this verse a bit differently. Some don't say anything about a snake-spirit, contrary to
our CJB; many will just refer to a spirit of divination. But in fact the original text says that the girl
had a pythona spirit. Translating that to snake is OK; leaving out any reference to a snake is
not OK because we lose the impact. Further the Greek pythona most literally does not mean
snake, it means python. So the best literal translation to English is "having the spirit of a
python". Strabo, a Greek philosopher and historian who died about the same time Yeshua was
born says that the python was the serpent that guarded the Delphic Oracle, whose name was
Pythia. The Delphic Oracle wasn't actually just one person; it was a prestigious office held by
a succession of Greek women. She would perform as a priestess at the shrine of Delphi, and
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
this priestess was probably the most powerful woman among the Greeks. In any case, what is
being referred to here in these passages in Acts is a slave-girl who was said to have carried
this same spirit of Pythia in her as did the famous and revered Oracle at Delphi; so she was
quite the attraction to these Greeks and they paid good money to this slave-girl's owners to
have her tell them their future. There is no doubt that this girl was demon possessed and what
happened was quite real.
So knowing this helps us to understand what comes next. This girl kept following Paul and the
disciples around screeching that "these men are the servants of God Most High and they're
telling you have to be saved!" In other words, as annoying as she was, she was telling the
truth. But after awhile Paul grew tired of this self-serving nonsense and never ending clamor
and exorcized the offending demon in the name of Yeshua. Now needless to say, her owners
were horrified! And they were furious....at Paul. All that profit just went down the drain. So the
men grabbed Paul and Sila and took them before the local authorities who were quite
understanding of these businessmen. And of course rather than accuse Paul and Sila of what
really happened (ruining their business) they made some claim about Paul and Sila being Jews
who were causing all kinds of disruptions and commotion and upsetting everyone (so far the
only upset people seemed to be the businessmen who owned the slave girl). But the
accusation to incite riots was a sensitive one in the Roman Empire, and taken very seriously.
Jews were notorious riot starters.
What comes next derives from an incorrect assumption that the town magistrates made.
Behind the accusation that Paul and Sila were Jews is that they are not Roman citizens. Paul
and Sila were in a town of mostly gentiles where Roman citizenship was the norm. It was rare
that a Jew would be a Roman citizen; so rare that such a possibility wasn't even considered
by the townspeople. Early in our study of the Book of Acts we discussed that Paul's status as
a Roman citizen (something that is regularly brought up in the New Testament) was indeed out
of the ordinary; and that his citizenship could be traced to his father's family who apparently
were Jewish aristocrats in a high enough position that some high Roman government official
awarded them such status. So Paul was born into Roman citizenship and had led a privileged
life. This is why he had little trouble standing up to local politicians, other aristocrats, and even
kings. He knew how to handle himself and he knew the right words to say, and he knew his
legal rights as a Roman citizen and how to demand justice. God had picked exactly the right
man for the job as the lead evangelist to the gentiles of the Roman Empire.
For whatever reason Luke and Timothy escaped the notice of the authorities and weren't
subject to being prosecuted. I suspect it is because Luke was obviously a gentile, and because
Timothy probably looked like a gentile due to the physical features he inherited from his gentile
father. Paul and Sila no doubt looked Semitic.
The crowd reacted as if in a feeding frenzy and the judges acted in accordance with the wishes
of the crowd: Paul and Sila were beaten and thrown into jail. How dare non-Roman citizens tell
Roman citizens what their religion ought to be! These men needed to be taught a lesson and
so they were chained into stocks. But as is the pattern of the Lord, when He decides that
human justice goes against His will, He overturns the rulings of men. Around midnight as Paul
and Sila were praying, the earth began to roll and rumble and it was violent enough that the
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
chains fell off of Paul and Silas and all the others in prison with them. Even more all the cell
doors flew open. The startled jailer was jostled out of a sound sleep to find that his jail was
open; he decided to kill himself as the only honorable thing to do because he knew that was
going to be his fate anyway. He figured that surely all the prisoners would have gleefully
thanked their lucky stars and run off into the night. But instead he heard a reassuring voice
from inside the darkness of the jail cells that told him not to harm himself, they are all still there.
The awestruck jailer fell down before Paul and Sila asked "what must I do to be saved?" It is
hard to know exactly what was in the jailer's mind when he spoke those words. Perhaps the
jailer had heard Paul and Sila speak about "the way of salvation" as they roamed the streets
of Philippi, and not knowing very much about what it even meant was so impressed with the
countenance and courage of these 2 men that he wanted whatever it was that they had. Paul
explains to the astonished jailor that faith in Yeshua will save him and all his household (we've
already discussed what this meant in the context of the times we're dealing with). Since we
know that Luke wasn't in jail with Paul and Sila, then he is summarizing whatever he has been
told about this incident, and detail is no doubt lacking.
The jailor has few ways to thank Paul and Sila that doesn't involve simply releasing them
(which would result in the jailor's execution). So he responds by washing their wounds and
providing them as much comfort as the circumstances will allow. But we're also told that right
away the jailor and his entire household were immersed. It seems that the jailor took great
personal risk and brought Paul and Sila to his own home; somewhere nearby Paul and Sila
baptized them all. Following that, they ate a meal together. Notice that they had gone home
with Lydia, the God-fearing gentile, and now they do the same with the unnamed jailor. Without
the ruling of the Jerusalem Council and without Peter's encounter with God and with Cornelius
that made it clear that gentiles could be ritually clean, these two scenes with Jewish men
eating in the homes of gentiles, and accepting their hospitality, would have been impossible.
The next morning after the earthquake event, the town magistrates sent men to release Paul
and Sila no doubt feeling that these Jews had been put in their place. The scars of the flogging
would be permanent, and the humiliation and pain of being in jail ought to have done the trick.
Paul the crusader is not about to let this matter rest and just be happy that the ordeal is over.
He wants the men who wrongly did this to them to own up to their offense and apologize in
person. So now he also chooses to reveal that he in fact is a Roman citizen who did not get a
trial, but instead was summarily flogged and put into jail. This is something that is strictly
against Roman law.
The magistrates were startled and afraid when Paul's words reached them; they themselves
could lose their prestigious positions if the provincial governor heard about this injustice
perpetrated upon a Roman citizen. So indeed they swallowed their pride and went personally
to face Paul and Sila. What they said to the disciples isn't disclosed, but they did ask them to
leave the city. This matter had become too public for the townspeople not to know what was
going on but that didn't change anything; the people of Philippi were resentful that this Jew
had deprived them of their special girl with the python spirit in her that told them the future that
no doubt brought this city considerable pride and notoriety. The businessmen were still out
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 38 - Chapter 16 cont.
their profitable endeavor; forever. And there was still a bad taste in the mouths of the locals
from being told that the religion of the Jews was right, and their own was wrong. So the
magistrates asked (politely I imagine) that the disciples leave the city. Paul and company
complied and afterward went back to Lydia's house probably to recuperate from their ordeal.
After meeting with many of the Believers there, they moved on. We'll follow the disciples to
their next location in Acts chapter 17.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 39, Chapter 17
Last week in Acts chapter 16 we saw that Paul and Sila were arrested in the town of Philippi
and thrown in jail accused of inciting a riot. It took a miraculous action of God (an earthquake)
to free them before any permanent harm was done to the disciples. We're going to see
something similar (minus jail) happening in chapter 17. We must ask ourselves what it is that is
causing such outrage in towns that have mostly gentile populations. We'll address that at the
appropriate time during today's lesson.
As we open Acts 17, Paul, Sila and Timothy were again on the road; it is probable that Luke
was still with them even though he is not mentioned. For the most part, since Luke is the
author of Acts, he doesn't insert his personal presence except by implication. They were in
Macedonia on the western shore of the Aegean Sea. This is an area that today we consider
part of Europe. Let's read about their next destination. Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 17.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 17 all
Paul had a particular destination in mind when he left Philippi: Thessalonica. Thus we are told
that the group of disciples traveled through Amphipolis and Apollia to get there. No doubt they
took the well known Via Egnatia highway to make the 90 mile trek. Thessalonica was perhaps
the major metropolis of Macedonia and so there was a sufficient Jewish population to have a
synagogue. What we are seeing is that most every city of any consequence in the Roman
Empire had a representative Jewish population; and when the population was big enough,
there a synagogue would be built.
Paul's custom was to immediately go to the local synagogue wherever one was present. This
served two purposes. First, Paul was an observant Jew and so going to synagogue at least
once per week, and usually more, was a requirement for him; not an option. Second, because
that's where he would find brethren that would offer hospitality to him. We know that when he
arrived in Thessalonica he was there for at least 4 weeks because he went to synagogue for 3
Shabbatot (3 Sabbaths). We are told that Paul "reasoned" with the members of the
synagogue from the Scriptures. The CJB substituted the word drashot for reasoned; and while
that is not a direct translation it is (from the Jewish cultural perspective) correct. Drash is one
of several Scriptural study methods used by Jewish teachers and Rabbis. The word means
searching. About the closest we can get in English to translate drash would be exegetical
Bible teaching (what we do in Seed of Abraham Torah Class); that is the Scripture passage is
read, and then an interpretation or explanation is given. Allegory was sometimes used but in
general a drash is an attempt to extract a straightforward meaning including an application.
We might call it Bible study. However when given at a synagogue, it would always be
accompanied with ritual prayers and worship as part of an overall customary synagogue
service.
1 / 7
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
Since Paul was at a synagogue then naturally whatever argument he would make for his point
of view would revolve around quoting the Tanakh (the Old Testament). That might sound a bit
redundant for me to tell you that; but my reason for doing so is because when Paul talked to
pagans he tended not to use Scripture. Jews of course knew, and were thus receptive, to
Scripture passages as a source of evidence for Paul's statements. Pagans knew nothing of
the Tanakh so for Paul to try to persuade them by quoting from the Bible would have been
fruitless as pagan gentiles had no familiarity with Scripture. Thus because Paul was in a
synagogue he was speaking to Jews and to God-fearers and his goal was to persuade the
congregation that Yeshua was the Messiah. That involved explaining how Yeshua could be
that person if in fact he had been killed; but even more Paul had to convince them that Yeshua
was resurrected. Since synagogues were usually run by Pharisees or at the least they adopted
Pharisee doctrines, then resurrection was not a foreign concept to them. Yet just as with the
Jews in Judea, few could accept the thought of a suffering and executed Messiah. Standard
synagogue teaching and belief was that a Messiah would be a charismatic military leader who
would come to lead the Jews in rebellion against Rome, with an outcome that Israel would rise
again as an independent Jewish kingdom and essentially replace the Roman Empire. So at
best it was a pretty hard sell.
Vs. 4 tells us that Paul had the typical results that he experienced in all the synagogues he
taught in: some of the congregation believed, but the majority did not. And it was a mix of Jews
and God-fearers who became Believers. As typical, the Jews who did not accept Paul's
doctrine became upset and took action against him. In this case the Jews enlisted the help of
some unemployed troublemakers and they aroused the passions of the townsfolk against the
disciples.
Apparently in Thessalonica the disciples were enjoying the hospitality of a man named Jason;
probably a Believing Jew. Jason was one of the Greek language forms that Diaspora Jews
took for the standard Hebrew name Joshua. If he wasn't a Believing Jew it is hard to imagine
why he would have put himself at such risk to shelter Paul and the other 3 disciples; however
we're not told one way or the other. These no-goods that were used to foment the riot were
hanging around the Agora. The Agora was a public open space (a park if you would) typical of
Greek cities, which was used for meeting and for those who had something to say to make
speeches; athletic events would often be held there.
Apparently Paul and the others got wind of the trouble and fled Jason's house before the mob
arrived. The rioters confronted Jason, looked through his home, and couldn't find the disciples
so they hauled Jason before the town politarchs. Politarchs were a particular kind of high level
magistrates. The crowd charged Jason with harboring these Jewish agitators. Naturally angry
mobs tend to exaggerate whatever claims they might have; in this case they said that these
particular Jews had upset the entire world and now they were here in Thessalonica to do the
same! This would be a good time to explain the issue at the heart of the upset of the entire
town because this would be the same issue that would follow Paul wherever he went.
The Roman Empire had a policy of religious tolerance. In general anyone could worship their
local gods without interference. Thus the Jews were also free to worship their God, to build
synagogues, etc. But what no one was permitted to do was neither to create disturbances nor
2 / 7
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
to challenge the authority of Roman law or local magistrates, and especially one could not
challenge the supremacy of the Roman Emperor. To put it another way: while there was plenty
of religious tolerance there was no political tolerance. The Jews represented a particularly
troublesome conundrum for the Romans; they were unlike any other ethnic group in that they
tended to stay true to their religion and to their ethnic identity because the Jews considered
those two aspects of Jewish life as inseparable. And the Jews, while appreciative of the
tolerance shown to them, were themselves not at all tolerant towards the pagan religions that
represented the majority of the citizens of the Empire. The more pious among the Diaspora
Jews showed open contempt for the gods of the many pagan religions that they lived among.
They also tended to refuse participation in the national festivals that invariably involved Roman
or Greek gods and goddesses; festivals that were intended to unite the smorgasbord of
peoples and nations that formed the Roman Empire. The Jews also had a bent towards
creating ghettos and boroughs where they would practice their unique Jewish lifestyle,
shunning the local and national traditions and observances.
Because of their Babylonian exile some 600 years earlier, the Jews had scattered (mostly on
their own accord) far and wide; but most of them did not assimilate into the gentile world
(although some did to varying degrees). Jews therefore remained quite identifiable, which was
their intent; they stuck out like sore thumbs. So while the Romans were busily trying to institute
a universal Hellenist culture throughout their Empire, the Jews led the way in resisting it. The
Jews had entirely different moral standards; they educated their children differently and
conducted their lives differently. This made them visibly separate and distinct from the many
other ethnic groups. It is not at all unlike in Europe or America today where we have growing
immigrant populations of Muslims who wear their own peculiar garb, meet at Mosques, eat
only halal foods, usually prefer to speak Arabic or Farsi or some other unfamiliar Middle
Eastern dialect, and tend to take over certain areas of cities in order to cluster together,
generally refusing assimilation. Our national principle of religious freedom allows them to
worship their unique god; but that doesn't mean we're entirely comfortable with it.
The Muslims also usually do not celebrate our national holidays and so combined with these
other factors it makes the more traditional Europeans and Americans suspicious of them, partly
because their ways are so foreign to us we can't tell if what they are doing is benign or
potentially harmful to us as a nation. It bothers us that they don't seem to want to be American
or European; rather they want to import their culture to our nation or even try to change us to
their ways. Provided these people stay to themselves and don't start trouble, we tolerate them.
But when something unsettling happens involving Muslims, it ups the level of our suspicion and
lowers our level of acceptance of them as a group. This is a good analogy of how the Jews
were viewed in the Roman Empire.
Now as concerns Paul and his merry band of evangelist disciples; they represented a
particular problem. They didn't just bother the local gentile population in similar ways as did
the other Jews who lived there, they also seemed to rile up the local Jewish population. It is not
that the gentiles understood why Paul was embraced by some of the local Jews but rejected by
others; they weren't at all familiar with the intricacies and nuances of Judaism. All they knew is
that this particular group of itinerant Jews caused upset wherever they went. And when they
upset the local Jews, the local Jews upset the local gentiles. And when the local Jews and
3 / 7
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
gentiles together began forming a mob to take action against Paul and the local Believers, this
upset the Roman authorities who were always on the lookout for rebellion. And when the
Roman authorities got upset, the local politicians feared for their jobs. And when the local
politicians feared for their jobs, they looked for someone to blame. And so they blamed those
that seemed to be to the source of the problem: the Jews.
Bottom line: for the gentiles and for the Roman authorities, this wasn't about religion; this was
about political and civil unrest. And of course when we read in verse 7 that the gentiles think
that Paul is declaring Yeshua to be a king, who is in defiance of the Emperor of Rome, they
can't make the distinction between his meaning this in a religious sense versus their paranoid
thinking that he means it in a political sense. This is probably the most serious allegation of all
because to the average citizen this seems like sedition. So when the politarchs heard these
charges they joined the mob in being perturbed because if they didn't do something about it,
they could be accused of being complicit. This was essentially the same charge that had been
leveled at Paul and company at Philippi; a charge that resulted in jail. Of course everyone
knew that this charge was bogus; after all the supposed rival king, Yeshua, had been executed
some 15 years earlier. So it was the mere thought of some Jews wanting a king that might
challenge the Emperor that was the issue; it was words and thoughts that simply could not be
uttered no matter how remote or benign the reality of it. It was essentially the ultimate political
incorrectness. But for these itinerate Jews to be the ones to say those words? That made them
little more than traveling troublemakers.
At least the politarchs of Thessalonica didn't react as did the judges in Philippi; or better they
didn't overreact. Rather they approached this matter more thoughtfully. First; any evidence of
a conspiracy to enthrone a new king over Rome didn't exist; but second, the supposed
conspirators were nowhere to be found. So essentially the proposed solution was to make
Jason and friends responsible to see to it that no further trouble occurred. They had to put up a
bond that ensured that Paul and his 3 companions would behave or better, leave and go be
some other city's problem. As much as the fearless crusader Paul would have liked to stay,
face his detractors, and continue preaching the Gospel, it would have come at Jason's
expense. So with the help of some local Believers the disciples stealthily left for Berea. Verse
10 picks up with that story.
But before we go there, I think now would be a good time to make a connection that is easily
overlooked. I mentioned last time that as we see the names of these several cities in
Macedonia where Paul established Believers among several synagogue congregations
(names like Corinth, Philippi and Thessalonica) we need to immediately connect the New
Testament books Corinthians, Philippians and Thessalonians because Paul's letters bearing
those titles were to the congregations who resided in those aforementioned cities.
So understanding what just went on in Philippi and now Thessalonica, let's read the first
couple of chapters of 1st Thessalonians because Paul is writing very shortly after they got run
out of town. Thus what we just studied in Acts 17 is the context for the letter called 1st
Thessalonians. And without the context of Acts 17 then we miss the point of the 1st book of
Thessalonians. Open your Bibles to 1st Thessalonians.
4 / 7
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
READ 1st THESSALONIANS CHAPTERS 1 AND 2
So the troubles we just read about in Acts 17 (some of it also carried over from chapter 16
concerning Philippi) are what Paul is writing to the Thessalonians about in order to explain his
abrupt departure and why he had not returned to the Thessalonian congregation. No doubt this
congregation in Thessalonica was continuing to take the brunt of the ire of the local gentiles. I
advise that you finish reading the remaining 3 short chapters of 1st Thessalonians on your own,
now that you have the context for better understanding it. My point in going here is to keep
emphasizing that the Bible is organic; it is not a series of unconnected dots. It all works
together and we have to approach it that way. Then our learning and understanding multiplies.
Back to Acts 17 verse 10. Now in Berea the disciples headed to the local synagogue. Berea,
Philippi and Thessalonica were the 3 largest cities in Macedonia. It turns out that the
synagogue members in Berea were much more receptive to the Gospel than those in
Thessalonica; why that is we don't know for certain. But my speculation is that it is because
they studied the Scriptures to seek truth, rather than relying on long held Traditions and
doctrines of Judaism. I think this is the case because the defining characteristic of the Berean
congregation is spoken in verse 11: "They accepted the message with eagerness and
examined the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."
Here is a principle that is too often violated in Christian circles. Instead of listening to what our
teachers and pastors say and then checking carefully in the Scriptures for confirmation, too
often teachers and Church leaders are set on a pedestal and it is assumed that they would
never be wrong, or don't have a hidden agenda, or are simply defending a questionable
Church doctrine. Is this unwise trust on our part? Or is it a profound laziness? I suppose I
don't know. But either way, the congregation has the responsibility to ensure that what they're
accepting from anyone is truth and light. And the gold standard by which all is to be measured
against is not how we feel in our hearts or what tickles our ears; it is what God's Word actually
says.
Just as at Thessalonica, in addition to many Jews who embraced Yeshua in Berea so did
many God-fearers. It is made clear that among the Believers were female and male Greeks,
and even the wealthy. But the good times were to dissipate quickly; when word reached
Thessalonica of Paul's presence in Berea, some unbelieving Jews from Thessalonica made
the trip to Berea to try and foment trouble for the disciples. I'll reiterate: this was not a religious
issue that was the cause of these Thessalonians coming to town; rather it was political and
civil. And since Paul and his companions had escaped Thessalonica without facing the music,
the Thessalonians wanted payback.
Since Paul was the spokesman and obvious leader, it was he that was the primary target. So
Timothy and Sila (and probably Luke who as a gentile was generally incognito) sent Paul to the
seacoast to catch a ship to Athens. Some of the brethren from Berea accompanied Paul to
Athens no doubt as protection. Paul sent a message back with them to tell Sila and Timothy to
come to Athens to join him as quickly as they could.
5 / 7
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
Athens was a unique place; it was considered as the birthplace of democracy and a seat of
intellectualism; it is what today we might call a college town. But it was also a Greek city, not a
Roman City, and so they enjoyed a special status that exempted them from the Roman
provincial system. All Paul saw was the myriad of idols placed all over the city and it greatly
offended his Jewish sensibility; the 2nd commandment specifically addressed this issue and
forbade having anything to do with idols. Now Paul had seen idols in cities since he was a
child; he was, after all, a Diaspora Jew who was born and raised in Tarsus of Cilicia. But
Athens was a veritable garden of idols and Paul could barely control his outrage.
Depending on how pious a Jew thought of himself, we read in the Talmud of Jews that would
not pass through the gates of cities that were adorned with welcome idols. We also read from
an early Christian theologian Hippolytus that some Jews wouldn't carry or even touch a coin if
it had a likeness or image on it, and most coins did. Paul might not have been this radically
zealous, but verse 16 makes it clear that he was greatly troubled and agitated by what he saw
in Athens. If I might comment: I think the more a person spends time in prayer and in Scripture
study, doing things that bring us closer to God, the harder it is for us to ignore the worldly, if not
downright wicked, things that surround us. Things that have always been there; things that
most people don't think twice about but merely accept as usual and normal. Things we simply
overlooked but suddenly their presence arouses a deep righteous indignation within us and we
can't stop pondering them, although we wish we could. Such is the uncomfortable state of a
devout follower of Christ, but less so for those of the more liberal Christian mindset that
constantly adjusts their faith to whatever new trends and political correctness arises. Paul had
lived much of his early years viewing idols every day; now his spirit is deeply disturbed by them
and he can't help but take action.
So what did Paul do? He redoubled his effort to spread the Gospel, with Athens being Exhibit
number one of why humans needed to hear about Yeshua and the God of Israel. It is a strange
irony in this world that the more that humanism increases, the more that godliness decreases.
The more that intellectualism is sought after, the more that wisdom is shunned. And thus in
verse 17 we see that Paul goes to the local synagogue congregation in Athens; but unlike with
the Bereans who compared what Paul said with Holy Scripture, we find only that Paul
reasoned with the members of the Athens synagogue. And that he also went to the local
marketplace to reason with the pagan gentiles. No mention is made of the Torah or Scripture
being involved. The point is that in this city of Athens that prided itself with self-governance,
always seeking a progressive lifestyle, embracing the newest thoughts and latest philosophies,
Paul couldn't even deal with the Jews and God-fearers of Athens using Scripture because it
was primarily intellectual reasoning that impressed them.
Paul also encountered a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who listened to what he
said in the streets of Athens; but because they considered themselves as the intellectual elite,
they considered him but a babbler. Let's understand what Epicureans and Stoics were and
what they believed because it will help us to understand why Paul necessarily approaches
them as he does.
First understand that these two groups were rivals; so our first clue is that whatever
philosophies that they embraced, they consisted of mostly opposite principles. The Epicureans
6 / 7
Acts Lesson 39 - Chapter 17
were named after their founder Epicurus who lived 3 centuries earlier. They denied the
existence of an all-powerful, purposeful God and claimed that the universe was created
spontaneously and all that existed was purely the result of mathematical chance (sound
familiar?). In fact, they had no regard for the Greek and Roman god systems and expressed
contempt towards the idols and all the temples and priests and flocks of followers. Yet,
ironically, they did not dismiss the existence of gods. Rather even though the gods were
human-like in their qualities, they did not involve themselves in the affairs of humans.
The Epicureans did not believe that a soul lived on after the death of the body (the Jewish
Sadducees would have agreed with them); in fact the soul was not ethereal, it was as material
as flesh and blood. Thus since there was no life after death the here and now is all that
mattered and so they fashioned their life's aim as the pursuit of pleasure and gratification.
Morality was a meaningless and needless burden. Essentially the Epicureans were early
anarchists.
The Stoics claimed Zeno of Cyprus as their founder, and not surprisingly he lived at exactly the
same time as the founder of the Epicurean school of philosophy. For them God was like The
Force in a Star Wars movie. They adhered to some hazy concept of God being embodied in
the totality of the universe, or perhaps as the moving spirit that gave energy and life to the
universe. A human had an ethereal soul, but at death this soul would lose any individuality and
instead join into the life force of the universe, and thus essentially they were absorbed into
whatever God was.
The Stoics sought an unmoved, passionless existence. They were mainly concerned with
being in harmony with nature, and thus were apathetic regarding the human condition. They
did not seek pleasure as the be-all end-all like the Epicureans, because for them neither
pleasure nor discomfort mattered. Essentially outside of a never ending search for knowledge,
there was nothing worth living for. Reason and enlightenment were the only reasons to exist;
and so when a Stoic reached a point in which they either physically or mentally could not gain
more knowledge, or they had lost any interest in learning more, then the only reasonable and
logical solution was suicide. Their founder took this path and many thousands of Stoics did as
well.
Thus both Stoicism and Epicureanism find Biblical religion to be a childish fantasy and illogical.
I don't think after my descriptions of these two mainstream philosophies of Athens that I need
to draw the comparisons with what we see going on all around us today. They certainly don't
go by those names in our times, but the underlying principles remain. And what these
principles bring to humanity is a hopeless existence, with a hopeless future. The 18th century
Enlightenment brought about by the likes of the European intellectuals Hume and Kant and
Voltaire, which is the basis for virtually all of the societies of the Western world today, and that
has greatly infected the Church at large (and much of Judaism as well), is nothing but a deadly
mixture of ancient Epicurean and Stoic philosophies.
So these are the people that Paul would next try to reach. How could he possibly go about this
in terms they would be willing to hear and accept as at least plausible? That is what we'll look
at in our next lesson.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7 / 7
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 40, Chapters 17 and 18
We are in Acts chapter 17 and last week we ended our study with defining the belief systems
of two groups that Paul encountered in Athens: the Epicureans and the Stoics. These two
groups in no way passed for religions or held themselves up as religions; rather they were
philosophies. In fact it would probably be fair to say that the goal of these two philosophical
institutions was to be the replacement of religion.
It would be also accurate to say that Epicureanism and Stoicism were competitors to Judaism
and therefore competitors to The Way. Essentially these human philosophies were alternative
attempts to help pagans come to terms with life; something that Judaism (and true Biblical
Hebrew-ism) had done successfully since the days of Moses. And when given a fair hearing
there is no doubt that Judaism and Christianity have never been surpassed when it comes to
creating a good, just, and workable system of law and society on earth because both of these
ways of life are based on God's truth as opposed to mankind's inclinations.
Over the centuries the foundational premises of Epicureanism and Stoicism have hung around,
just morphing into the latest cultural trends and political correctness, and being given new
names. In the modern era the European Enlightenment of the 18th century adopted these same
beliefs (just in new packaging) with the goal of eradicating religion that contained any sort of
mysticism from European society. The main targets were Christianity and Judaism; it has
largely succeeded. In contemporary 21st century times we call this same goal to abolish
religion secularism; or we speak of it politically as Liberal Progressive ideals. So what Paul was
confronting in Athens in the 1st century A.D., followers of the God of Israel are also confronting
today. Thus (to a degree) just how Paul faced this great challenge is a good model for us in our
time. And it is a rather simple model: don't ever back down. Tell the divine truth and let the
chips fall where they may. Don't try to find a middle ground with those who choose secular
philosophy over trust in God, because there isn't any; whatever you might see is at best a
mirage. Any attempt to find common ground will do nothing but frustrate you, or at worst draw
you towards their way of thinking and away from the Lord.
2Corinthians 6:14-18 CJB
14 Do not yoke yourselves together in a team with unbelievers. For how can
righteousness and lawlessness be partners? What fellowship does light have with
darkness?
15 What harmony can there be between the Messiah and B'liya'al? What does a believer
have in common with an unbeliever?
16 What agreement can there be between the temple of God and idols? For we are the
temple of the living God- as God said, "I will house myself in them,... and I will walk
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
among you. I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17 Therefore ADONAI says, "'Go out from their midst; separate yourselves; don't even
touch what is unclean. Then I myself will receive you.
18 In fact, I will be your Father, and you will be my sons and daughters.' says ADONAI-
Tzva'ot."
We see the effects of both Judaism and Christianity's attempt to make peace with secular
Liberal philosophy in the deteriorating health of both religions. In Judaism the most popular and
fastest growing segment is called Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism is essentially Judaism
with a lesser God, with a watered down Holy Book, and with fewer absolutes. Reform doctrines
created by committee are their standard for living; they are designed to compromise with the
ebb and flow of time and societal evolution. In Christianity we have a number of forms of it
with the most recent being what is called the Emergent Church. While a belief in God remains,
theirs is a God of tolerance who embraces all forms of religion and worship. The Judeo-
Christian Holy Book, the Bible, while not quite obsolete, is mostly optional with all other of the
world's religions' Holy Books seen as equally valid and worthy. Each person then is left to
discern their own truth and own way of life, none having more merit or value than another.
So let's see how Paul handled this troubling situation he found in Athens that Luke says shook
Paul to his core; and then see if we can derive from it how we ought to deal with a similar
situation in our day both within and without the Church and synagogue.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 17:18 – end
It is interesting how the Epicureans and the Stoics accused Paul of trying to introduce foreign
gods. Let's talk about that. These 2 philosophies had little regard for gods in the first place;
they didn't worship any gods or goddesses. So why would they care if Paul was introducing
foreign gods into Athens? First was because they were essentially trying to rid Athens of
religion and the last thing they needed was some new gods that might become popular when
introduced. Then as now, people loved new fashion and new trends. Second was because
they were loyal to Greece. And even though they might not have any regard for these Greek
gods, they didn't want some foreigner bringing their gods into Greek society. We find this
same dynamic at play today among atheists, who are by definition secular and Liberal; they
are the Stoics of our day. They don't believe that God or gods exist; yet you or I can't have a
God or worship our God openly because that makes them feel threatened they say. How can
they feel threatened by a God that is no more than a fantasy? I wonder if the Avengers make
them feel threatened too, since they don't exist, either.
So just as Liberal secularists today take Christians and Jews to court to stop us from
worshipping God publically (a god who doesn't exist they say), so did the Stoics and
Epicureans take Paul to court to stop him from worshipping God (who doesn't exist they say).
This court in Athens is well known in history; it is called the Court of Areopagus. This court was
established centuries earlier to regulate religion and morals. It is interesting that it received its
name from the formal designation for the hill of Ares (Ares was the Greek god of war) where
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
they met. Now in reality Paul was not brought to a judicial trial; these people loved exploring
new ideas and of course denigrating the ones they thought unintelligent. So he was brought to
the court to explain this religion of his to the religion experts whose job was to examine Paul's
claims. Verse 21 comments that the city's grand intellectual inquisitors spent all their time
exploring the latest intellectual fads. Today this occupation seems to be the province of our
most admired Universities. Not much new under the Sun, is there?
But Paul was no pansy. Paul was an intellectual, too; highly educated and trained, used to
grinding debate, and unafraid of confrontation. Jewish literature is filled to the brim with
recorded arguments between the brilliant Jewish sages and rabbis, and the many gentile
philosophers. So this sort of debate wasn't new to Paul. But he was also fluent in Greek,
comfortable and familiar with the pagan world, and as we learn from his epistles, a fearless
and able defender of the faith. Paul looked around and noticed that of the veritable garden of
idols surrounding him at the hill of Ares stood one statue that was marked: "to an unknown
god". So, says Paul, since you are already worshipping this god that you don't know anything
about, let me introduce him to you. Those words could not have been for those who brought
him before the court of Areopagus, because they were anything but religious. However those
on the court, and the many Athenian spectators who spent so much of their time in idleness
listening in on these empty debates that were the daytime Television of the 1st century in
Athens, were religious and so Paul was addressing himself to them. Remember: Paul's goal
isn't to rebut the philosophers as much as it is to have a stage to speak the truth of the Gospel
to these pagans. And so Paul begins to explain just who God is.
At first nothing Paul is saying offends the audience. That is because he is but imparting new
and interesting information. The first thing Paul does is to explain the sovereignty of God over
all things and he does this by making the logical argument that since his God created all things
including life itself, therefore He is superior and above all things; especially above manmade
things. Therefore it would be inappropriate for Paul's God to live in Temples fashioned by
human workmanship. And this God can't be coddled and served with the finest things of earth
because he doesn't need humans for anything whatsoever: the God of Israel is the epitome of
self-reliance.
Paul continues in verse 26 to explain that God began the human race from one individual
whom He created, and so every human being who populates the many nations of the earth
came from this first individual; the audience included (is the implication). Even more it was
Paul's God who decided not only the boundaries of nations, but also the boundaries of the
earth itself. Let me pause to make a point. I said a few minutes ago that Paul's defense of the
Gospel to pagans and especially to pagan intellectuals is a good model for us. Notice how (to
this point at least) the outspoken and often harsh Paul has (for him) been pretty subdued and
gentle. He hasn't spoken down to these pagans about their ignorance of the truth. But also
notice that he begins at the beginning and not one word of Holy Scripture is quoted. Why not?
Pagans would have no idea about the source of those Biblical passages and even if they did
know they wouldn't give those words any special credibility. So Paul has to debate them in a
language and using terms that have meaning to them. That is exactly what we must do in our
era for speaking God's truth to people who don't know who God is. And it will necessarily
have to be culturally specific. Paul was speaking in a way that Athenians could understand
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
(whether they agreed with him or not was another matter). So we don't hear him use words
like Messiah, redemption, blood of Christ, or Torah. First a context with a foundational base of
knowledge has to be built.
So Paul says that God established humans and nations and gave them what they needed so
that they would reach out to Him. That is, God would create evidence of Himself and thus
humanity would recognize that something greater than themselves had to have created all that
they see and so begin a search for that "something". It might surprise you to learn that
several things Paul says to the Athenians are taken directly from a source that these Greeks
would recognize. He quotes from Epimenides, then Aratus. In vs. 28 when Paul says "For in
him we live and move and exist" it is actually taken from a quatrain written by Epimenides
written for the purpose of criticizing the tomb of the god Zeus. Then when Paul says: "We are
actually his children", this was originally a sentence composed by the Greek poet Cleanthes
and then made popular by a book written by Aratus. And those words were meant to argue that
God is willing to let humankind serve Him because He was many needs that need to be
served. But Paul turns this meaning into something else entirely and argues that since all
humans are God's children, then we shouldn't be making human looking idols since we are
made in the image of God and God is not a human. So Paul is not so much building a case
(yet) against the Greek gods as he is building a case of how God is to be properly
characterized and worshipped. And if God is not a human, then it is improper to characterize
him in various human forms (idols).
But now Paul raises his oratory up a notch in vs. 30 as he says that in times past God, in His
great mercy, didn't act upon these wrong actions of gentile humanity because they were
merely done in ignorance. However now God is commanding that the time has come to put
away ignorance, and instead to gain knowledge of the true God, and to turn from sin. These
are fighting words because Paul is telling these highly educated Athenians that their centuries-
old god system is actually ignorance and it amounts to sin from which they must turn away.
Next Paul begins to make his case for Yeshua. He tells his audience that a day is coming
when God will judge the world; and it will be through the agency of a certain man that this
judging occurs. And that the identity of this man is evident and the proof of it is that God
resurrected this man from the dead. These thoughts were foreign to any Greek way of thinking;
the only nation that had a tradition of a coming day of worldwide judgment by a god was the
Hebrew nation: the Jews.
Considering who he was dealing with, the very first thing that the Athenians had to learn was to
turn away from idols. This was also the first thing that the pagan Thessalonians had to learn as
we hear from Paul in 1st Thessalonians chapter 1.
1Thessalonians 1:7-9 CJB
7 Thus you became a pattern for all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia;
8 for the Lord's message sounded forth from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but
everywhere your trust toward God became known. The result is that we don't need to
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
say anything;
9 since they themselves keep telling us about the welcome we received from you and
how you turned to God from idols, to serve the true God, the one who is alive.........
We don't have to work too hard to imagine the growing upset among most of those listening to
Paul. Paul was challenging the very core of Athenian religious life. But Luke says that what
brought many of the crowd to the boiling point was this issue of resurrection. Others didn't
dismiss it out of hand (intellectuals and academics have a habit, for the better or the worse, of
never closing off any line of thought in case new information might surface) and they wanted to
hear more on this matter from Paul. But an immortal soul was not unfamiliar within Greek
thought (even though the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers would not accept such a thing).
Even so, like with the Hebrew Sadducees, a bodily resurrection was seen as impossible.
Notice a couple of things before we move on to chapter 18. First, nothing is made of Paul's
Jewishness. There seems to be no ethnic bigotry going on here. In fact Paul was given a pretty
fair and respectful hearing. No doubt it was helpful that Paul spoke fluent Greek; but then again
so did most Jews in that era (Jews who live in the Diaspora). When Paul was done speaking,
he left. There is no mention of him being detained, arrested, or harassed. Another thing to
notice (and really keep noticing right through the final words of the New Testament) is that no
one perceived a Believer in Yeshua (like Paul) as being part of a new and distinct group of
people. Jews perceived The Way (by now a mixture of Jews and gentiles) as but another of the
several factions of Judaism. Gentiles didn't know enough about Judaism or Jewishness to
make any kind of distinction about those Jewish sects and so for them those who followed
Christ were Jews; or they were gentiles who adhered to Judaism. The point is that whereas we
hear Bible teachers and commentators refer to the Believers at this time as "Christians" that
creates a false mental picture because it imparts the sense that a new religion had been
created called Christianity, which was separate from Judaism and separate from paganism.
Eventually that would happen. But not until after the close of the Bible. Thus nowhere in the
New Testament will we ever find such a thought.
But what is truly astounding is how the Lord worked through Paul in this crowd of Greeks;
surrounded by statue after statue of Greek gods and goddesses and examined by the best
most persuasive philosophers, some of his listeners actually came to believe. In fact one of the
new Believers was Dionysius who was a member of the court. Interestingly it is a Christian
Tradition (spoken about by the early Church Father Eusebius) that Dionysius became the first
Church Bishop of Athens. Luke also informs us that a woman named Damaris came to Christ.
What we do NOT read about is any baptisms, a no doubt sad ending to Paul's efforts in
Athens.
Let's move on to Acts Chapter 18.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 18 all
From Athens Paul went to Corinth. Corinth of course is the subject audience of Paul's epistles
to the Corinthians. I would like you to pay close attention to what goes on in Corinth here in
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
chapter 18 because this provides the background context to understand both the tone and the
issues that Paul addresses with the Corinthians in the New Testament books of 1st and 2nd
Corinthians.
The good news is that for the first time in a while, Paul didn't leave Athens in a state of riot
after he had visited there. And he wasn't being chased and hounded, nor had he been
roughed up or jailed. The bad news is that we're not given a clue as to why Paul decided to go
to Corinth; so we'll not speculate. However we can determine that it is nearly certain that Paul
arrived in Corinth in 50 A.D. This means that it has been between 15 and 20 years since
Yeshua died on the cross in Jerusalem.
Corinth was an important place. It was located on the Isthmus of Corinth and thus was ideally
suited as a center of commerce and shipping. It was a huge city for that day; there were 6
miles of walls surrounding the metropolis. It is estimated that the total population at that time
was around 750,000 people; it was larger than Athens. Like most ancient cities this one had
been destroyed and rebuilt more than once. In one such destruction in 146 B.C. it was leveled
into a smoldering heap. It was rebuilt by Julius Caesar 100 years later. So by Paul's day it had
grown to this staggering size and population in only about 90 years. Naturally Corinth
maintained a sizeable Jewish population and boasted several synagogues. Paul would have
had no trouble in finding Jews for hospitality. Thus we read in verse 2 that Paul found a Jew
named Aquila. Aquila was from Pontus in Italy, and he was married to Priscilla. Priscilla's
formal name was Prisca, and we will find Paul referring to her as Prisca in some of his epistles.
Paul must have formed quite a bond with this couple because he mentions them (in a positive
way) on numerous occasions. We are given the unexpected bit of information that Aquila and
his wife came to Corinth because the Jews had been expelled from Rome by order of Emperor
Claudius. So here we need to pause and realize that while Rome was religiously tolerant as a
national policy, that doesn't mean that all were treated with equality.
F.F. Bruce notes something tantalizing; we have the record of Claudius' order to expel the
Jews, but it is usually connected with a statement made by Suetonius that the Jews were sent
away because "they were indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus". It could
well be that Chrestus is some rebellious trouble maker; but history seems to know nothing of
him, if he existed at all. And this person would have focused his efforts among the Jewish
community, obviously. However far more likely is that this is referring to Christ because
Suetonius' statement is made in conjunction with explaining that the main source of the
trouble in the Rome Jewish community was the introduction of The Way into the local
synagogue there. This caused all kinds of dissention and led to more trouble than the Emperor
wished to put up with.
As we've discussed before, Rome had little interest in the infighting that occurred within the
various religions present in the Empire, provided it did not spill over into street violence, upset
the rest of the population or threaten the Roman government. This applied to Judaism as well.
So for Rome their concern was political; and when dissention arose for whatever reason, the
government dealt with it as a civil/political issue; not a religious issue. Thus the expulsion of the
Jews from Rome had nothing to do with Judaism. But it did have to do with a perceived
troublesome tendency of Jewish people to cause discord in towns and cities where they lived.
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
This would have a great deal to do with how Nero would use the Jews as a scapegoat for his
failed policies.
Some commentators say that because Aquila and Priscilla were Believers that it was only
"Christians" that were expelled from Rome. There is no evidence for that at all; as I said there
was no such thing as an identifiable people group called "Christians" until well after the New
Testament was closed. In fact the Roman authorities constantly expressed total ignorance, and
lack of interest, in involving themselves in the internal disputes of Judaism. The key bit of
information for us is that Aquila and Priscilla were Jewish; not that they belonged to a particular
sect of Judaism called The Way. The idea that Claudius would involve himself and sign a royal
decree to expel only certain Jews (and no doubt a very few at that) is not plausible.
We can see immediately why Paul hit it off with Aquila and Priscilla: they were tentmakers just
has he was. It is clear that Paul was supporting himself with his trade when he was in one
place long enough. This actually was a common understanding for Rabbis and teachers. A
rather standard saying that explains this viewpoint is found in the Mishnah and is says: "Do not
make of the Torah....a spade with which to dig". In other words, don't teach the Torah as a
means to enrich yourself. This by no means implies that a teacher or Rabbi couldn't receive
money for their efforts. But except in unusual circumstances that should not be the main
source of their income. Rather Rabbis and teachers were expected to hold jobs. This is a good
principle for both Christianity and Judaism. However not too close of a parallel should be
drawn. Being a Rabbi was usually not an occupation; it was an office that a Jew held. Being a
Rabbi wasn't usually a career or a profession. So Paul worked as a tentmaker as did Aquila
and Priscilla.
Societies at all times in history tend to sub-divide ourselves into cliques according to some
standard or another. In Paul's day the most common cause for the subdivision had to do with
one's occupation. So trade guilds were a customary means of society dividing themselves up
into social units; it also represents the first attempt at organized labor so as to both police
themselves and to assure that they were paid at some level that as a group they found
acceptable. In fact, it was common that a synagogue was created and populated by members
of a particular trade guild. However in the Roman world, blue collar laborers were looked down
upon. Roman citizens did not usually indulge in manual labor as they saw it as beneath them.
Thus we see that Jews (and other ethnicities no doubt) were the main source of labor for the
Roman Empire; not because they were forced, but because tradecraft was seen in Jewish
society has honorable. Thus it would be natural that in the Diaspora, Jews would practice their
craft in a society that welcomed and needed it. Not surprisingly we find the biggest Jewish
colonies within the biggest cities in the Roman Empire.
As vs. 4 states, Paul went to the local synagogue in Corinth every Shabbat in hopes of making
new Believers. And we're told that these synagogues contained both Jews and Greeks
(gentiles). So almost everywhere we have followed Paul we find that some number of gentiles
was worshipping the God of Israel alongside their Jewish friends. But by labeling them as God-
fearers it is clear that most did not covert to Judaism by having a circumcision. How, exactly,
the Jews dealt with the ritual purity issues that God-fearers caused we don't know. Very likely,
living so far from the Temple and the Priesthood, and living in a gentile dominated world for so
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 40 - Chapter 17 and 18
long, the majority of common everyday Jews simply didn't pay much attention to the Torah
purity laws; but it is evident that the most pious among them did.
After some months without them, Timothy and Sila finally arrive from Macedonia and rejoin
Paul. Their presence seems to have allowed Paul to do less of his trade craft to provide for
himself and instead do more preaching of the Gospel. But note to whom he directed his
renewed efforts: to the Jews. So while in a common way of speaking we can say that Paul was
the disciple to the gentiles, we regularly find Paul's efforts directed towards Jews. In fact
we're told that he taught "in depth" to the Jews about Yeshua being the Messiah. This means
he was teaching them the Scripture passages (mostly the Prophets) that predicted the Messiah
and then telling these Jews how Yeshua fulfilled those prophecies. So we see him taking the
opposite approach with the Corinthian Jews that he took with the Athenians.
But, as usual, some of the Jews of the synagogues accepted Paul's teachings and others
became disturbed by them. So verse 6 explains that after trying long enough, Paul gave up on
certain ones who turned hostile and so Paul turned their fate over to the Lord. When he had
had enough, Paul is said to have said: "Your blood be on your own heads. For my part I am
clean...." This expression derives from the Torah concept of substitution, which is the central
concept of the Levitical sacrificial system, and therefore of redemption in Messiah Yeshua.
That is, instead of there being a means of atonement (and an innocent animal bearing the
brunt of your offense) a person's actions will now bring upon that person what the Law
prescribes for their offense. In this case the offense is to refuse the offer of salvation in Christ,
and thus this amounts to blasphemy.
It should be noted that this is the first time we read of Paul refusing to address certain of the
synagogue community any more. But let's also be careful with those final words of verse 6,
which are "from now on I will go to the goyim!" Paul is by no means saying that he has just
ended association with Jews or bringing the Good News to Jews. He is simply saying that his
main attention is going to be to the gentiles. We know this is truth because as we continue in
Acts we find him going directly to the synagogue in other cities he'll visit, and of his preaching
to Jews.
We'll continue in Acts chapter 18 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 41, Chapter 18
We continue in the Book of Acts chapter 18 as we see how Paul continued the expansion of
the Yeshua movement into places more and more distant from its birthplace in Judea and
Galilee. In this chapter we are told about Paul being a tentmaker (and by the way, the term for
his trade in Greek, skenopoios, literally means leather maker), and how his trade helped him
to connect with a Believing Jewish couple who had recently been expelled from Rome under
the edict of Emperor Claudius. The reason for Aquila and Priscilla's expulsion? They were
Jews. All Jews were ordered to leave Rome around 49 or 50 A.D. because it seems they
constantly fought amongst themselves, and then tended to persuade their gentile neighbors to
join in the fray. This sort of civil unrest was not tolerated in the Roman Empire and was dealt
with swiftly and harshly.
While it is not certain, because the edict of Claudius specifically says that a person named
Chrestus was the chief instigator of the Roman disturbances, and because The Way was also
indicated as somehow being the impetus for the ruckus, it is thought by many Bible scholars
that Chrestus was not a person living at that time but rather was referring to Christ. Not Christ
in the flesh but rather his teachings that of course form the foundation of the Believing
community.
But this opens another interesting subject that adds to our understanding of Paul the person
and the way he was viewed in those days. In the Greco-Roman world manual labor was
looked down upon. Work like carpentry, brick laying, and tent making were considered menial
tasks beneath the station and dignity of Roman citizens. In fact even the Greek words denoting
manual labor long carried with them a rather demeaning flavor. The many minority ethnic
groups that helped populate the Roman Empire provided the valuable blue collar labor needed
within Roman society; but at the same time they were looked down upon as ignorant and
uncultured people.
This explains the interesting backlash that occurred with especially the Christian community
that arose after 100 A.D. Christianity infused into manual labor an aura of dignity, and a good
work ethic as a moral virtue. There is a fascinating story about the early Church Father
Augustine chastising some monks who were much too idle in his estimation and he criticized
their refusal to get their hands dirty (so to speak), and so he extolled the virtues of hard work
and toil; he used Paul as his example. So he and others began to see Paul as a good example
of living a simple life that refused slothfulness and luxury by means of honest work that
involved manual labor.
The irony of this is that Paul was born into Jewish aristocracy. He was sent to the finest Jewish
religious school (Gamaliel's), and then very quickly afterwards began serving not as a humble
craftsman but rather as a sophisticated and intellectual staff member of the Jerusalem
Sanhedrin. The status of a tentmaker was in conflict with the status of a learned Pharisee and
1 / 7
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
operative for the Jewish High Court; it is also not indicative of his privileged upbringing and
social station. So how, when and why did Paul learn the trade of a lowly tentmaker? After all,
he well knew what being a common laborer meant in the Roman Empire. There is nothing that
tells us how all this came about; but I think it is somewhat less than speculation to say that he
probably did it for 2 reasons. One, as a means of supporting himself anywhere he happened to
be, once he became an itinerant teacher of the Gospel. And two, it was a means to distance
himself from Jewish aristocracy and the ties he had with the Sanhedrin, and instead to align
himself with the common Jews who were usually craftsmen. Essentially not long after his
salvation Paul chose not only to identify himself with Christ on a spiritual level, but also to
identify himself with common folk on a social level. Clearly Paul was going to evangelize
enormously more common folk than aristocrats. This is a great lesson for those among us who
want to teach, evangelize and lead others to Yeshua. We need to identify with those to whom
we speak. We need to refrain from holding ourselves as above and separate. Yet Paul was
merely following the example of His Master Yeshua. Yeshua was a carpenter and so far as we
know He continued to be one throughout His adult life and ministry. He didn't present His
message to the religious leadership or the influential, but rather to the everyday Jew. He didn't
hang out with the wealthy, and then at times go make a speech to the poor. His 12 disciples
were the Jewish working class; not the Jewish elite.
I am persuaded that even if by God's will there may at times be a difference in education and
affluence between teacher and student, there does not need to be an intentionally visible
difference in class and status (and it is far more sincere and effective if there is not). I know a
few wealthy Believers who most people would have no idea of their affluence unless they knew
them as well as I do because these folks don't hold themselves apart from those who God has
not favored materially. They refuse the most expensive clothes and cars; they shun expensive
jewelry, diamond encrusted watches and other obvious symbols of wealth. Rather their attitude
is that the less they spend on those things the more they can spend to help others and do
God's will in His kingdom.
This is another reason that I like and admire Paul. He to me is not only a man's man, he is
also indifferent to wealth and prestige. Oh, he would make good use of his Roman citizenship
and his elite education; but it was to do God's work of spreading the Good News as opposed
to spending time building bigger barns and enriching himself. He saw it not as demeaning to
live among the average workers and to labor with his hands, but rather he wanted to be near to
those he sought to teach and to utilize his craft as the means to support himself so that he
could accomplish his mission without placing that burden upon others.
Paul intentionally remade himself so that he could follow the Lord all the better. As we read
about Paul we see why early Church Fathers claimed that heavenly angels honored him, and
demons trembled at him so that he could honestly say without bragging that (as taken from
Acts 20:34) "These same hands served my need and those who were with me."
Let's follow Paul a little farther on his second missionary journey. He is now in Corinth and
soon will be in Ephesus.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 18.
2 / 7
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 18:4 – end
Paul, in vs. 6, essentially tells those who refuse to listen to him about God's mercy through
Yeshua that they are committing spiritual self-murder. And that he has done his part by telling
them about the Gospel and therefore also the consequences of rejecting it, and so bears no
further responsibility in the matter. That, folks, is really the attitude we are to have. We are to
speak the truth of the Good News to whomever the Lord puts in our path and whatever
happens thereafter is between that person and God. It is not up to us whether this person
enters the Kingdom of God. It is not our failure if they do not, or our victory if they do. However
for us to be derelict in our duty to tell others about Yeshua (people that we know need it) in
some ways makes us complicit in their possible destruction.
Apparently Paul hung in there as long as he could but eventually the rising opposition to his
message grew so contentious that he had to withdraw from speaking in this particular
synagogue in Corinth. There seems to have been at least two. He didn't have far to go to find
a new venue to continue his teaching; next door to this particular synagogue lived a God-
fearing gentile name Titius Justus who no doubt attended that synagogue and he opened his
house to Paul and those who wanted to hear him. But even more interestingly the leader of the
synagogue, Crispus, also came to faith and (as was customary) his entire household followed
suit. One has to wonder if since the synagogue was so split over this issue of salvation in
Yeshua that Crispus was able to remain as its president; Luke doesn't tell us.
The contentiousness of the situation was obviously of great concern to Paul. Yes, he had a
number of successes (some of which he speaks about in 1st Corinthians). At the same time the
going had been rough and no doubt wearying to him. So the Lord (whether this means the
Father or Yeshua we're not told) comforts and encourages Paul by telling him in a vision to go
on speaking and preaching because despite the strong words spoken against him no one in
Corinth will actually do him any harm. And the reason that no harm will come is that the Lord
says that He has "many people in this city". Does that mean that these people (whoever they
are) will protect Paul? Possibly. But I think it also gives Paul a kind of assurance that we all
seek: strength in numbers. Paul is not alone; there are many like-minded God-fearers and
Jews in Corinth that he simply isn't aware of. So this knowledge comforted Paul sufficiently
that he stayed in Corinth (despite all the opposition) for 18 months teaching those who would
heed God's Word. But then conditions changed.
Gallio became the new proconsul over the province of Achaia starting in 50 or 51 A.D. and
remained in his position for 3 years. So this gives us a pretty good marker in time to know
when this scene is taking place. The Jews that remained in strong opposition to Paul actually
brought a judicial case against him and took him to court. That is, there weren't riots in the
streets in Corinth as protest as we saw in other places Paul went. Rather there was a well
thought out attempt by the Jewish community to officially outlaw what Paul was teaching. We
see this exact thing in Israel today. Proselytizing Jews in Israel isn't just discouraged; it is
illegal and is punishable with heavy fines and jail time. The effect of what Proconsul Gallio
could decide in the case, and what Israel in modern times has decided, has a profound effect
on being able to spread the Gospel. It is one thing to battle individuals; it is quite another to
battle against official government policy.
3 / 7
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
So what was the specific charge brought against Paul? Verse 13 says that "This man is trying
to persuade people to worship God in ways that violate the law". Our CJB says "violate the
Torah", but that is a bit misleading. The Greek word used here is nomos and it properly
translates into English as "law". So what "law" do the Jews claim Paul is violating? Roman
law? Or does it mean like the editor of the CJB inserts, the Torah law? Please pay close
attention since the answer affects how we interpret much of the New Testament. I have no
doubt that it means neither of those things. Rather it means Halakhah; Jewish law. And since
these are not terms that most Believers are familiar with (except here in Torah Class, perhaps),
let me remind you that Halakhah is a fusion of the Biblical Torah, Jewish Tradition, and Jewish
customs. The typical term that was used throughout the New Testament, however, is simply
"The Law".
While when used in its most technical and original sense the term "The Law" points to that
part of the Biblical Torah where the laws of Moses are written down, that was in Paul's day
(and remains so to this day) no longer what it is referring to except in rare cases. The Law
usually, and in common every day speech among Jews, meant Halakhah: Jewish Law. And
just to make things a bit more confusing for us, the term "Torah" had also evolved to carry a
dual meaning. At times it was used in its technical sense as meaning the first 5 books of the
Bible; but in its more common usage it had become synonymous with Halakhah. Is this
knowledge important to the average Bible reader? No; it is critical because Paul uses the term
"the Law" over and over again in his epistles and we need to understand what he means by
that.
If we don't understand that the vast majority of the time that we see the word "law" that Paul
means Halakhah (but there was no parallel Greek word for this Hebrew term, and there is no
English word either), and only sometimes is he referring to the laws found in the Biblical Torah,
then it sends us down rabbit trails that produce erroneous doctrines that have led Christianity
into an underlying anti-Semitism that many Believers don't even realize is there. But worse, all
too often due to these misunderstandings by gentile Christians (going all the way back to some
of the earliest Church Fathers), mainstream Church doctrine has Paul declaring that the Torah
Law of Moses is a bad thing, a faulty thing, which God finally acknowledged was doing more
harm than good and so He abolished it. Thus Church doctrine literally has Paul disputing
against Christ's declaration of Matthew 5 that the Law is NOT abolished and in fact not the
smallest iota of it will change until heaven and earth passes away (which, by the way, actually
occurs at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ, and you can read about it in Revelation 21).
So the Jews of Corinth are complaining to Gallio that Paul is teaching things that violate Jewish
Law. Verse 14 explains that Paul was just about to say something to defend himself when
Gallio said to the accusers that he was not going to involve himself because from a Roman law
standpoint, no crime had been committed and no injury had been caused. So he had better
things to do than to adjudicate internal Jewish religious fights.
Let me have all of your attention for a moment, please: one of the most common lines of
thought in Biblical commentary on this passage is that here we see the Jews of Corinth telling
Gallio that essentially what Paul taught was not Jewish, and rather that it was Christianity,
which was a totally separate religion. So Christianity and Judaism were now different and
4 / 7
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
separate. And while Judaism was legally sanctioned in the Roman Empire, obviously
Christianity was not and so the Roman proconsul needs to outlaw Paul and his illegal
Christianity. The venerable F.F. Bruce in his commentary on Acts says: "The charge which
was preferred against Paul before Gallio was that of propagating a (new) religion and on
that basis forming a society not countenanced by Roman Law". Not one word in this
recorded conversation between the Jews of Corinth and Gallio remotely implies, let alone
addresses, such a thing; so why would such an accomplished scholar as F. F. Bruce come to
this strained conclusion? Because it is the classic case of Christian Biblical apology; it is the
method of working backwards from an established Church doctrine in order to try to find a
basis for it in the Scriptures. And yet here in the words of the pertinent Biblical passage we
have the complaining Jews saying outright that Paul, the Jew, was not following Jewish law
and Gallio responds straightforwardly that this is entirely about Jewish internal affairs and so
Roman law had no bearing on it. Folks: there was no such thing as a separate religion called
Christianity until well after New Testament times; not until gentiles gained control of the Jesus
movement. And that would not happen for another half century or so from the time of the Book
of Acts. So we can say with certainty that as of 52 or 53 A.D., the time of Acts chapter 18,
neither the Jews nor the Romans saw any distinction between Jews and members of The Way.
They were simply different sects of the same religion: Judaism.
So what did these angry unbelieving Jews do when Gallio refused their request? They took
another synagogue leader named Sosthenes and beat him up in full view of Gallio, who
expressed no interest in stopping it. The $64,000 question is why was this man beaten? My
opinion is that Sosthenes had allowed Paul to speak in the synagogue and so they blamed him
for the schism. Other commentators think that perhaps Sosthenes had become a Believer
(although you'd think Luke would have said so if that was the case). It may well be for both of
these reasons. Some of the confusion on this matter comes from the fact that in the 1st verse of
1st Corinthians we read of Paul addressing his letter as from him and Sosthenes. Could this be
the same Sosthenes, head of a synagogue, who perhaps fled with Paul after his beating?
Might it be a different Sosthenes (Sosthenes was a reasonably common name)? We just don't
know.
Before we get to verse 18, let's pause. What we have just read and studied is the condition of
the Jewish community in Corinth. We see that not only are unbelieving Jews in a severe rift
with believing Jews, but also that the unbelieving Jews were determined to stop any of Paul's
teachings from circulating because it affronted their traditions. What we have here is a volatile
situation. Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians was written very shortly after he left Corinth and
arrived in Ephesus. So the context of that letter is what we have just read about. Everything he
has to say to the Believers in Corinth is said with the troubles that Paul experienced, and what
the Believers he is writing to are currently experiencing, as the backdrop. Therefore there could
be no better time for us to read some of 1st Corinthians as a sort of extension of Acts chapter
18.
READ 1CORINTHIANS CHAPTERS 1 & 2 all
Just note a few things about the tone and purpose of this letter. First it is an "us versus them"
tone. Second it is meant to encourage the Believers there that despite all the opposition and all
5 / 7
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
their fellow Jews who constantly try to talk them out of their faith in Yeshua, they need to stand
fast. In 1st Corinthians chapter 1 Paul says: "For the message about the execution stake
(the cross) is nonsense to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the
process of being saved it is the power of God". And in the final few verses of 1st
Corinthians chapter 2 Paul says, "Now the natural man does NOT receive the things of the
Spirit of God; to him they are nonsense! Moreover he is unable to grasp them. But the
person who has the Spirit can evaluate everything, while no one is in a position to
evaluate him." And he ends with the words: "We have the mind of Messiah".
So Paul is telling these Corinthian Jewish Believers that even though they are under such
pressure by the majority of the Jewish religious community to give it up and return to the long
established and accepted Halakhah, that it is the Believers who have it right and so they
should not waver. And the reason that they are able to "get it" while so many more Jews in
Corinth are unable to "get it', is because the Believers have the Spirit of God in them while the
unbelievers do not.
Let me make application of that for our day. I get literally hundreds of emails, and I have many
in this congregation as well as out of town visitors, who all ask me why it is that they can see
so plainly that our Messiah is Jewish, that the Bible is of course a Hebrew document born in a
Hebrew culture, that God continues to love Israel as His firstborn (He hasn't rejected them and
replaced Israel with the Church), and that the Torah and the entire Old Testament are as alive
and relevant to us as the New, when most of their friends and family can't? And why does the
vast majority of the Church not get it either? Mankind is used to measuring truth and right
according to consensus. If more people believe differently than what I believe, then they must
be right and I must be wrong because they have more people on their side. Paul flatly refutes
that notion as he says the consensus of humans is not the measurement of rightness; rather
the presence of the Holy Spirit and His teaching is how rightness is determined.
My Hebrew Roots and Messianic friends, to use Paul's words and tone, we are right and they
are wrong. The only proper way to not only a right relationship with God, but a right approach
to living a redeemed life, is by returning to a balanced teaching on God's Grace along with a
renewed devotion to obedience to the Heavenly Father. It takes a lot of courage, fortitude and
faith to swim against the current stream of Christian thinking that anything-goes, and truth is
whatever you discern to be, just as long as we love one another. But if Yeshua and His 12
disciples could do it in the face of being ostracized from their community, and threatened with
prison, torture and death, can we not stand strong merely in the face of disagreement, mild
criticism, and perhaps being shunned by a few? In fact I must conclude from what we read
throughout the Bible and comparing it to actual life experience, it is that if we are not seen as
pariahs to the mainstream religious institutions, we are probably on the wrong side.
CJB Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, his mother, his wife,
his children, his brothers and his sisters, yes, and his own life besides, he cannot be my
talmid".
Following God and living our lives in the Biblically mandated way have consequences. But it
also brings us the greatest rewards.
6 / 7
Acts Lesson 41 - Chapter 18
Vs. 18 of Acts 18 says that after the incident with Paul being dragged before Gallio, he
continued on in Corinth for a while before leaving for Syria, but only after he had his hair cut
short for a vow in a place called Cenchrea. Apparently the Jewish couple Aquila and Priscilla
agreed to accompany him. No doubt the trip to Syria was to take him full circle back to Antioch
and end his 2nd missionary journey there.
What are we to make of this vow that Paul made, part of which included ceremonially cutting
his hair? First, Cenchrea was a port city near Corinth; it was where he caught a ship to sail to
back home. The issue of the hair cutting sounds very much like a Nazarite vow that Paul might
have undertaken; what exactly the vow was about we don't know. Scholars argue fiercely over
this verse because for one thing, if one looks closely at the Nazarite vow as outlined in the
Torah, it is hard to see where it fits in this story. The Mishna has a great deal to say about
vows such as the reasons for entering into one: reasons such as healing, returning home
safely from war, and praying for a son. But it also speaks in detail about the various protocols
and rituals that could be legitimately employed in vow making and those that could not. So
what we find is that vows were on the one hand seen as something to be wary of and to be
honored at all costs; but on the other hand it is clear that vows were popular and done
regularly such that clear instruction was offered about it.
So because any kind of detail or nuance is completely lacking about Paul's vow, we'll not
speculate too much. What we can know, however, is that this doesn't precisely follow the
Torah Law about Nazarite vows, however it does seem to follow Jewish tradition and custom;
Halakhah. This fact is significant because it shows Paul continuing to adhere to traditional
Judaism as a matter of course; it shows him following Jewish Law many years after
encountering the risen Messiah on the road to Damascus. Clearly Paul did not find the entire
institution of Jewish Law, Halakhah, as wrong minded or something to be abandoned upon
faith in Christ. And Paul was also not in process of moving away from a Jewish identity to a
gentile Christian one. The Jewish Paul was remaining Jewish.
The ship he is on makes a port call at Ephesus. And because Ephesus was of good size it too
had a synagogue. There he preached to the Jews about Messiah. Nothing is said about his
success or failure, only that they hoped he would stay longer so obviously he was far better
received in Ephesus than he had been in Corinth. But his schedule wasn't his own; when the
time came for his ship to continue its journey he would have to go. It was during this short stay
in Ephesus that he wrote his famous letter to the Corinthians that has since become a book of
the Bible. However he promised that if it was on God's agenda, he would come back to
Ephesus and teach them more. The ship's destination was the harbor at Caesarea Maritima.
Next week we'll follow Paul as he first goes to Jerusalem and then north to the synagogue in
Antioch that was sponsoring his missionary journeys.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7 / 7
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 42, Chapters 18 and 19
We have been following Paul's missionary journeys, where he is taking the Good News to the
many foreign nations of the Roman Empire (starting with the many Jewish communities) that
the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for has come. He invariably begins by showing up
in a city and going to the local synagogue to speak. But this Good News was not so good to
many Diaspora Jews because it bore little resemblance to the teachings of their Jewish
religious leadership concerning the nature and purpose of a Messiah. What was most difficult
to swallow, perhaps, was the deity of Yeshua. Not surprisingly, many gentile God-fearers who
attended some of these synagogues were more open to the Gospel of Yeshua because they
weren't as indoctrinated to the Jewish traditions about the expected nature of the Messiah as
were the Jews.
The traditional perspective was that the Messiah would be much as King David was; even,
perhaps, a reincarnation of sorts of King David himself. This Messiah would be a warrior leader
who would propel the Jews to a successful rebellion against Rome, free the Jewish nation from
its occupiers, install the Jewish Messiah as the new Davidic king of a new and expanded
Israelite kingdom, and essentially replace the Roman Empire as the world power.
This was an era when the synagogue (not the Temple) was the source of Jewish religious
instruction, and the oversight for proper observance and behavior was performed by the
synagogue leaders who took their cue from the Pharisees. The Temple was considered by
many ordinary Jews to be at best of questionable authority, and (as with the Essenes) at worst
as corrupt and illegitimate; so priests were simply there and tolerated because of the Torah-
required ritual and ceremonial functions that they, and only they, could perform. If the ordinary
Jews refused to co-operate with the priests and recognize their authority then they found
themselves unable to comply with the Laws of Moses regardless of how much they might have
looked upon the priesthood with contempt.
Nevertheless the Jews of Judea and the Galilee had a close connection with the Temple even
though they also gave their allegiance to the various synagogues. But the Jews of the
Diaspora had much less to do with the Temple since only the most able had the wherewithal or
the motivation to make the long, expensive and sometimes risky trip to Jerusalem from
whatever foreign soil they lived upon in order to be obedient to the Torah and to participate in
the various Biblical festivals. Certainly it was completely impractical for them to go to the
Temple to offer sacrifices to atone for their sins as the occasions arose. Thus a veritable
stream of itinerant prophets and teachers went out from Jerusalem and made their way to the
many synagogues of the Diaspora where they were generally well received and viewed as
representatives coming from "home base". Paul and his disciples were seen as among those
many itinerant teachers and so getting an audience was not difficult.
When we left off last time, Paul was about to leave Corinth after a great deal of trouble had
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
arisen due to the message of Salvation, as he intended to make his way back to the Holy
Land. He would take a ship to get there; but before he left, at the seaport of Cenchrea he had
his hair cut to fulfill the ritual requirements of a vow he had made. We know nothing about the
nature or purpose of this vow or when he first made it. Acts 18:18 reports on this matter with
little comment as though Luke's readers ought to fully understand the ins and outs of Paul
having his hair cut as part of a vow fulfillment. I certainly wish Luke had told us more because
through the centuries gentile Christians have accepted some very dubious teachings of the
early Church Fathers about what Paul did and why he did it. And while not universal, the
consensus is to apologize for it and try to sweep it under the carpet as a bit embarrassing. Let
me elaborate by quoting from a letter written by the early Church Father Jerome from the
mid-4th century A.D.
"Granted that there he (Paul) did what he did NOT wish to do, through the compelled
fear of the Jews: why did he let his hair grow in consequence of a vow and afterward cut
it at Cenchrea in obedience to the law? Because the Nazarites who vowed themselves to
God were accustomed to do this according to the commands of Moses".
So Jerome says that Paul didn't do this by his own free will; he had it forced on him out of fear
of the Jews and only did it to satisfy a Jewish custom so that he didn't find himself in a bad
way with the local Jewish population. Later the Church Father Venerable Bede had a different
sort of rationalization for Paul performing this vow ritual. In his commentary on the Book of Acts
Bede wrote:
"Paul did these things (performed the vow ritual of hair cutting) NOT indeed because he
had forgotten what he, along with the other apostles, had settled at Jerusalem
concerning the abolition of the Law, but so that those among the Jews who had come to
believe might not be scandalized, so he played the part of a Jew himself in order to win
over the Jews".
Now I could read this in almost any church in the world and get affirming nods of heads and
perhaps even applause; but my hope is that you realize how anti-Semitic, anti-Scripture, and
just plain erroneous such a thought process is. Bede claims that Paul indeed did do this hair
cutting vow ritual even though he knew that the Law had been abolished at the Jerusalem
Council (in Acts 15). But even more, Bede suggests that Paul pretended to still be a Jew (he
merely played a role) in order to win the approval of Jews so that they would hear the Gospel
from him. That is, Bede claimed (as did most of the Church by this time) that James and the
Jerusalem Council abolished the Law of Moses for Believers (Jew or gentile), even though no
such statement or implication exists in Scripture. But even more we see that the Church view
had very early on hardened such that to be a Believer in Christ meant that if one was born a
Jew, one had to convert to a gentile and fully abandon his or her former Jewish identity. Thus
the Church Fathers felt that somewhere along the way Paul had actually renounced his Jewish
heritage and become a gentile. The hair cutting ritual was merely a ruse that allowed him to
continue playing a role: pretending to still be Jewish. And Paul did that in order to deceive his
fellow Jews (for their own benefit) so that they would listen to what he had to say about
salvation in Yeshua, give up their Jewishness and become gentile Christians.
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
I hope you are as appalled as I am. But friends, this well documented mindset of many of the
influential early Church Fathers (all gentiles of course) is the source of what a majority of
Christians still believe to this day and these thoughts are enshrined in some of the most
foundational doctrines of Christianity. It is the classic methodology of Bible interpretation to
begin with a doctrine decided upon long ago by a gentile Church council, and then work
backwards to twist and turn Scripture passages to make them fit the doctrine. So here in Acts
18:18 the recorded beliefs of these two highly respected Church Fathers imply that Paul isn't
really a Jew anymore; however he wants the local Jews to think he still is and so he goes
through with this ceremonial hair cutting as part of a vow, but he isn't sincere about it. It is
merely part of a bait and switch scheme so that the local Jews might find him trustworthy as
one of them. And then when their guard is down, he can pounce on them with the Gospel of
Christ! (Unbelievable. You can't make this stuff up!)
Let's re-read a short section of Acts 18 to begin our lesson today.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 18:19 – end
So Paul arrived in Ephesus and stayed there briefly. The only reason he was even in Ephesus
is because that was the route of the ship that he was on; first it would stop at Ephesus and
then continue on to Caesarea Maritima, the major port city for the Holy Land and Paul's
destination.
His first agenda item upon arrival was to go to Jerusalem and report to the Believing
community there, since that was the headquarters of The Way. A couple of things: first, while
the CJB inserts the word "Jerusalem", it is not actually there. The text merely says that first
Paul "went up" to greet the community (in most Bibles community is translated as Church).
Then after he went up, he went down; down to Antioch. These terms "went up" and "went
down" are merely common Jewish expressions. "Went up", or to "go up", always referred to
going to Jerusalem. Thus in contrast to the "up" of Jerusalem, anywhere else one might go is
"down". It is really an expression of veneration and status of the place. Jerusalem was by no
means the highest geographical elevation even in the Holy Land; but it was the highest place
from a status perspective, and from a religious perspective. Thus every other place in the world
(even Mt. Everest) would be considered as being "down" from Jerusalem.
Second, in verse 22 where we usually find the word Church in English Bibles (but in the CJB
find instead Messianic Community) the Greek word is ekklesia. Ekklesia is a common,
generic Greek word that means assembly or community (any kind of an assembly or
community). It carries no religious connotation with it. However most modern Bibles substitute
the word Church for ekklesia in order to give us the mental picture of going to a place with
stained glass, a steeple, pews and a group of gentile "Christians" meeting there to praise
Jesus. While indeed it was Believers in Yeshua that Paul went to see, they were all Jews; and
they all continued to practice their Jewish ways. They continued to meet in their synagogues
and followed their standard Jewish liturgy; no stained glass, no steeples, and no pews.
Antioch was where the synagogue that had been sponsoring his missionary trips was located.
We're told that Paul visited there for some time and then departed to again visit a number of
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
the Believers that he had established in the region of Phrygia.
Verse 24 changes the subject and we are introduced to a Believer named Apollos; he had
come to Ephesus to teach. Ephesus was similar to London; it was a commercial and banking
center. It was self-governing and was probably the 3rd largest city in the Roman Empire after
Rome and Alexandria, Egypt. So if one wanted an opportunity to connect with a great number
of Jews and/or gentiles in a short time, Ephesus was the place.
I pointed out in earlier lessons that while Paul was a special emissary personally
commissioned by the risen Yeshua to take the Good News to both the Jews and the gentiles,
he was not the only Believer doing this. Paul was the foremost Jewish Apostle; but he wasn't
in charge of all the efforts to evangelize. Many others took it upon themselves (usually no
doubt at the direction of the Holy Spirit) to tell people in foreign lands about the ways of the
God of Israel. But Apollos was not from Jerusalem; he was a Diaspora Jew who lived in the
largest Jewish center outside of the Holy Land at that time: Alexandria, Egypt.
History knows of Alexandria (named for Alexander the Great) as a cosmopolitan city of diverse
cultures. One of its most famous institutions was its unrivaled library. The city sat at the
crossroads of commerce and so it was a thriving and wealthy place that attracted people from
all over the empire. Many famous Jews lived in Alexandria including the intellectual Philo. A
treasure chest of Jewish thought was created and stored in Alexandria; the education system
was unsurpassed. So it is not surprising that someone of Apollo's capabilities would come
from there.
However the most popular brand of Judaism practiced in Alexandria was quite progressive and
in line with the Hellenism that Rome wanted as the sort of universal culture in their empire.
Thus Jewish philosophy more than Torah scholarship was the result. Nevertheless some of the
best and brightest Jewish minds flocked there to argue their points of view with other Jewish
intellectuals. But it was also in Alexandria that the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible
was created, 3 centuries earlier. This is the Bible that we today know as the Septuagint and it
was what most Jews of that era used for their Bible.
Apollos is (not surprisingly) described as an eloquent speaker who was very studied in the
Tanakh: the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible. What we learn about what Apollos knew and
believed and taught can be a little confusing. On the one hand we're told that he is a great
Bible scholar, that he had been informed about the way of the Lord, and that he accurately
taught facts about Yeshua. But then we're thrown a curve ball; verse 25 says that even so, he
only knew about the immersion of Yochanan (John the Baptist). Apollos was such a good
speaker that he was invited to speak in synagogues and Paul's friends Aquila and Priscilla,
who were still in Ephesus, went to hear him speak and teach. But they quickly realized that
there was much Apollos didn't know about Christ, so they undertook to teach him. The
implication is that the brilliant Apollos was sufficiently humble that he welcomed Aquila and
Priscilla's knowledge about Yeshua. There is much to talk about here.
At this time in history (around 52 A.D.) there were many strands of Messianic Judaism in
existence. The one we know most about was the one led by James and Peter in Jerusalem;
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
but there were several more. Not all of those strands looked to James and Peter as their
religious authorities. Some Believers (no doubt including Apollos) were so intelligent and
educated that they didn't feel the need to have a mentor or to be given official permission to
teach about Yeshua and the Gospel. So, they didn't all believe the same things and therefore
didn't all teach the same doctrines. They studied on their own and sought to enlighten others
on their own. So it is nearly impossible to know with any certainty exactly what it is that Apollos
was teaching about Yeshua. What is startling, however, is that when asked about baptism he
said he only knew about John's baptism and knew nothing of being immersed into Yeshua.
What does "John's baptism" mean? Actually we've dealt with this before but let's review.
John the Baptist preached repentance of sins; and so when he baptized it was for repentance
of sins. That is an entirely different issue than salvation in Christ. John did not baptize for
salvation in Christ, and thus one did not receive the Holy Spirit in John's baptism (of course
John was baptizing before the Pentecost event happened after Yeshua's death and
resurrection). However what John taught was that before one could be saved, one first had to
repent of sins; thus John's was a sort of preliminary baptism to Christ's. Then what is baptism
in Christ? The Bible tells us that this immersion is a complete re-birth from a spiritual
perspective. So the sequence is: repentance first, re-birth second. Apparently Apollos knew a
great deal about Yeshua. He was well steeped in information about Yeshua (which would have
come mainly word of mouth) and he could communicate them. And that while he had repented
for his sins (John's baptism) he had not accepted Yeshua in the way we typically think of it
(and apparently didn't know enough to realize that this was the vital step). Therefore he could
not have received the Holy Spirit.
This shows us something important: a non-Believer can be quite an effective Bible teacher. I
can vouch for this because many modern Bible commentators that I have read.....very good
ones....not only aren't Christians, they don't even believe in God. This goes for both Jewish
and gentile Bible scholars. Usually they are highly educated historians and/or brilliant language
scholars. But for them the Bible is merely humanly created literature and they have become
expert on the Bible as a career path; but not as a source of truth or as a divine Holy Book.
Apollos, on the other hand, was a spiritual man; he believed in the God of Israel and he
believed in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) as truth. He also seemed to believe some things
about Yeshua that is not at all clear to us. Apparently Aquila and Priscilla tutored Apollos in the
beliefs and doctrines of The Way, the Jerusalem-based strand of Messianic Judaism. By all
accounts he seems to have accepted it. Remember: there was no such thing as a New
Testament for Apollos to study; and there wouldn't be a New Testament for another 150
years. In time (but not yet), some of Paul's letters would start to be shared among Believers
and a couple of the Gospel accounts would also start to circulate, informally. But a number of
other teaching letters and Gospels written by other authors than the ones that are in our Bibles
also gained traction. So whatever Apollos had learned, and would learn, about Yeshua would
have come from listening to others. Who those others were before Aquila and Priscilla we
don't know.
I don't want to wax too philosophical; however there are so many millions of Christians who
have some facts and knowledge about Jesus; but what is it that they think they know about
Him? What is it that they actually believe about Him? What is it that they felt was happening to
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
them when they were immersed......if ever they were immersed? And if they were immersed,
immersed into what? Are we really saved in God's eyes if the Jesus Christ that we believe in
is nothing like the one in the Bible, or that what He actually taught (as recorded in the New
Testament) are not the doctrines that we've been told are what He commands of us or are not
the values we are to live by? I wish I had answers for you. But there can be no better example
of this conundrum than Apollos; we are left to ponder whether this fine man was truly saved
before he met Aquila and Priscilla. Or was it only afterward when vital blanks of his faith in God
were filled in? Knowledge is indeed the key, but it must be the correct knowledge. And trust in
Yeshua is the door; but it must be in the real Yeshua, not the one of our personal imaginings
or the one we prefer.
Clearly Apollos was a motivated evangelist; and a gifted one as well. So after some
undisclosed amount of time he traveled to Achaia to speak and teach. He apparently had
gained enough knowledge, and now sufficiently agreed with the doctrines of The Way, that
letters of recommendation were sent on his behalf to Believers in Achaia to welcome him.
When he arrived he fearlessly debated the unbelieving Jews, in public, and used the Scriptures
(as opposed to "reasoning" with them) to demonstrate the truth of what he was teaching: that
Yeshua of Nazareth is indeed the Messiah the Tanakh spoke about.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 19.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 19 all
In verse 1 we learn that Apollos was in Corinth at the same time that Paul had arrived in
Ephesus. This was Paul's 2nd time in Ephesus. It seems that he goes to some Believers there
and asks them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they came to belief. "No", they said.
In fact, they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit. So what we're learning is that apparently
through one Believer or another, many Jews and gentiles had learned about Yeshua, and
believed what they heard. And, just like Apollos, they had even been baptized; but they had
been baptized into John's baptism: a baptism of repentance of sins. And indeed Paul agrees
with that but says that there must be another baptism as well.
One of the issues of New Testament times was that immersion had become a kind of social
norm that tended to identify a person with a particular teacher, philosopher, or even religious
party. Thus we'll hear of Paul speaking of people being baptized in his name, just as we hear
the same of John the Baptist and of course of Yeshua. In fact being baptized in the teachings
or ways of someone or another was common and didn't carry the specific religious meaning
that we think of it today. Joseph Shulam calls this a personality cult; not unlike young people
who will follow certain Rock Stars wherever they go because they are so enthralled with them.
And then it was rather usual that after being immersed into a certain teacher, another teacher
would eventually come along that tickled this persons ears and he'd change allegiance by
being immersed (literally and figuratively) into this latest teacher's ways. So the practice of
immersion had become somewhat tainted in its reason and purpose.
Thus we see one reason why Paul would even think to ask into what (or more in line with the
times, into WHO) these professed Believers in Ephesus had been immersed. These disciples
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
told him that it was into the immersion of John. But a second reason for his inquiry is that no
doubt Paul sensed that these Believers had but the most vague understanding of their faith in
Yeshua. Paul never seems to question whether they rightly accepted that from a historical and
factual basis Yeshua was the Messiah; but to Paul there was also no sign that any of these
disciples were bearing the evidence of having received the spirit. No doubt Paul had
encountered this before; so he knew the symptoms as well as what questions to ask, and how
to respond.
Now we must be honest in noting that after immersing these disciples (who seemed to put up
no protest) into the immersion of Yeshua, Paul then laid his hands on them and it is upon
laying on of his hands that they received the Holy Spirit the text says. It has been a long
running debate within various denominations as to whether it was the immersion or the laying
on of hands that the Holy Spirit came upon these men. Even more they began speaking in
tongues; and for me it is the speaking in tongues....and not the reception of the Holy Spirit....that
we need to be looking at. Speaking in tongues is something that seems to have occurred
whenever one of the Apostles was directly involved in someone coming to faith (we saw it in
the case of Cornelius and Peter for instance). Yet, Paul clearly implies that it is being
immersed into the name of Yeshua that brings in the Holy Spirit. Immersion and laying on of
hands are two different things done for different purposes. So it is hard to know what to make
of this other than it may be a special privilege that the Lord blessed these Apostles with to
cause those disciples present to speak in tongues. After all; when the Holy Spirit came at
Pentecost, Peter was present and there was no immersion at all. Even so the disciples began
speaking in tongues. So I think it is wrong to contrive a rigid doctrinal formula or demand a
certain sequence based on what we've read to this point about the coming of the Holy Spirit,
immersion, laying on of hands, and speaking in tongues. But one thing is clear: water
immersion in the name of Yeshua is a New Testament commandment for Believers; this is not
an option. And receiving the Holy Spirit is the sign of our acceptance into the Kingdom; yet we
have seen instances where the Holy Spirit came before immersion and other instances when
He came after immersion. We've seen instances of the new Believers speaking in tongues;
and other times when it doesn't happen (or at least, it is not mentioned).
Paul previously had made a short visit to the synagogue of Ephesus when he was on his way
from Corinth to the Holy Land and promised them that if the Holy Spirit led him back that he
would come and teach them more. Having completed his business back home, he made the
1500 mile overland journey back to Ephesus to fulfill his promise. Paul taught there for 3
months, apparently without interference. But as always happened, in time those who just could
not bring themselves to accept Paul's teaching on Yeshua and salvation turned on him and
the trouble began. Those in the Ephesus synagogue who had hardened their hearts and
become firm in their opposition to the Gospel began, of course, to speak not only against Paul
but also against The Way. This time in response Paul did an interesting thing: he took those
disciples who had come to believe and departed with them in tow from the synagogue and
began preaching and teaching in an entirely new venue: the hall of Tyrannus (or as it says in
the CJB, in Tyrannus' yeshiva). What we see here is what today we might call a church split.
Yet when we see this from God's perspective, this goes back to one of the first God-Principles
I ever taught you: the principle of Division, Election, and Separation.
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 42 - Chapter 18 and 19
Sometimes the Lord determines to divide us into groups, elect the group that He chooses to
follow Him for a certain divine purpose, and separate them (us) from everyone else. I can tell
you from experience that as difficult and gut wrenching as it is, sometimes there is no choice
but to leave a congregation that you had been part of and go elsewhere. Perhaps it happens
because you have learned too much to continue identifying yourself with a group you know is
stubbornly wrong minded and is no longer in harmony with Yeshua. At other times it isn't so
much about right and wrong as it is about following the Lord's plan for your life. Sadly, it can
also be over the most petty or selfish things, and the split and separation reflects nothing but
human failure. It is never a desirable thing to do to be in the middle of congregation split
regardless of the reason, and it invariably causes long lasting hard feelings among brethren.
Yet, when it is done for the right reasons, and seems to be God directed, what are we to do?
Twice we have seen Paul do this: the first time he acrimoniously parted company with his long
time traveling companion Barnabas (over his nephew John Mark), and now he not only leaves
this synagogue on bad terms but he takes with him those who adhere to what Paul is teaching.
It is one thing to go away; but the anger only increases when you to take people with you.
Let's part today with this thought. What Paul did in leaving the synagogue and taking disciples
with him was radical and generally was considered a serious offense against Halakhah:
Jewish Law. No doubt the word got around the Jewish communities of the Diaspora and so
from here forward we don't find Paul going to many more synagogues (some say that he
never again preached in synagogues but I find that as highly improbable). This incident would
have had much to do with what we'll read in Acts chapter 21 about Paul going to Jerusalem
and consulting with James, with one of the main issues being that Paul was being slandered
among the Jewish communities with the accusation that he was speaking against the Law. So
James would have Paul give a public demonstration of his continuing allegiance to the Law of
Moses.
We'll continue with Acts chapter 19 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 43, Chapter 19
We just got started in Chapter 19 of Acts last week when we ran out of time. We have much to
discuss today that comes from what is written in this chapter; things that most of us have
perhaps not considered.
The historical significance of this chapter is that (as Darrell Bock puts it) it is the story of Paul's
final missionary swing through the Greco-Roman world. Paul is mostly revisiting areas in which
he has had previous contact and had established some number of Jewish and gentile
Believers. But as the trust in Yeshua is beginning to take root in foreign lands what we see is
the increasing polarization of those who embrace the truth of the Gospel that Paul is teaching
versus those who reject it. Such polarization causes not just discord but also division and
separation. It is a fascinating irony that institutional Judeo-Christianity has at its core a stated
desire for unity (at almost any cost). And yet the God we worship has at His core a desire to
divide, elect and separate. The Synagogue and Church does not want to winnow the harvest;
rather it wants to find ways to allow the wheat and the chaff to remain united. Our Lord
constantly demands of His true followers to "be ye separate". So what is happening with the
contentious division and separation we are reading about is that it is actually God's plan
brought about in ways most folks resist mightily.
What often happens when something as new and impactful as the Gospel of Christ begins to
take hold is that it can assume various forms, many of which were not intended, especially
when the founding leadership is not present to keep things on track. Or as we see happening
at the outset of chapter 19, people get only partial information about Yeshua and the Good
News and act on it, not realizing that there is much more to know to get a fuller and more
accurate picture. Thus in Acts 19 verses 2-7 we're a bit taken aback when we read that there
were a number of new Believers in Ephesus that Paul encountered who had no idea that the
Holy Spirit was to be an integral part of their faith experience. In fact Luke says that some
claimed that they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit! I am compelled to assume that
these particular new Believers who said that they knew nothing about a Holy Spirit were
gentiles since Jews certainly would have at least known about the existence of the Ruach
HaKodesh, even if they didn't understand what role He played in their salvation.
This highlights several critical faith issues, so let's review. The manner in which this ignorance
of the Holy Spirit is framed is that these new Believers had been immersed into the baptism of
John, but they had not been immersed into the baptism of Jesus. First understand that
speaking about being baptized into a particular person is common Hebrew cultural expression.
What is interesting is that we have foreign gentiles uttering it. These gentiles had to have
learned about The Way from Jews at synagogues so whatever terms and expressions they
learned to define and explain their new faith would naturally be Hebrew terms and expressions
since these concepts didn't exist outside of Judaism. But this also is such excellent evidence
of how misleading it is for us to speak of those who followed Yeshua in Paul's day as
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
"Christians" or that the religion that they were following is called "Christianity". What makes it
so misleading is that the Church invariably sets Judaism up as the boogeyman who opposes
Christianity; and that is because Judaism is a religion for Jews while Christianity is a religion
for gentiles. In time this is precisely how it would be organized; but that time is not yet at the
point we are in the Book of Acts. In fact we shouldn't even look for such a thought in the entire
New Testament because it's not there. This next phase of the Jesus Movement that would
eventually result in a gentile dominated entity called Christianity doesn't happen until several
years after all the books that form the New Testament were completed. That is, Christianity
existing as a named, separate and distinct religious institution that was led by gentiles didn't
happen until sometime after the late 90's A.D. So what we need to grasp is that The Way,
which consisted of Jews and gentiles, was still being led by Jews (as we continue to see
throughout the Book of Acts), and they were still mostly meeting in synagogues, they were
perceived within Judaism as a sect of Judaism, and were seen similarly by gentile outsiders.
Thus when persecutions began to arise against The Way, it was actually regarded as
persecutions against Jews and Judaism since pagan gentiles as of yet made no real distinction
between The Way and other factions of Judaism. This is because culturally all the forms of
Judaism, including that of The Way, looked about the same to gentiles. It is a little like Islam is
for us today because while within Islam there are long-held and well understood distinctions
among various sects of Islam (and they war against one another over these distinctions), most
non-Muslims don't understand those nuances (or even know that they exist) and so we tend to
lump all the sects together as one and give them one overarching identity; Islam. That is quite
like the stage of development that Yeshua worship is at in Acts chapter 19.
The second issue for this small group of new Believers in Ephesus regarded being immersed
into John but not into Christ; however this is not about setting one against the other. That is,
this is not that the new Believers thought that you chose one name to be immersed in and
rejected the other. Rather they didn't comprehend that John's baptism was NOT about
salvation per se, but rather it was a preparation for becoming saved. Remember: the Biblical
concept of immersion was for a person to take on the qualities of whatever they were being
immersed into. So to be immersed into John meant that a person was absorbing and taking on
whatever qualities that John preached and stood for. John was not the Savior; he was the
prophet that announced that the Savior was about to reveal Himself. So to make oneself ready
for the Savior, John taught that the first step was to repent of sins. Then when the Savior was
made known one was prepared to take step two, which was to accept Salvation in the name of
the Savior, Yeshua. Although since the moment Yeshua revealed Himself the required baptism
is now a single immersion and not two immersions, nonetheless we still cannot seek salvation
until we first realize our sins and repent of them. But how do we repent of something if we
don't know we're doing anything wrong? How can we know what sin is and is not? Jews
generally knew what things were sins (although especially in the Diaspora it had become
greatly watered down), but how about for gentiles?
CJB 1 John 3:4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah- indeed, sin is violation of
Torah.
What is sin? The Apostle John says it clearly: it is breaking the Torah. For those who are
somewhat new to Hebrew Roots, I shall also quote the King James Bible.
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
KJV 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law.
So the New Testament definition of sin is the same as the Old Testament definition of sin:
violating the Law. What law? Roman law? Obviously not. It is the only law that exists in the
Bible: the Law of Moses. The Apostle John wrote these words decades after Christ's era, so
clearly he still thinks that the Law remains as the standard for defining sin. We'll get back to
that in a moment.
But also notice something else interesting that Acts 19 points out: we cannot accept Christ as
Savior and expect that to be effective for us at the same time we have no repentance of our
sins; and it works the other way around as well. We cannot repent of our sins but yet not
accept Christ as Savior and be saved. Repentance by itself does not save; repentance is an
admission of sin, but now payment for those sins is required by God. So determining to be a
better person and sinning no more, while needed, does not save. Repentance PLUS trust in
Christ as our atonement for sins are both needed, and ideally they ought to occur in the correct
order. Is that the Tom Bradford doctrine, or a Hebrew Roots doctrine? Hardly.
1Corinthiams 6:9-11 CJB
9 Don't you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God?
Don't delude yourselves- people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols,
who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in
active or passive homosexuality,
10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk, who assail people with contemptuous
language, who rob- none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.
11 Some of you used to do these things. But you have cleansed yourselves, you have
been set apart for God, you have come to be counted righteous through the power of
the Lord Yeshua the Messiah and the Spirit of our God.
Notice that this passage does NOT say that if you've ever done, or identified yourself with, any
of these prohibited things that you are forever excluded from the Kingdom of God. In fact Paul
says that "some of you USED to do these things but you have cleansed yourselves...." What
he is describing is repentance, because repentance is not merely a thought process, a state of
mind, or an admission of the conscience; rather it means to actively, physically, stop doing
what is wrong to start doing what is right. Thus a person cannot be actively engaged in these
things that Paul lists (which are all sins of course, and grievous enough that the Lord may not
accept you), and at the same time call upon Christ and count yourself as saved. Repentance
first, then afterwards salvation in Yeshua. No repentance, no salvation. Note that even though
you have NOT repented, this doesn't mean that you can't sincerely believe that Yeshua lived
and did what He did and said what He said. You can insist all day long that you "believe" in
Christ; but if you continue to embrace those sins, refusing to see them for what they are
instead of repenting from them, then you are probably not saved. As Paul said: "do not
deceive yourselves" into thinking that you are saved if you are unrepentant.
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
Let me also nuance that a bit further. We can repent from all of our sins, sincerely, and then we
can accept Christ for who He is, sincerely, and be saved. But we can also still sin some of
these same sins after our salvation; and in fact I think it is fair to say that most Believers do. So
do we remain saved if that's the case? The issue is that we acknowledge those sins as sin,
and don't try to defend them as OK. In other words, in our weakness we sometimes fail as
Believers and we need to recognize it as such. The reality is that this is as much what Messiah
died for as for the sins we committed before we came to trust Him.
Now let me address what might be the most contentious and sensitive issue in this regard for
our day and age: salvation and sexual immorality. While I cannot stand in God's place and
judge anyone, by everything the Scriptures plainly say one cannot be an unrepentant
homosexual and be saved. One cannot glory in what the Lord calls sexual immorality and an
abomination to Him, and still expect eternal life with God. Can a person have been formerly
engaged in homosexuality or other forms of sexual immorality and now renounces it and be
saved? Yes! Can that same person possibly relapse and commit a serious act of sexual sin
and fall on their knees before God and admit their sin and ask for His help to stop committing
it, and remain saved? Yes! Please understand, I am well aware that there are many other sins
that Paul listed than only sexual sins that we must repent from to be a member of God's
Kingdom. However because of the deteriorated state of modern Christianity (and even some
sects of Judaism) whereby many denominations now accept homosexuality and other Biblically
defined sexual deviances as OK in God's eyes and even speak of it as good, normal and
moral, this is the glaring issue of the early 21st century for Believers and it must be rebuked.
Rebuked not just for the sake of the health of the Believing institution, but for the sake of those
individuals who are deceived into falsely thinking that they are at peace with God while still
embracing sexual immorality. They may feel safe, but in fact they are in the greatest eternal
danger, and much of this is due to some Church factions who are more interested in human
tolerance and a greater acceptance by the world, than divine truth.
Brothers and sisters, those of us who have been charged with leadership in the Body of Christ
have been letting you down for a long time. We have been charged with teaching you God's
Word and helping you to observe it; and we've not done so vigorously enough. It is our fault
that the world is falling to pieces in all sorts of sexual immorality because we have not had the
courage to speak out boldly against it. We are supposed to be the keepers and protectors of
God's Word because He has set us apart just for that purpose. And when we don't bother to
know God's Word, or we back down due to societal pressures, any hope of secular society or
even God's people remembering God's Word and obeying it is greatly diminished.
Repentance of sins is mandatory before we can be saved in Messiah Yeshua and we can't
determine for ourselves what sin is and is not, because as human society evolves so does
humanity redefine right and wrong, good and evil to suit us. Any doctrines that teaches that sin
for me isn't sin for you (the idea being that the Holy Spirit customizes sin for each Believer), is
probably one of the biggest culprits behind the collapse of sexual morality because it makes
the definition of sin a moving target. The Lord, not His followers, defines sin; it does not, has
not, and never will change. And our source for an extensive authoritative definition of sin is the
Torah.
Thus (as this connects to our Acts 19 lesson) we read that once Paul explained to the
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
Ephesians that even though they had repented from their sins and were immersed in public
profession of that, they had not received the Holy Spirit because they had not been immersed
into Christ. The good news is that they quickly understood the deficiency and were immersed
into Yeshua by Paul. The evidence of their sincere repentance, and now their trust in Yeshua,
was the visible coming of the Holy Spirit upon them.
Let's re-read part of Acts 19.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 19:8 – end
Paul was given a relatively long time (3 months) to persuade the members of this particular
synagogue in Ephesus before an all-too familiar pattern of events began to unfold. In
Thessalonica he only had 3 weeks before the trouble started. Many believed Paul, but many
more hardened their hearts against the Gospel message. When that happened Paul took the
bold path of not only leaving that synagogue but even taking with him a number of members
who trusted in Yeshua. He essentially moved his new congregation into a building right next
door to the synagogue. I'm not sure how wise that was, but I imagine availability had
something to do with it.
The building was apparently some type of school or lecture hall owned by a fellow named
Tyrannus; we don't know whether he was a gentile or a Jew. Therefore I think it is highly
speculative in our CJB to call this place a yeshiva(a yeshiva is essentially a Jewish religious
school usually meant for training up Rabbis). Even so Paul spent 2 years in this place teaching
and preaching. I'll remind you that just because Paul stayed in Ephesus for over 2 years
doesn't mean that evangelizing in other places came to a halt; we have learned in earlier
chapters that other Believers were roaming around presenting the Gospel (and apparently all
that they taught wasn't necessarily complete or correct).
Verses 11 and 12 tell us something that is not just hard to understand, but is even harder to
accept, for modern Believers. It seems that ordinary cloth items that Paul touched were taken
to sick people and they were healed by them. In some cases it was enough to exorcise
demons from people. What are we to make of this?
First, let's go back to a God-principle that we learned in the Torah: ritual purity and impurity
are contagious. Even holiness can be transmitted from person to person, person to object, and
object to object. We find something similar happening with Yeshua.
Matthew 9:20-22 CJB 20 A woman who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years
approached him from behind and touched the tzitzit on his robe. 21 For she said to
herself, "If I can only touch his robe, I will be healed." 22 Yeshua turned, saw her and
said, "Courage, daughter! Your trust has healed you." And she was instantly healed.
We also read of this strange sequence of events in 2nd Kings.
2Kings 4:29-34 CJB
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
29 Then Elisha said to Geichazi, "Get dressed for action, take my staff in your hand, and
be on your way. If you meet anyone, don't greet him; if anyone greets you, don't answer;
and lay my staff on the child's face."
30 The mother of the child said, "As ADONAI lives, and as you live, I will not leave you.
He got up and followed her.
31 Geichazi went on ahead of them and laid the staff on the child's face, but there was no
sound or sign of life. So he went back to Elisha and told him, "The child didn't wake up."
32 When Elisha reached the house, there the child was, dead and laid on the bed.
33 He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to ADONAI.
34 Then he got up on the bed and lay on top of the child, putting his mouth on his mouth,
his eyes on his eyes and his hands on his hands. As he stretched himself out on the
child, its flesh began to grow warm.
So first off there was a belief among Jews that objects touched by a holy man could become
infected by his healing power and be transmitted to them. While part of this was pure
superstition, another part of this belief was based in fact and it came from the Torah. But
second, Luke insists that this actually happened; Paul came in contact with a cloth, and
someone used it to get healed....and it worked!! What happened was not a misinterpretation of
events. In all cases, of course, this was God doing the miraculous healings and not actually
humans or objects. But what God was doing from a human perspective was operating within a
culture who looked for such supernatural power to be exhibited in certain expected ways; and
the purpose of those strange miracles was always to teach and persuade people about God's
power and presence. We in the West tend to be a bit allergic to any kind of potential miracle
that seems out of the ordinary from our cultural perspective. But when God is operating in
Africa, or in the South American jungles, or anyplace not at all Western, why would He not do
things within their cultural perspective so that real understanding could happen?
Interestingly, Luke next tells about some Jewish exorcists. This no doubt is recorded here as a
means to contrast what they did with what Paul did. And it seems that what these 7 exorcists
did was looked upon by them and by the public as essentially the same as what Paul did. In
fact in the Ephesian culture (a culture that abounded in magic and sorcery) no doubt many
viewed Paul as an exorcist. So what we are witnessing is a sort of one-sided rivalry playing
out. Paul was healing and expelling demons, something that these 7 sons of Sceva did
professionally and made a lucrative income from it. They certainly could not ignore the
competition. Before we discuss this, let me clear something up. Many Bibles will say that the
father of these 7 exorcists was a Jewish High Priest; that is incorrect. The Greek word is
archiereus and it more means CHIEF priest as opposed to HIGH priest. So whatever this
Jewish man Sceva was a priest of, he was one of the upper echelon of priests; this did not
intend to refer to the Hebrew High Priest that served at the Temple in Jerusalem (nor likely
even one the more senior common priests). This is especially proved in that he was apparently
a local, and there is no chance that a chief priest of the Jerusalem Temple could live far away
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
in Ephesus.
Now the fun starts. These 7 Jewish exorcists have been watching; and they see that the name
that Paul calls upon to heal and expel demons is Yeshua. These exorcists aren't proud; if it
works, use it. In exorcism the correct use of a powerful name is vital; it is important as both the
power that expels demons, and as discovering the name of the demon that inhabits his host.
But when they called on Yeshua's name to expel a demon, the demon wasn't terribly
impressed. In fact the demon acknowledges that he was aware of Yeshua and of Paul and
implies that had Paul ordered him out he would have gone; but he had no idea who these 7
were, so the thought is that he has no intention of doing what these exorcists say just because
they pronounce the same name.
Thus in reality neither Yeshua's nor Paul's name are invoked over the possessed person and
instead the demon's host jumps on these unwitting exorcists and beats them to a pulp. In fact
he tears their clothes off (which would have marked them with great shame). Let's pause here
for a moment. By this time in history a great deal of syncretism had crept into the religious lives
of the Jewish Diaspora. That is, much pagan mysticism and magic had infiltrated otherwise
holy and pure Torah practices. Why? Usually because it was profitable or convenient in some
way or another.
There is ample evidence of just how infected with paganism that Judaism had become by
looking at the sarcophagi of many venerable Rabbis buried in a system of burial caves at a
place called Beit Shearim in Israel (I've taken many people there). We find their tombs
decorated not only with menorahs but also occult symbols. How did this happen? It was yet
another devastating result of the Babylonian exile. Roughly 95% of the Jews who went into
exile to Babylon decided on their own free will NOT to return to the Holy Land but rather to
continue their lives in the gentile world. By now 5 centuries had passed since the Jews were
freed by Persian King Cyrus, the Jews' numbers had greatly increased, they had scattered all
over Asia to make their way in life, and many found prosperity and status. In other words, they
liked living amongst gentiles and enjoyed all the benefits that it brought to them. But the
bargain was more costly than they would ever know. If they were going to live among gentiles
and profit from it economically, compromise was essential. Many Jews refused compromise;
but many more embraced it. Sceva and his 7 Jewish exorcist sons are a perfect example of
this syncretism and blending of Jewish with gentile identities. And one of their great
compromises was to adopt (or at least openly condone) the morals, ethics, and religious
practices of their gentile neighbors. These religious practices inevitably involved sorcery. To
have not done so would have, of course, been seen by gentiles as the Jews being aloof and
unfriendly. Who would want to associate with someone like that?
Pockets of more pious Jews were everywhere among the myriad Jewish settlements; but they
were only pockets. The majority chose the easier more practical route and as time passed the
gap between Jewish life and gentile life shrunk, because too much difference interfered with
political correctness and social acceptance. I'll go no further with that line of thought because
if you want to understand it better simply look around you today. Christianity and large
segments of Judaism have determined that compromise with the world is a better course of
action than being separate from the world and bringing with it the abuses, disdain, and
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 43 - Chapter 19
economic disadvantages that being different and being intolerant of sin and immorality always
does. The Church itself is full of pagan symbols that have been borrowed and Christian-ized;
the 2 most holy days of the year for Christians were originally pagan holy days and many of the
symbols and icons that are used to this day as centerpieces of these holidays are the same
ones used by the pagans before these days were borrowed and renamed.
The superstitious Ephesians were greatly impressed with Paul, and similarly impressed with
the demon's violent reaction upon these 7 exorcists, all because of the name Yeshua. This got
their attention, Jews and Greeks, and so they began to venerate Our Savior's holy name (not
always for the right reasons unfortunately). What we see happen starting in verse 18 is truly
awesome; a reverent fear of Yeshua begins to spread. Finally lifestyle begins to change to
match profession of faith in Messiah. It seems to have taken these strange healings from
objects that Paul contacted, along with the comically scary scene of these 7 Jewish exorcists
getting dissembled by an unimpressed demon, for God to make the point that His Son Yeshua
was powerful, and that He was present, and that none could match Him. And rightfully, after
witnessing these happenings the local Believers came and admitted their sins and repented.
They went so far as to take their precious books of occult magic (an expensive staple of
Ephesian households), and throw them into a pile and burn them. Thus they were making a
public profession that they were through with sorcery. But I want to also point out that although
these Believers who brought these magic books to destroy them were sincere followers of
Yeshua (so far as we know), they were probably what we today might label as baby Christians;
until now they simply had never connected faith in Christ with God's commandment to not
participate in sorcery because sorcery in Ephesus was as much a normal part of daily life as
stopping to buy gasoline is to ours. Not everyone would have appreciated such a display
because essentially these Believers were dramatically renouncing the accepted lifestyle of
most of the citizens of Ephesus. We are told that the value of these books amounted to 50,000
drachmas. To give you some idea of how much money this was, generally 1 drachma was the
pay for 1 day's labor.
As a result of all this turmoil, attention and drama, contrary to what one might think ought to
happen, the Gospel began to spread even more powerfully. I've said it before, and I'm afraid
it is not terribly comforting: the Gospel of Christ is never more effective, nor does it spread
more rapidly, than when the Body of Believers is under tribulation.
We'll continue with Acts chapter 19 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 44, Chapters 19 and 20
It is eye-opening to notice that up until the 19th chapter of Acts, actual behavioral changes of
new Believers coming to faith in Yeshua has not been something we've seen. Rather Luke's
focus has been about how Paul and others took the Good News to the Diaspora, the
challenges they encountered along the way, what the typical objections to Yeshua as Messiah
were, the locations that were evangelized, the fact that some Jews and gentiles accepted
salvation, and the fact that most Jews and gentiles fought mightily against it. But to this point
acceptance of Yeshua has largely been an issue of knowledge, spirit and conscience.
For the Jews this is understandable; Paul has not been suggesting changes to their Jewish
lifestyles or customs. Why would he? For Paul coming to faith in Yeshua wasn't about turning
from his established religion to a new one; rather it was the logical and scripturally prophesied
progression of his Jewish faith. Yeshua wasn't a new and unexpected path; He was the
manifestation of what had been predicted in the Tanakh for centuries. Jews had always been
following God's commandments (at least in their eyes) and worshipping in ways that they
believed the God of Israel deemed acceptable; they were eating according Biblical dietary
laws, and forming families and practicing morality in accordance with the Torah (although in
reality what they were really following was Halakhah: Jewish Law).
On the other hand, the first gentiles to come to faith were God-fearers, meaning they were
already worshipping the God of Israel at some level, attending synagogues alongside Jews,
and had a rudimentary understanding of the concept of a Messiah before they were introduced
to Yeshua. In the most recent chapters of Acts that we've studied we see that even a
few pagan gentiles have come into the fold. Yet after attending services at a synagogue, these
same gentiles went home to their gentile world complete with gentile friends, family, and social
associations. They practiced a gentile lifestyle while following a Hebrew religion; they had one
foot in each world and they saw no conflict in that. But indeed these gentiles were asked to
make behavioral changes, and we saw these changes ordained by the leadership of the
Jerusalem Council back in Acts chapter 15. Most of these changes for gentiles involved food
restrictions; the other changes involved abstention from idolatry and sexual immorality.
Living in foreign lands Diaspora Jews made lifestyle concessions to their gentile-dominated
environment to varying degrees. Some Jews merely tried to behave in friendly ways with the
gentiles so that they could live in peace, but they maintained a traditional Jewish lifestyle.
Other Jews adopted most of the gentile lifestyle and became Jews in name only. The majority
of Jews adopted a lifestyle of something in between these two extremes. Thus in Acts 19 we
hear about a family of Jewish exorcists; these were Jews who had adopted pagan ways of
dealing with demons. So what we learn is this: for the most part the Jews and gentiles who
came to belief in Yeshua went right on living their lives just as they had before this new
knowledge, with no substantial changes. It apparently didn't dawn on them (and it didn't seem
to be particularly pushed upon them) that their newfound faith needed to be expressed
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
outwardly in deeds and actions, and not just thoughts and words. So what was it that caused
them to see things differently and voluntarily make real, meaningful lifestyle changes?
In Acts 19 we saw two things happen that seriously impressed the local Believers of Ephesus:
1) Paul went around miraculously healing people with prayer and laying on hands; but also
cloth items that Paul had merely touched were used by others to heal. 2) Paul drove out
demons from victims by ordering them out in Yeshua's name. But when some Jewish
sorcerers tried using Yeshua's name to exorcise a demon, it not only failed but the sorcerers
were pummeled by the demon until they ran away bleeding and naked. Immediately thereafter
we see Jewish and gentile Ephesians, all Believers, taking their expensive books of magic and
spells out into the streets, piling them high and burning them. So the moral of the story is this:
actual trust cannot exist only in the realm of speech and thought but must also result in our
turning from committing sins. Coming to Christ must at some point pass from theory to
application for it to be of real value in Heaven or on earth. But this maturation doesn't happen
overnight; new Believers need good teaching to add depth to their understanding, they must
have mentoring and be given living examples to guide them along, and they must personally
step out and engage in deeds and make actual lifestyle changes to manifest their faith and
make it real in them. Usually the first lifestyle changes are about letting go of something
obviously sinful. Afterwards it can be about maintaining this new lifestyle in a way more in line
with righteousness, love, kindness, mercy, and avoiding temptation that could draw us right
back into sin if we're not careful.
Let's continue in our study of Acts 19 by starting at verse 21.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 19:21 – end
Acts 19 verse 21 begins with the words "some time later". This phrase is a rather standard
Hebrew literary device that ends one train of thought and changes to something else. There is
no sense of those words trying to quantify how much time passed; it could have been a day or
two or it could have been a year or two; the context usually reveals the amount of time
involved. Here it was likely a few days or maybe a few weeks at most.
We are told that Paul decided "by the Spirit" where he should go from Ephesus. I don't want
to overanalyze or allegorize this short statement yet there is a simple principle presented to us
that constantly trips up well-intentioned Believers. The principle is that both Paul and the Spirit
had input into the decision of what comes next. Experience with God has proven to me that the
life of a Believer is a co-operative venture between the Lord and His follower. He's not going
to control us like the operator of a marionette does; yet we aren't entirely free agents who
have no master. We are to look to God in all things; we are to pay attention and discern as
much as He wishes to tell us, but then we must do it (it isn't a negotiation). As here with Paul
what is received is usually a somewhat general instruction from God that doesn't give us the
details of how to carry out the assignment; much is left to our discretion. I've seen so many
Believers utterly paralyzed because while they have a general idea of what the Lord wants
them to do, they don't think they've received a complete enough set of divine orders so they
have determined to take no action until they do. I'm not sure I've ever seen a case where
those hope-for detailed instructions eventually came like they did to Moses on Mt. Sinai,
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
because to God the process of our journey is every bit as important as the destination. But I
have seen many cases where the moment eventually passed, and the opportunity God gave
us to serve Him was wasted, and Believers were left frustrated and disappointed. Paul knew
from the Spirit that Rome was the key destination on God's agenda; but the route and timing
to get there were mostly Paul's. I'm not sure that Paul knew exactly why Rome was so
important to God.
We actually get a few more details about what Paul's journey towards Rome would look like in
the book of Romans and we get some other pertinent information in 1st Corinthians.
Romans 15:23-26 CJB
23 But now, since there is no longer a place in these regions that needs me, and since I
have wanted for many years to come to you,
24 I hope to see you as I pass through on my way to Spain, and to have you help me
travel there after I have enjoyed your company awhile.
25 But now I am going to Yerushalayim with aid for God's people there.
26 For Macedonia and Achaia thought it would be good to make some contribution to the
poor among God's people in Yerushalayim.
So we see that Paul actually wound up venturing much farther west (all the way to Spain) than
he at first seems to have planned in Acts 19. And we get a hint that at least one factor in
Paul's choice of route and timing of his journey had to do with collecting contributions for the
poor in Jerusalem. This is interesting, so let's follow that a bit further. So in 1st Corinthians we
learn this:
1 Corinthians 16:1-4 CJB
1Now, in regard to the collection being made for God's people: you are to do the same
as I directed the congregations in Galatia to do.
2Every week, on Motza'ei-Shabbat, each of you should set some money aside, according
to his resources, and save it up; so that when I come I won't have to do fundraising.
3And when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the people you have approved,
and I will send them to carry your gift to Yerushalayim.
4If it seems appropriate that I go too, they will go along with me.
So we see that collection of funds for the poor was heavily on Paul's mind during his travels.
But the question then becomes this: was this simply a general gift of charity for poor Jews in
Jerusalem (probably mostly Believers), or was there something else behind this? We'll discuss
that a bit more when we get to Acts chapter 20.
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
Interestingly in verse 22 the young disciple Timothy reappears on the scene. Paul intended to
first go to Macedonia so he dispatched Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia to precede his
arrival. Likely this was to begin to gather the donations. We're told that Paul would stay on in
Asia for awhile; this is referring to Ephesus as it was considered as perhaps the major city of
Asia. But before Paul left to join Timothy and Erastus in Macedonia a most serious disturbance
occurred in Ephesus that had the potential of being life threatening (but fortunately it wasn't).
This disturbance involved the well-to-do business owners of the city's lucrative silversmith
trade. Whereas up to now it had been Jews who were the instigators of riots and violence
against Paul and others of the band of traveling disciples, here it is gentiles. And the verse
makes it clear that in the eyes of the rioters the upset was directed less at individual Believers
and more against certain religious principles promoted by The Way. The story begins by
naming a certain individual, a Greek named Demetrius, who was likely the head of the local
silversmith guild; he is the one who ignited the disturbance. And the bottom line is that this was
mostly about money.
The city of Ephesus was the patron city for the goddess Artemis, and most of the works
created by this guild of silversmiths were in honor of Artemis; she was the all-important fertility
goddess. We have discussed in our studies of other Bible books that a fertility goddess was
standard fare for generally any Mystery Babylon-based god system; it's only that her name
changed from culture to culture. Her name was Artemis in Ephesus, but it was Ashteroth in the
Hebrew language, Astarte in Phoenician, Ishtar in Akkadian, Eostre in Anglo-Saxon, and
Easter in English. Her symbols were the same throughout: rabbits, eggs, and she was usually
depicted with bared * not meant as something erotic, but rather as symbolic of the
provider of life-giving mother's milk. But Artemis was also supposed to have had a special
relationship with Ephesus as their protector and benefactor.
What is known is that her Temple and the associated Temple treasury was among the richest
in the world. Her Temple structure was enormous: nearly 400 feet long and 200 feet wide; half
again as big as a football field. A vast array of arts, crafts, jewelry making and other
commercial ventures of every imaginable type were built around Artemis worship. So
everything that was associated with worshipping Artemis had a major impact on the economy
of Ephesus that extended to most of the province of Asia. To say that she was important
understates her position and influence on the well being of the entire region both from a
financial and a religious aspect. Naturally, Artemis made Ephesus an influential and admired
city; thousands of visitors came annually to pay their respects to the fertility goddess.
Jewish literature, including the Talmud, indicates that Traditional Judaism of that era didn't
spend much time or effort disputing idol worship by pagans. Rather their aim was to establish
laws and regulations against idol worship for the Jewish community. So there's no evidence of
wholesale denunciation of idols (publically or privately) by the Diaspora Jews where it concerns
gentiles; more there's a sense of simply accepting the existence of idols and ignoring them as
something that had nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. It is much like that today as to how
Judaism regards Christianity. Jews generally see Christianity as a fine and acceptable
religion......for gentiles. And as long as Christians don't try to impose our ways on them, then
you usually won't hear Jews saying bad things against the Church or against our faith.
However, it is a foundational principle taught to Jewish children from the earliest age that Jews
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
must stay away from the influences of Christianity at all costs as it could steal their souls. So in
ancient times the Jews had a more or less peaceful co-existence with pagans as they do in our
day with Christians, while at the same time not condoning pagan or Christian practices for
Jews.
So when we compare this understanding with what we read in verse 26, which says that
Sha'ul was convincing many in Ephesus (gentiles certainly) that the manmade gods these
silversmiths created were not gods at all, then we see that this is something that the Ephesians
had not been used to contending with. The rather large Jewish community that had existed for
so long in Ephesus was content with minding their own business and keeping their opinions
about idols to themselves; but Paul was not inclined to be so politically correct. And Paul no
doubt was the best known public face for The Way out in the Diaspora. Paul had no fear of
debating and contending publically even if it was one against many. Recall that when Paul was
in Athens he openly debated the veracity of their many god-idols. Surprisingly he didn't get
into too much trouble there because they took it as more of an intellectual debate than a
religious assault; and as it turns out two of the main groups of philosophers in Athens that Paul
was debating were the Epicureans and the Stoics, neither of which had much regard for the
various gods and god statues present all over their city anyway. But Ephesus was different;
idols were their economic life blood and the people also had a very real devotion to Artemis.
At the meeting of the silversmith guild that he called, Demetrius says that in addition to the
economic ruin upon Ephesus that these certain Jews called The Way could cause, Artemis
herself could have her status and glory diminished if such talk went on unrestrained. This
possibility meant a couple of things to the Ephesians: first if her glory diminished so would the
glory of Ephesus, and thus an end to the steady stream of tourists. But second, the status of a
god was in direct proportion to that god's perceived power. The more a god was worshipped,
the more wide spread their reputation, the greater the size of their Temple and treasury, the
higher up they were in the god hierarchy. The higher your god was in the god hierarchy the
more they could do for you. So Ephesus saw their fate as directly tied to the fate of Artemis;
and they felt that Paul and The Way endangered it all. The crowd got fired up when they heard
the impassioned oratory of Demetrius and they began shouting, "Great is Artemis of the
Ephesians!" as a show of support for her honor.
The main assembly place in Ephesus was the city theatre; it was used for government and
civic purposes. Now incensed the crowd rushed into the theatre dragging along with them at
least two members of The Way, Gaius and Aristarchus, who had come to Ephesus from
Macedonia to assist Paul. It is likely that Gaius and Aristarchus weren't so much captured as
they were swept along with the irrepressible mass of humanity as it flowed into the theatre,
unstoppable as a flash flood in a wadi. I was once caught in such a situation at the opening of
a soccer match in Brazil; I've never felt such power imposed upon me and never experienced
such helpless panic. My sole goal was simply to remain upright or I would surely have been
trampled by people who wouldn't have even been aware of what was under their feet.
Paul being Paul he wanted to confront the mob in the theatre to offer a defense of his friends
and of The Way, but his disciples restrained him because they rightly feared for his life. The
scene is one of complete madness; everyone shouting something different, with many not
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
knowing any more than that their fellow Ephesians were nearly hysterical with anger. That's
the way of angry mobs; rumors are spread, facts are distorted, logic and rationality flee and
only the hyper-emotion of the moment prevails. This is how lynching happens. Some
government officials of Asia who were friendly with Paul also strongly advised him not to go in
to the theatre because the situation was out of control.
Here is where we need to pay more attention; verse 33 says that a Jew named Alexander was
apparently just as much in the dark as to the actual cause of the upset as was the bulk of the
crowd. Some local Jews found him, explained it to him, and he tried to make a speech to the
masses to calm things down. But the moment they saw that he was a Jew, they simply upped
the volume of their chant: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" These determined people kept
this up, we're told, for two solid hours.
Here's the thing: this statement about Alexander is more proof that gentiles made no
distinction between The Way and other factions of Judaism. This riot was essentially an anti-
Jewish backlash. From the gentile perspective The Way consisted of Jews and those loyal to
this Jewish movement, just as did all the other Jews belong to one sect of Judaism or another.
Jews, of course, understood that The Way had as their core belief that the founder of their
movement, Yeshua of Nazareth, a Jewish man, was the Messiah; something they disagreed
with. But they too didn't see The Way as anything but one of the many rival factions of their
Jewish religion because in all other discernable ways they were no different in their underlying
beliefs than their other Jewish brothers. The Way was seen as a Jewish religion, not as a
gentile religion, by both Jews and gentiles. It is only several decades later that erroneous
Church teachings spread that tried to make The Way at the time of Paul as something called
"Christianity", gentile in its nature, and thus an opponent of Jewish Judaism. I realize that I've
spoken to this subject rather recently and repeatedly; but until this is accepted and acted upon
by Christians and Christian leadership then the social and religious context of the New
Testament will remain misunderstood. Essentially my position is a retreat from the anti-
Semitism that has dogged Christianity for over 18 centuries, and a call to reform some of the
Church's most misguided doctrines that especially deal with our relationship with Israel, the
Jewish people, and the Torah.
Finally the City Clerk was able to quiet the rabble. While the citizens of Ephesus felt just in their
cause of upholding the glory of Artemis, the civic leaders knew that the Roman government
would tolerate almost anything except for chaos and civil disorder; something they reacted to
without mercy. That this man could quiet the crowd demonstrates that in this city of three-
quarters of a million people, he was widely known and obviously respected as having authority.
He speaks as a politician who diplomatically tries to show solidarity with the upset sensibilities
of the crowd in order to ratchet down their emotions enough for reasoned logic and common
sense to have room to operate.
Wisely he says that there is no need to dispute or question the veracity of Artemis, or that
Ephesus is the home of this great goddess, and that this is the place where the sacred stone
fell from the sky (which was for people of that era an indisputable sign of the holiness of this
place). Of all this there is no question, he says, and it is so obvious and self-evident that who
cares what some Jews think about it? The sacred stone that is spoken of is no doubt a
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
meteorite. These objects falling from the sky were rare enough that they mesmerized the
ancient mind; but the one in Ephesus was not without precedent. There are ancient records of
other sacred stones that fell from the clouds. In fact Islam today, at Mecca, has a shrine
named the Kaaba that holds what is called the Black Stone. Actually it is a number of stone
fragments held together in a special frame. No doubt the sacred Black Stone is a meteorite.
And like the Artemis worshippers of Ephesus, Muslims consider the Black Stone as perhaps
the most holy object in Islam and millions venture to Mecca each year to see it.
Thus (reasons this unnamed City Clerk), since we all agree that the Artemis cult is venerated
and above reproach, and our goddess has allegedly been attacked with nothing but a few
words, then it is time to chill out before this turns any uglier. He goes on to say that these men
whom the crowd wants to punish have not robbed the Temple nor have they specifically done
something to insult Artemis. In fact, with what little information he has at hand, these men
(Jews) are innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever. This unwarranted riot, therefore, puts this
city and its residents in a precarious position. And by the way, in a number of places in our
story the characterization of the people as a "crowd" is but the English translation of the Greek
word ekklesia. I hope that Greek word rings a bell; because it is the exact same word that is
regularly translated in the New Testament as "Church". So I suppose we could substitute the
word Church for everywhere our story says crowd. Now, of course, we wouldn't do that
because it would mischaracterize this assembly of unruly people, wouldn't it? But this is also
what we face as Bible students when we realize that anytime in the New Testament that The
Way gathers for an assembly (an ekklesia) Christian translators automatically insert the
English word Church. So why don't they instead insert "crowd" as they have throughout Acts
chapter 19? Very simply, the intent is to mischaracterize believing Jews meeting at a
Synagogue as Christians meeting for Church.
In verse 38 the City Clerk says that if the head of the silversmith guild, Demetrius, actually has
a verifiable case of wrong doing against these men, then it should be handled in the right way;
bring them before the town judges and let there be a legitimate and lawful trial where both
sides can state their case. Reason is beginning to win out; so he continues by saying that
unless this crowd disperses word is going to reach the Romans that an unlawful assembly (an
unlawful ekklesia) has happened and they will be without excuse; the consequences of that
could be truly terrible. He finished his speech and everyone left the theatre no worse for the
wear. Paul and his companions no doubt went someplace to rest; severely shaken but not
harmed.
Let's get a little bit of a start on chapter 20. We'll cover only a couple of verses today but I
also want to give you a brief glimpse of where we'll go next week.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 20:1 - 12
This chapter begins with the words "after the furor died down", of course referring to the near-
death experience of Paul and a couple of his disciples at the Ephesus riot. We see in the 1st
verse that Sha'ul called a meeting of his disciples in Ephesus to encourage them. There was
no undoing or watering down the reality of what had happened; there was no painting a happy
face on it. Without doubt the terrifying events of a few hours or days earlier took its toll on the
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
local Believers. If you were a Believer and had been a resident of this otherwise peaceful and
progressive city, and had a long history of your family living here in harmony (perhaps for a few
generations), how might you feel about your personal security and your place in the community
after something like this? Would you ever be able to look at your neighbors and business
associates in quite the same way again? How enthused and sure about the value or advantage
of your newfound faith might you be?
Fellow worshippers, let's part today agreeing to soberly consider the ramifications of our
duties and devotion as followers of Yeshua in light of where the world stands in our time, and
the trajectory that it is undeniably on. Christianity is struggling to survive in many parts of
Europe where at one time it was near to universal. In the USA our highest government leaders
challenge the notion of our being a Christian nation, or having ever been. Our schools have by
policy outlawed God. Active Christian fundamentalism is officially regarded with suspicion by
Homeland Security as bordering on terrorism because of its passion and lack of tolerance
towards Liberal secular ideals and Islam. Such basic human attributes as the sex God gave to
us at birth has nearly overnight become something an individual can redefine or even opt out
of by means of personal declaration. A number of our largest Christian institutions have
decided that the Bible is no longer the last (or best) word on morality, evil, or right and wrong. I
could go on, but won't. My question to you is this: in consideration of what we've been
reading about in Acts that the early Believers suffered, how far are you willing to go to stick
with your Biblical values, your God and to tell others of your faith in Messiah Yeshua? Are you
truly prepared to gain God's approval and blessing probably in exchange for the social
(perhaps even family) consequences of refusing to go with the flow of modern culture or even
against the grain of a growing portion of an emerging Christianity that thinks it best to adapt
and compromise with the latest trends rather than risk becoming outcasts or obsolete?
It is so much easier to address this question as theory but not practice; or as it affects others,
but not ourselves. Folks, I tell you the time is upon us even if we'd rather not face it because it
is not pleasant. It won't take a great deal more opposition before we will find ourselves (as
with Paul, Gaius, Aristarchus and Alexander) in the midst of a seething population who sees us
as the problem and as the enemy due to our faith. People who were our friends yesterday
could come against us tomorrow. It has happened to the Jewish people countless times over
the centuries because of their faith in the same God that we worship. We Believers have been
warned by Our Risen Messiah that for His followers it is not a matter of if, but when. What
should we do, then? We should follow Paul, Peter and James' example: strengthen our
relationship with God, trust Our Messiah more than ever, and build closer ties within our
Believing community. For we have the hope of hopes; joy now in living a life pleasing to Our
Lord, and the assurance of a future life with Yeshua that makes whatever may come our way
in our few years on earth as but a blip on the radar. We have the knowledge of changeless
divine truth to back up our decisions and the presence of the Holy Spirit to help us overcome
our challenges.
Matthew 16:24-28 CJB
24 Then Yeshua told his talmidim, "If anyone wants to come after me, let him say 'No' to
himself, take up his execution-stake, and keep following me.
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 44 - Chapter 19 and 20
25 For whoever wants to save his own life will destroy it, but whoever destroys his life
for my sake will find it.
26 What good will it do someone if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life? Or, what
can a person give in exchange for his life?
27 For the Son of Man will come in his Father's glory, with his angels; and then he will
repay everyone according to his conduct.
28 Yes! I tell you that there are some people standing here who will not experience death
until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom!"
We'll continue with Acts chapter 20 the next time we meet.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 45, Chapter 20
Acts chapter 20 finds Paul leaving the tense situation of Ephesus after being caught up in a riot
started by the Silversmith guild over his teaching about idols not being real gods. What is
important to remember about this event is what it teaches us about how the gentile world
viewed Judaism and The Way, and how The Way and Judaism viewed one another. When we
are misinformed about this, that's when all sorts of wrong minded Christian doctrines and anti-
Jewish attitudes are born.
We saw in chapter 19 that the Silversmiths perceived the members of The Way as simply a
peculiar group of Jews practicing their own brand of Judaism (never mind that a few gentiles
had joined that group). And whereas the local Jews that the Ephesians were used to dealing
with showed an acceptable degree of respect and tolerance for the gods typically worshipped
in Ephesus (their most import god being the goddess Artemis), Paul as the highly visible
spokesman for The Way was considerably less cordial in his very public denunciation of idols
in general. The Ephesian gentiles didn't have enough knowledge about Jews to make
nuanced distinctions between the various sects of Judaism, so they just saw all Jews as
basically the same, and all factions of Judaism as various parts of the same religion. Thus the
Ephesian riot was aimed at Jews in general.
The Way also considered themselves as a faction of Judaism. Yes, they had some gentile
converts to the faith of Jesus Christ; but Judaism had always attracted gentile converts. In fact
we can go back to the exodus from Egypt and see that thousands upon thousands of non-
Hebrews joined up with Israel (the Bible calls them a mixed multitude) as they began their trek
to the Promised Land. The Way as of this point in the Book of Acts was still majority Jewish,
and still being led by Jewish leadership.
Mainstream Jews also agreed that The Way was a faction of Judaism; there is no recorded
claim by Rabbis that The Way was not Jewish. Rather, in time the Rabbis claimed that The
Way was heretical (although that accusation was something regularly tossed back and forth at
each other by various Rabbis and the factions that they led). However there eventually was an
effort among the more mainstream sects of Judaism to excommunicate The Way. By that time
gentiles may have represented the majority of Believers and gentile leadership began to
surpass Jewish leadership. So sometime just before 100 A.D. the Birkat ha-Minim was
enacted; this is a better known in English as the Benediction Against the Heretics. Essentially
this prayer became part of a group of Jewish benedictions called Shemoneh esrei that was
practiced in synagogues throughout the known world. If you look this term up in an
Encyclopedia or on the Internet or read about it in Christian commentaries, it will inevitably say
that it is essentially a curse against Christians. But in fact that gives us entirely the wrong
impression. The Jews had little interest in religions outside of Judaism; religions that gentiles
practiced. Rather the Birkat ha-minim was directed at Jews who followed Yeshua as Messiah;
not gentiles who followed Yeshua. So this was not a benediction against "the Church" as we
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
typically think of it. Rather, this was a benediction directly aimed at the Jewish membership
and Jewish leadership of The Way.
Bottom line: as of the time of Acts chapter 20, The Way and its membership (Jew and gentile)
were seen universally as but one of the several factions of Judaism. This would change but not
until after the close of the New Testament writings, which would not occur for a few more
decades from the time of the Book of Acts.
Let's read Acts chapter 20 together.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 20 all
Other New Testament books in addition to Acts deal with Paul's missionary journeys and as
such the information they have often intertwines and fills in blanks that Luke hasn't chosen to
report. Sometimes, however, it can be challenging to exactly correlate an event in Acts with
one in (for instance) 2nd Corinthians. Therefore various scholars can have differing views on
their conclusions. Usually, however, there is a general consensus of opinion because often the
differences among the Bible scholars are not based on the substance of the information, but
rather whether or not the Bible commentator BELIEVES that the Biblical information is
accurate. So assuming the Bible is accurate, here is what we see happening as Acts chapter
20 opens.
Paul has left Ephesus and is intent on traveling through Macedonia. He traveled not by ship,
but probably on foot, and visited a number of Believers he had previously established (this was
Paul's custom). When we weave what is written in 2nd Corinthians 2 into what we read in the
first few verses of Acts 20, then it seems as though Paul intended on meeting up with the
disciple Titus in Troas. Paul didn't stay in Troas very long, opting instead to go to Corinth. But
Titus didn't come to Troas when he was expected, so Paul began journeying through
Macedonia, and in fact did meet up with Titus there. Titus had been in Corinth, and brought
good news with him that some disquieting situation that had been happening there (the
situation that made Paul think he needed to go to Corinth), had been resolved.
It seems that Paul spent a fair amount of time in Macedonia but we don't know for exactly how
long. Next he went to Greece where he spent 3 months (likely this was in the winter when
traveling was usually suspended, or until the shipping lanes reopened). He probably spent a lot
of this time in Corinth since that seemed to be where he was determined to go. The gathering
of funds for the benefit of the poor Believers in Jerusalem was still going on and so as winter
was giving way to spring, elders from the various congregations who were contributing funds
gathered at Corinth so that they could sail with Paul to the Holy Land to deliver them.
Let me flesh out the issue of the funds that were being collected because not all of these funds
were about charity to the poor Believers in Jerusalem. Rather there was a half-shekel Temple
tax that all Jews (whether living in the Holy Land or in the Diaspora) were expected to give to
help maintain the operation of the Temple. Since the Diaspora Jews resided a long distance
from the Temple they would bring those taxes (which were thought of as an offering) on one of
the pilgrimage feasts. It seems that Shavuot had (for whatever reason) become the customary
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
time to deliver those collected funds. Since only a relative few of the Diaspora Jews came to
the Temple on these occasions due the extensive time and expense of making such a journey,
the collected Temple tax of several synagogues might be entrusted to a representative who
was able to make the trip. So the bulk of the funds that Paul was instrumental in collecting
would have been more about the Temple tax than as actual charity for the poor.
As they were all onboard a ship (or getting ready to board) Paul heard about a plot to kill him
and so he decided it best to alter his plans; he went back to Macedonia and would sail on a
different ship from there to foil the assassins. The group of Elders however went ahead with
their plans, sailed to Troas, and would meet up with Paul there. The plot is said to have been
hatched by unbelieving Jews. So now Paul and the Elders from the several congregations are
at Troas and we learn that the group hadn't set sail from Philippi in Macedonia until after the
Days of Matzah were completed. This is of course speaking about the spring season Biblical
festival of Unleavened Bread, which comes the next day after Passover. We need to get not
too technical about the mentioning of these festivals because the New Testament talks about
them in the common manner of speaking they used in that era. Technically Passover is a one
day festival that starts on Nisan 14. Then on Nisan 15 begins the 7 day festival of Matzah. In
this era (and for many years before it), the terms Passover and Unleavened Bread became
interchangeable because out of practicality the 2 feasts really combined to be one 8 day long
event. So Jews tended to speak of the season as Passover or Unleavened Bread even though
they were referring to both. What is important for us to understand is that the first and last days
of Matzah were festival Sabbaths so no traveling and no regular work was done by Jews.
Pretty much all travel plans were put on hold during that 8 day period so this delayed Paul and
the Elders' departure even though the shipping lanes had recently re-opened.
Of course this meant that in 7 weeks another Festival would arrive: Shavuot (Pentecost in
Greek). And like the Feast of Matzah, Shavuot was a pilgrimage festival. That meant that
according to the Torah all Jews were required to present themselves before God at the Temple
in Jerusalem (Deut.16:10 – 12). As we discussed before, relatively few Diaspora Jews made
that trip; it was long, arduous, expensive, and risky. But it broke the Law of Moses to not go. In
fact we see that neither did Paul make that trip. Later in verse 16 we'll hear about Paul's great
desire to get to Jerusalem in time for Shavuot. That is, he'd already broken the Torah
command to be at the Temple for the Feast of Matzah and he didn't want to break another law
by failing to show up for Shavuot. So the timing of his journey clearly had much to do with the
timing of the Biblical Feasts.
Now we come to a passage that has had an enormous impact on Christianity (although you'd
have to be a Bible commentator or an exceptional Bible student to notice it). Verse 7 says that
on the first day of the week the Believers gathered together to break bread and Paul kept
teaching this group until about midnight. What is so impactful about this, you might ask? Here
is the verse that is foremost among institutional Christianity that declares that Paul left behind
Sabbath worship and instituted Sunday worship. Why was that conclusion drawn? Because it
says that this group of Believers met there in Troas on a Sunday (the first day of the week). But
it goes further than that; it is also standard Christian doctrine that Paul also instituted
Communion as a part of every Sunday service for Christians because it says that the group
"broke bread". That is, breaking bread is referring to the sacrament of Communion. This is a
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
most delicate subject but we cannot just bypass it.
Notice that in the CJB the author, David Stern, inserts the word Motza'ei Shabbat in place of
"first day". First, the word Motza'ei Shabbat indeed is NOT there in the original Greek;
however I do think he is on to something. Motza'ei Shabbat means "departure of the
Sabbath"; it refers to Saturday night. Remember that in the Bible Hebrews counted days as
from sunset to sunset. So the 7th day, Shabbat, Saturday, ended at sundown. Then the first
day (that we call Sunday) began immediately. After sundown, which ended Shabbat, Motza'ei
Shabbat was celebrated either at home or in the synagogues as a way to extend the joy of the
Sabbath. This is not a Biblical Torah commandment; it is Tradition. So it was a practice
recognized by the synagogue but not by the Temple authorities. However it was the common
practice in this era among Jews.
Since each new day began at sundown, and sunlight was essential for most tasks (especially
tasks in agriculture) people tended to work until the sun set to make the most of daylight hours.
Thus they ate their evening meal after dark when the work day was over because work could
no longer be accomplished. So upon Motza'ei Shabbat, which occurred once the sun set
ending Shabbat, the evening meal was eaten. For one reason, since Shabbat was now over,
meal preparation and cooking could commence. The common term in that day for eating
(especially when referring to the evening meal) was breaking bread. Part of the reason that the
term breaking bread was adopted is because at the start of the meal a barakah (a standard
blessing) was recited, and it involved literally breaking the bread and passing it in pieces
around the table. So; breaking bread has nothing to do with Communion in Jewish practice. It
just refers to the standard blessing to begin the meal.
But this brings up another issue; was Paul instituting Sunday worship for Believers and
abandoning the customary Jewish day of communal worship, Saturday? Let me begin by
quoting from the well known Messianic Jew who has authored many books about the
importance of rediscovering our Jewish Roots. He has also created a wonderful Bible
commentary on the New Testament, and he wrote the Complete Jewish Bible: Dr. David Stern.
He says this:
"I do not find the New Testament commanding a specific day of the week for worship.
There can be no objection whatever to the practice adopted later by a gentile-dominated
Church of celebrating the Lord's Day on Sunday, including Sunday night; but this
custom must not be read backward into New Testament times. On the other hand,
Messianic Jews who worship on Saturday night rather than Sunday can find warrant for
their practice in this verse."
Paul wasn't changing anything or instituting anything new. He was simply engaging in a typical
Jewish custom of gathering after the setting sun brought an end to Shabbat, and then eating
(breaking bread) with his group of disciples. This custom was called Motza'ei Shabbatand
Judaism has retained it to this day. By definition 1st day comes immediately after the 7th day, so
indeed Paul was meeting and teaching on the 1st day, Sunday. But this wasn't "Christianity"; it
was standard Judaism.
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
This also brings up the sensitive issue of whether it is right before the Lord to have a
communal meeting of Believers on Sunday, or should it only occur on Saturday (Shabbat)? I
addressed this extensively in our study of the Book of Nehemiah and you can read it or hear it
if you want to review what I had to say about it in detail. I will, however, briefly summarize
because little has divided Christianity from Judaism, and Christianity from Messianic Judaism,
and traditional Christianity from Hebrew Roots Christianity, more than this issue.
1. There is no such concept in the Bible (OT or NT) of a designated "day of worship".
God has not singled out any one day of the week as a special or set-apart day for
personal or communal worship above any of the other days; nor has God prohibited
any particular day of the week as off-limits for personal or communal worship.
2. Sabbath (Shabbat) is one thing only: the God ordained day of rest. The Bible describes
Shabbat as having no other purpose than ceasing from our regular labors (again, OT
or NT). Sabbath is NOT the Biblical day of worship because there is no such thing.
3. The Jewish practice of having a weekly communal day where everyone goes to
synagogue for prayer and worship on Shabbat is Jewish Tradition; it is not a Biblical
commandment. Nowhere in the OT will you find either a Law to meet together on
Shabbat, or will you find mention of the Jews having a regular worship meeting on the
7th day. This is because it was a custom developed by the synagogue system; and the
synagogue system didn't come into existence until well after the Babylonian Exile and
the close of the Old Testament.
4. The common accusation by some Messianic Jews towards Christians is that meeting
for worship on Sunday is meeting on a pagan day. There is no such thing as a "pagan
day" in the Bible; God created all seven days. Further, the common Jewish practice of
Motza'ei Shabbat is meeting on Sunday (the first day); it happens at the close of
Saturday (Shabbat) after sundown, meaning the day has changed to Sunday.
Motza'ei Shabbat is Sunday worship.
5. It is claimed that the Roman Emperor Constantine in concert with the Roman Church
changed Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday for Christians. That is incorrect.
Constantine abolished Sabbath altogether for Christians, and instituted a new day
called "The Lord's Day", which was to be held on Sundays. As the historical record
clearly states, he did this precisely to refute Jews whom he saw as wicked and having
no place in Christianity (that is, from his standpoint Christianity was a gentiles-only
faith). Since Jews met by custom on Saturdays, then Christians would henceforth meet
by custom on Sundays. The difference is that Sunday worship was an imperial decree
and a Church law. So Christians ceased celebrating Sabbath and instead saw it as a
dead law thanks to Constantine. However it was also no co-incidence that the Mithrain
Sun worshipping religion, the most dominant religion in the Roman Empire at the time,
was already using Sunday as its day of worship (hence the name sun-day), and so
Constantine found it convenient and politically expedient to declare a Christian day of
worship (where none had existed before) to be on Sunday, the same day as the Sun-
god worshippers assembled.
6. There is nothing wrong about meeting in worship in synagogue on Saturday, nor
meeting for a Christian service on Sunday; one has no more merit than the other. Both
are designated days of worship created by manmade traditions and not by God.
Further, these days are neither better nor worse for meeting for worship than any other
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
day of the week. Therefore if one wants to make Shabbat your day of worship to go
along with God's day of rest, that is perfectly fine. But; if one wants to make Sunday
your day of worship as well as God's day of rest, your Sabbath, that is NOT fine.
Sunday worship is acceptable but Sabbath is only the 7th day; not any day we choose.
What day we choose to meet in communal worship is our choice; but Shabbat is a
permanent ordinance of God, not something humans can change at our whim.
What I just told you is a combination of Scripture and recorded, verifiable history; it is not my
speculation. So once again: Paul and his disciples were merely meeting immediately following
Shabbat as was a standard custom of Judaism; he was not instituting a new Sunday worship
service. And he and his followers were eating a typical evening meal together; they were not
having Communion.
Picking up again in Acts 20 verse 8; it seems that Paul was doing what he does best:
preaching. He went on and on until around midnight a young man named Eutychus was sitting
on the window ledge; he dozed off and fell out the window. It might have been funny except for
one thing: he was on the 3rd floor. The streets of Troas were paved with stones so when he hit,
the fall killed him. We're told that Paul of course ran downstairs whereupon he threw his body
on top of him, embraced him, and then said not to worry, he's alive!
A few things about this event: first, Luke (the writer of Acts) was present. Recall that Luke was
a physician; I don't know how good of a doctor he was but let's hope he knew how to tell a
dead person from a live one. We know Luke is present because back in verse 5 we start to
encounter more of the "we phrases". That is, the author of Acts begins to talk about "we" and
"us", making himself part of the action. So Luke was in Troas with the group of Elders and
Paul. Even more, verse 7 says that "we" were gathered to break bread; Luke was there in that
upper room. Thus we have eye witness verification from a doctor that the boy was indeed
dead, and we have the testimony of a resurrection from the dead by this same doctor.
Verse 11 once again mentions breaking bread and says this happened after the incident of the
boy falling out of the window. It is difficult to reconcile this with verse 7 except that apparently
for whatever reason the eating didn't actually happen until around midnight. That could make
sense because meal preparation couldn't even begin until dark. And perhaps the group
became so engrossed in hearing Paul that food wasn't on their minds. That doesn't matter as
far as reckoning what day it was. Midnight is not when days change, rather sunset is; so
regardless this was occurring on the 1st day of the week, Sunday.
After a few days in Troas it was time to leave. At daybreak everyone went to the docks and
boarded a ship for Assos but Paul didn't go with them. There was a maintained highway
between Troas and Assos; it was a 20 mile distance and so Paul walked it. Why did Paul walk
instead of ride on a ship? All we're told is that essentially he decided to do it; perhaps he just
wanted a day to be lost in his own thoughts.
In Assos Paul met up with the others and boarded another ship to take them to Mitylene. This
was the largest city on the island of Lesbos. From there they sailed to Chios; the following day
to Samos and then finally to Miletus. Paul decided to bypass Ephesus (although I'm sure his
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
curiosity ate at him after the riots and all), because he needed to get to Jerusalem in time for
Shavuot in order to observe the commandment. Thirty miles north of Miletus was Ephesus and
Paul sent a messenger there asking some of the congregation elders to come to Miletus to
meet with him. Paul had some things he felt he needed to say to these faithful leaders of the
Ephesus congregation because he didn't think he'd ever see them again.
Starting in verse 18 Paul declares the faithfulness of his ministry to the Elders not because he
is bragging, but in order to teach them how a minister should serve. Paul did as we should do:
he lived it more than he talked about it. A good example is far more powerful than good words,
and one of the examples he gave them was how he set his own personal risk aside in order to
minister to them. Ephesus was perhaps the roughest test he had faced thus far; the
unbelieving Jews there were the most adamantly opposed to him and the unbelieving gentiles
had a vested economic interest is squashing Paul's viewpoint of the idols they made as not
real gods.
Paul recalls that he taught in public that others might listen even though that invited retaliation;
and he taught in private to both Jews and gentiles. He taught the same beneficial message to
each group: repentance and faithfulness. He taught that these two elements must both happen
in order for there to be redemption so I'll then emphasize it as well. It is said (and I have said it
myself countless times) that salvation in Christ is a free gift from God; it comes from grace plus
nothing. Yet that is true only to the point that we acknowledge that there is FIRST, before
grace, an eligibility test. And the eligibility test is that we must sincerely repent to God for our
sins against Him. John the Baptist spelled it out; we have seen this same requirement spelled
out (and played out) all throughout the Book of Acts. We've even seen some new so-called
Believers that were baptized based on repentance of sins (Acts 19:1 – 7), but had not been
baptized based on the saving grace of Yeshua. Paul did not accept them as saved. So the
elements of both repentance from sins and trust in Christ are needed.
I have read numerous articles from Pastors explaining that repentance and faith in Christ is the
same thing. That is, repenting is also asking Christ into your heart. This is the answer to how
one can agree with the doctrine that says that salvation comes from Christ alone by grace, but
to somehow avoid the issue of repentance as an active ingredient of salvation. I would think
by this point in Acts that you've seen that this in no way lines up with Holy Scripture.
Repentance means that you not only acknowledge that you are a sinner, but that you sincerely
intend to stop sinning. The truth is that you don't need Yeshua to see that; all you need is the
Law of Moses. And you don't need Yeshua in order to repent (John the Baptist was our best
example of this). But once you repent and determine to live righteously, you still owe God a
debt for the sins you committed. Repentance does NOT pay for your sins; repentance only
admits your sins and forces you to face the consequences.
So the next step after repentance is to find the way to pay for those sins. We learn in Leviticus
that God says the only means to pay for sins in a way that provides divine forgiveness is that a
sinless creature must die; that leaves out the sinner, doesn't it? The only solution is an
innocent substitute. For centuries innocent animals were killed and laid on the altar as
substitutes for sinners. With the advent of Messiah, He became the innocent substitute for us
all. But we have to acknowledge that and accept what He did for us, in dying on the cross, in
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
order for it to become effective. Then when we are immersed into that reality, we are saved.
Yet Scripture makes it certain that we can't skip over the repentance and go straight to the
salvation. But I can tell you that I have run across many people who are convinced that they
can do just that; they can pray to receive Jesus and just intentionally go right on sinning as
before......because they are saved! These are the ones that are often labeled in modern times
as un-victorious Christians. To my way of thinking, and according to Scripture, the term un-
victorious Christian is an oxymoron. When we repent, and we are saved, we are handed a
victory of eternal magnitude. Un-victorious means one of those elements is missing. Verse 21
repeats Paul's formula for salvation: he says to turn from sin AND to put your trust in the Lord.
He does not say that turning from sin IS putting your trust in the Lord. Turning from sin is an
act of the human will; trust in the Lord for forgiveness of sins is an act of divine grace. So both
elements are required.
With that out of the way Paul announces to the Ephesian Elders that he is going to Jerusalem
but he has trepidation about it. He is expecting something bad to happen along the way
because, he says, in every city he visits the Holy Spirit keeps warning him about going to
Jerusalem. Very probably what this means is that there are Believers who prophecy to him that
they see trouble ahead for him and the message is so consistent wherever he goes that he's
taking it seriously. Paul is looking to the future; but what he couldn't reckon was the timing.
That is perhaps one of the biggest frustrations that Believers face. We sense in our spirits that
something is coming; it is the "when" of it that is usually not clear. And that "when" could be
sooner, or years beyond, what we're thinking. In fact, even though Paul was so certain that
he'd never return to Ephesus, his Epistles show us that he did.
Because Paul felt that he wouldn't be coming back to Ephesus, he wants to declare that he
has given everything the Lord has told him to give to the people of Ephesus. He has told them
how to be forgiven and if they want to ignore it, then it's not his responsibility. Or, in the
common Hebrew expression of that day: their blood is on their own heads. But now, a warning:
the Elders need to pay attention and take constant heed because evil is coming. Paul is
speaking directly to the leadership. He lapses into metaphors that Yeshua often used: those of
the sheep and the shepherd. Paul says that he is certain that wolves will come in and attack
the flock. These Elders before him are the shepherds of the flock; it is their job to be vigilant
and to deal with the wolves however it must be done. In fact the attacks won't always come
from outsiders; sometimes members of their own group will betray themselves and become
perverse. They will teach deviance and corruption as truth with the goal of pulling the disciples
away for themselves.
I have little doubt that the Torah scholar Paul has Yeshua's exhortation in mind as he pours
out his heart and his fears to these leaders of the congregation of Ephesus.
John 10:14-17 CJB
14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own, and my own know me-
15 just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father- and I lay down my life on behalf
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 45 - Chapter 20
of the sheep.
16 Also I have other sheep which are not from this pen; I need to bring them, and they
will hear my voice; and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
17 "This is why the Father loves me: because I lay down my life- in order to take it up
again!
We'll finish chapter 20 and get well into Acts 21 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 46, Chapters 20 and 21
We have a little more to cover to complete Acts chapter 20 and then we'll move immediately
into chapter 21. Paul is in Miletus, a province of Asia, which is a few miles south of Ephesus.
He doesn't think that he has the time to travel to Ephesus to meet with the leadership there
because he is in a big hurry to get back to the Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Shavuot.
This pressure to get to Jerusalem is borne from the fact that it is a Biblical commandment that
all Israelites are to make a pilgrimage to the Temple for the Feast of Shavuot (and for 2 other
Feasts as well). Pay attention to how much time and effort it takes for him to get to Jerusalem
for this Feast because this is what every Diaspora Jew faced and why relatively few made the
required pilgrimages. So for whatever reasons or circumstances, Paul had elected not to make
the trip for the Feast of Matzah, which means he broke the Law. Paul is such a well known
figure by now that no doubt the leadership of The Way were concerned that he had not to
come to Jerusalem for Passover; all it could do is add to suspicions and rumors that he might
be moving away from devotion to Halakhah: Jewish Law. Sha'ul sent a message to Ephesus
asking the leaders of the congregation of Believers there to come to him, which they did.
Sha'ul feels certain that something bad is going to happen to him when he gets to Jerusalem;
it is an intuition that he has that has been confirmed by various prophets in Believing
congregations who have warned him of trouble. He also feels certain that whether due to this
coming trouble or something else, that he will never again return to Ephesus (nor the other
Believing congregations that he has set up in Asia, Macedonia, Greece, and Phrygia). So he
gives an impassioned speech to the leadership of Ephesus to remember him as a dedicated,
faithful follower of Yeshua who put himself at great risk to bring the truth to them. He also
warns them that wolves will come to attack the flock of Believers and attempt to pull them away
into spiritual darkness. Thus as leaders they must be on guard for this possibility and be aware
that these wolves may even rise up from among the Believers.
Let's pick up at Acts 20 verse 32.
RE-READ ACTS 20:32 – end
As I read and pondered verse 32 it occurred to me that Paul, as a teacher of God's Word and
evangelist of Yeshua's Gospel, was quite worried about what would happen when he was no
longer present to answer questions, to guide, and to encourage. We've already seen as with
Apollos, the Believing evangelist from Alexandria, Egypt, that God's message can be easily
(even unintentionally) distorted, or vital pieces of information can be left out. Pagan ideas can
be blended with Biblical truth and new Believers, especially, can be susceptible to deception.
Paul's answer to the problem was twofold; first was to plead with the leaders to look to the
Lord and to temper everything they thought, learned, taught and did with love and kindness.
But second is something that Paul will do that isn't mentioned here; it is that Paul will keep his
ear to the ground and using messengers and other means he will keep track from afar of what
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
is going on with these Diaspora congregations. And he will communicate with them by means
of letters. It is his letters to the congregations that he will use to exhort them to remain
steadfast in the faith he has taught to them; and he will correct them with proper doctrine when
they go off the reservation. Although I'm positive that he never envisioned it, these letters to
the congregations would eventually form a substantial part of a Christian New Testament that
would be added to the Bible about 150 years after his martyrdom. And of course we are
fortunate to have this same legacy of Paul's teachings to show us the way in our own time just
as it did for the Ephesians, Galatians, Corinthians, and other Believing congregations in Paul's
day.
Verse 33 makes an emphatic point that needs to be revived in modern Christianity. Sha'ul
says that he used his own hands to support himself and also to help others; he didn't take
gold, silver or clothing in payment for his teaching and preaching. In other words he used his
craft as a tentmaker as his means of support and didn't seek money from the congregations
for his living. So for Sha'ul being an evangelist was not his occupation; it was his passion. His
occupation financed his passion.
Paul's message to us then is this: Pastors and Rabbis should work to support themselves
where ever that is practical so as not to burden the congregation. But we also need to take
Paul's example in light of his times versus ours. Much more is expected of today's Ministers
such that in even a modest sized congregation being a Pastor is usually a full time job in itself;
that is not something that Paul or the Rabbis of his era faced. Our society is much more
structured, more congregational activities are the norm, facilities and services are more
elaborate, and members look to the Ministers for a more personal touch. Ministers deserve to
make a decent living so that they can care for their families. That said I am disappointed to see
some Christian leaders that view themselves as equivalent to business owners, CEOs and
senior executives, and expect to be paid on a level equivalent to what the same sort of position
might pay in the business world. Every case is different, of course, but the spirit of Paul's
example is crystal clear: no more ought to be taken from the congregational treasury than is
needed for the reasonable support of Ministers and staff. Making these positions into high
paying careers that compete with private industry for talent is one of a number of factors that
has shrunk the necessary gap between Believing institutions and the world. But it has also
attracted people into ministry leadership and service who are less dedicated in sacrificially
serving God with their gifts and talents and are more interested in obtaining a stable, good
paying job with nice working conditions.
It is noteworthy that here Paul quotes Christ by saying "there is more happiness in giving than
in receiving". Especially for the Christian and Messianic leadership that may be hearing my
words, please notice that Paul is not talking to the congregation; rather he is specifically
addressing this comment to the leadership. That is not to say that the same thing doesn't go
for the membership; but the example of this principle is to first be demonstrated by the
leadership.
Once Paul has finished saying all he wanted to say, he kneels with the Elders and prays. He
bids them a sorrowful and tearful farewell as they took to heart his belief that they would never
see him again. Interestingly, despite his coming ordeal in Jerusalem, Paul was mistaken; this
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
would not be the last time the leaders of Ephesus would see Paul.
Let's move on to Acts 21.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 21 all
This is one of those chapters that I may enjoy more than you do because it has some
fascinating theological implications as well as ample opportunity for me to discuss more about
the historical Paul. By doing so it opens a window for us to straighten out a few misconceptions
that have become reflected in some rather widespread Christian doctrines.
The final words of the previous chapter explain that this melancholy group went with Paul to
the port, and at least some of them accompanied him on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The first
few words of Acts 21 tell us where the ship made its first port call; it was at Cos. Paul and
companions over-nighted in Cos, and the next day sailed to Rhodes, and from there on to
Patara. What we see here is the customary island hopping that occurred among most transport
ships in this era. These were smaller vessels that delivered goods up and down coastlands,
not venturing very far out to sea; they were the local delivery trucks and tended to operate in
good weather and mostly during daylight hours. Paul would eventually need to hook up with a
larger, more seaworthy vessel to sail across the open waters of the Mediterranean to reach a
port in the Holy Land.
Cos was a small island that one passed on the route to Rhodes; it was best known for the
medical school founded by Hippocrates 500 years before Paul's day. The Rhodes that is
being spoken of here is no doubt the City of Rhodes, located on the island of Rhodes, because
that city had a busy port. Rhodes was a much larger island than Cos. Interestingly Greek and
Roman historical records indicate that both of these islands had Jewish populations living on
them. I tell you this to point out just how widespread the Jews were; there was hardly a place in
all of the known world where you wouldn't find at least a few Jewish families.
Patara was back on the mainland of Asia, due east from the Island of Rhodes, in the territory of
Lycia; so it was just a short sail. It will be in Patara where Paul leaves the small boat he's been
on to find a larger one to take him back to the Holy Land. This would be a journey of 5 days at
sea. Let me remind you that there were no such things as passenger ships in these days;
passengers were simply live cargo. And notice how much detail we are getting about this
journey; that is because we are once again in the "we" passages of the Book of Acts. That is,
the writer, Luke, once again includes himself in everything that is being reported because he
was present. So whenever Luke was with Paul we find that the amount of detail increases
since he is reporting things first hand and he seems to like detail.
So Paul found an appropriate ship and they set sail from Patara; the route took them around
the western and southern coasts of Cyprus and they landed in Tzor of Phoenicia. Tzor is
another name for Tyre. They stayed there for a week, meeting up with some Believers who
lived there. These Believers of Tyre joined the chorus advising Paul not to go to Jerusalem
because the Spirit portended something bad happening to him. Paul was unmoved; he was
determined to go to Jerusalem no matter the danger. But this brings up an interesting
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
theological conundrum that invariably winds up being a practical challenge for Believers at
some time or another. In Acts 20:22 we're told that Paul was compelled by the Spirit to go to
Jerusalem. Here in Acts 21:4 the disciples of Tyre, also guided by the Spirit, tell Paul that he
should not go. God cannot be divided, so what is happening here and why did Paul go
anyway? Or, did these disciples not really hear from the Spirit?
It seems that these disciples of Tyre are getting the same warning from the Holy Spirit that the
disciples from Asia had received: it is that their leader Paul was going to have something
serious happen to him in Jerusalem. What would anyone's reaction be if they knew about this
danger ahead of time? It would be to urge the affected party to not go. But on the other hand,
Paul says that the Holy Spirit was compelling him to go. Paul sensed danger ahead (perhaps
even death) because he told the Ephesian elders that he would never see them again; but that
is a separate issue from whether he should go to Jerusalem or not. Remember: it was God's
Law that every Jew was to go to the Temple in Jerusalem for Shavuot (Deut.16). Essentially
Paul was resigned to the fact that he would be walking into danger; but thought that God still
wanted him to do it. The Spirit didn't order Paul to stay away from Jerusalem. Rather it was
Paul's followers who asked him not to go because of what they feared awaited him. Better to
break a commandment of God, they reasoned, than to do something risky.
And there you have it, as uncomfortable as it may be; it is that as Believers there are risks that
we are supposed to take when we know God is urging us to take them. But in the risk averse
West, it seems counter intuitive to do anything that could involve risk or danger to us if we
know about it, or have deep suspicions, in advance. So would God actually ask us to do
something that He knows, and we suspect, is seriously risky and indeed possibly fatal? For
instance; my wife and I have ventured to Israel more times than I can remember, and we
continued going to Israel during the violent Intifada of 15 or so years ago when buses and
pizza parlors were being randomly bombed by terrorists. Shops were closing by the scores,
restaurants were going out of business, and entire hotels were shut down and mothballed. Our
family and most of our friends thought us crazy and pled with us not to go to Israel; and it's not
that we were naïve of the increased risk or didn't feel some anxiety about it. It's that we knew
in our spirits that we were supposed to do this. Problem is, God didn't tell us why and that
made it all the harder.
Looking back, I can't begin to tell you how much things have changed for the better between
Christians and Jews in Israel as a result of many thousands of Christians just like us who kept
going to Israel during those dangerous times. Israeli shopkeepers would ask us bluntly why
we'd still come in the midst of all this danger, and then when we told them why some wanted
to know more about our faith. Jews on the streets would come up to us, shake our hands, and
with moist eyes, thank us. We'd tell them how much we value them and God loves them. We
even had Orthodox Jews who, in years past, would change sides of the street to avoid us; but
now they'd pause, smile, and nod their heads in acknowledgement of us. Christian and Jewish
relations in Israel are very different, and so much better, today than they were less than 20
years ago. A genuine warmth and sense of friendship has replaced a rather cold, unwelcoming
and suspicious attitude. So now, in hindsight, I understand why God had us along with many
thousands more Believers go to Israel to face real danger despite what in many ways seemed
to any reasonable person to be utterly foolhardy.
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
I also know of missionaries that regularly go to dangerous places, with spiritually grounded
friends and family saying that they have flashing red lights going off in their spirits that
something is going to happen and so they need to not go or to go somewhere else; this is
where discernment comes into play. Sometimes when we know there is great risk in what
we're about to enter in to, we need to decide whether God is directing us into that risk so that
He can use it to His glory or whether we are foolishly playing with our lives and what we're
doing is naïve idealism and is not God's direction at all. I don't have any sure fire way for you
to divine the right answer; I only know that God's grand plan for His Believers is not to remove
all chance of danger or risk for us. Rather I think many times His asking us to go or to do when
the circumstances are screaming for us to run the other direction are a test; a test to see what
matters more to us: our lives or His will. It may not always involve danger to life and limb; it
might be financial risk, career risk, even social risk that is at stake. Paul was right to continue
to Jerusalem where indeed bad things were going to happen because the Lord had bigger
plans for Paul than he knew.
Sha'ul said goodbye to the worried Believers of Tzor and he, Luke and apparently some who
came with him from Asia (likely with the collection of funds for Jerusalem) went to Ptolemais.
Ptolemais is known in modern times as Akko. There were Believers there who greeted them
and offered hospitality for the night. Notice how everywhere Paul went there were Believers, or
he made some new ones. That is how fast and wide belief in Yeshua had grown in the perhaps
25 years since Christ was executed. The next day they continued on their journey towards
Jerusalem and came to Caesarea Maritima, the jewel of port cities in the Holy Land.
Interestingly Phillip lived there and he greeted the travelers. This was the same Phillip from
Acts chapter 6 who was part of a group of Hellenist Jewish Believers who didn't think that their
widows were getting their fair share of charity; so the leadership of The Way in Jerusalem
chose 7 of the Hellenists to be in charge of the distribution to all the widows, Hellenists or
Hebrews. This is why verse 8 refers to Phillip as "one of the seven".
It is clear that Paul (or at least one of his party) knew that Phillip lived in Caesarea so they
went straightaway to his house; and with Phillip lived 4 of his unmarried daughters.
Interestingly all 4 are said to be prophetesses. Now let me go off track for just a moment to
explain an interesting Jewish viewpoint about what is happening here. Unmarried daughters is
another way of saying "virgins". This didn't necessarily mean that they were terribly young,
even children. Typical marrying age was around 15; it was not unusual for a girl to be married
as early as 12. But no one was going to trust a prophecy coming from a child, so these 4
daughters were likely in their mid or late teens or twenties. However Jewish documents from
that era suggest that celibacy (man or woman) had some connection to the ability to prophecy
because the ability to prophecy also had some connection to the level of ritual purity of that
person. The idea being that the most ritually pure a woman would ever be in her life was
before she shared intimacy with the opposite sex; and this because the act itself automatically
initiates a short time of ritual uncleanness. These same documents also point out how
unmarried girls still living under their father's roof were segregated from males so that contact
with men was very limited and tightly supervised by the father; this was done for the sake of
purity and modesty. All of this in the Hebrew culture was seen as the epitome of piety. Thus
such girls were all the more likely to be rewarded by the Lord with the ability to prophecy. I'm
not saying that this is necessarily how God views it; I'm saying that this is how Jewish society
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
in Paul's era viewed it and it is without doubt why it was even mentioned here in Acts 21.
Because nothing implies that any of these 4 girls actually prophesied to Paul and company.
But then in verse 10, with the idea of prophets and prophesy still the theme, we read of an
adult male prophet named Agav who came to visit. It is an odd situation because we're given
no clue as to whether it was a coincidence that he and Paul arrived at about the same time in
Caesarea, or whether this was intentionally timed to occur this way. What was Agav's
relationship with Phillip, Paul, Luke or any of the other Believers? We don't know. Was he a
Believer? Nothing indicates it. However this isn't the first time we've run into Agav. Back in
chapter 11 we read of him coming to Antioch from Jerusalem and prophesying a famine in the
Roman Empire. It happened. So the tie-in between him and the Believers is ambiguous. That
said it is clear that he is a true prophet of God and what he says is to be trusted. Agav put on a
visual illustration of what Paul can expect in Jerusalem. He borrowed Paul's belt (also called a
girdle), tied up his own hands and feet and said that the owner of the belt (Paul) would have
this happen to him in Jerusalem and he'd be handed over to the gentiles (meaning arrested by
the Roman authorities). Once again Paul is informed (although in more detail) of the danger
that awaits him; but still there is no command of God to avoid Jerusalem. So Paul's order from
God stands.
Since everyone was present when Agav gave his prophecy, Luke, the group of elders that had
come with Paul from Asia and the local Believers in Caesarea once again begged Sha'ul not
to go to Jerusalem. Paul told them to stop crying and to stop urging him to NOT do what he
clearly knew God wanted him to do. He says that arrest, injury or death are beside the point;
whatever happens, happens. Since God has not told him through a prophet to avoid going to
Jerusalem, then what Paul needs from them is strengthening and encouragement; not excuses
that supposedly allow him to disobey the Lord. They kept it up, though, and finally saw that
Paul was not going to be swayed. They concluded: God's will be done. In other words, they
finally came around to the understanding that Paul had had all along.
You know: it sounds so nice and loving to tell a brother or sister in Christ to avoid a risk that
they believe God wants them to take. Or to tell them that whatever is the desire of their heart,
God wants it too or He wouldn't have put that desire in them. But the truth is that good
intentions and properly discerning God's will don't always coincide. All these disciples knew is
what God had shown them in so many ways: Paul was going to face serious trouble when he
got to Jerusalem. They also now knew from Agav's prophecy that Paul was going to be
arrested by the Romans. So I don't see them as wrong minded or demonstrating a lack of faith
by trying to discourage Paul from going to Jerusalem. However it does tell us that only rarely
does God show us everything from beginning to end. The only additional information that Paul
had that the disciples didn't was that he was certain in his spirit that God wanted him in
Jerusalem. The disciples reasoned with Paul no doubt saying that he could lose his life if he
went. But they had enough respect for Paul to come to the conclusion that in the end this was
between Paul and God; so they reluctantly threw in the towel and wished him well.
Understand; Paul was not traveling alone so he would not be going up to Jerusalem by
himself. Paul's traveling companions would be with him and whatever fate was going to befall
Paul could easily ensnare Luke and the Elders from Asia (guilt by association). So we
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
shouldn't overlook the faith and trust that they were displaying as well; they knew that they,
too, could be at risk. Despite all this, Paul's entourage actually grew as some of the disciples
of Caesarea decided to join them as they went up to Jerusalem. Again: let's remember that
this wasn't entirely about loyalty to Paul. Shavuot was upon them and these men were
required by the Torah to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to sacrifice and worship.
Off to Jerusalem they went and immediately they stopped at the home of Mnason, a Believer
from Cyprus, who would provide them a place to stay (meaning that he had a sizeable house).
It is clear that these accommodations had been prearranged, and for good reason; Jerusalem
would swell to 3 or 4 times its normal size for Shavuot. Finding somewhere to stay could be
quite difficult, but the residents of Jerusalem saw it as a duty and a privilege to find a way to
accommodate all who came to God's festivals. Even though Shavuot was technically a one
day Feast, pilgrims coming from long distances of course didn't come for one day, turn
around, and head home. Besides; Halakhah had by now put many demands upon those who
came to celebrate, and ritual purity was at the heart of those demands because impurity was
contagious.
It was a given that those coming from the Diaspora would have to come early in order to go
through purification rituals. Even for the Jewish Believers who accepted Peter's teaching that
gentiles were not inherently unclean, there was the reality that most gentiles were pagans; and
so their idolatry and their non-kosher eating created a great deal of uncleanness (this is why
the Jerusalem Council several years earlier had declared certain prohibitions regarding these
two issues for gentile Believers). Then there was the gentiles' careless handling of the dead,
for which they went through no purification procedures so this produced the worst sort of
defilement; and on and on. The Jews who lived in the Diaspora were by definition in constant
close contact with these gentiles and so it was assumed that all Jewish pilgrims coming to
Jerusalem from the Diaspora were unclean and would need time to perform the purification
rituals before they could enter the Temple to present their firstfruits.
Verse 17 says that the brothers (meaning the Jewish Believers of Jerusalem) warmly
welcomed Paul and his group. The next day Paul and the entire group of his traveling
companions go to see Ya'acov, Yeshua's half-brother, who is the supreme head of The
Way. Ya'acov is called James in English Bibles. I've already covered it but it bears repeating:
this Christian tradition of calling him James happened with the creation of the King James
Bible. The editors of the Bible changed Jacob's name to James to honor King James and it
has stuck ever since; there is no "James" in Hebrew. I will lapse into using the name James
just for the sake of familiarity and continuity.
Sha'ul spent some time explaining to James the great success he had had among the gentiles
with the Gospel. This was not bragging; Paul had always recognized James's authority and so
he was merely presenting him with a progress report. This is a good time to remind you that
while James was indeed the head of the Messianic movement (The Way), that did not
represent every strand in existence of those who believed in Yeshua as Messiah (although it
was the majority). And further, there is no evidence that James ventured outside of the Holy
Land. Rather he operated out of Jerusalem and so he was dealing almost exclusively with
Jews of the most zealous variety; Judean Jews.
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 46 - Chapters 20 and 21
So with that piece of information about James, verse 20 opens with some important words for
us to take in: "On hearing it they praised God". That is, James and the leadership of The Way
were very glad and uplifted with Paul's report. There is a line of doctrine that began in early
Christianity that says that James and the Jerusalem Council didn't care about gentiles or even
too much about Jews in the Diaspora. These opening words of verse 20 then are either
insincere or they show that indeed the leadership was thrilled about what was happening. In
return they were quick to want to show Paul what had been going on in Jerusalem.
The Scriptural record implies that it had been a long time since Paul had been in Jerusalem;
anywhere from 15 to perhaps as much as 20 years. And since that time much development of
the Believing community in the Holy Land had occurred. James tells Paul to look at how many
tens of thousands of Believers there are, and they are all zealous for the Torah. First: in Greek
James says to look at how many myriads of Believers there are. In Greek the word myriad
technically means the precise number 10,000. However, there is some evidence that the word
was also used to represent just a very big number. Even so the plain wording says "how many
myriads" so it would seem to be saying "how many ten thousands" of Believers there are in
Jerusalem. Even more James calls these specific Believers "Judeans". It is not unknown for
the words Jews and Judeans to be synonymous; but almost always the term Judeans means
what it says. It is referring to the Jewish residents of the province of Judea. And since the
scene is taking place in Jerusalem of Judea, and since Paul's report was specifically about
Jews and gentiles from the Diaspora, then it would seem we must take James's word that
these tens of thousands of Jews he is referring to are only Jews from Judea of the Holy Land.
But now comes the part that has bedeviled the Church for 19 centuries. James says that all of
these Believing Jews parading around the streets of Jerusalem for Shavuot are zealous for the
Torah (CJB). In Greek it says zealous for the nomos; usually translated into English as the
Law. What does this mean? What are the ramifications of Believing Jews who, even 15-20
years after the rulings of the Jerusalem Council of Acts chapter 15, continuing to be "zealous"
for the Law? How can that be? According to most of the early Church Fathers, and according
to most of the Christian denominations to this day, James abolished the Law. If so, then why is
James now so proud to announce to Paul that all these tens of thousands of Believers here in
Jerusalem continue to follow the Law scrupulously?
It is a big question and it's an important question. That is what we will delve into in depth, next
time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 47, Chapter 21
We continue in The Book of Acts, which is our necessary primer to give us the context and
background for understanding everything that comes in the New Testament following the
Gospels (and especially for understanding Paul's letters). Acts 21 has brought Paul back to
Jerusalem from the Aegean Sea region for 2 purposes: first, to obey the Torah commandment
that he participates in the pilgrimage festival of Shavuot (Pentecost). Second, he was
delivering money that he had collected from the various congregations he visited. The money
was for 2 different purposes: 1) charity for the poor Believers in Jerusalem, and 2) the half-
shekel Temple tax that every Jew, no matter where they lived, was to contribute annually for
the operational expenses of the Temple. Thus, some of the money was given to James to be
distributed; and some was given to the priests as the Temple tax.
I concluded our last lesson by telling you that what James and Paul were discussing beginning
in verse 17 of Acts 21 brings up a big and important question. It is a question that is central to
understanding everything that follows the Book of Acts, and has to do with what Paul means,
and what James means, and sometimes what other writers of the New Testament mean when
they use the term "Law". We have delved into this subject as we studied the Torah and other
books of the Old Testament; but now we shall explore it in the context of the New Testament to
see what the authors of these New Testament books meant by the term "Law", and therefore
how we ought to take it to mean as it pertains to ourselves and the practice of our faith as 21st
century Believers.
I'll disclose to you upfront that we are going to get detailed and technical today. But these
details and technical items are about things you can understand, and they are things Believers
need to know. Some of what you hear today might shake up your world a little.
Let's begin by re-reading part of chapter 21.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 21:17 – end
The setting is this: Paul has completed his arduous journey from Macedonia to Jerusalem. It
has been many years (perhaps as many as 20) since Paul has come to Jerusalem and met
with James and the elders who form the leadership council of The Way. I want to stress that
we cannot be 100% certain that Paul has stayed away from Jerusalem for 2 decades; it is only
that the Scriptural record makes no mention that he had been in Jerusalem since he attended
the Jerusalem Council meeting that we read about in Acts 15. This was the meeting whereby
the issue of circumcision for gentiles was its cause; but also whereby a set of rules were
issued (all the rules were prohibitions) for gentiles who wanted to join The Way. These rules
insisted upon substantive lifestyle changes for new gentile Believers that dealt with diet, sexual
practices, and involvement with idols. Yet, just because Paul's presence in Jerusalem wasn't
recorded in the Bible is not ironclad proof that he hadn't come at other, but unrecorded, times.
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
I personally find it hard to swallow that the pious Pharisee Sha'ul would have ignored the God-
ordained Torah laws that required all Israelites to make 3 annual pilgrimages to the Temple in
Jerusalem; once maybe, but for 15 or 20 straight years? These Biblical feasts had set the
rhythm of Jewish society for centuries and the Feast laws were not optional for Jews; to not
make the required pilgrimages was sin. That said, only a relatively small portion of the Jewish
families living in the Diaspora ever made that journey, let alone making it 3 times per year. The
cost in money and time was significant and beyond the practical means of most Diaspora
Jews. So the other side of the coin is that I can see why Paul, himself a Diaspora Jew, may
have elected to not make the God-commanded pilgrimages for several years in order to busy
himself with evangelizing.
Then there is the matter of the contributions that Paul was collecting. We discussed last week
that it was a custom that every Jew (no matter where they lived) was to contribute a so-called
half-shekel Temple tax annually. By design each adult male was supposed to bring it to the
Temple and personally give it the priests much in the same attitude as offering a sacrifice. But
since only a small portion of the millions of Diaspora Jews made the trip to Jerusalem, the local
synagogue would collect the Temple tax and then a representative of that synagogue (or
perhaps even of a group of synagogues) would take the combined collected funds to the
Temple. It had become customary to collect and pay the Temple tax on the occasion of the
Shavuot ceremonies. And by the way, there are reliable historical numbers available that tell us
how many Jews were alive at this time. In 48 A.D. Emperor Claudius took a census that
revealed that 6,994,000 Jews lived in the Roman Empire (and some lived outside of the
Roman Empire so they weren't counted). By the time of the destruction of the Temple a little
over 20 years later, there were at least 8 million Jews alive and probably somewhat more, with
about 2 million or so of them living in the Holy Land. Thus if even half a million Diaspora Jews
journeyed to Jerusalem for the 3 pilgrimage feasts, that was still only perhaps 6 or 7% of the
total Jewish population; a fraction of those who were supposed to come according to the Law.
James and the elders of The Way greeted Paul with warmth and were anxious to hear what
had been happening with Paul's ministry these past several years. They fully knew that he had
a deep involvement with gentiles, both pagans and God-fearers. We are told that they were
overjoyed to hear of Paul's great progress in bringing so many gentiles into the fold. It is
noteworthy that their reaction is not to congratulate Paul, but rather to praise God for it,
properly giving credit to where it is due. Paul must have taken some time to explain what had
happened since we're told that he went into detail about it.
In return, James explains to Paul that there had been amazing progress here in the Holy Land
as well. He says that tens of thousands of Judeans (Jews who resided in the Roman Province
of Judea) had come to faith; but they were also zealous for the Torah. It is my opinion that
while we casually read this report and assume it to mean that Jews who already were zealous
for the Torah (the Law) became Believers in Yeshua it can just as easily be taken to mean that
as a result of their salvation in Christ they became zealous for the Torah. Although I am not a
Jew, that is certainly what happened to me (even if not right away), and I know that many
thousands of Christians, as a result of their faith, have become zealous for the Torah when,
before salvation, they didn't even know what the Torah was.
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
The important point is that James is connecting faith in Yeshua with zealousness for the Torah
and presenting it as something perfectly natural; and with this zealousness came a
determination to obey God. But this also presents a problem because rumors have reached
Jerusalem that Paul has been teaching the Diaspora Jews to NOT obey God. Specifically the
issue of circumcision once again pops-up. The rumors say that Paul has not only been
teaching against the requirement set down by Moses for male circumcision, but also that Paul
told the Believing Jews of the Diaspora that they could cease obeying Jewish customs. Let me
be clear: the passage says that even though Paul told James in detail about what had been
happening with the gentiles he was evangelizing, the rumors against Paul were NOT about
these gentiles; rather they were about the Jews Paul was dealing with. Therefore for Jews,
adherence to Jewish customs and traditions was a significant issue, but it really didn't trouble
them very much about whatever the gentiles did or didn't do. Our CJB uses the word
"traditions" instead of "customs" (as we find in most Bibles) and that is certainly the better
translation from the Jewish perspective of the timeframe of when this passage was written. To
gentile Christian ears this basically sounds like an accusation that Paul isn't obeying the
Biblical laws of Moses; but that really isn't it.
We've discussed on numerous occasions that Jewish law (Halakhah) was the root of religious
authority and lifestyle in Judaism. And Jewish law was a fusion of the Biblical laws of Moses
along with Traditions that had been developed in the synagogue, and then generously
peppered with ancient cultural customs of the Jewish people. Just as in Christianity whereby to
the minds of average Christians there is no discernable difference between a Church doctrine,
a Church tradition, and the Holy Scriptures, so in the minds of average Jews there is no
discernable difference between a Jewish Tradition, a Jewish custom, and the Biblical Laws of
Moses. In both religions it is assumed that the doctrines and Traditions decided by their
religious authorities accurately reflect the meaning and intent of the Bible. So the thought is
that if you are following a Tradition or custom, then for all intents and purposes you must be
following the Bible.
Thus in verse 21 when James speaks of Paul teaching the Jews to apostize from Moses, as
well as from circumcision and even from Jewish traditions and customs, he is speaking about
apostizing from Halakhah; the entire body of Jewish Law. Further it was simply long
established Jewish shorthand to say that one was to obey Moses, when what that technically
meant is to obey the laws of Moses. Thus from a scholarly viewpoint to apostize from Moses
means to apostize from the commandments of God given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. However by
New Testament times, in the common way of speaking, to apostize from Moses really meant to
apostize from Halakhah. But then there was yet another serious issue brought up that just
won't go away regarding Believers: the issue of circumcision. Interestingly the complaint of the
zealous Judean Believers is not that Paul is against circumcising gentiles, but rather that he is
against circumcising fellow Jews. Circumcision is the Biblical sign that a person is a member of
God's covenant people. So essentially a Jew who refuses circumcision removes himself from
being Jewish. Paul is being accused, then, of converting Jews to gentiles by teaching against
circumcision; of course Paul did no such thing. However within a few more decades this would
be exactly what the gentile controlled Church would demand and ordain as a fundamental
Christian doctrine. That is, the Church Bishops agreed that indeed circumcision was the sign of
being part of God's covenant people; and the Church wanted no part of it. Therefore it was
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
decided that to be a Christian one could NOT be circumcised. In fact if a Jew wanted to follow
Christ, he, too, could NOT be circumcised. Why? Because to the Jewish community, and to the
gentile community, by refusing circumcision a Jew renounced his Hebrew heritage and
became a gentile. The Church wished to be a gentiles-only institution and for a long time used
a prohibition against circumcision to enforce it.
OK. With those preliminaries out of the way, verse 22 is where the rubber hits the road. James
asks a rhetorical question of Paul: what is to be done? I say rhetorical because he's already
thought this through and knows exactly what he's going to do. These tens of thousands of
local Jews who are in Jerusalem for the holy feast of Shavuot (Believing Jews who are upset
because they think that Paul is a traitor to Judaism) are going to know right away that Paul has
arrived and this is going to lead to confrontation and trouble. So, indeed, what is to be done?
What comes next makes it crystal clear that James knew he needed Paul's help to squelch
this dangerous and unfounded rumor. That is, James knew Paul well enough that he knew that
Paul was not doing what he was accused of. So James's solution is to have a public display
by Paul that would demonstrate once and for all his continuing devotion to Jewish Law.
Before getting in to the particulars of that demonstration, however, let's see what some of the
revered Early Church Fathers thought about this situation with Paul and the rumors that were
flying around, and how James decided to handle it, here in Acts 21. In a letter (called Letter 82)
that he wrote a little after 400 A.D., Augustine had this to say:
"It is quite clear, I think, that James gave his advice in order to show the falsity of the
views supposed to be Paul's, which certain Jews who had come to believe in Christ,
but who were still zealous for the law, had heard about him, namely, that through the
teaching of Christ the commandments, written by the direction of God and transmitted
by Moses to the fathers, were to be thought sacrilegious and worthy of rejection. These
reports were not circulated about Paul by those who understood the spirit in which the
Jewish converts felt bound to those observances, namely, because of their being
prescribed by divine authority and for the sake of the prophetic holiness of those
ceremonies.....but NOT for the attaining of salvation......"
If only the Church at large had listened to Augustine she might not have embarked on the
terrible path of anti-Semitism and anti-Law that she has followed for 19 centuries. It is a path
that has resulted in a number of wrong minded doctrines that have not only put up a wall
between Jews and Christians, but also has mischaracterized God's Word concerning our all-
important relationship with Him. Augustine rightly says that it was Christ's own teaching of
God's commandments that validated that the Law was still alive and relevant (he was probably
referring to Matthew 5). But certain Jews (some of the myriads of Judean Jews) who had
come to believe in Christ also believed a slanderous lie that Paul was teaching that Believing
Jews should now regard observance of the Law as a bad thing (sacrilegious) and thus should
reject the Law of Moses. But what I especially appreciate is where Augustine points out that
while the Law still carried the same divine authority it always had, the Law was not for attaining
salvation. Exactly right. The Law was not now, and never had been, for the purpose of
attaining salvation. Trusting Christ is how Jews or gentiles obtained salvation; but that reality
didn't somehow abolish the Law. It was never an either/or proposition (that Grace replaces
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
Law or that one must choose between Grace or Law), or that the new replaces the old. As
Augustine points out, that fact comes from God and was taught by Christ Himself.
So here we have one Early Church Father, Augustine, (whose voice was ignored on this and
other matters, overridden by the Rome-based Church Bishops) who understands our pertinent
passage in Acts literally and therefore correctly. But now listen to another early Church Father,
Chrysostom, who lived at the same time as Augustine. Unfortunately what we hear from
Chrysostom is him upholding the accepted Roman Church doctrine that the Law was dead and
gone and so no one, Jew or gentile, had any business following it.
"Against this Paul defends himself and shows that he does this not of his choice. How
did they persuade him? It was part of the divine plan, and (it was) condescension on his
part. So this was no hindrance to the preaching, since it was they themselves who
decided such things. So he does not accuse Peter in any way. For what he himself did
here is what Peter did on that occasion when he held his peace and established his
doctrine.........he had to do something more to persuade them that you observe the Law.
Condescension is what it is. Do not be alarmed."
I have in earlier Acts lessons familiarized you with this same line of tortured reasoning from a
number of Early Church Fathers about positions they have taken against the continuing
relevance of the Law; positions which without their fanciful distortions are otherwise not
defensible. Their position is that Paul (and Peter and in some cases James) are insincere
when the Scriptures find them observing the Law or telling others to do so. Thus whenever we
find them personally obeying the Law, or telling others to obey it, it is not by their free will or
choice that they do so. Rather their circumstances are compelling them to pretend; but these
Early Church Fathers say that they are pretending to be obedient to the Law in order to serve
the greater good of expanding the Gospel so that they can get rid of the Law. The idea is that
Paul, Peter, and James are deceiving others in words and deeds so that more people might
receive salvation. Here Chrysostom tells his readers to therefore "not be alarmed" by what the
Biblical text plainly says. It is rather that Paul was merely being "condescending" (to use
Chrysostom's term) by agreeing to James's instruction to participate in a holy vow offering
and to pay for 4 others to do so as well. But ultimately this was God's divine plan, says
Chrysostom, that it happen this way; therefore neither Paul nor James was doing any wrong by
their insincerity and play acting.
Does this not make you angry? If it doesn't, why doesn't it? Here we have the recorded words
of one of the men who was instrumental in shaping the fundamental doctrines that the Church
is built upon saying that Paul, Peter and James don't mean what they say or do when it comes
to the Law of Moses; it was all for show. Rather they are intentionally deceiving the new
Believers (and potential new Believers) for their own good. And that God is the father of this
deception; but it's OK because it's all part of His divine plan that all these New Testament
writers keep obeying the Law and urging others to do so....but later, after they've converted
more people, then they'll tell them the truth. Happily we have a plain admission by Augustine
that indeed it was Christ's own teaching that His followers should obey the Commandments.
But sadly that Church Father was not listened to very much because he wouldn't follow in
lockstep with the agenda of the Bishops of Rome and their allies.
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
Getting back to our passage in Acts, in verse 23 James begins to tell Paul exactly what he
needs to do to put down this false rumor against him. Paul is to go with 4 men who are under a
vow; pay his and their expenses, and go through the standard purification procedures that
include altar sacrifices. This way, says James in verse 24, these upset Judean Jewish
Believers will see for themselves that the rumors they have heard about Paul are false, and
that in fact Paul himself keeps the Torah scrupulously. I've said on numerous occasions that it
is the Book of Acts that defines who the historical Paul is; and that without the Book of Acts
then it is all too easy to distort Paul's several Epistles and make them sound as though he was
anti-Law, even anti-Jewish. But here in Acts 21 it is made abundantly clear that Paul himself
obeyed the Law. So just so there is no doubt or ambiguity about this fact, I'll repeat this verse
to you from a couple of common English Bible versions so that it is explicit to all who are
listening that the words and intent agree no matter which version you read from.
KJV Acts 21:24 Then take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that
they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were
informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and
keepest the law.
NIVActs 21:24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so
that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in
these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
RSVActs 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their
expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in
what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law.
Every version that I checked (and it was many) has it that James is having Paul perform this
vow offering and ritual purification so that everyone can visibly and tangibly see that Paul
keeps and obeys the Law. I hope you now grasp why, if they were going to insist on creating
and supporting a Church doctrine that says that Paul was against Believers obeying the Law,
that some of the gentile Early Church Fathers had little choice except to come up with the most
intellectually dishonest distortions to make it seem so. They determined that despite what
Scripture plainly says, the accepted Church doctrine had to be upheld. So the spin is that Paul
was deliberately deceiving people (at God's instruction no less) so that the Gospel could go
forth all the better. I told you at the outset that some of what you heard today would shake
your world. But what needs to be shaken is not your faith in God, or in Yeshua, or in God's
Word. What needs to be shaken is your faith in manmade religious doctrines that have ruled
over the institutional Church for so very long; and many of them need to be exposed for what
they are and then reformed.
Now for the $64,000 question: when verse 24 says that Paul was being obedient to the Law,
what does that mean? Remember: just moments earlier James said that his goal was to
publically demonstrate that Paul did not apostize from Moses or the Traditions.
CJBActs 21:21 Now what they have been told about you is that you are teaching all the
Jews living among the Goyim to apostatize from Moshe, telling them not to have a b'rit-
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
milah for their sons and not to follow the traditions.
Thus James is clearly talking about Halakhah, the overall body of Jewish Law that had
developed especially since the creation of the synagogue system during or shortly after the
Babylonian exile. And Halakhah, Jewish Law, consisted of a fusion of the Biblical laws of
Moses as given on Mt. Sinai, plus the Traditions of the Rabbis, and the many long held Jewish
cultural customs. In Greek the word we find in the original Scripture to describe this is nomos,
which is usually translated in English Bibles as "law" (nothing wrong with that translation).
However as the most authoritative Lexicons on Greek in use today explain (those such as the
Friberg or the Thayer Lexicons), the term nomos means: "anything established, anything
received by usage, a custom, a law, or a command". Thus nomos can be used in a number of
ways, it has a wide range of meaning, and we have to derive from the context how the author
means for us to take it in any given circumstance. As used in Acts 21:24, nomos is meant as a
general term to denote not only an obedience to God's commandments but also an allegiance
to their Hebrew heritage and an unwavering identity as a Jew and all that entails. So James is
having Paul prove to all these Jews who have gathered in Jerusalem for Shavuot that he
remains fully Jewish and fully committed to Jewish practices and traditional religious beliefs.
And when one honestly and fairly reads Paul in his Epistles and reads what Luke says about
Paul in Acts, within the Hebrew context that is the entire Holy Bible, then we find that Paul
indeed remained fully Jewish and fully committed to Jewish practices. All that changed in Paul
is that he came to understand that Yeshua of Nazareth was the Messiah that Israel had been
waiting for (for centuries), and that Yeshua was the Son of God.
So of all the possible things that James might ask Paul to do, why would he choose to have
him participate in a vow offering and a ritual purification? It is because undertaking a vow was
seen in Paul's day as an affirmation of one's devotion to the Laws of Moses and to the
sanctity of the Temple. It is fascinating that we see that Herod Agrippa (Herod the Great's son)
had done the same thing some years earlier. In Josephus's historical work Antiquities, he says
this:
"Agrippa naturally, since he was to go back with improved fortunes, turned quickly
homewards. On entering Jerusalem, he offered sacrifices of thanksgiving, omitting
none of the ritual enjoined by our law. Accordingly he also arranged for a very
considerable number of Nazarites to be shorn".
So from a Jewish cultural perspective not only does it prove a person's loyalty to Judaism to
offer sacrifices in the Temple, but it was regarded as particularly meritorious if one paid for the
vow offerings of others. Notice that James says that "we have" 4 men who are under a vow;
the "we" apparently meaning that the 4 were members of The Way: they were Believers. So
picture this: 4 Believing Jews were just completing a vow, and were about to ritually purify
themselves and then go into the Temple to sacrifice at the altar. Wait; haven't we been taught
that the Law is dead and gone? Apparently Believers in Paul's day didn't think so.
This vow offering in verse 24 clearly was the formal ending of a Nazarite vow, the length of
which was usually 30 days (one lunar cycle). Exactly what was vowed by these 4 Believing
Jews is not told to us; but it doesn't really matter because common to all vows of this type
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
were that one could not drink wine or any grape product, or become ritually unclean, or cut
their hair at any time during that 30 days. At the end of the vow period the candidate was to
bring 3 different offerings of sacrifice to the Temple: a peace offering, a sin offering, and a
whole-offering. This was an expensive proposition; so for Paul to pay for 4 men plus himself
showed an extraordinary level of dedication and generosity to those who were watching him.
As important as Paul was to the movement it was James's intent that Paul's actions would
make an impact such that it would be nearly impossible for those skeptical Jews to continue
believing the false rumor that Paul had turned away from Judaism.
Verse 25 is fascinating; what is James trying to communicate? Why remind Paul of the very
thing he was instrumental in bringing about, concerning the requirements that the Jerusalem
Council put on gentiles who wanted to join The Way? To James there was apparently some
connection between what Paul was doing with the gentiles and the belief among the Judean
Jews that Paul had apostatized from Judaism. I think that Joseph Shulam probably has it right
when he surmises that the more zealous Jews were, the more problem they had with
association with gentiles. Yes, the Jerusalem Council had declared its edict regarding the
acceptance of gentiles. Yes, these Jews were no doubt also aware of Peter's encounter with
God in a vision (when the cloth with the animals was let down from Heaven) whereby God told
Peter that the Jewish tradition that gentiles were inherently unclean was wrong. However we
must keep reminding ourselves that what Jews followed was Halakhah; and that didn't
change in any significant way for Jews who accepted Yeshua as Messiah. So even if gentiles
weren't inherently unclean, to the Jewish mind gentiles were involved nearly daily in unclean
activities that thus rendered them ritually unclean (just as improper activities could render any
Jew ritually unclean). Add to that the subjugation of Rome that the Jews were under, and
regardless of the Gospel, Jews had little regard for gentiles. That Paul seemed so focused on
saving gentiles didn't go over well at all; at least it didn't among the Holy Land Jews.
The other point in James reminding Paul of the Jerusalem Council edict was probably to affirm
that it was still in force as originally given; nothing had changed or supplanted it.
Verse 26 informs us that Paul did what James suggested; and he did it immediately (the next
day). First he purified himself (he had come from the Diaspora so it was a given that he would
have arrived in Jerusalem in a ritually unclean state). Now clean, he was able to enter the
outer courts of the Temple but only to tell the priests when his period of purification would end,
which would then determine when he could approach the altar area to make the vow sacrifices.
The purification rituals can be described mainly as a wash and a wait. That is, one had to
immerse in water and then afterwards, depending on the type of impurity one was being
cleansed from, had to wait anywhere from the change of the current day to the next day, or
commonly 7 days. Verse 27 confirms that the wait for Paul was 7 days.
Everything seemed to be going to plan when some non-Believing Jews from Asia recognized
Paul. What were they doing there in Jerusalem at the same time as Paul? They had come for
Shavuot. They knew immediately who it was, grabbed him, and began to shout for other Jews
to come and help them deal with this apostate from Judaism.
So the process that James had envisioned was prematurely interrupted; Paul never got the
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 47 - Chapter 21
opportunity to bring his sacrifices along with the 4 men and their sacrifices to the Temple Altar.
Instead, the prophecy that Agav had prophesied to Paul in Caesarea was coming about.
We'll finish up chapter 21 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 48, Chapters 21 and 22
We'll continue in Acts 21 and then finish up in Acts 22 today.
When we left Paul he was in Jerusalem to celebrate Shavuot after spending many years of
establishing Believing congregations in Macedonia and Asia. He had just begun to perform the
ritual purification procedures that James (Yeshua's half-brother), the supreme leader of The
Way, had instructed him to do. Beginning in Acts 21:20 through verse 24 James explains that
Paul is to pay for, and participate in, the vow offerings and all other elements needed for 4
Believers who are under a Nazarite vow to bring their vows to the proper termination. The
purpose of this exhibition is for Paul to publically demonstrate his fidelity and devotion to
Halakhah (Jewish Law) because many Judean Jews have been convinced that Paul has
abandoned his Jewishness, ceased following the Law, is telling others to do so and thus has
apostatized from Judaism. Since Paul has been operating strictly in the foreign nations of the
Diaspora, these slanderous rumors about Paul's anti-Law and anti-Jewish teaching have been
brought to Jerusalem by Diaspora Jews traveling there for the various pilgrimage festivals.
Verse 26 explains that Paul did exactly what James suggested. One might reason that any
Christian would read this passage and immediately understand that Paul followed the Law just
as he has claimed on several occasions that he does. Yet what we find with most of the early
Church Fathers, especially those who were affiliated with the Rome-based Church leadership
council, is that they insist that while Paul indeed did what James told him to do he did so only
under duress and was entirely insincere about it. Some of the Church Fathers, like
Chrysostom, go so far as to claim that Paul was merely playing the role of a good law-abiding
Jew but in fact it was all a planned deception that God had designed for him. And the purpose
of the deception is so that Jews would give Paul an audience for him to speak the Gospel to
them. Thus, to put it nicely, Paul was just pretending to be a Believing Jew who followed the
Law in order that he would have more opportunities to spread the Good News.
I profoundly condemn such a false and agenda-driven interpretation; it is a doctrine that many
mainstream Christian denominations still adhere to in our day. The only way one can draw
such a strange conclusion is if one begins from the Church doctrine that Paul was anti-Law
(even anti-Jewish to some degree) and insists on reading that premise back into the
Scriptures; because otherwise it is simply not there.
Paul and the 4 Believers purified themselves (meaning they immersed in a mikveh). Then they
went to an outer court of the Temple where they reported their purification to a priest; it was
verified that they could now enter a 7 day waiting period after which they were considered
ritually pure enough to bring their vow sacrifices to the altar. But just before the 7 day period
ended, some unbelieving Jews from Asia who were in Jerusalem for Shavuot spotted Paul,
recognized him, and grabbed him while shouting out for support from the crowd. They accused
him of teaching people not to obey the Law, and to have no regard for the Temple. Further
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
they claim he has brought some gentiles into the Temple, no doubt meaning he took these
gentiles into areas that were off limits to them. Thus Paul had knowingly and intentionally
caused the Temple to be defiled. Verse 29 explains that these visiting Jews had seen a fellow
named Trophimus, a resident of Ephesus, accompanying Paul in Jerusalem and assumed
(wrongly) that Paul had allowed this gentile into the Temple. It must be understood that in
Jewish Law such a thing was forbidden and was cause for execution of the perpetrator; even a
Roman citizen was not exempt from such a severe consequence for trespassing into the holy
precincts of the Temple.
It is interesting to note that the Jews were so rigid on this issue of Temple defilement by
gentiles that notices were posted and barriers installed to keep the thousands of gentiles who
entered the Temple to site-see from even accidentally wandering into the inner courts. The
signs were written in both Greek and Latin so no excuse could be made for gentiles
trespassing upon such holy grounds. This is not speculation; in the late 1800's archeologists
uncovered an ancient sign on the Temple Mount that read:
"No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the temple and
enclosure. Any one who is caught trespassing will bear personal responsibility for his
ensuing death".
Let's re-read the final few verses of Acts chapter 21.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 21:26 – end
Let's be clear: every last accusation against Paul was a lie. He did not teach against the
Jewish people; he did not teach against the Law, and he did not teach against the Temple.
Further he did not bring some goyim (gentiles) into the Temple and thus did not defile it. But of
course due to the zealous nature of Judean Jews, and due to the humiliating occupation by the
Romans of the Holy Land, these were the exact accusations against someone that would have
aroused the quickest and most volcanic emotional outburst among Jews. Let us not forget that
this was happening during the holy Biblical Feast of Shavuot so the feelings of religious piety
among the Jews were all the more heightened. It wasn't going to take much of a spark to set
off riots, thus the local Roman military garrison that was co-located with the Temple Mount (in
the northwest corner of the walled area) was on special alert during these Jewish holy days.
Verse 31 explains that the crowd quickly swelled in size and agitation as Paul was forcefully
dragged out of the Temple and the gates shut behind him; the mob intended to kill him. Why
not just kill him immediately instead of dragging him outside the Temple courts? Because
death is the worst sort of defilement and so it was illegal to kill anyone inside the Temple
grounds. The Roman soldiers stationed at the Antonia Fortress spotted the turbulence, reacted
quickly and they showed up in a nick of time to rescue Paul. The fortress was connected to the
Temple Mount with only 2 flights of steps so that the Roman guards could rapidly respond to
any threat. Interestingly it was Herod the Great who had built the fortress, had it manned with
Roman soldiers, and then he named it after his patron, Mark Antony. Clearly the point of
building the fortress there on the Temple Mount was to discourage the riots and disturbances
that happened regularly in the Temple area. Civil disorder was not tolerated by Rome; and so
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
the Roman guard descended upon the mob in force and the mob quit beating Paul.
The commander of the troops at this time was a tribune named Claudius Lysias and he
personally took charge of the situation to restore order. Since Sha'ul was the focus of the
crowd's anger, he was taken into custody. Paul was shackled and Lysias decided to take him
back to the barracks for interrogation. But before he led Paul away he asked the mob to
explain the problem. Everyone shouted something different and so he made no progress in
ascertaining the charges against Paul. As the soldiers started to head back to the barracks the
crowd erupted and the garrison literally had to carry Paul to protect him from continuing to be
assaulted.
Lysias was going to have to get to the truth by other means, and that meant persuading Paul to
tell him. Of course Paul was explaining that he had done nothing wrong; something that Lysias
couldn't accept given the circumstances. Inside the fortress Paul spoke Greek to Lysias as he
asked to have a word with him. Having begun life as a Diaspora Jew, Greek was Paul's first
language. This surprised the commander because he was certain that he had just arrested a
notorious troublemaker and wanted man known simply as "the Egyptian". Apparently it was
known that the Egyptian didn't speak Greek, so Paul could not have been him. Josephus
speaks about the Egyptian; apparently he came to Jerusalem perhaps 3 years earlier. This
charismatic leader managed to nearly overnight cobble together about 4,000 followers (likely
these were mostly members of the Zealots and of the dreaded Jewish assassins called the
Sicarri). He talked them into going to the Mt. of Olives and waiting because at the appropriate
moment the walls of Jerusalem were going to miraculously fall down (similar to the Jericho
scenario), and then they'd be able to rush in and push the Roman troops out.
However the Roman governor got wind of this plan and sent some soldiers against them; many
of the Egyptian's followers were killed and many more taken prisoner. Needless to say the
enormous limestone walls of Jerusalem remained intact, but the Egyptian was nowhere to be
found. No doubt had he resurfaced those Jews he had abandoned would have been none too
happy to see him. Apparently Lysias figured that Paul must have been the mysterious Egyptian
since the feelings against him were so strong. The Egyptian couldn't speak Greek, but Paul
could; so Lysias knew he had the wrong man.
Paul now had the opening to explain just who he was and he starts with the fact that he was
from Tarsus, a well known city in Cilicia. And would the tribune give Paul permission to speak
to the crowd? Still trying to figure out just what crime Paul had committed, Lysias saw no harm
in Paul's request. Although the CJB says that Paul addressed the mob in Hebrew, that's not
quite the case; rather the verse says Paul spoke in the Hebrew language. What this means to
covey is "the language that the Hebrews spoke". The question is: what language did the
Hebrews speak? All current scholarship on the issue of language in the Holy Land is that
Aramaic was the most universally spoken. However Hebrew was also widely used and the two
languages are quite similar. So we can't be certain whether Paul spoke Hebrew or Aramaic to
the crowd.
Let's move on to chapter 22.
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
READ ACTS CHAPTER 22 all
I would like to pause for a few moments to interject a personal viewpoint. As I was studying
and reading this chapter I thought to myself what a terrible state of agitation and anger that the
Jews constantly lived under in Jerusalem because they were surrounded with immorality,
idolatry, and the stench of ritual uncleanness brought on by the presence of the brutal Roman
soldiers trampling upon the Jews' holiest places. There was never a moment of true peace of
mind. The Jews' highest religious authority, the Priesthood, had become corrupt and it was
operated to the benefit of wealthy Jewish aristocrats who were in league with their Roman
occupiers. And then there were the throngs of curious gentiles who regularly visited Jerusalem
in ever increasing numbers since the days that Rome had made Judea a Roman province, and
bringing with them all manner of ritual impurities caused by their paganism. It made me think
about the state of the world, and of the USA in particular, in these early years of the 21st
century. We live in such an angry, frustrated, polarized society. It doesn't take much to touch
off riots, assaults and murders, or even acts of terrorism or road rage. Confusion and chaos
abound; what is right? What is wrong? Things feel like they are spinning out of control. So
many of our deepest hopes seem unattainable, and our cherished traditions are under
constant attack and revision.
Those of us who adhere to some form of Orthodox Judaism or fundamental Christianity find
ourselves at serious odds with our government, public schools, and of late our secular culture
in general. It seems that some new sort of legislated immorality, degradation or ungodly social
policy arrives every day, and when we refuse to knuckle under we are deemed intolerant
bigots and religious nuts that are full of hatred. Home schooling is expanding rapidly as
dedicated parents remove their children from a school environment that bans God but
embraces the LGBT (*, *, Bi-sexual, Transgender) agenda and teaches it to our
children as a good, loving and admirable thing. People are leaving our churches and
synagogues as more and more Pastors and Rabbis embrace the mantras and philosophies of
the secular Progressive agenda.
When I read these passages of Acts 22 I found myself identifying with those Jews who
attacked Paul. They had been told, and they believed, that Paul had joined the enemy (the
gentiles) and was teaching other Jews to abandon their heritage, their traditions, their religion
and their long held values. Some Jews didn't care one way or the other and took it mostly in
stride. But the ones who strove to diligently follow God and to be obedient to Him, and those
who loved their Israelite heritage and customs, could take it no longer and they took strong
action against a man who they thought to be symbolic of traitorous Jews who were deserting
their Hebrew values and adopting Roman culture. Was it a wise or justifiable action on their
part? Was it something that God would have wanted them to do? I think the answer to both of
these questions is "no". But at some point even the best among us can be pushed beyond the
breaking point. It's what we do about it that matters.
I present this to you for three reasons: 1) to help you mentally picture the context of this mob
action against Paul. 2) to look with a bit less disfavor upon the crowd of Jews (that had been
fed false information about Paul) and to better understand the impossible circumstances that
the Jewish followers of God were forced to live under. And 3) to think carefully about how you
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
should react, as a Believer, to all that is happening around us today, which has real parallels to
what was going on in Paul's day.
Paul stood on the upper steps of the Antonia Fortress with Roman soldiers next to him as he
was given permission to speak to the mob who had intended to kill him. And speaking in either
Aramaic or Hebrew he began by using the same words that the martyr Stephen had used in
his own defense. Paul addresses the people as "brothers and fathers". Brothers of course are
speaking of a mutual heritage as Jews. Fathers (avot in Hebrew) is speaking to the elders and
important people among the crowd. The crowd grew quiet to hear what else Paul had to say.
Paul's speech begins by explaining who he is and where he fits in traditional Jewish society.
His purpose is to build a foundation to refute what these people have been told about him as
he well understands their sensitivities. He presents his credentials as a natural-born Hebrew by
saying that he indeed is a Jew. Explaining that he was born in Tarsus tells the Judean Jews
(that forms the bulk of the crowd) that he is a Diaspora Jew. Even so, he immediately adds that
he spent a good deal of his upbringing right here in Jerusalem and was taught by the highly
venerated teacher Gamaliel. This identified Paul as not only having been immersed into the
unique Holy Land Jewish culture but also as highly educated. It also identifies Paul as a
Pharisee, which is what most of the common people were (if they carried any party affiliation at
all). Remember: it was Pharisees who ran the synagogues and virtually everyone present
would have belonged to one synagogue or another. So this tells the crowd that his
fundamental theological doctrines were essentially the same as theirs.
Paul says that he was well educated in the details of the Torah of their fathers (in Greek it says
in the nomos, the law, of their fathers). By adding in the words "of our fathers" he means it in
the sense of forefathers (not of the "fathers" that are in his audience). So he is more referring
to the Law of Moses than he is to Halakhah (Jewish Law). Paul is claiming to be a Torah
scholar.
He then goes on to explain about a dark side to his life, but one that the crowd would not have
found so distasteful. He explains that at first he was a persecutor of The Way. The tone in
which Luke writes this account makes it clear that by now the existence of the sect of Judaism
known as The Way was common knowledge (the sect had existed for around 25 years). And
no doubt the basics of what this sect believed (that Yeshua was the Messiah) was also
common knowledge. He also explains that his persecution of The Way was accomplished on
an official basis with the backing of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin. Most Bibles will say
Council of Elders and not Sanhedrin; but because Paul mentioned the High Priest along with
the Council of Elders then because the High Priest is the head of the Sanhedrin for sure this is
what Paul is referring to. So the mere fact that Paul was a representative of the Sanhedrin is
further proof of his devotion to Jewishness and Judaism (and the High Priest himself could
testify to the truth of this).
Now that Paul has made his case that he is not only "one of them", but he is actually in the
upper ranks of Judaism and among the most zealous of religious Jews, in verse 5 he starts to
tell the story of his encounter with the risen Christ. As he was pursuing some fleeing members
of The Way he received letters of authorization as an agent directly working for the High Priest,
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
to go to Damascus to find and arrest any Believers he encountered and to bring them back to
Jerusalem for prosecution. But on the road to Damascus something startling happened to him.
A blinding light appeared on the roadway that he and his traveling companions saw. It flashed
all around the group and as Paul fell to the ground, disoriented, he heard a voice from above
speaking to him. It said, "Why are you persecuting me?" Paul, not knowing whose voice it
was, asked for some ID. The response was equally as disorienting: "I am Yeshua from
Nazareth and you are persecuting me!" Paul says that the witnesses to all this indeed were
also stunned by the brilliance of the light; they heard Paul speaking but they didn't see who it
was that Paul was speaking to nor did they hear any kind of reply. Paul believed that what was
happening was real, and that the person who was talking to him was actually Yeshua of
Nazareth; a man he well knew had died on a Roman execution stake. What he believed
beyond that is unknown to us.
The voice then issued an instruction: "Get up and go into Damascus and there you will be told
what your mission is going to be". Wow. Can you imagine? All in one breath you are saved
and told that shortly someone is going to tell you what God's purpose for your life is. Paul is
still blind from the bright light, but he goes, led by the hand, to Damascus. There a man named
Hananyah would restore Paul's sight and gave him his marching orders as God's prophet. A
sort of parenthetical comment in verse 12 says that Hananyah was "an observant follower of
the Torah"; this is something we must not pass by. Hananyah was obviously a Believer; but he
was also an observant Jew who continued to follow the Law. So in this chapter 22 we have
Paul professing to be zealous for the Law, and we have the man whom Christ used to tell Paul
his mission, Hananyah, who is also zealous for the Law. I think it is difficult to find the Book of
Acts, thus far, as telling modern Believers that the Law is bad, dead, and irrelevant. Rather
Luke clearly meant for us to know that Paul's commission that Yeshua said he would receive,
was given through the mouth of a pious, Torah observant, Believing Jew.
We are told that Hananyah was highly regarded by the Jewish community in Damascus; no
doubt it was because of his devotion to the Law. But now Hananyah says something that is
easy to overlook; it is that "the God of our fathers" was the one who determined in advance
that Paul should know God's will for his life. So it was the Father, YHWH, who determined in
advance that Paul would know God's will for his life. We now have both God the Father and
Yeshua the Son playing roles in this story, and they are separately spoken of in Acts 22.
Hananyah also tells Paul that he will hear directly, audibly, from the Righteous One (the
Tzaddik in Hebrew).
This term the Righteous One is unusual; we only find it in a couple of places in the Bible, and
outside of Acts I could only find it used once in Proverbs and twice in the Book of Isaiah. What
is fascinating is that the Essenes, the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, spoke regularly in their
Community Documents about the expected coming of the Righteous One. Damascus was the
headquarters, outside of the Holy Land, for the Essenes (a faction of Judaism). It is also fair to
say that when the theology of the Essenes is carefully studied it has many similarities to the
theology of the Pharisees. So I think with Hananyah's use of the term "The Righteous One"
we are hearing overtones of Essene theology and terminology and very probably Hananyah
studied with the Essenes in Damascus (as, it seems, did the John the Baptist as well, but in
Qumran by the Dead Sea and not in Damascus). There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
Yeshua spent time with the Essenes as we find Him using terms in His Sermon on the Mount
that not only were regularly used within the Essene community, but even a couple of unique
terms that the Essenes used to refer to themselves (such as "the meek" and "the poor in
spirit").
Paul is told that he is going to be a witness to everything he has seen and heard. No doubt we
do not have recorded for us everything that he has seen and heard. So Hananyah instructs
Paul to immerse himself. Self-immersion was the standard Jewish practice for immersion
(baptizing), rather than someone immersing them. Upon this immersion in Yeshua's name,
Paul will have his sins washed away and therefore be prepared for his mission. Christ is now
the new, dominant force in Paul's life.
In verse 17 Paul advances his story to when he left Damascus and came back to Jerusalem.
He says he was praying in the Temple when he went into a trance. This is probably referring to
when he came back to Jerusalem in Acts 9:26. Notice how he weaves in the matter of the
Temple because, recall, he had been accused of speaking against it. Here he is venerating the
Temple by praying there, and God validates Paul's pious prayers by giving him a vision. This
information would have greatly impressed Paul's listeners. Paul also says that he saw "him"
(God) and God told him to hurry and leave Jerusalem because the Jews there won't accept
what Paul learned and experienced in Damascus. Who, exactly, did Paul claim to see? God
the Father or God the Son? In what form? It is unclear.
Paul attempted to convince the Lord to allow him to stay in Jerusalem by saying that the
people would know who he is and therefore be more easily convinced that the sudden change
in his negative attitude and antagonism towards Yeshua and The Way had to have been
caused by divine intervention. So perhaps they'd be more open to hearing from him. But the
opposite happened; the Lord of course was proved right. By knowing who Paul was before he
turned to Yeshua, it made the Believing Jews too afraid of him to accept him, and it made the
Hellenist Jews want to kill him! And Paul confesses to the crowd that he was far more than an
innocent bystander in the death of Stephen. Even though Paul didn't directly participate in
stoning Stephen, he helped those who did by holding their cloaks. And, admits Paul, he was in
full agreement with the killing of Stephen. God was having none of it; "be on your way" He tells
Paul; Paul is going far away to foreign lands to witness to Gentiles.
Apparently the last word out of Paul's mouth before the crowd again exploded into incensed
hysteria was "gentiles". The idea that Paul would take a means of salvation and deliverance to
the enemy of the Jews (gentiles), and that a Jewish Savior would be their means of salvation
(whether or not the crowd even accepted such a thought), was just too much. Verse 22 makes
it clear that the primary issue was that the mob wanted him dead because of his association
with gentiles. These oppressed Jews couldn't stomach the notion that God would give gentiles
equality with the Jews on account of His Messiah; there was just too much hatred against
gentiles to accept such a thing. Some began tearing at their clothing; some ripped off part of
their garments and waved them in the air; we're told that they began to fling dust. It is quite
impossible to determine with any certainty what this dust flinging was about. Either it was
throwing dirt because they didn't have any rocks handy to pelt Paul with; or it was a show of
grief and devastation (a rather standard Jewish mourning tradition) over Paul consorting with
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 48 - Chapters 21, 22
gentiles. Perhaps it meant something else entirely.
Seeing the crowd grow unruly again, Lysias had Paul brought inside the fortress with the intent
to flog him in order to obtain the truth of Paul's offense. So far all Lysias knew was that Paul
was not the Egyptian and that whatever it was that Paul had done it was serious enough that a
huge crowd was willing to risk Roman wrath coming down upon them for their civil disturbance.
It needs to be said that the type of flogging that the Romans inflicted upon a prisoner often as
not resulted in death. It was not a whip, like we might picture. Rather the device is called a
scourge (a flagellum). It was not an instrument of discipline, but rather of torture. It consisted of
a wooden handle with long leather thongs, and bits of sharpened metal or bone attached at the
ends. It tore at the flesh and the muscle tissue, causing intense bleeding. If one survived it,
they were usually disabled for life.
The good news is that this was a form of treatment from which Roman citizens were exempt.
So after being silent about it to this point, and as he was being stretched out and tied down for
the whipping to begin, in verse 25 Paul asks a rhetorical question of one of his guards: "is it
lawful for you to flog a Roman citizen who has received no proper trial?" The preparation came
to a sudden halt, and the guard went to commander Lysias and informed him that Paul claimed
he was a Roman citizen. Of course the Roman soldiers knew it was not legal for a Roman
citizen to be flogged without a trial, and so Lysias asked Paul if it was true. Paul replied that it
was. The commander made an odd response; he said that his citizenship cost him a great deal
of money. The implication was: how could this poor Jew have enough money to buy
citizenship? But Paul coolly replied that he was born into Roman citizenship (he didn't have to
buy it). This meant that Paul's father was a Roman citizen (unusual for a Jew).
The result was that the soldiers immediately stopped what they were doing, and even removed
Paul's chains, because they had come perilously close to big trouble. Had they done this to
Paul, Roman law would have required that the soldiers have the same done to them. The
problem is that the commander still doesn't know what it is that Paul did to cause this mob
action. So he put Paul into a cell, without any shackles, and asked for the Sanhedrin to
convene so that they could question him.
One final comment. At this particular time Judea was without a procurator (a provincial
governor). For the moment, because he was the senior military man in Jerusalem, Lysias had
nearly the authority of a procurator. So when he orders that the Sanhedrin is to meet, they
have no choice.
We'll begin Acts chapter 23 next time as Paul is taken to the Sanhedrin for questioning.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 49, Chapter 23
Back in Acts chapter 19 we read this:
Acts 19:21 CJB 21 Some time later, Sha'ul decided by the Spirit to pass through
Macedonia and Achaia and then go to Yerushalayim. "After I have been there," he said,
"I must visit Rome."
What we have been studying ever since then is the route, full of twists and turns, that will
indeed eventually bring Paul to Rome. Today in Acts chapter 23 we'll continue to follow the
circumstances that would lead Paul to a city he says he "must visit". Those circumstances are
of course invisibly God directed and orchestrated. In fact, in Acts 27 we read this:
Acts 27:23-24 CJB 23 For this very night, there stood next to me an angel of the God to
whom I belong and whom I serve. 24 He said, 'Don't be afraid, Sha'ul! you have to stand
before the Emperor.
It was important for Paul to go to Rome because it was important to God; I doubt that Paul had
any idea why it was so important. And no doubt when Paul first voiced his unction to visit
Rome, he thought it would be to evangelize the Gospel of Yeshua just as he had in so many
other cities of the vast Roman Empire. I'm certain that he expected to speak to Jews, in their
synagogues, in this great city. But as often happens with Believers, when we say yes to God
the outcome and the path to get to the goal can be significantly different from our wildest
expectations. Paul was going to stand before governors, kings, and even the Emperor;
something that was not on his agenda. However God never said that the circumstances that
enabled this audience with the powerful elite of the Roman Empire would be especially
pleasant. In fact, a prophet named Agav specifically told Paul that Jerusalem would be the
beginning point of his journey, but that it would be as a persecuted person under arrest and not
as one traveling as a welcomed emissary.
Why was Rome so important to God? Other than an opportunity for Paul to speak to the gentile
heads of Roman government about God's plan of redemption and the purpose of the Jewish
people, we're not specifically told. However in retrospect I think we can reasonably assume
that it had at least as much to do with the historical reality that within a few decades after
Paul's martyrdom, with the Jerusalem Temple destroyed, the Jewish leadership of The Way
either dead or scattered, and gentiles finally in full control of the Jesus movement, the
headquarters of the gentile Christian Church would be in Rome. It is fascinating that the
gentile Christian Church institution would become situated at the capital and center of gentile
world government as envisioned by the prophet Daniel. And it would remain that way right on
through today, and will continue until Messiah returns to institute a theocratic world
government back in Jerusalem where it all began.
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
Let's read Acts chapter 23 together.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 23 all
Paul is before the Sanhedrin defending himself against some vague charges of blasphemy;
although the Roman tribune who has custody of Sha'ul still isn't sure exactly what it is that
Paul has said or done that has so many Jews in Jerusalem in such a homicidal mood. Here I'd
like to speculate that what we're witnessing is not actually the common, everyday variety of
Holy Land Jews who want to tear Paul to shreds, but rather it is members of the party or
faction called the Zealots. The Zealots were Jewish super-nationalists; so they hated gentiles
with a passion, openly preached civil disobedience and revolt against Rome, and expected
every Jew to observe Halakhah (Jewish Law) down to the last detail as proof of their loyalty to
their Jewish heritage. An even more violent and murderous faction called the Sicarri were an
offshoot of the Zealots. I think it is probable that Christ's traitorous disciple Judas was a
Zealot.
The point is this: it has been difficult for Jewish and Christian scholars alike to pinpoint exactly
what crime Paul had committed that these Jews were openly determined to kill him for, and
therefore what he was trying to defend himself against. We know that the accusation is more
or less that of blasphemy; but how or when, precisely, did Paul blaspheme? Thus in verse one
(to paraphrase) Paul says to the Sanhedrin that he has lived his life with a perfectly good
conscience before God. This brought on an instant reaction by the High Priest who ordered
someone standing next to Paul to strike him on the mouth.
We see two charges against him listed by Luke and both are discussed in Acts 21: first, James
says that Sha'ul is being accused by some Jews of teaching against circumcision (for Jews),
which is considered as a crime against Mosheh, and that he spoke against the Traditions.
Second is that a person on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from Asia (for the occasion of Shavuot)
says that Paul spoke against the Temple even bringing a gentile into the Temple thus defiling
the sacred building and its holy grounds. According to the Biblical Law of Moses, there is no
death penalty for teaching against circumcision or for not being circumcised. And Biblically
speaking it is not a capital crime to bring a gentile into the Temple courtyard area or to speak
against the Temple. But Jewish Tradition, especially that of the Judean Jews, had made it a
capital crime.
I have discussed with you in past lessons that it is vital, especially when reading and
interpreting Paul in Acts or in any of his letters, to understand that he uses the vernacular and
common speech of his day. Only rarely is Paul ever technical or highly academic or does he
offer minute nuances as he discusses the Torah versus Jewish Traditions and customs. So we
must carefully consider the circumstances when we get into these issues of accusations of
breaking the law, or speaking against the law, or when someone is accused of blasphemy. We
must always ask: who are the parties that are contending with one another? Who is being
accused and who is doing the accusing? Where is the scene of the action occurring (because
that also plays a significant role)? Blasphemy was not usually a technical theological term in
those days; it really was more of a nasty epithet thrown at someone who you strongly
disagreed with concerning doctrines of Judaism.
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
So the bottom line is that Paul had greatly irritated the super-nationalist Zealots (who were
easily irritated), and they stirred up many other Jews mostly because Paul dutifully took the
Jewish message of a Jewish Messiah who gave salvation and offered it to the hated gentiles.
And the Zealots' response to most problems that raised their passions was to kill the person
they disagreed with and to characterize the deed as their pious obligation as defenders of the
God of Israel. But in reality they were not defending God's Word, they were defending Jewish
Law, Halakhah, which had been formulated in the institution of the synagogue. They were
more defenders of manmade customs and traditions than actual Biblical commandments. And
this was because they were first and foremost, in these unbearable days of occupation by
Rome, defenders of Jewishness and all that it entailed. But Paul was seen as fraternizing with
the enemy, and so that made him a target.
While Christians have for centuries shaken our collective heads and heaved heavy sighs at
such a terrible attitude of the Jews towards gentiles and towards Christianity, let me point out
that Christianity stands at the head of the list when it comes to defending manmade religious
traditions and doctrines far more than defending what God commands in His Bible. Let's be
honest about this: the reality is that long ago Christianity declared God's Biblical commands as
null and void, so mostly what is left for the Church to defend is manmade doctrines and
traditions. But just as with the Zealots and other Jews in Paul's day, Christians nonetheless
claim that these manmade doctrines and traditions so closely reflect God's Word that they are
essentially one in the same. We are reading about the result of such a religious worldview here
in Acts 23, and it is endangering Paul's life. It is the same religious worldview that drove the
Christian Crusades of a thousand years ago, the Inquisition of 500 years ago, and it drives the
fractious, casual and indifferent nature of the Church in modern times.
As a middle-aged former Catholic (who now holds to no faith at all) recently told me, for him to
consider a return to Christianity it would take a great modernization of Christianity so that it
would become relevant to him and to his family and to humanity in tangible ways. I told him
that I largely agreed with him and that is exactly what Seed of Abraham Ministries is all about.
It is only that the route to modernization of Christianity is an irony; the way forward is to go
back to our roots: our Hebrew roots. We must return to the perspective of the earliest days of
our faith when Yeshua walked this earth, and when Paul, Peter, and James led the Believing
community. Back to a time when the Holy Scriptures were the source of truth; when our
doctrines were at their purest, when holiness was pursued relentlessly, and when doing was as
important as being for followers of Messiah Yeshua.
As Acts 23 opens Paul is addressing himself to the members of the Sanhedrin; however it
doesn't appear that this was a formal court gathering as much as an ad hoc council of inquiry
quickly assembled. Lysias, the Roman Commander, had ordered the Sanhedrin to question
Paul, so this was by no means a formal trial. In reality this council was there to ascertain
exactly what, if any, charges were to be brought against Paul so that Lysias could understand
what the hubbub was all about. Paul begins by not so much declaring his innocence (innocent
of what?), but rather he declared his loyalty to the God of Israel and therefore to his Jewish
heritage, reflected by a lifetime of proper behavior; thus his conscience was clear. It was a
general assertion about his character; not a denial of formal charges since at this point the
potential charges were still being ascertained.
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
Verse 2 says that the High Priest Hananyah (Ananias in Greek) instructed someone standing
next to Paul to hit him on his mouth for daring to assert his good character. It must be
understood that the point of hitting him in such a manner was to shame Paul. In the Middle
East then, as now, a male being struck on the face caused the recipient of the blow to lose his
honor; an extremely serious and volatile matter in oriental society. Paul turned and railed at the
High Priest and called him a whitewashed wall. The idea is that whitewash is a thin façade that
covers over the reality of what's underneath it. And then Paul has the chutzpah to tell
Hananyah that God will strike him back, and this because the High Priest is supposed to be the
supreme authority on the Torah but here, before charges are made, before a trial, Paul is
treated as though he is guilty of something and essentially punished; something that the Torah
doesn't permit. Some other men standing nearby rebuke Paul by saying how dare he speak to
the High Priest in such a way. Paul goes on to say that he didn't know that this man was the
High Priest and quotes the Torah commandment that instructs that any ruler of the Jews
should be talked to with respect.
Although we could spend a long time dealing with the matter, I'll make it fairly brief. What
about Paul's words offended the High Priest? And how can it be that Paul didn't know that
this man was the High Priest? Might Paul have caught himself and realized he had done wrong
in his insult, and so made up the flimsy excuse that he didn't know that this man was the High
Priest? Modern scholars have wrestled so much with this that many are ready to throw out
Acts chapter 23 altogether as being so improbable that it doesn't belong in the Bible. Others
have said that Paul did wrong, and he sullied his Apostolic credentials by reacting in such a
way towards the High Priest; as a Christian he should have accepted the shame and
responded with silence, usually citing Jesus as one who was even spat on but said nothing.
Interestingly when we check with the Scriptures we see that Yeshua had something similar
happen to Him as is happening to Paul. Let's see how He responded to it.
John 18:19-23 CJB
19 The cohen hagadol questioned Yeshua about his talmidim and about what he taught.
20 Yeshua answered, "I have spoken quite openly to everyone; I have always taught in a
synagogue or in the Temple where all Jews meet together, and I have said nothing in
secret;
21 so why are you questioning me? Question the ones who heard what I said to them;
look, they know what I said."
22 At these words, one of the guards standing by slapped Yeshua in the face and said,
"This is how you talk to the cohen hagadol?"
23 Yeshua answered him, "If I said something wrong, state publicly what was wrong; but
if I was right, why are you hitting me?"
So Yeshua, speaking to the High Priest, certainly had something to say about being unjustly
struck. And like Paul He was struck on the face, which was intended to shame Him. Notice that
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
Yeshua doesn't appear to have said anything against the High Priest anymore than Paul did.
Yeshua merely asked why they were questioning Him, while Paul only stated his own good
Jewish character. But in both cases this was seen as an affront to the High Priest. I believe I
can address this rather forthrightly. Yeshua was dealing with Caiaphas and Paul was dealing
with Ananias, the 8th High Priest to follow Caiaphas. Both men were illegitimate High Priests;
they were not of the proper lineage. They were wealthy and had paid large sums of money to
the Roman authorities for their positions. They were aristocrats, Sadducees, the highest class
of society who saw themselves as entitled and far better than common Jews. So for Yeshua
and now Paul to say anything before them or to them was an affront. And although it wouldn't
hold true for Yeshua, Paul was a Pharisee; a direct competitor and antagonist to the
Sadducees. They inherently didn't like one another.
So after Paul is hit on his mouth he spontaneously spews an insult towards this illegitimate
High Priest Ananias calling him a whitewashed wall; a fake, a phony. But then Paul seems to
back down when he is chastised for his retort by saying he didn't know that this man was the
High Priest. First of all, the High Priest at all times was identifiable by his special garments; so
the thought that some scholars have that Paul had not been to Jerusalem in a long time, and a
number of High Priests had come and gone since his last visit, so he truly didn't know what
the High Priest looked like, just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Paul of course knew who
he was dealing with. I think Paul was only being Paul; he could be harsh and sarcastic on
occasion. He had no respect for this fake High Priest, and it is my contention that by saying he
didn't know he was the High Priest it was a heavy dose of sarcasm. And in responding to the
others who chastised Paul for his strong words towards the High Priest, Paul quotes Exodus
22:27, but he does it in a way that essentially says that since one isn't supposed to speak
disparagingly against a ruler, then the fact that he was brought to task for his words must mean
that this man is a ruler; but that's the only way he'd know it because the High Priest certainly
doesn't behave like a ruler. This entire exchange was tongue in cheek, a battle of wits. And
let's always remember that Paul was just a man; he wasn't perfect nor did he have Christ's
perfect character or disposition. Perhaps by the letter of the law Paul sinned in his harsh words
to Ananias; but I see it as calling a spade a spade even if it might have been better left unsaid.
On the other hand, I'm a bit biased; I see Paul as a kindred spirit if not kindred temperament,
so maybe he just did what I think I would have done (and felt not a twinge of guilt over it) and
I'm rationalizing!
But now the clever Paul changes tactics; his sarcasm turns to artful calculation. Having served
on the Sanhedrin in some capacity in the past, he knows how they work and how they think.
And he is well aware of the animosity between its Sadducean members and its Pharisaical
members. So he announces himself as a Pharisee, even the son of a Pharisee, and throws out
the hot-button issue of resurrection from the dead like a piece of raw meat unexpectedly
thrown into a den of starving lions. In fact he frames the persecution he is undergoing on this
very issue. This instantly puts the Pharisees on the Sanhedrin in a bind; if they find fault with
Paul, then they must go against their own doctrines concerning resurrection. Immediately
there erupted a loud and heated argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. This is
because the Pharisees believed in the possibility of bodily resurrection from the dead, while the
Sadducees stood firmly against it. There were other strong differences as well. I'd like to quote
Josephus who explains the crux of the differences between the Sadducees' and the
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
Pharisees' theological doctrines, as they are quite instructional for those who study the New
Testament.
"Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate
interpreters of the law, and hold the position of the leading sect, attribute everything to
Fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most
part with men, but that in each action Fate cooperates. Every soul, they maintain, is
imperishable, but the soul of the good alone pass into another body, while the souls of
the wicked suffer eternal punishment......the Pharisees had passed on to the people
certain regulations handed down from former generations and NOT recorded in the
Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold
that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down in
Scripture, and that those which had been handed down by former generations need not
be observed. And concerning these matters the two parties came to have controversies
and serious differences, the Sadducees having the confidence of the wealthy alone but
no following among the populace, while the Pharisees have the support of the masses."
Every child attending Sunday School has heard of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But it is
long past the time for us to shuck off such simplistic notions that one group was good and the
other bad. Paul was a Pharisee; in his own speech he describes himself as STILL a Pharisee.
So first off let us agree that Paul saw no discrepancy in being both a Pharisee and a Believer
in Christ. But let us also use what we have learned regarding the use of the term "law" in the
New Testament. Josephus says that the Pharisees were considered the most studied and
correct interpreters of the law; but then tells us that the Sadducees only accepted what Moses
had written down in the Scriptures and their doctrines were built on that alone. So what we
have here is that when Josephus employed the term law (nomos), he was referring to Jewish
law, Halakhah, and not to the Laws of Moses. He goes on to explain that the Pharisees
followed certain regulations NOT found in the Law of Moses (the Torah). And that the
Pharisees were accepted as the religious authorities of the vast majority of the masses of
common Jews. Why is that? It is because of the synagogue system that was led by the
Pharisees; a manmade alternative religious system (an alternative to the Temple), which
employed a large and growing volume of manmade traditions and doctrines as the primary
guide used to live-out their faith. Thus what the Pharisees believed is what the common
masses of Jews (both inside the Holy Land and in the Diaspora) were taught was the true
religion for the Jews. Later (well past New Testament times), this alternative religious system
of the synagogue was given a name: Judaism.
The Sadducees, wealthy aristocrats who were the Temple authorities and formed most of the
priesthood (the Temple and the Priesthood were the original God-made religious system of the
Hebrews), claim that they rejected the traditions that the Pharisees taught and the masses
adopted and instead they abided ONLY by the Torah (the Laws of Moses). On the surface that
sounds like the right thing to do. Of course the fact that the High Priest had for over a hundred
years become a ceremonial office open to the highest bidder, instead of being a hereditary
position according to a specific line descended from Aaron, and due to their brazen thieving of
the Temple treasury (and so much more offensive behavior) demonstrated the hypocrisy of
their claim of pious fidelity to the Laws of Moses. So this was the condition of the religion of the
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
Hebrews all throughout the New Testament era and this context is the lens through which we
must view every word uttered by Christ, Paul, Peter, James, Luke and all.
So armed with that understanding then we're not surprised at the great uproar that erupts at
the Sanhedrin and the entire hearing devolves into a doctrinal brawl. Can't you just picture the
bewildered Roman tribune Lysias standing there and observing the ruckus; he came here for
clarity from the best and wisest of the Jewish religious authorities about what it was that had
set off the riot against Paul and now the council that was supposed to sort this out has
dissolved into shouting and chaos (and no doubt in their native Hebrew language)? Lysias is at
a loss for even understanding the nature of the dispute he is witnessing. What choice did the
Pharisees on the Sanhedrin have at this point but to side with Paul, a fellow Pharisee, on the
doctrine of resurrection (which for Paul was at the heart of the matter for believing upon
Yeshua as the Messiah and Son of God)? In 1Corinthians Paul says this about resurrection:
1Corinthians 15:16-17 CJB
16 For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised either; 17 and if
the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins.
The Pharisees declare: "We don't find anything wrong with this man; and if a spirit or an angel
spoke to him, what of it?" Oh, and by the way, the Sadducees also didn't believe in spirits or
that angels had any interaction with humans. Are you getting the picture here? This theological
warfare replaced whatever rational investigation Lysias was hoping for to figure out what Paul
might have done to warrant a mob of Jews wanting to kill him. In fact the Sanhedrin got so out
of control over the issue of resurrection that Lysias had to remove Paul from the scene before
any harm came to him. Somehow I think as Paul was escorted away he had just the hint of a
wry little smile upon his lips. Lysias has an unfixable mess on his hands; and when that
happens there's only one solution: give it to your boss.
Verse 11 has Paul (still under arrest) ushered back to the barracks at the Antonia Fortress for
his own safety, when suddenly the Lord comes to Paul in his cell and tells him to take courage
because it is going to get a whole lot more interesting from here forward. Just as Paul has
borne witness to the Gospel of Christ in Jerusalem, God is going to get him to Rome to do the
same. What Paul had not realized before is that his passage to Rome would be as a prisoner.
When the Lord wills that something happens, it happens. And as much as the Lord loved Paul,
Paul's discomfort was of secondary concern when it comes to God achieving His purposes.
This flies in the face of the modern Western Church's prosperity doctrine whereby God's
purpose is make His Believers comfortable, happy, safe and wealthy. And I urge you that if you
have been listening to any Preacher who teaches based on this doctrine that you turn away
from it because it is a self-serving lie that makes Preachers wealthy and will do nothing but
make you doubt your faith when loss of health, heartbreak or calamity eventually comes your
way as it does to all of us at some time or another.
The next day the frustrated Jews who wanted Paul dead weren't about to give up. These
Zealots made a new plan to get the Romans to take Paul out of the fortress and even though
he will be escorted by a Roman guard, they plan on taking him and killing him. I think we need
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
to pause for a moment to grasp just how seriously dedicated these Zealots were. They knew
for certain that many of them would die or be injured or arrested and probably executed for
what they were planning to do. No doubt there would also be collective punishments of other
Jews by the Roman government for such a defiance of Roman authority. But they were so
passionate about defending their Jewishness, and about Jews (like Paul) consorting with
gentiles as being tantamount to treason, that it was worth it to them to trade their lives for his
death.
Starting at verse 12 we get some general details about this conspiracy as we learn that 40 men
will lead the attack to take Paul. They swore an oath that they wouldn't eat or drink again until
they had accomplished their goal. They went to the High Priest and some others of the
Sanhedrin and told them of their plan because their cooperation was key to making it work. I'll
point out the obvious: naturally they would not have gone to any Pharisees in the Sanhedrin
because they sided with Paul. So that is why they went to the High Priest; he was a Sadducee
and could control who got this information. The plot involves the High Priest sending a
message to Lysias to say that they want Paul to come back so that they could continue their
investigation. But on the short trip between the Antonia Fortress and the Hall of Hewn Stones
where the Sanhedrin met, the conspirators would fall upon the Roman garrison, steal Paul
away from them, and quickly kill him. Although it is not explicitly stated, clearly the High Priest
and the Sadducees who sided with him went along with this plan (just a further sad indication
of how corrupt and misguided the Jewish religious authorities had become).
In verse 16 we are introduced to a new character: Paul's nephew, the son of his sister, who
apparently lived in Jerusalem. Here we learn a little about Paul's family life, and as often
happens with a bachelor, he becomes close to a nephew as a sort of surrogate son. In some
unexplained way this nephew found out about this conspiracy against Paul and has the
courage to reveal it to the Roman tribune to save his uncle. The sudden appearance of this
unnamed nephew is yet another reason why many modern Scripture commentators feel that
the account of Acts chapter 23 is so suspect that it ought to be removed in part or in full from
the Book of Acts. One part of their discomfort with this nephew is just how he, assuredly a
rather young Pharisee, would get wind of what must have been a carefully guarded secret
known only to the Zealots, the High Priest, and few hand-selected Sadducean Sanhedrin
members. I don't know why Luke doesn't tell us more details about the incident. Perhaps he
could never ascertain how the nephew got his information; but that is no reason to disbelieve
the account. I can easily understand how if the Sadducee camp or even the Zealots had been
infiltrated by someone who fed information to the Pharisees, a chronicler of the event (like
Luke) would not have been told who the source was or how it happened; only what happened.
So there is any number of good reasons why Luke didn't give us details regarding the
information about the plot that Paul's nephew had obtained.
It is fairly clear that this nephew is a young person, probably a teen or in his early 20's. He
must not have seemed very threatening or he wouldn't have been allowed access to the
fortress to speak with Paul and then with Lysias. The nephew told his conspiracy story first to
his uncle and then to the Roman tribune. Lysias obviously believed the young man. Especially
after witnessing the almost irrational animosity and violent tempers flare even among the
members of the Sanhedrin, it was not a hard sell to imagine that the Zealots would try
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 49 - Chapter 23
something almost suicidal in order to kill Paul. Lysias told the young man to tell no one that he
had informed the Romans about it. It was time to get Paul away from here.
The commander quickly summons two centurions and tells them to get some foot soldiers,
cavalry, and spear carriers ready for a fast march to Caesarea Maritima, the provincial capital;
they would leave at the 3rd hour of the night. Although our CJB says that this is 9 p.m. it is likely
somewhat later. Remember, this all happened in conjunction with the Shavuot festival that
comes in early summer so the daytime would lasted until around 8 p.m. or so. The Romans
divided the day into two parts: daytime and nighttime, and then assigned 12 hours of daytime
and 12 hours of nighttime. So a Roman hour was only a division of time as opposed to a
standard measurement of time. Thus if we have, for instance, a summer day with 15 hours of
daylight but only 9 hours of darkness, then the 15 hours of daylight is divided into 12 parts, just
at the 9 hours of darkness is divided into 12 parts. Each of the 12 parts is called an hour even
though a Roman "hour" at night was of shorter duration than a Roman hour of daytime. And
the length of an hour would also vary day by day as each season produced more or fewer
daylight hours. Thus in the New Testament trying to ascertain a time according to our modern
clocks can be a bit daunting, especially when a Roman "hour" was not the same as a Hebrew
hour because the Hebrews divided their day differently than the Romans. Here it seems clear
that since this activity involved Romans, it was the Roman hour being used. So the 3rd hour at
night would have been somewhere between 11 and 12 midnight at that time of year, according
to modern time standards. Clearly Lysias didn't want the Zealots to know that anything was
happening until after they were long gone. And from the large count of the soldiers that we are
given, the size of the contingency was sufficient to fight off the 40 Zealots even if they enlisted
additional comrades.
We'll continue with Paul's perilous journey to Rome next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 50, Chapters 23 and 24
This is our 50th lesson in the Book of Acts. We've been at this for a year and the reason for the
deliberate pace has, I hope, become apparent. We've taken many detours to carefully
examine the explosive rise of trust in Yeshua as Messiah that was expressed mostly by the
Jewish movement called The Way. We've also examined Judaism and the state of Jewish
society both inside and outside of the Holy Land in order to better understand the several
Jewish Bible characters and their circumstances, and what they mean by what they say;
because without doing that we can misconstrue what Yehoveh intends for us to learn. Chief
among these Bible characters and decision makers is Paul, whom the Lord has decided must
go to Rome, the future seat of the gentile Christian Church, to extend the reach of the Gospel
by appearing before the Emperor. How such an improbable thing as a mere Jewish commoner
getting an audience with Roman governors and even with the Emperor could ever happen is
what we're watching unfold as God orchestrates matters invisibly according to His will. We're
going to start our lesson today with another of those detours.
As we continue with our study of Acts chapter 23 we find that Sha'ul is once again under
attack from fellow Jews who think that he has become a traitor to Judaism. Or to be more
precise, a traitor to his Jewishness. Before we re-read a few verses from chapter 23 I want to
point out that terms like Judaism and Jewishness, which out of necessity I use often, can be
challenging to precisely define. Drawing a distinction between those two terms is not as easy
as it might seem because there is no single authority that can declare exactly what Judaism is
and is not, or what Jewishness is or is not; these are quite subjective terms that get reshaped
as history unravels. As an illustration, this is not unlike the issue of definitively asserting what
the term Christian means; something, which on the surface, ought not to be so difficult to wrap
our arms around (but it is). I suspect that if I asked each of you what a Christian is I would get
a slightly different answer. And if I went to the Middle East or North Africa and asked that
question, I'd get something else entirely. No doubt all would begin with saying that a Christian
is a follower of Christ; but then you would qualify that with some caveats and definitions that
not all who call themselves Christians would agree. For instance; can you be a Christian and
not believe that Christ is God? Can you be a Christian and not believe in the virgin birth? Can
you be a Christian and not believe that Christ is a Jew? Can you be a Christian and not
celebrate Christmas and Easter? It was, and remains, like that in trying to deal with ancient
Judaism as all the sects maintained the common belief that Yehoveh was the God of Israel;
but after that there were many nuances and variations that led to several sects of Judaism
being formed. Can you be a Jew and believe that other nations have different (legitimate)
gods? Can you be a Jew and not believe in the resurrection of the dead? Can you be a Jew
and not be circumcised? And every bit as much in our time as with the ancient past, can you
be a Jew and believe that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Messiah?
One of the more difficult things to comprehend is that while it still applies in varying degrees in
our time, in Bible times religion was invariably but one element of how you defined your
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
ethnicity. So, for instance, you wouldn't identify yourself as Canaanite without the proper
genealogy, using the standard Canaanite clothing, wearing your hair in Canaanite fashion,
living in homes built a certain traditional Canaanite way, having culturally desired occupations
while shunning others, and generally living a well defined Canaanite lifestyle while worshipping
the Canaanite pantheon of gods in the traditionally accepted way. Thus when we apply this
same principle to Jews, we see that the religion of the Jews, Judaism (as it was eventually
labeled) was merely one of several necessary elements of one's life that served to identify
you, and qualify you, as a Jew. Religion was only one part of what made a Jew a Jew; there
were several other parts. Generally speaking, remove or renounce any of these parts and your
Jewishness would be questioned.
So where did the religion of the Jews of New Testament times, Judaism, come from? It was
not taken exclusively from the Hebrew Bible; you'll never find the word "synagogue" or find
their liturgical practices in the Old Testament. Rather Judaism was a new phenomenon, a
product of the synagogue system. The synagogue system itself was rather new as it arose as
a manmade system, which resulted from the unpleasant circumstances of the Babylonian exile
of 600 B.C. that left the Jews living in foreign lands, religiously adrift without their Temple or
Priesthood. Prior to their exile it was the Temple system that had formed their authorized
religious structure and was the focal point of their religious life. But now, without that Temple
and Priesthood, their religious structure was defunct. So the leaders among the exiled Jews
devised an alternative system that differed somewhat from the Temple and its purpose; a
system that eventually came to be known as Judaism (Jews were people from the tribe of
Judah....therefore the term Judah-ism....the religion of Judah).
Judaism incorporated many familiar elements of the original, Torah-defined system that
depended on the Temple; a system that at Mt. Sinai God had defined and commanded to
apply to all 12 tribes of Israel. However this newly modified Jewish religion dropped some of
the elements of their former religion that seemed impractical (if not impossible) considering
their situation, beginning with how and where worship occurred. Most importantly Judaism
added new practices to compensate for the lack of the Temple and Priesthood (and thus their
inability to sacrifice to atone for their sins), but also because this modified religion was meant
to apply primarily to the survivors of the Babylonian exile: Judah....the Jews, and not
necessarily to their brother tribes that had long ago experienced their own exile from which
they had never returned. Thus especially as concerned Jews who freely chose to remain in
foreign lands (Diaspora Jews), instead of eventually returning to the Holy Land, what it meant
to be Jewish wasn't necessarily the same as compared to what it meant before the exile. And
for those fervent Jews who did return to the Holy Land, Jewishness meant something a little
different than how the Diaspora Jews viewed it. Thus Holy Land Jews and Diaspora Jews were
always at odds with one another over the question of what is a Jew? Or, to say it a bit
differently: what constitutes a universally recognized and accepted Jewishness among people
who identify themselves as Jews?
I began today's lesson by giving you this information because this is the bottom line cause of
why Paul was being persecuted by the Judean Jews (Holy Land Jews who lived in Judea), and
especially by the ultra-religious and ultra-nationalist sect of Jews called the Zealots. Christian
Bible commentators debate endlessly over exactly which theological issues of Judaism or
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
Christianity had put Paul in such hot water and they tend to make Messianic theological issues
as the reason that the Jewish people came against Paul. While there was indeed one
theological issue that is pointed out by Paul as especially contentious (resurrection from the
dead), this was actually an old and ongoing debate among Jews that had no special bearing
on Paul or on Believing Jews. This mob that wanted to kill Paul was anything but Jewish
intellectuals or studied Torah scholars; they weren't ready to murder Paul over some arcane
doctrinal difference. Rather the issue was that these angry Judean Jews weren't so much
questioning Paul's religion as they were questioning his commitment to Jewishness. In fact we
find that as Lysias, the Roman Commander, was questioning the crowd at the Temple as to
what Paul had done to cause the riot, he became frustrated because they all shouted
something different and none of the answers was very coherent. Basically the mob was very
upset about Paul in a general way. Was Paul still a real Jew? Was Paul speaking and teaching
against familiar, comfortable, traditional Jewishness? Might Paul be trying to redefine
Jewishness (a never ending matter among Jews, anyway)? Was Paul turning his back on his
Jewish heritage altogether and becoming a gentile, and urging other Jews to cave in and do
the same?
So with that understanding as the backdrop for our story, let's re-read the final few verses of
Acts chapter 23.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 23:16 – end
As we left off last time, Paul was back in his cell at the Antonia Fortress as much for his own
safety as anything else. A mob of Judean Jews along with some of the Sadducean members of
the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Paul, each for their own reasons. The Judean Jews had heard
(falsely) that Paul was a traitor to Judaism and Jewishness as he was seen regularly
consorting with the hated gentiles. The reasons for the Sanhedrin's determination to rid
themselves of him are less clear. But my conclusion is that it was because Paul had openly
defied them; the first time when, many years earlier, he was sent by the then High Priest to
arrest Jesus sympathizers, instead Paul turned and became one of them! Second because the
Sadducees were aristocrats who didn't take it lightly when a common Jew developed his own
following. Paul's popularity among so many Diaspora Jews was viewed as a threat to their
authority and to peace with Rome. But third, the Sanhedrin was convinced that Paul was
teaching people to have no regard for the Temple. The Temple was Sadducee headquarters
and the High Priest and most of the senior priests were Sadducees. And since the High Priest
was the chief justice of the Sanhedrin, and because the income from the Temple was highly
lucrative, this was a direct attack upon his territory and his personal finances. The Jewish sect
of the Essenes had already openly rebelled against the Temple authorities and subsequently
many of its members moved to Qumran and set up their own community and began training a
replacement priesthood. The head of the Sanhedrin, the High Priest, didn't need someone
else of substantial influence coming against him, creating a following, and causing others to
follow suit.
So the most fanatical among the Judean Jews (probably the Zealots and the Sicarri), about 40
of them, banded together and formed a plan to draw the Roman guard out of their fortress,
attack them and take Paul away from them, assassinating him on the spot. They took their plan
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
to the High Priest who offered cooperation. But somehow Paul's young nephew heard of the
plan and went to the Antonia Fortress and was allowed to tell Paul about it. Paul sent him to
the Roman Commander Lysias who believed the young man (after what Lysias had witnessed
he had no reason not to believe that a murder plot was afoot). Since Paul was a Roman citizen
Lysias decided that the only way he could fulfill his duty to protect him was to get him away
from Jerusalem and the conspiracy, and to do it fast. Besides; Lysias had a can of worms on
his hands with this whole Paul issue and was more than happy to hand it off to his boss, Felix,
to handle.
We find out in verse 22 that Lysias was taking no chances with these violent and committed
Jews; so he put together a small army of 200 soldiers, 200 spearmen, and 70 mounted cavalry
who could fend them off even if they doubled their numbers. But he also did the one thing that
the ringleaders of the plot hadn't expected: the Roman army contingent took Paul from his cell
under the cover of darkness and made a nighttime-journey at what had to have been a forced-
march pace. Their destination was Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean Seacoast; it was
the official residence where Governor Felix resided and so it was well fortified and had
hundreds of Roman soldiers stationed there. It was about 60 miles from Jerusalem to
Caesarea; however the route they took went through Antipatris (today called Aphek). Once
they reached Antipatris they were out of the reach of the assassination squad. The foot
soldiers were not required to accompany their prisoner any further and so were allowed to
return home. The distance from Jerusalem to Antipatris is 38 miles and they covered that
distance in the same amount of time that it normally takes to go 20 miles; in other words, they
moved very rapidly. Thus the exhausted foot soldiers were relieved of duty and Paul was
accompanied the rest of the way only by Roman horsemen.
Lysias did not accompany his troops and so sent a letter of explanation with them to Felix
outlining the circumstances and the charges against Paul. Verse 25 divulges that Luke is
giving us the letter to Felix "in these terms". In other words, this is not a verbatim copy of the
letter. Rather, somehow, Luke got details of the letter and has preserved that for us. As a
number of commentators have pointed out, there is no reason to doubt the content of the letter
for it is true to the circumstances, the times, and the Roman record about how things were
done.
The letter begins with the customary flattery to a superior and then goes on to frame the
situation in the most favorable possible light for Lysias. He discreetly omits that he had
determined to flog this man (and was moments from doing so) and instead makes it sound as
though he and his troops valiantly risked their own lives on a rescue mission to save Paul from
the Jews. He goes on to explain that he took Paul to the Sanhedrin for questioning but nothing
they found against him broke any Roman law and there seemed to be no broken Jewish law
that rose to the consequence of the death penalty or even going to prison. And because Paul
is a Roman citizen, Lysias explains that he is following proper protocol by sending Paul to the
governor and that he has ordered the accusers to go to Caesarea to explain the charges to
Felix in a formal trial.
Paul and the letter are promptly delivered to Felix and the first thing Felix asks is where he was
from. The answer of Cilicia satisfied him. This was not a casual question. It was usual that a
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
suspect was tried by the provincial governor of the province where the suspect was from; not
where the crime was committed. However there was a hierarchy of Roman governors and
procurators set up such that in this case Felix outranked the governor of Cilicia and so the
case fell to him to try. That is why in verse 35 Felix responds: "I will give you a hearing". That
is, he accepted that his was the proper jurisdiction for the matter to be heard. But Paul would
have to wait, in custody, until his accusers arrived from Jerusalem to testify. The bad news is
that Paul would be imprisoned at Herod's headquarters building called the Praetorium. The
good news is that because he was a Roman citizen, and because he had not yet had a trial, he
would be guarded by the military but he would not be in a prison cell. So his surroundings were
much more tolerable than when he was being held at the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem.
Let's open up Acts chapter 24.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 24 all
We'll take a few side roads as we journey through this chapter because it gives me a good
opportunity to pass along some helpful information that will aid you in studying the New
Testament in general and in understanding the times in a practical way.
Verse 1 explains that the High Priest Hananyah (Ananias) made the trip to Caesarea along
with some elders (likely Sanhedrin members), and also with what most Bibles will say was an
attorney or a lawyer named Tertullus. It was 5 days after Paul arrived before this contingent of
prosecutors showed up and the trial could began. It is quite misleading to characterize
Tertullus as a lawyer. The Greek says that he was a rhetor, the word from which we get the
English term rhetoric. The KJV Bible translates this term to mean "orator"; that is much closer
to reality. Within the Roman legal system his job was not to be a legal expert but rather to
present a formal legal case to the judge (in this case the judge was Felix) in the proper protocol
complete with lavish praise heaped upon the judge. There were certain people trained and
skilled in oratory (a much valued occupation in the Roman culture) that were hired for this
purpose as the lofty vocabulary gave the proceeding much gravitas. And especially if the judge
were someone as distinguished and highly placed as a provincial governor, the judge would
have been greatly offended if an approved rhetor had not shown up to set the stage with his
flowery words. It was simply the rhetorical fashion of the time; nothing more, nothing less.
Although we can't be entirely certain, it is likely that Tertullus was Jewish: a Hellenistic Jew.
Tertullus was a Latin name (Latin and Greek were the languages of the Roman Empire), but
this is not proof of the man's ethnicity. Many Jews held Latin or Greek names. That said,
because Hananyah the High Priest was a Sadducee and a wealthy aristocrat, and because
the High Priest was an office appointed by the Romans (once the wheels of justice had been
properly lubricated), then there was a close and desired relationship established (mostly
monetary) between the High Priest and the Roman government. So it is not out of the question
that Tertullus could have been a gentile rhetor.
The High Priest was by now, and had been for 100 years, a figurehead position of prestige that
was largely ceremonial. Mostly the High Priest's duties involved Shabbat, the 7 Biblical
festivals, going into the Holy of Holies once per year on Yom Kippur, and announcing New
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
Moons. As we can imagine, he was not a Torah expert even though the Sadducees claimed
that they followed ONLY the Biblical Torah and shunned the Traditions that were championed
by the Pharisees. Although I've covered it before, it would be good to repeat it: since the 4th
century B.C., and all throughout New Testament times, there were dual and competing
religious institutions in existence for Jews: the Temple and its Priesthood led by the High
Priest, versus the synagogue system and its leadership. These two systems were rivals in
many ways but they weren't enemies; the synagogue recognized the authority of the Temple
when it came to the rituals that according to the Laws of Moses could occur only at the
Temple, and they acknowledged the role of Priests in ceremonies that the Torah clearly
required. The Temple acknowledged that the synagogue system existed and that nearly every
living Jew attended one, but that's about it. The synagogue was an unpleasant reality for
them, but one they could not hope to change; so they found ways to coexist with it.
One of the most important, original tasks of the Temple priests (as commanded by God) was to
teach the people God's Biblical Torah and to enforce it within the Hebrew community. But
since the rebuilding of the Temple by Nehemiah (at the end of the Babylonian exile), Temple
activities became mostly about ritual and ceremony and less about teaching God's Word and
enforcing it. Part of the reason for this was because the vast majority of Jews now lived in the
foreign lands of the Diaspora, far away from the reach of the Temple in Jerusalem. So the
experience of the Jewish masses with their Jewish religion occurred primarily in synagogues
that were led by non-priests; and synagogues were NOT under the authority of the Temple or
High Priest. In fact most synagogues (especially at first) were independent from one another
like with local community churches in rural areas of the USA. A locally elected leadership
usually oversaw the town synagogue, but they had no official connection to the Temple. While
there was no sacrificing in synagogues, and the typical God-ordained Temple functions and
celebrations on the various Holy days still happened only at the Temple, sheer practicality
dictated that whatever teaching and enforcement the average Diaspora Jew received was
obtained in the synagogue because it was local or at least relatively nearby.
As a consequence of the exile and the extended time during which there was no Temple and
no operating Priesthood to teach and enforce the Biblical Torah (the Laws of Moses) many
new religious theories about sin and atonement and ritual cleanness and how to remedy
violations and impurity had been created by synagogue authorities. These rulings came to be
known as "traditions of the elders". Elders were local synagogue leaders who were usually
NOT Torah experts, and more often than not were also not Levites (the tribe of Priests) but
rather they were respected civic leaders. So pragmatism and local circumstances played a
significant role in what the elders decided to create as rules and laws for the local Jewish
community to live by and how to conduct synagogue worship services. It was during this same
era that a synagogue tradition arose that Jews should assemble in communal worship one day
per week, on Shabbat. Such a communal meeting on Shabbat had never existed prior to the
Babylonian exile. Shabbat simply amounted to the general Jewish population ceasing their
normal labors for 24 hours; all ceremonial activity and ritual for Shabbat was the province of
the priests and so it was performed only at the Temple.
As the decades and then centuries rolled by, these rulings and traditions created by the
synagogue authorities became the unquestioned doctrines and practices for the synagogue
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
and also dictated the lifestyles and religious activities for the masses of common Jews,
especially for those living in the Diaspora. For a very long time the Jews that had moved back
to the Holy Land tended to show a bit more loyalty and connection to the Temple and
Priesthood. But by Jesus' day the synagogue overtook the Temple as the dominate religious
institution of the Holy Land as well as in the Diaspora. This showed up primarily in that the
original Laws of Moses gave way to Halakhah: Jewish Law. And Jewish Law was a fusion of
the Laws of Moses, traditions of the elders, and ancient Jewish cultural customs.
So as we return now to our Biblical story of Paul standing trial before Felix, we read about the
overwhelming flattery that Tertullus heaps upon the governor. He says that great peace is
being enjoyed on account of Felix (meaning peace between the Jews and the Romans) and
that Felix is apparently working hard to keep improving living conditions for the residents of
Judea. None of this is true. Felix was the worst sort of governor; greedy and cruel. He was
ruthless and cared only to enrich himself. He was part of what is called the Equestrian class of
Roman rulers. That is, the aristocracy of Roman society had two tiers: the higher was the
senatorial class and the lower was the equestrian class. Both classes were wealthy. Once a
person became a Senator they became part of the upper most class. Sons of Senators
remained as part of the Equestrian class until and unless they became a Senator.
Antonius Felix was not a Senator; he was a freedman who had belonged to the imperial family.
The retired High Priest Jonathan (another wealthy man who had literally purchased his position
as High Priest) had used his influence to help Felix obtain the governor position from Cumanus
who had come into disfavor over how he had mishandled some riots between Jews and
Samaritans. Felix had good political connections of his own because he was also related to
Emperor Claudius through his marriage to the daughter of Antony and Cleopatra. Later Felix
also married the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa, a Jewish girl named Drusilla. But this
marriage was quite controversial because Drusilla was already betrothed to the King of
Emesus, a fellow named Azizus, when Felix was smitten by her and somehow managed to
woo her away from Azizus causing much trouble. The Roman politician and historian Tacitus
records that Felix was not well regarded. Rather he practiced "every kind of cruelty and lust,
wielding the power of a king with all the instincts of a slave." Felix was hard on the Jewish
people and behaved with severity towards them, and this resulted in further acts of rebellion by
the Jews. Since the Romans valued stability and peace above all, this eventually resulted in
Felix being removed from his position and he was replaced by Festus, who we'll read about in
Acts chapter 25. Paul is quite aware of Felix and his history so he will tread cautiously when it
is his turn to respond to the accusations put forward by Tertullus.
So beginning in verse 2 we have the case against Paul set out from the worldview of the High
Priest. And as I mentioned at the outset of today's lesson, we're hard pressed to find anything
of a theological nature that Paul is accused of violating. Rather the accusation is from the
mindset of a wealthy aristocratic High Priest who doesn't think anyone of a lower class should
disagree with him to his face, nor cause him any bother. Thus Tertullus explains in verse 5 that
generally speaking Paul is a pest. He foments uprisings among Jews throughout the entire
world and he is the ringleader of a sect of Jews called the Natzratim. Finally he says that Paul
tried to profane the Temple but fortunately they were able to stop him before he did. How he
went about trying to profane the Temple is never stated. So according to Tertullus Paul never
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 50 - Chapters 23 and 24
actually profaned the Temple, he just tried to and didn't succeed.
What would have caught Felix's ear were the political issues that were set forth. What would
he care about mundane matters of Jewish religious law? Essentially the first couple of charges
are that Paul causes trouble and thwarts every sincere effort of the Sanhedrin and the Romans
to maintain the peace. Tertullus then cleverly ties this allegation to Paul being a ringleader (a
term used for criminal activity) of a revolutionary sect of Jews called the Natzratim. So the
implication against Paul is similar to the charge leveled against his Master, Yeshua: he is trying
to start a rebellion to overthrow Roman rule.
For the Jewish High Priest to bring these charges of attempted sedition by a fellow Jew to a
Roman occupier was beyond the pale. Essentially Hananyah was playing the role of informer
to the enemy, Rome. While the Torah doesn't have anything directly to say about such an
activity, Halakhah does. And the general attitude is that a Jew who turns in another Jew to
face a gentile court essentially causes Jewish Law to be made inferior to gentile law. In the
Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 26, it states that any Jew who would turn in another Jew to gentile
authorities was considered to have "reviled, blasphemed, and rebelled against the Laws of
Moses". If convicted this would bring on the death penalty of the informer.
The Essenes (who considered the High Priesthood corrupt and wicked and an enemy of God
and the people) wrote this in their Temple Scroll that was found at Qumran:
"If a man (a Jew) passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign
nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he will die."
I have little doubt that this comment is aimed directly at the much reviled High Priest's office
due to their very public attachment and notoriously cozy relationship with the Roman
government, who appointed them to their lucrative position in the first place.
This is the second time within a week that Paul has faced the accusations of Hananyah the
High Priest and he's had plenty of time to think about how to respond. This becomes evident
in his rather eloquent rebuttal to these ludicrous charges. It begins in verse 10 and we shall
examine that next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 51, Chapter 24
As we continue with Acts chapter 24 (and we're going to go into depth in chapter 24 today due
to some seriously important faith issues in these passages), we find Paul standing before the
Roman governor, Felix, in the provincial capital city of Caesarea Maritima. The Jewish High
Priest Hananyah and some elders (no doubt meaning other members of the Sanhedrin) have
come to bring charges against Paul. Some unnamed Judean Jews were also present as a
show of support for these charges. However the crimes that Hananyah's hired rhetor presents
(a rhetor is a professional speaker who uses glorified and flowery words to present a case in a
trial) are so non-specific that Felix is having as much trouble understanding them as did
Commander Lysias of the Roman guard who had initially arrested Paul.
The primary charge seems to be that Paul is a "pest" and an agitator, and that he is the
ringleader of a sect of Judaism called The Way. Inherent in the accusation is that The Way
was seen as something of an aberration among Judean Jews, and the Jewish aristocrats,
especially, find the Believers bothersome and non-conformist and therefore a constant source
of trouble. The secondary charge that is of special interest to the Sadducees and the High
Priest is that Paul attempted to profane the Temple, but they were able to stop him just before
he actually did. Exactly what that attempt to profane amounted to is left out, although we know
from Acts 21 that it allegedly involved Paul bringing a gentile into areas of the Temple
courtyard where gentiles were prohibited. Luke implies that this charge was the result of a
bogus rumor that had been spread by some unbelieving Diaspora Jews who had come to
Jerusalem from Asia for the Feast of Shavuot.
Let's recall that the reason that Paul was here in Caesarea standing before Felix, rather than
this trumped-up affair being handled back in Jerusalem by the Jews themselves (under the
jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin) was because while Paul was under arrest and being held in the
Antonia Fortress (which was a barracks and guard house located in the northwest corner of the
Temple Mount), Commander Lysias got word of a plot by about 40 Zealots who intended to
free Paul in order to assassinate him. Since Paul was a Roman citizen and had demanded his
rights as such, it took the Sanhedrin out of the picture as the authority to try Paul and instead
made it a Roman governmental matter. Paul was taken to Caesarea, under the cover of
darkness, by a large contingent of well armed Roman soldiers in order to thwart the murder
plot and to assure his safe transfer to the custody of Felix, the governor over Judea.
Before we re-read part of Acts 24 I would like to emphasize something that we have discussed
in the last couple of lessons that has great bearing on our understanding of this story: this
entire matter against Paul had almost nothing to do with his Messianic theology. We do not find
his belief that Yeshua was the Messiah, or that Christ was the Son of God, brought up. Rather
the hatred against him was because Paul was spending much time with gentiles in foreign
lands and offering them a form of membership (if you would) in Israel's covenants with God
but without these gentiles first being circumcised (converting to Jews). Second, Paul was at
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
one time a trusted member of the Sanhedrin. Even though he was a Pharisee and so not part
of the ruling class that the High Priest belonged to (the Sadducees) he was nonetheless
enthusiastic and dedicated and seemed to be the High Court's willing point-man to hunt down
and arrest members of The Way wherever they could be found. But on his way to Damascus,
Syria to arrest some suspected Jesus sympathizers Paul had an experience with Christ that
turned him against the Sanhedrin; it went so far that he becomes an outspoken leader of the
very group that the High Court wanted stamped out. This was a huge embarrassment for them
and the best solution to end the shame was to eliminate the traitor. And finally, and probably
most significantly, Paul's credentials as a Jew were being challenged. That is, to many Jews
Paul was not behaving "Jewish" enough (or at least that was what was being rumored about
him), and so they thought him a turncoat who had decided to embrace gentiles and befriend
the Jews' Roman occupiers. Thus the issues against Paul were mostly cultural and
nationalistic as opposed to being theologically based.
Let's re-read part of Acts chapter 24.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 24:10 – end
Here begins Paul's defense.
Paul demonstrates his understanding of the expected decorum in a trial conducted in the
Roman system of justice by using some flattering words (fully expected) about the judge, Felix.
But Paul doesn't lie; it is true that Felix ought to be adept at getting to the truth because he's
been governing the province of Judea for some years, now, and so has an understanding of
the social and political climate of the region as well as the unique concerns of Jews.
First of all Paul explains that he'd only been in Jerusalem for a period of less than 2 weeks
and that his purpose for coming to Jerusalem was to "worship". In other words, he came
peacefully for religious reasons; he had no ulterior motives such as coming to agitate either
against the Jewish ruling class or against Rome. Coming right to the point Paul also says he
did nothing against the Temple, he did nothing against the synagogues, and nowhere in the
city did he go to argue or sow seeds of discord, and neither did he collect a crowd to speak to.
But even more, says Paul, his accusers offer nothing but unsubstantiated complaints and bring
not even one witness to back-up their claims.
I know we've discussed the issue of the separation of Temple and synagogue on several
occasions, but I also know how hard it can be to grasp new concepts that fly in the face of old
entrenched ones. I ask you to see this matter not as some arcane fact that only Bible scholars
ought to concern themselves with; but rather as essential knowledge for every Believer and
especially for serious students of the Bible. What you're learning is what most Jewish families,
whether living in the Holy Land or in foreign lands, knew in those days as just a matter of
everyday life. Frankly, if your goal is to hang on tightly to long held and cherished Christian
traditions about Jews, Jewishness, Paul, the early Church and the New Testament in general,
now would be a good time to take a nap. But if you truly want to know what God is telling us in
His marvelous use of inspired humans to recount and record the heady days of the beginning
of our faith, then put down your Bibles for the next few minutes, clear your minds of other
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
thoughts, and listen carefully to what I have to tell you.
Notice how Paul makes separate mention of the Temple and of the synagogue, and this is
because they are separate issues. They operated independently of one another, had no official
connection with one another, and their leadership was different and separate in every
imaginable way. As regards the Temple, it is the High Priest and the Sadducees who are
protective of the Temple and all of its ritual and ceremonial activities because that's what they
are in charge of. Even before New Testament times the Temple had become a lucrative
business operation in reality, even though it masqueraded itself as God's authorized spiritual
institution on earth and therefore above reproach. It is not at all unlike the Prosperity Doctrine
TV ministries that most modern Believers are aware of; they purport to be godly, deeply
spiritual, and have in mind your best interests, but everything is about you making more
money, or about you sending money.....to them. In fairness not everything that happened at the
Temple was wrong, nor was it all fake or a deception, anymore than it is for these TV
ministries. For the average Levite priest and Temple worker, their service was a selfless labor
of love and a blessed opportunity to live out the high honor that God had given to the tribe of
Levi to be His priests and instructors of God's Word to the people. They did not profit from it. It
was only the higher ups, the High Priest and his family and his friends and some of the senior
Priests that benefited monetarily and they fully intended to enrich themselves as much as
possible in both wealth and power. A good analogy would be how most modern politicians who
eventually leave their offices somehow come away considerably more wealthy than when they
went in while, on paper, making only a modest salary. Yet all the time they extol the virtues of
their selfless leadership and appear on the surface to just be dedicated government servants,
their true motives for attaining that office were not and are not pure; it was simply a means to
an end.
Let's remember that originally at Mt. Sinai the Priesthood and the Temple (the Wilderness tent
sanctuary to be accurate) were commanded by God to be established and operated solely by
the tribe of Levi. So the Temple with its Priests was, according the Torah of Moses, a
legitimate and God-ordained institution that would be, quite literally, the heart and soul of
God's chosen people, Israel. The Temple was the one and only location where God would
place His Name for the purpose of communal worship, sacrifice, and observance of His 7
Biblical Feasts. But that heart and soul of the people, the Temple, was destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar just after 600 B.C. The Priesthood that survived the destruction became
meaningless without it and thus went defunct. The remaining Priests also seem to have had
little if any actual influence or power over the Jewish people in their exile and the Priesthood
never fully recovered to its original state even after Ezra and Nehemiah managed to rebuild the
Temple and get it functioning again a few decades after the Jews were released from their
Babylonian captivity. Part of the reason that it was never quite the same again was that their
authority and their duties had become diluted due to the birth of a second Jewish religious
institution; an institution created by the Jews during the Babylonian exile: the synagogue.
The synagogue was created not as a God-ordained vessel of His power and authority on earth
but rather out of unpleasant circumstance and human desire. Because the Temple had been
destroyed, the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon had no way to purify themselves from
uncleanness, no way to atone for sins, and no direction or authority structure to enforce God's
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
laws upon them. They couldn't celebrate the Feasts as they were supposed to. They couldn't
mark the Sabbath with sacrifices by the High Priest at the Jerusalem Temple. The core of their
Jewish identity was wiped out when the Temple was leveled and so they found themselves
spiritually adrift in a foreign land. Their captors' intentions were for the Jews to become simply
another people they lorded over, and assumed that in time the Jews would accept the
Babylonian gods and god-system. So while the synagogue was neither God-authorized nor
was it necessarily meant to be a replacement for the Temple, it did serve a practical purpose.
The synagogue became the new symbol of Jewishness. In my opinion it should have been
only a temporary institution (assuming it should have been created at all) until the Temple was
rebuilt. However (as is typical of humans) once the synagogue was created and an authority
structure set up, a liturgy of service was established, traditions were created, and some time
passed, the genie was out of the bottle and there was no putting it back. The common Jew
now centered his or her daily faith and religious activities in the synagogue institution.
We must always keep in mind that the synagogue is a manmade invention; a creation of
human thought and will that was really the consequence of God intentionally punishing His
people by taking away what He had much earlier given to them: the Temple and the
Priesthood along with all of its benefits. In a certain sense the synagogue, at least at its
inception, was mankind trying to find a way around God. But I don't want to paint the
synagogue as something evil or wrong or instituted with wicked intent. Gentile Christians
should always remember that the Church institution was also created as a manmade
endeavor; it was not God-commanded. The Church institution as we know it today was
designed as a purely gentile organization, by and for the benefit of gentiles and backed by a
Roman Emperor. Many of the Church's ways and traditions were borrowed from the
synagogue system (even though most people don't know it); things like establishing many
local facilities (churches) all over the landscape and declaring a certain day of the week as set
apart for a communal worship gathering (something the Bible does not command, but also
does not prohibit), tithing, singing praises to God, and much more.
Thus while the Temple was originally God-ordained and directed to be maintained by a
specifically named line of Levite priests, in NT times the Temple was run by the social/religious
party of the Sadducees (a class of wealthy aristocratic Jews). The synagogue that was purely
manmade as of late had become run mostly by the social/religious party of the Pharisees
(although not in any official capacity). However don't get the idea that the many synagogues
all over the world were somehow joined together under a uniform authority structure of
Pharisees; that didn't exist. Each synagogue was, generally speaking, independent. Their
commonality was the result of Traditions and customs that developed over time. The Temple
and the synagogue were indeed rivals; there were jealousies and disputes between them but
they were not opponents. The synagogue leadership and congregation members fully
understood that certain rituals and observances had to occur only at the Temple, and only the
Priests could supervise or perform these rituals. And the synagogue recognized the authority
of the High Priest; but only insofar as it concerned what went on at the Temple.
All indication is that the Priests (and thus the Sadducees) weren't terribly happy at the
existence and influence of the synagogue; but it was a fact of life that they couldn't alter
because it was too deeply embedded into the Jewish consciousness. Nearly every Jew,
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
whether living in the Holy Land or out in the Diaspora, had an attachment to one synagogue or
another so compromises were made between the Temple and the synagogue authorities and
they managed to co-exist. I feel confident in asserting that even if a High Priest or the
Sanhedrin had ordered that the synagogue system was to be abandoned that the people
would not have obeyed. They were comfortable with this idea of the synagogue serving some
of their local, daily religious needs, and the Temple serving other, mostly ceremonial parts of
their religious needs. So this is what Judaism looked like at the time of Yeshua and then Paul,
and we need to take notice that the synagogue was in no way described by Christ or any of the
Apostles as an illegitimate institution but rather as just a reality of Jewish culture. The Temple,
too, was not depicted by Messiah or any of the Apostles as being a hopelessly corrupted
institution that had lost its value, but rather as something that needed reform.
Thus getting back to verse 12, hypothetically speaking Paul could have offended the Temple,
but that would not have affected his relationship with the synagogue, or vice versa; every Jew
knew that (and no doubt so did the Roman Felix as well), and so Paul needed to make it clear
to Felix that he committed no wrong against either of those 2 standard Jewish religious
institutions, one of them being the province of the wealthy and the Sadducees, the other the
province of the common folk and the Pharisees (you can pick up those Bibles again!)
Now we come to one of the most significant and telling declarations of Paul in the Book of
Acts, as well as in all of his writings. For those Christians who immediately run to Galatians
and a few other passages that seem to say that Paul has no regard for the law and that he
sees no value in his Jewish heritage, let's look closely at verse 14.
Acts 24:14 CJB "But this I do admit to you: I worship the God of our fathers in
accordance with the Way (which they call a sect). I continue to believe everything that
accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets.
Just so that we can be intellectually honest and not cherry pick between Bible versions to find
the one we like best, here are two other standard familiar Bible version translations of the
same verse.
KJV Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so
worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in
the prophets:
NAS Acts 24:14 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I
do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law,
and that is written in the Prophets;
It is pretty clear that most standard English Bible versions agree that Paul is saying that he
believes, or agrees, with everything written in the Law and the Prophets. But because this
statement directly flies in the face of standard Christian doctrine that Paul is anti-Law and no
longer accepts that the Law even exists for Believers, let's take some time with this verse as
there is more here than meets the eye.
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
First, Paul says he worships the God of his fathers. He hasn't given up Yehoveh, the Father,
the ancient God of the Hebrew Bible, for the new God, the God of those who live in the first
part of the 1st century A.D., God's Son, Jesus. But he also says he believes EVERYTHING
written in the Law and the Prophets. Not some things but all things; not the slightest bit of
change in the written law is contemplated by Paul. So the challenge for us is to discover what
he means by the term "law" in this instance. We've talked extensively about this term that in
Greek is nomos. But what we've found is that the term is broad and it can mean several
different things depending on the context. It can mean any law or custom, pagan or Hebrew; it
can mean Jewish Law (Halakhah), or it can mean the Law of Moses (the Biblical Torah Law).
So which of these can we know with any assurance that Paul means here? Actually this is one
of the easier instances to determine because he uses the same phrase that Christ used in
Matthew 5:17 – 19 to announce his position regarding the Law of Moses. He speaks of the law
and the prophets as a connected phrase. When the two terms law and prophets are used
together, tied together, it has a specific meaning; it is speaking directly of Holy Scripture. The
Law (the Torah) and the Prophets are 2 of the 3 named sections of the Holy Scripture as
defined by the Jews. In Hebrew those 3 named sections are Torah, Nevi'im and K'tuvim
(Torah, Prophets, and Writings). The Greek language has no direct word equivalent for Torah
so they use the rather generic term nomos, which means a law or a custom or a tradition.
Another proof that Paul is speaking of the Biblical Torah and not of Jewish Law (Halakhah) is
that he says he believes that which is "written". In Greek the term is grapho, which means
things that are formally written down using an alphabet. In New Testament times Jewish Law
(Halakhah) was NOT yet written down. One of the many names for Halakhah is Oral Law.
Another name is Tradition, and yet another is Traditions of the Elders. Jewish Law, Halakhah,
only existed in NT times in oral form; it had not been written down yet and wouldn't be
until Yehudah HaNasi (Judah the Prince) did so for the first time early in the 3rd century A.D.,
around 175 years after Paul's time in a work called the Mishna. So for certain with these two
pieces of evidence staring at us, Paul is speaking of the Biblical Torah, the Law of Moses, as
what he believes everything that has been written down.
Let me sum up this verse like this: Paul says that He is a Believer in Yeshua, he is a member
of The Way, that He worships the God of his Fathers (the OT God, so to speak), and that he
believes all things that are written in the Torah and in the Prophets. Folks, if that's what Paul
believes in then so do I (and so should you). And I believe this of Paul because that is fully
consistent with what Christ says (and without our having to do back flips to make the
statements compatible).
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
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Why do I harp on this matter of the Law and bring it up constantly? Because in this context
neither Christ nor Paul are telling us HOW to be saved. They are telling us how to live AFTER
we are saved. Just as there is no option A and option B on how to get saved, there is no option
A and option B on how to live after we are saved. We are to look to the Biblical Torah, the Law
of Moses, as our written guide for living a righteous life. Where are we NEVER to look is to our
hearts (but I can't tell you the hundreds of Christians who gleefully tell me that where they look
as their guide to right and wrong is their hearts).
Jeremiah 17:9 CJB9 "The heart is more deceitful than anything else and mortally sick.
Who can fathom it?
And in the Gospel of Mark we read:
Mark 7:21-23 CJB 21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come forth wicked
thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, indecency,
envy, slander, arrogance, foolishness....
23 All these wicked things come from within, and they make a person unclean."
So I pray that we can agree: go to the Torah Law if you want to know how to live the redeemed
life that Christ has won for us, and that we have obtained through grace by faith in Him.
Then in verse 15 Paul gives us his doctrine on a theological issue that would have had the
Sadducees of the Sanhedrin that were sitting there listening to his defense, grinding their teeth.
In fact when a few days earlier Paul was being questioned by the Sanhedrin (in Acts 23) the
assembly quickly devolved into bedlam when he brought up the issue of resurrection such that
Lysias had to remove Paul to keep him from being attacked. Paul says that on the matter of
resurrection from the dead that he not only believes in resurrection, but also that both the
wicked and the righteous will be resurrected. And, says Paul, this belief is how he continues to
have "hope" in God. Once again what Paul states is in full agreement with his Master, Yeshua.
John 5:24-29 CJB
24 Yes, indeed! I tell you that whoever hears what I am saying and trusts the One who
sent me has eternal life- that is, he will not come up for judgment but has already
crossed over from death to life! 25 Yes, indeed! I tell you that there is coming a time- in
fact, it's already here- when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those
who listen will come to life.
26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son life to have in
himself.
27 Also he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 51 - Chapter 24
28 Don't be surprised at this; because the time is coming when all who are in the grave
will hear his voice 29 and come out- those who have done good to a resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil to a resurrection of judgment.
The Pharisees would have agreed with Paul (likely some Pharisees were there in this hearing
before Felix because a goodly portion of the Sanhedrin was Pharisees) but only to a point on
this matter of resurrection; the Sadducees would have rejected it outright. The Pharisees
believed in some form of resurrection of the dead for the righteous, but complete annihilation of
the soul in the grave for the wicked. Actually, what the bulk of Pharisees seem to have
believed in as "resurrection" more resembled what we today would call reincarnation. But the
Sadducees believed that the soul was no more immortal than the body; both ended their
existence, never to be resuscitated, at death.
I don't want to debate a doctrine of resurrection; I just want you to note that both Yeshua and
Paul say that EVERYONE, whether they die in their sins or as a saved person, will be
resurrected. The difference is that one will be resurrected to judgment and the other
resurrected to eternal life. So immortal souls are for the evil and the good; it's only what
happens to those souls after death that is different.
Then Paul ties this all together by saying that as a consequence of 1) worshipping the God of
his fathers, 2) being connected to The Way (being a Believer in Yeshua), 3) continuing to
believe everything written in the Torah and the Prophets, and 4) having hope in God to raise
everyone who dies from the dead, therefore he has a clear conscience before both God and
man. If you want something resembling a systematic theology from Paul, this is likely the
closest you will come (and Paul does NOT ever create a systematic theology in any of his
writings).
Let me say this in modern language: 1) Trust Yehoveh God, the God of the Bible. 2) Be
connected to the assembly of Believers in Yeshua, based on your faith in Him as Messiah and
as the Son of God. 3) Believe everything written in the Torah and the Prophets. That's right,
trust the Law of Moses to tell you what is right and wrong; it doesn't vary person to person.
And trust the Prophets to be God's Word to us not only about the future, but also His warnings
about what happens when an individual, a people, a nation, or a national leader refuses to
obey Him. And 4) know for certain that upon death you will live again. But what happens upon
that resurrection from the dead depends on the decisions you make before you die. Will you do
the first 3 things and thus be saved and follow the holy blueprint for a redeemed life? Or will
you not and die as the unrighteous?
I'll leave you to ponder that and we'll continue in verse 17 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
THE BOOKS OF ACTS
Lesson 52, Chapters 24 and 25
Our last lesson dealt primarily with Paul's defense to the ludicrous legal charges made by the
Sanhedrin, as the trial was being held in front of Governor Felix in the provincial seaside
capital of Caesarea Maritima. What made the charges all the more farcical is that as yet it is
nearly impossible to quite define what the charges are. The only discernable complaints were
that Paul was a thorn in the side of the High Priest (head of the Sanhedrin), that he was
disturbing the peace by his mere presence in Jerusalem, and that he attempted to defile the
Holy Sanctuary.....but didn't succeed. And for this, the Sanhedrin wanted Paul dead.
Before we re-read a small part of Acts chapter 24 I want to reiterate that in reality the issues
against Paul had little to do with anything theological, but rather that Paul appeared to be a
traitor of sorts to some movable definition of what it meant to be a Jew. And (on the surface)
this stemmed from his close contacts with gentiles in the foreign lands of the Diaspora. The
hypocrisy of such a complaint, however, is nearly laughable; it was primarily the Sadducee
party that was so upset with Paul and the Sadducees were Jewish aristocrats who maintained
the coziest of relationships with the gentile Romans so as to attain and maintain their wealth,
status and power. In fact, here we find the leader of the Sadducees, the High Priest, being an
informant to the Romans that Paul was inciting revolt against them.
So what is causing this hatred of Paul if there is nothing concrete we can pin it on? We listed a
few practical reasons last week, which included the fact that at one time Paul was either a
junior member of the Sanhedrin or at least was in the employ of the Sanhedrin in some official
capacity, and when he was sent to Damascus to arrest some members of The Way Paul not
only didn't do it, he turned and became a member of The Way. The humiliation and shame of
such a thing for the High Priest and the institution of the Sanhedrin had not been forgotten
even though many years had passed since then. However the true, underlying reason for this
hatred is hard to put your finger on because it is invisible; these corrupt leaders of the Jews
were in a state of spiritual blindness. The proof is their incomprehensible charges against Paul,
the lengths to which the Jewish High Court was willing to go to rid themselves of this "pest"
(including outright murder, something for which, according to the Torah, there is no atonement
possible), and the illogical nature of their grievances against Paul that befuddled both the
Roman Commander Lysias and now Governor Felix.
This irrational hatred of Paul and what he stood for (that is rooted in spiritual blindness), has
never ceased to this day; and it is present both within modern Judaism and within the enemies
of the Jews. This spiritual blindness is actually a backlash to the reality and advent of Messiah
Yeshua, and it was prophesied and spoken about in a number of passages in the Bible.
2Corinthians 4:3-4 CJB 3 So if indeed our Good News is veiled, it is veiled only to those
in the process of being lost. 4 They do not come to trust because the god of the 'olam
hazeh (the present world) has blinded their minds, in order to prevent them from seeing
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
the light shining from the Good News about the glory of the Messiah, who is the image
of God.
Paul says that the god of the present world has done this act of blinding some peoples' minds
to the truth of the Gospel. Who is the god of this present world? Satan. But we are also told by
Paul that this spiritual blindness is the will of Yehoveh (Yeshua's Father) for those who reject
His Son.
Romans 11:7-8 CJB 7 What follows is that Isra'el has not attained the goal for which
she is striving. The ones chosen have obtained it, but the rest have been made
stonelike,
8 just as the Tanakh says, "God has given them a spirit of dullness- eyes that do not see
and ears that do not hear, right down to the present day."
So spiritual blindness is not merely a catchy saying; it is a real condition and when we observe
this irrational hatred against Paul here in Acts, and when we watch this same irrational hatred
against Israel and the Jewish people in our time, just know that it is God-willed and Satan-led
due to the rejection of God's Messiah. I think the Exodus story of Pharaoh and his hardened
heart that was both a result of his rejection of the God of Israel and of God acting upon his
unrepentant heart is the pattern for what happens to all who set their minds against Messiah
Yeshua. Yet as frustrated as Paul would get, and I know many of us get, as we try to tell others
about God's love for them and their need for Him, we need to keep in mind what Paul knew:
each soul that is saved, Jew or gentile, is truly a miracle because the forces against such a
thing ever occurring are so powerful and pervasive. That you are saved, that I am saved, is a
miracle of the highest order and something we must never take for granted. That Israel has
survived the irrational hatred of a billion or more sworn enemies (a number that grows daily) is
also a miracle of the highest order. That you and I are hated for our faith, and that Israel is
hated for their mere existence comes with the territory and we must be willing to accept that
rather than fretting about it. The irony is that as Believers we are hated because of our
acceptance of Christ, and Romans 11 tells us that Israel is hated because of their rejection of
Him.
Paul continues his defense in verse 17. Let's re-read that section of Acts 24 now.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 24:17 – end
Here Paul confirms what we have discussed in past lessons; it had been several years since
he had been to Jerusalem. His journey there, currently, had to do with celebrating Shavuot and
bringing charitable gifts to his people. And he came, appropriately, to sacrifice. Thus obviously
he had every reason to be at the Temple; he didn't come to disturb the peace; he came in
obedience to the Torah to sacrifice on the occasion of Shavuot.
Many commentators say that Paul brought these charitable gifts for Messianic Believers; no
doubt they were some of the beneficiaries of these gifts. But un-Believers were benefited as
well as the wording is clear that this was a general donation to his "nation" and not to a
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
specific group of Jews. Not all the funds that he brought were charitable gifts; a major portion
(probably a completely separate portion) was the half-shekel Temple tax that every Jew,
regardless of where they lived, was supposed to contribute annually for the operation and
upkeep of the Temple.
In verse 18 Sha'ul points out that he didn't defile the Temple; he had purified himself before
entering. While the crowd that wanted to kill Paul specifically mentioned him bringing a gentile
into the prohibited areas of the Temple Mount, that charge seems to have evaporated (it was
just an unsubstantiated rumor in the first place). So the accusation of the Sanhedrin that Paul
was trying to defile the Temple seems to have changed from Paul intentionally bringing an
unclean gentile into the Temple area and thus defiling it, to the only possibility that remained:
Paul himself had to have been considered as unclean so Paul refutes that charge. We read
earlier in Acts 21 how Paul had indeed paid to purify himself and 4 other Believing Jews as
well. This issue of automatic uncleanness for Jews coming to Jerusalem from the Diaspora
was a standard one as Jews believed that proximity to gentiles brought defilement upon them;
and thus when they came to Jerusalem with their sacrifices they first had to be purified before
they could enter the Temple Mount. And, by the way, this understanding needs to be carried
over to every visit a Diaspora Jew made to the Temple. So, for instance, when they made a
pilgrimage for Sukkot or Passover, they necessarily had to come a few days early so that they
could purify, go through the waiting process, and have a priest certify that they were now
clean. However this was NOT the case for Holyland Jews. Jews coming from the Galilee, for
instance, did not face this same requirement.
In the next 2 verses Paul is essentially claiming that the reason he is on trial is because when
he was in custody in Jerusalem and standing before the Sanhedrin that he shouted out that he
believed in the resurrection of the dead. What is left unsaid is that the Sadducees did not
believe in resurrection and so they vehemently disagreed with Paul. But honestly, I think Paul
purposely laid out a red herring. That is, while what he says is true, that isn't the reason he's
on trial. My goodness, the vast majority of Jews everywhere believed in resurrection of the
dead because that's what the Pharisees taught and so did the synagogues. So Paul was in
the majority; he wasn't being rebellious or heretical in what was actually a nearly universal
belief about resurrection among Jews. But what this statement did do was to tell Felix that not
only were whatever grievances the Sanhedrin might have against him in regard to some minor
nuances of Jewish Law, but that all other charges had no basis whatsoever either. And Felix's
ONLY interest would have been in assuring that Paul wasn't a political dissident who was
fomenting trouble against Rome.
Felix, as judge, had now heard from accuser and defendant and it was time for him to make a
ruling. His choice was to postpone a verdict. Instead he said he wanted to hear from
Commander Lysias and get his opinion on the matter (an opinion which he has already stated
in writing in the letter we read in chapter 23; and his opinion was that Paul had done nothing
deserving of jail, let alone death). So Paul would continue to be under arrest although his
conditions improved as he was allowed to have as many visitors as he wanted, and they would
be allowed to provide him with food and creature comforts. We don't ever hear of Lysias
coming to the hearing, which leads me to speculate that Felix was just buying time as he had a
different agenda than meting out justice.
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
Some days passed and Felix again wanted to speak with Paul, but this time the governor was
accompanied by his wife Drusilla. The Western Text of the New Testament tells us that it was
Drusilla who wanted Paul held because Drusilla wanted to meet him and hear what he had to
say. It might surprise some Bible students to learn that there wasn't just one version of the
New Testament in circulation in ancient times. In other words, there is no officially recognized
"original" version of the New Testament books (to this day). There are a number of ancient
manuscripts, most of them Greek, and there are differences among them. Academics call
these various sources Text-types and among them are the Alexandrian, the Western, and the
Byzantine; there are others. Don't let these names scare or confuse you; these are but various
early versions of the New Testament manuscripts that operate much like the various English
translations that we have today (such as the KJV, the NAS, the RSV, and the CJB). They each
have their advocates, and they each have their strengths and weaknesses. Depending on
where you were located in the ancient world, you might choose a version that was locally
formulated. So, for instance, the so-called Western Text, which was widely circulated in Italy
and Gaul as well as in North Africa and Egypt, can be traced back to the end of the 2nd
century. It was used by some Early Church Fathers and notables such as Marcion, Tatian,
Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian. It was not a New Testament per se, but it did have some of
the documents that were used to eventually form a NT.
Felix's wife Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa 1, and as of the time of this
meeting with Paul she was in her late teens. Because her father Agrippa considered himself a
Jew, then Drusilla was seen as a daughter of a Jew and therefore herself a Jew. In fact at an
early age she was betrothed to a gentile crown prince, but because he refused to convert to
Judaism the marriage was called off. Later her brother, Agrippa II, gave her in marriage to the
King of Emesa, but when Drusilla was only 16 years old, Felix persuaded her to abandon the
King and become Felix's 3rd wife. Interestingly she produced a son for Felix and named him
Agrippa III but he died a premature death in the infamous eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.
So the so-called "Jewish" Drusilla sat with her husband Felix and Paul told them about
Yeshua and why they should trust in Him. Why would Drusilla even want to hear about this?
Because at this time, around 58 A.D., The Way was still seen by gentiles and Jews alike as but
one sect of the many sects of Judaism. So this may have been little more than an information
exchange for Drusilla.
When Paul's telling of the Gospel advanced to a discussion of it's practical implications such
as righteousness, self-control and the coming Judgment (meaning The End of Days), we are
told that it frightened Felix and he didn't want to hear any more. This discussion had taken a
turn that the cruel and greedy Felix found most uncomfortable. Is that not the way it is for us
all? It is so easy to speak glowingly to one another of righteousness, holiness, and the End of
Days in theory. But when it gets down to things that God says we must do; changes in our
lives we must make; duties and obligations that God says we have as Believers;
consequences for our faith that we must bear; unpleasant (even horrific) realities that we may
be personally swept up into, we're not so sure we want to hear any more of it because it's
getting a bit too personal. Those warm and fuzzy feelings turn to fear and apprehension. This
is why most of today's mega-churches are built upon hearing only about God's love and
mercy, His desire for you to attain your dreams and have prosperity, and only rarely will the
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
sermon turn to God's wrath, your sins that God hates, and your obligations to Him as a
disciple of Yeshua. The idea that there are unchanging absolutes that we must follow in
obedience (not at our option) and that those absolutes are found in the Torah; that God
determines our righteousness based on His Law and the Prophets, and we can't define it on
our own; and that never in history has God's people, Old or New Testaments, escaped
persecution but rather God expects us, in faith, to go through persecution for the sake of the
Kingdom of Heaven and as an example to others.
But we also find in verse 26 that part of the ulterior motive that Felix had for hanging onto Paul
was that he was hoping for a bribe. We tend to think of a bribe as an illegal or shady, under-the-
table, transaction. Back then a bribe was usual and customary even if asking for one out loud
wasn't considered polite or gracious. Felix was hoping Paul would raise a good amount of
money and offer it as homage to Felix's greatness; and very likely Felix, in turn, would have
found in Paul's favor. Paul knew this of course. And I suspect with all his contacts Paul could
have done so; but he had bigger fish to fry. He wanted to be sent to Rome and stand before
the Emperor even if prison was the price of the ticket to get there.
This chapter ends with the notice that after 2 more years of Paul's imprisonment, Festus
replaced Felix. When leaving his office Felix had the authority to let Paul go; he didn't. It is
clear that Felix had never found a single cause to convict Paul. Instead he apparently wanted
to leave his office with the Judeans and the Sanhedrin seeing him in a favorable light, so he let
Paul languish in prison as a favor to them.
It seems that Paul spent much time in prisons but he didn't let the time pass by in idleness.
Many of his letters that form a major part of the New Testament are ascribed to his time behind
bars: Colossians, Philippians, Timothy, and Philemon among them. So it is clear that he was
given the materials and great latitude for the most part so that he could write these epistles,
often with a scribe doing the actual writing as Paul dictated. And then those letters were
allowed to go out of the prison and into circulation.
Let's move on to chapter 25.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 25 all
Governor Festus was a different sort of fellow than Felix. He was known as a good and
thoughtful administrator and so the first thing he did upon arriving in the area to take up his
new assignment was to go to Jerusalem to meet the Jewish leadership. This would have him
meeting mostly with the High Priest and his family, some of the most senior priests, and other
wealthy aristocrats of the Sadducean party. After acquainting himself with the various issues of
concern for those whom he'd rule, the Jewish leaders wasted no time in bringing up the matter
of Paul. Even after 2 years in prison the Sanhedrin wasn't satisfied; they still wanted Paul
eliminated. They asked Festus if perhaps Paul couldn't be brought to Jerusalem for trial. It
seemed like an innocent enough request and essentially merely a formality; and no doubt the
Jewish leaders counted on Festus not knowing the history behind this situation. Their goal was
to have Paul assassinated before any trial could happen.
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
It is fascinating to me that this determination to kill Sha'ul continued on for so long; but spiritual
blindness has no limits on time or extent. We know from other documents that Jerusalem was
nearly in a state of anarchy at this time as the Zealots and the Sicarri were running rampant,
murdering Jews who didn't meet their unwritten litmus test for proper Jewish loyalty and
behavior. I have little doubt that it was the demands of the extremist Zealots and Sicarri that
kept this issue alive (to deal with Paul) because since Paul's experience with Christ 20 years
earlier a number of High Priests had come and gone, as on average High Priests only stayed
in office for around 2 or 3 years. So anyone Paul had ever offended was no longer in office.
The High Priest at this moment was Ishmael Ben Phiabi. A very unpopular High Priest, he
was an old man and this was actually his second term as High Priest, the first coming some 40
years earlier. Let me repeat something that I've said before, but it is important to know when
understanding the times: Ben Phiabi was the current in a long succession of illegitimate High
Priests according to the Law of Moses, even though these High Priests insisted that they
upheld the Torah while refusing to recognize the Traditions of the Elders that the Pharisees
honored. So the insistence of the Sanhedrin to continue prosecuting Paul (persecuting is more
like it) was strictly a political accommodation by the High Priest to the most radical Jews in
Judea.
Thankfully Festus saw no need to have to move Paul and the trial to Jerusalem. I imagine that
Festus had a suspicion that something wasn't quite right in this case. And no doubt he used
the request to establish his authority and make it clear just who was in charge, and who would
bow down to whom. He told the Jewish leaders that they would have to come to Caesarea to
continue their case against Paul. Since Felix had been removed from office because he was
unable to control the violence of Jewish militants (mainly in Jerusalem), Festus would show
these Jews a firm hand from the moment he began to rule by denying their request.
At the same time Festus showed respect to these Jewish leaders by staying on in Jerusalem
for several more days, getting to know them and being available for discussions. He was
showing himself to be a wise leader who knew that his success or failure would hinge on the
level of quiet he could secure in Jerusalem. And this quiet began with the Jewish leadership
seeing him as a reasonable man who wanted to understand Jewish politics and sensitivities so
that there was peace. So when he returned to Caesarea the first thing on his agenda was to
attend to this matter of Paul since it seemed quite urgent to the Jewish leadership of
Jerusalem. The next day after his arrival in his provincial capital, the trial that Felix never
concluded was again opened.
The scene unfolded very similarly to what had happened over 2 years earlier; many charges
were brought against Paul but no evidence was presented. So Paul responded similarly to how
he had responded 2 years ago: he denied all the charges. He was careful to deny them in an
articulate and structured way that addressed each area of accusation. First, he says he did not
do any wrong against the Law of the Jews. Next, he claims he committed no wrong against the
Temple. And finally he says he did no wrong against Caesar. So what he claimed was that he
had not violated Halakhah (Jewish Law). In other words his Jewishness remained intact. This
was not about violating the actual Biblical Torah because essentially he was addressing any
concerns of the Pharisees (who went by Oral Traditions, not so much by the written Torah).
Then he addressed the concerns of the Sadducees whose headquarters and area of control
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
was the Temple, and says he did nothing wrong there. And lastly he said that he broke no
Roman law and therefore had not challenged Caesar.
Paul knew what he was doing. He was in a Roman court of law, and so Roman case law ruled
the day. Roman law operated much more objectively than Jewish Law. Roman law required
credible witnesses to back up any charges. So since there were no witnesses against him all
Paul had to do was deny the charges; the burden of proof was on those making the
accusations. What is interesting is that apparently the Jewish leaders did not understand
Roman law as well as Paul did. Since the first charge was about violating Jewish Law, and the
second charge was about violating the sanctity of the Temple, had the list of charges stopped
there Festus had every legal right (and considering the long messy ordeal this had become, he
had every motivation) to simply turn Paul over to the Jews and let them take him back to
Jerusalem to deal with him in their Sanhedrin because clearly this was a Jewish matter. But
since the Jewish accusers' charge of conspiring to foment trouble against Rome was added,
this became a matter that only a Roman court could decide. And this opened the door for Paul,
as a Roman citizen, to appeal directly to Caesar.
Festus knew exactly what position he had been maneuvered into and so seeking an easy way
out asked Paul if he would consent to go to Jerusalem to be tried there (fat chance).
Essentially Festus was willing, on the spot, to dismiss any charges against Paul concerning
violating Roman law by fomenting disturbances (that is how anxious he was to rid himself of
this problem). But Paul was having none of it. God had told him that he was to go to Rome,
and that he would go before the Emperor, and this was his ticket to get there. Besides, Paul
fully knew he'd never make it to Jerusalem alive if he was turned over to the Jews. So he
appealed to Caesar; game over. It was now out of Festus's hands. In a more few verses we'll
hear the perplexed Festus wonder to King Agrippa II why in the world Paul would appeal to
Caesar since Festus was ready to declare him innocent of any charges against Rome. Appeal
what? Paul had won his case from Festus's viewpoint.
In truth Paul risked more prison time now than he had faced with Felix. Felix didn't formally
acquit him, but on the other hand he had no grounds to convict him. Yet he still had to find a
way to placate the Jewish leadership. So Felix just didn't do anything and Paul languished in
jail for 2 years. Festus could have taken a cue from Felix and done the same. This would have
at least partially appeased the Jews, and it would have saved him the embarrassment of
sending Paul to the Emperor, having no idea what the charges against him ought to be or what
he should tell the Emperor are the circumstances. Here's the rub: the Emperor at this time
was the unstable and dangerous Nero.
Starting in verse 13 we are told that some days passed and Festus had taken no action; no
doubt Festus was trying to figure out what to do about Paul. But perhaps not all was lost; by
good fortune King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to visit and maybe they, much
more familiar with Jewish problems than he, could find a way to proceed. Agrippa is Herod
Agrippa II and Bernice is his biological sister, both claiming Jewish heritage. Recall that the
former governor, Felix, was married to one of Agrippa and Bernice's sisters: Drusilla. Bernice
was the eldest girl, while her brother Agrippa II was the only son born to Agrippa I. Currently
Agrippa II was King over Lebanon and some territory to the east of it; interestingly even though
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 52 - Chapters 24 and 25
he was seen as a Jew, he had no authority over any of the Holy Land.
Agrippa had declared full, unequivocal loyalty to Rome; and this was not insincere. He loved
the Roman lifestyle and owed his wealth and success to the Romans. He was never married
and so left no children. There were always suspicions that he enjoyed an incestuous
relationship with his sister Bernice, but there is no admission of that by either one, and no proof
that this was true. Bernice played Queen to Agrippa's King. They were always in one
another's company and frequently traveled together. At one point she began living with the
famous Titus, the general who attacked and destroyed Jerusalem, but they never married and
she finally separated from him so great was the public hatred of Titus.
Certainly Agrippa's visit to Festus was to show his approval of Festus's commission as
governor and to renew his vow of loyalty to Rome. But, in God's providence, it would also
afford Paul an opportunity to speak the Gospel to a King and Queen: Agrippa and Bernice. A
Jewish King and Queen no less.
We'll stop here and take up next time with Paul's audience with Agrippa and Bernice.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 53, Chapters 25 and 26
In Acts chapter 25 Paul is standing before the new governor of Judea, Festus, who has been
joined by King Agrippa and his sister Bernice. This is not a formal trial, per se. It is more an
informational gathering; it is meeting because after hearing Paul's accusers, and then hearing
from Paul, Governor Festus is at as much a loss as was his predecessor Felix to find any
crime that Sha'ul had committed. It must be understood, however, that neither Felix nor Festus
had any real interest in trespasses Paul might have perpetrated against Jewish religious laws.
Rather their concerns were over whether Paul might have violated any Roman laws, or was a
threat to Roman rule, and the implication of the High Priest (as head of the Sanhedrin) was
that Paul was a rebel who was disturbing a peaceful co-existence between the Jews and the
Romans that the Romans greatly valued. It was clear that due to the lack of witnesses to that
charge, and due to Paul's demeanor and his outright denial of being a troublemaker, that he
was not fomenting a Jewish rebellion. However because Paul was a Roman citizen, and
because even before the verdict was handed down he had appealed to Caesar, Felix and
Festus's hands were tied. Paul was going to Rome no matter the outcome.
Let's pick up at verse 13 of Acts 25, but first let's re-read these particular passages.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 25:13 – end
We discussed in our previous lesson just who, exactly, Agrippa and Bernice were that Festus
(and Paul) were pleased that they had come to Caesarea Maritima so that they could lend
some insight into the hard-to-understand complaints against Sha'ul. Our grasp of this helps to
explain how things went with Paul's trial and what happened afterward.
Agrippa and Bernice both fancied themselves as Jews and interestingly it seems that the
Jewish people had no issue with that. Partly this public acceptance of Agrippa's Jewishness is
because he was thought to be faithful to many of the Jewish Temple rituals, and especially as
it regarded the Biblical Feasts, which he made a show of attending. This endeared him to the
High Priest and the Sadducees, but it also made him look good to the common populace
(something politicians are especially adept at). Agrippa and Bernice's claim of Jewishness
comes from the fact that Herod the Great (their mutual great grandfather) had as one his wives
Mariamne. Although Herod himself was not a Jew but rather was an Idumean (a descendant of
Esau), Mariamne was indeed a Hebrew. By now the Biblically mandated patrilineal descent
(that is, the father determines the ethnicity of his offspring) had given way to the Jewish
Tradition of matrilineal descent (the mother determining the ethnicity of her offspring). So
whatever children Mariamne bore for King Herod the Great were considered as Jews because
she was a Jew.
Mariamne was Agrippa's and Bernice's great grandmother. This particular Agrippa of our
story with Paul was Agrippa II. His father, Agrippa I, was also considered a Jew and he had
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
married a woman named Cyprus. Little is known about her, but she was a granddaughter of
Herod the Great. So whether she was actually a Jew we don't know, but she must have been
considered to be. The point of our ambling down memory lane of the Herod dynasty is that
who and what was a Jew had already become a problematic matter well before New
Testament times. How a person became identified as a Jew varied; it could be that they were a
gentile who converted to Judaism by means of circumcision; it could be that the one side of a
person's family were Jews (even if the other side were gentiles); it could be that indeed a
person had a long genealogical record proving their heritage as a member of the tribe of
Judah. The person could have been the offspring of a gentile slave who belonged to a Jew. If
the child of a slave was born while that slave was still in the service of a Jew, they were
generally considered the property and family of the Master. Thus that gentile slave offspring
could be considered to be Jewish depending upon the decision of the Jewish Master. And,
there were other nuances as well. This is no doubt the reason for the extraordinarily long and
thorough genealogy of Yeshua that we find presented in the Gospels; it was not only to
establish that he came from King David's royal line, but foremost it was to prove that He was a
Jew in every way that Jewishness could be determined since Jewishness was requirement #1
for a legitimate Messiah. Thus we never hear of Yeshua's claim of His Jewishness being
disputed (and this was no small matter in His era).
So Agrippa and Bernice did have some credentials as being Jewish, as did their parents and
grandparents, so the Jewish people didn't question their Jewish identities. However I find it
personally fascinating that Agrippa and Bernice apparently found it to their benefit to maintain
their Jewish identities in the gentile dominated Roman world rather than to play them down. It
is clear that it was proving beneficial to them as the Roman Empire didn't see Jews in a bad
light or as in any way inferior. Further proof is that the territory that Agrippa and Bernice ruled
over for the Romans was gentile: Lebanon and areas to the east of it. The Romans didn't use
their Jewishness for political purposes to help them rule the Jews. The only issues that the
Romans seemed to have had with Jews in general was when they demanded special rights
due to their Jewish religion (which Rome was often obliged to give to them), and when they
rebelled (as they constantly did in Judea compliments of the radical Zealots and Sicarri). Yet
the Romans were sophisticated enough not to paint all Jews with the same brush and there
wasn't any empire-wide or official program of persecution occurring at this time (and only
selectively so after the Jewish rebellion of 66 A.D. that resulted in the destruction of the
Temple in 70 A.D.).
Whatever hatred the Jews exhibited for Rome existed mostly in Judea, and centered primarily
in Jerusalem; it was less so in the Galilee, and nearly not at all in the Diaspora. This is
because in Judea the Romans were seen as unwanted, unclean occupiers of Jewish land; but
the Romans had a lesser presence in the Galilee so there were fewer run-ins between
Romans and Jews there. Diaspora Jews had for generations chosen to live among the
Romans so generally there were few problems. Paul, as a product of the Diaspora, doesn't
seem to display any particular dislike or prejudice against the Romans, and so his comfort level
with gentiles is evident in the Book of Acts and in all of his Epistles. Yeshua had certainly
commissioned the right man for the job of taking the Gospel to the gentile world of the Roman
Empire.
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
Thus what is really happening with Agrippa and Bernice's involvement with the Paul affair has
to do with Festus trying to figure out what to put in his report to Nero as the reason for Paul's
incarceration and subsequent appeal. And since Agrippa and Bernice were Jews and familiar
with Jewish ways, Festus's fervent hope was that they could help to untangle this perplexing
situation that he found himself in.
In verses 14 – 21 Festus is explaining to Agrippa the dilemma he was facing with Paul, and so
gave him a brief review of how Paul wound up in his jurisdiction. We don't need to go over this
to any degree as we have already carefully followed Paul's path to this moment. What is clear
is that from Festus's perspective he was suspicious of the High Priest's motives for wanting
Paul brought back to Jerusalem for trial and so characterizes the High Priest's request as
asking for a favor. His suspicion was only heightened when the High Priest told Festus of the
charges against Sha'ul that to Festus's mind amounted to some minor Jewish religious
disagreements. The heavy implication of it being a favor to give Paul over to the High Priest is
that there is a hidden agenda and that there is no good or compelling reason for the request of
a change of venue; so Festus denied it. The further implication is that while Festus smelled a
rat, he didn't know what it was. He wasn't at all aware that the High Priest, no doubt egged on
by the Zealots and the Sicarri, intended to assassinate Paul well before he arrived back in
Jerusalem. Festus also reveals to Agrippa that Paul had appealed to Caesar and he intended
to honor it. This tells Agrippa that nothing that goes on here is going to change the trajectory of
where this is headed: Paul is going to Rome one way or another.
Somehow, as we read in verse 22, Agrippa had heard about Paul beforehand, and what he
was doing, and had wanted to know more details; now was his opportunity and he was glad for
it. Because Agrippa and Bernice wore the official titles of King and Queen, when they arrived at
the hearing we're told there was much pomp and circumstance befitting of their regal status.
Festus then had Paul brought in and he explained to the King, Queen and their guests that this
Jewish man, Paul, had many complaints against him from the Jewish community. A better
translation is as the CJB has it; the complaints were from the Judean Jewish community and
they were so upset with Paul that they wanted him executed! But Festus admits he could find
nothing about their complaints that would lead him to sentence Paul to death. And then Festus
openly admits that the real problem at the moment is that he has no clue about what to tell the
Emperor about this situation and so is beseeching especially Agrippa and Bernice for their
advice.
Let's move on to chapter 26.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 26 all
Festus turned the floor over to Agrippa. In no way what was happening was an official trial; it
was a discussion in order to help Festus know what to say in his report to Nero. So Agrippa
was given wide latitude to proceed as he wanted to. Wisely he simply asks Paul to explain
himself.
When we're told that Paul stretched out his hand to begin his defense it is speaking of some
kind of customary gesture, very likely one of acknowledgement and respect to Agrippa. It was
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
certainly not like when he was arrested at the Temple Mount and motioned with his hand for
the mob to be quiet so he could be heard. He begins with the customary Roman salutations
and flattery to the dignitaries that are present, but as when he was before Felix and then
Festus, he might exaggerate but he doesn't lie. He acknowledges that Agrippa (and by
extension, Bernice) are well informed about Jewish customs and sensitivities (since they are
Jews). And rather than attempting to make his defense short and sweet he asks for patience to
be fully heard. But it is imperative that we notice that what Paul really gives is not so much a
defense against the specific charges against him, but rather a defense of his entire life; who he
is, what he has done, and what it has all led to.
So Paul begins by presenting his life's resume. He essentially says that the facts of his life's
history are public knowledge, and many can testify to the truth of it if need be. The first thing I
want to address is in verse 2 where most English translations have Paul say that he is accused
"by the Jews". In grammar the word "the" is called an article; and here the Greek doesn't
contain the article. A literal translation is: "I am accused by Jews". In fact, considering the
context, it is probably most accurate to translate this as: "I am accused by Judeans". Why is
this important? Because by Bible editors adding in the article "the" (that is not there in the
Greek) it has Paul pointing fingers to all Jews as a religion or ethnic culture as being part of the
conspiracy and hatred towards him. Remove the article "the" and it merely has it that certain
Jews (which he identifies as Judeans) are making these accusations. It's an important
distinction because Paul is regularly characterized by some Bible commentators as actually
anti-Jewish; and thus by saying "the Jews" are against him, he separates himself away from
"the Jews".
Paul says that he has been known by the Jewish community since he was young, and this
includes in his own country and in Jerusalem (where he went to the religious academy of
Gamaliel). His own country of course is Cilicia. He goes on to explain his religious affiliation: he
is a Pharisee. This would mean something to Agrippa and Bernice as they understand the
religious party system of the Jews. It is also immediately clear that there would be a natural
antagonism between the Pharisee Paul and the Sadducee High Priest. And also notice that
Sha'ul refers to the Pharisees as the strictest party of "our" religion. These little words mean
something. First, strictest doesn't mean rigid or mean. It is rather meant as a badge of merit
that claims that a Pharisee is the most devoted among Jews to obey God.
What is the religion of the Jews? Judaism. So the Pharisees are part of Judaism. But Paul is
also implying that what he is currently practicing as a member of The Way (which his entire
audience is well aware of and is the main reason that Agrippa is so interested in hearing from
Paul) is also a legitimate part of "our" religion: Judaism. He is a Pharisee by social/religious
party and training, and he is also a member of The Way according to the specific Halakah he
adheres to. Paul sees no conflict between the two and Agrippa apparently sees none either. I
don't want to go any further until I explain what I mean by the Halakhah that Paul follows.
While the simplest meaning of Halakhah is Jewish Law, you've by now realized that there
never was, and still is not in modern times, a single, universally recognized Halakah for all
Jewish people. It is like that within Christianity. Depending on what denomination you might
belong to you indeed follow Christian doctrine; but the details of the Christian doctrines that
you follow vary from denomination to denomination. So while Paul shares a continuing bond
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
with the fundamental teachings of the Pharisees, his doctrine has changed to also embrace the
teachings of Yeshua. This is verified by the Greek grammar used here. As Dr. David Stern
points out in his commentary on this passage:
"The Greek verb (lived) is in the aorist tense, which implies that an action
accomplished in the past has effects that continue on into the present. Paul lived as a
Pharisee in the past and he continues to do so after becoming a Believer".
This would not be hard for Paul to do since much of the doctrines of the Pharisees were similar
or the same as Yeshua's (a few were not, of course). So while since time immemorial it has
been the common Christian mantra to say that what the Pharisees taught was nearly in direct
opposition to what Christ taught, this is quite wrong. That is because most Christian scholars
are ignorant of Halakhah and what the ancient Rabbis actually said, and so make assumptions
based on a handful of encounters in the Gospels between Yeshua and some particular
Pharisees.
Paul absolutely continues to identify himself as belonging to the party of the Pharisees (and
has so in earlier passages of Acts as well). But then in verse 6 I think Paul takes some liberties
because his real agenda begins to emerge. He says that the real reason he is on trial is
because of the promise that his forefathers received. What promise is this? It is the promise of
the Abrahamic Covenant. So to Paul the Abrahamic Covenant is not only alive and well, but it
is the centerpiece of God's plan for redemption through Yeshua. Let's revisit that covenant as
it has been a long time since we studied it way back in Genesis.
Genesis 12:1-3 CJB
CJB Genesis 12:1 Now ADONAI said to Avram, "Get yourself out of your country, away
from your kinsmen and away from your father's house, and go to the land that I will
show you.
2 I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and
you are to be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you, but I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you
all the families of the earth will be blessed."
It is of course the final words of that covenant (by you all the families of the earth will be
blessed) that is Paul's focus. Paul is certain that a Jew such as Agrippa will see the irony in
this, which is that he is on trial for believing in the Abrahamic Covenant! But in all fairness, that
is quite the exaggeration unless we include the idea of spiritual blindness in the equation. Even
if we want to say that it was because of Paul's belief that Yeshua is the Messiah that is a
necessary part of the Abrahamic Covenant, which has never been part of the complaints
against him at any point. And yet, in an indirect way, due to the spiritual blindness of Jews who
won't believe that Yeshua is their Messiah, Paul does seem to be receiving an inordinate
amount of negative attention that is irrational if it can't be accounted for by something like a
spiritual blindness. However, how a non-Believer like Agrippa is expected to recognize this I
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
don't know. Further, there is no doubt from Paul's earlier defense that he is connecting the
subject of resurrection from the dead with Abraham's Covenant and with Yeshua.
Paul now elaborates on the Abrahamic Covenant by saying that the 12 tribes hope to attain the
promise that is contained in it. This reference to the 12 tribes is, of course, meaning all Israel;
both houses of Israel including Ephraim (currently still exiled) and Judah (which has returned to
the land). Shulam and Le Cornu point out that before, during, and after the New Testament era
the standard understanding among Jews was that while one house of Israel had returned from
exile (Judah), the other house (Ephraim, the 10 northern tribes) had not but rather remained in
exile because unlike Judah, Ephraim stubbornly remained in their apostasy. Please pay close
attention to this as often you will receive push-back by some in the Jewish community because
they believe that Ephraim came back with Judah from Babylon and thus all 12 tribes have
already returned. Their point is that today's Jews represent all 12 tribes and have since 500
B.C. This claim doesn't match Scripture or history, but it does have a huge effect on how we
are to interpret Ezekiel 36 – 38. Much of the Christian world also believes that all of Israel, and
not just Judah, returned from Babylon and this has a great deal to do with what is sometimes
called Replacement Theology, meaning the Church has replaced Israel as God's chosen.
According to Replacement Theology all Israel is receiving from God in this age are His curses,
while the Church gets all of the blessings that God at one time promised to Israel, but has
reneged and decided to give them to gentile Christians.
However there is no historical or Biblical evidence that Ephraim returned with Judah; it is
simply tradition held by some sects of Jews and Christians. In fact the most widespread
expectation among Jews during New Testament times was that the two houses of Israel would
finally be reunited only in the coming Messianic Age. Some ancient Sages and Rabbis like
Rabbi Akiva say that the 10 tribes (the house of Ephraim) will never return again, and he bases
his conclusion on a passage from Deuteronomy 29:28 that says: "And he cast them into
another land to this day". However the venerable Rabbi Eliezer said in opposition to Akiva's
position: "Like as the day grows dark, and then grows light, so after darkness is fallen upon the
10 tribes shall light hereafter fall upon them." So he is saying they will return from exile,
eventually.
The bottom line is that while there was no unanimous position on the issue of who exactly
returned from the Babylonian Exile, the majority opinion of Sages, Rabbis, and common
Jewish folk was that the 10 tribes were not part of the return. So the Jews saw themselves as
primarily from the tribe of Judah, with some identifying with Benjamin (as did Paul), and then
there were the Levites who were a special case.
Paul in Acts 26:7 seems to take the rather standard Pharisaical position of his day that only
Judah returned from exile and so the reunification of all 12 tribes under the banner of the
Abrahamic Covenant was only a hope; a still-future event. I'll point out that everything I see
tells me that right now, in our time, as I speak, we are in the midst of the actual return of the 10
Lost Tribes to Israel as predicted in Ezekiel; I have personally witnessed groups of those lost
tribe members arriving to Israel at the airport (to much ceremony), and identifying themselves
as such.
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
Paul, in verse 8, now clarifies the connection he is making between the Abrahamic Covenant
and resurrection as he says: "Why do you people consider it incredible that God raises
the dead?"; but additional clarification is needed here. "You people" is a direct reference to
Agrippa and Bernice, because they represent the aristocratic Jews. Their point of connection,
then, with the Jewish people occurs only at the highest level with their aristocratic counterparts,
the Sadducees. And the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. This is why
earlier I said that Paul was exaggerating because in reality if you weren't a Sadducee, you
believed as the Pharisees or the Essenes, both of which accepted bodily resurrection. I have
never found a Bible scholar who estimated the percentage of Jews who were Sadducees; but
those who venture at least an opinion agree that it is self-evident that there were relatively few
aristocratic, wealthy Jews when compared to the common folks; so there were relatively few
Sadducees. Paul's stand on resurrection, then, would have represented the majority opinion
among Jews. His opinion was anything but new or radical; so there is no chance that he was
on trial for holding the majority opinion on the issue of resurrection as he implies!
But shortly Paul is going to use the issue of resurrection to segue into presenting the Gospel of
Jesus Christ to Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, and their elite guests; something that I'm quite sure
they didn't expect. For now, however, he goes back in time to when he was working for the
Sanhedrin, and confesses some unflattering truths about himself. He admits that he was an
enemy to The Way and to the name of Yeshua of Nazareth. He thought it was his obligation to
use all of his energy and authority to round up Believers and throw them in prison. I like the
way that F.F. Bruce takes the liberty to use the English language to bring across in modern
terms what Paul intended to convey about his personal past. He has Paul saying:
"Pharisee though I was, and thus in theory a believer in the resurrection of the dead, I
yet judged it incredible in this particular case (the resurrection of Yeshua), and thought
it my duty to oppose such a heresy....."
That impacts me. I think back to what seems like only yesterday, but in fact is a couple of
decades, to when I opposed any thought of observing Sabbath on the 7th day. No one could
have convinced me that Jesus didn't "nail the Law to the cross". I was solid in my belief that
everyone has two choices: believe in the Law of Moses for salvation (that was for Jews), or
believe in Christ for salvation (that was for gentiles). I scoffed at the notion that the Old
Testament had any place in my study or my life as a New Testament Believer. Like Paul, I
knew of Scripture that said otherwise to each of these things, but my spiritual blinders and
loyalty to denomination and traditional gentile Christian creed were so firm that I thought it
heresy that anyone could say something different and be right about that which the entire
Church (that I knew anything about) called wrong. If F.F. Bruce were to paraphrase my
thoughts as he did with Paul's then he would have me saying:
"Christian though I was, and thus in theory a believer in what the Bible says, I yet
judged it incredible in those particular cases, and thought it my duty to oppose any
such heresy".
Paul admits in verse 10 that he bore absolute culpability for sending Christians to their death.
In obvious confirmation of having some sort of membership in the Sanhedrin, he says he "cast
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 53 - Chapters 25 and 26
his vote" against them (thus voting for their execution, as voting is exactly how verdicts were
rendered). He says he wandered synagogue to synagogue searching for Believers. What does
this confirm? That there were individual Believers present in a number of synagogues, and
they were part of the regular congregation of Jews. That is, there weren't necessarily
"Believing synagogues" but rather only a portion of a synagogue (maybe only a single person)
believed that Yeshua was the Messiah. In fact Paul says he tried to get those that he found to
blaspheme. Many commentators say that this means he tried to get them to renounce Yeshua;
I can't accept that. How could Paul think (back at the time that he was not a Believer) that
renouncing Yeshua was blaspheming if he thought the Believers were heretics for believing in
Yeshua in the first place? No; if anything, refusing to renounce Yeshua might have been
cause for a charge of blasphemy (but I doubt it as many "messiahs" running around the Holy
Land with followings; it was kind of the norm and we don't hear of executions over it).
But this overlooks the obvious; what Paul means is that he tried to get them to blaspheme in
some classic Jewish understanding of what was commonly held by the Sanhedrin as
blaspheming. Something that could be proved in the Jewish courts. And the reason for trying to
get the Believers to blaspheme was so there would be legal cause for their execution (this was
one way to stamp out a sect of Judaism that the Sadducees obviously were apprehensive
about). One of the few non-criminal things that a Jew could be tried for in Jewish courts and
then executed was blasphemy (the Torah calls for execution for blasphemy). But the intent of
the High Priest was to use the tool of blasphemy and then execution for religious persecution,
and not for upholding the sanctity of God's commandments.
I find it interesting that Paul admits that he went so far as to pursue Believers even outside of
the Holy Land. The thing is that before Paul became a Believer, the new movement with Jesus
as its leader was happening exclusively in the Holy Land. So if there were known Believers
elsewhere, it's because they had fled hoping to avoid arrest. These Believers all belonged to
one synagogue or another and a synagogue would have co-operated with the Jewish Temple
authorities if asked to. This is proof that even though the synagogue and the Temple were two
separate entities, and they did not share an authority structure, the ruling of the Sanhedrin was
honored by synagogues in most cases; even by synagogues in foreign nations.
We'll continue next week when Paul tells his distinguished audience about his encounter with
the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 54, Chapter 26
We'll begin at verse 9 of Acts chapter 26 today. So open your Bibles there.
At the picturesque seaside port city of Caesarea Maritima, the provincial capital for the local
region including Judea, Sha'ul is standing before Governor Festus, King Agrippa and Queen
Bernice and an assortment of other unnamed dignitaries. The purpose of this gathering is not
as Paul's judicial trial since that has already occurred; and the results of the trial were
ambiguous to say the least. In fact it is precisely the vagueness of the testimony that was given
by Paul's accusers and then Paul's rebuttal to it that has put Festus in a similar befuddled
position as it did for Festus's predecessor, Felix. Both Felix and Festus could make little sense
of the accusations against Paul, concluding that essentially none of it had anything to do with
Roman law but rather the dispute had to do with some arcane nuances of Jewish religious
laws. For reasons that aren't given, the former governor, Felix, apparently didn't want to rile
the High Priest and the Jewish leadership by the outright acquittal of Paul, so Felix's solution
was simply to do nothing and let the un-convicted Paul languish in prison until the situation
somehow worked itself out.
The new governor, Festus, was caught in a similar set of Chinese fingers as Felix; he needed
to have good relations with the Jewish leadership (since it was Felix's inability to maintain
peace and quiet in Jerusalem that got him fired from his job), yet as an able administrator and
judge Festus was not disposed to convict an obviously innocent man purely for the sake of
local politics (especially when that man was a Roman citizen). However Festus had a peculiar
problem that Felix didn't; as Paul was explaining himself to Festus he declared his rights as a
Roman citizen to appeal his case directly to the Emperor (who at this time was the notoriously
fickle Nero). Festus had little choice but to grant Paul his wish, but at the same time the
Emperor would expect to have a well articulated issue of Roman law presented to him in order
to make the judgment. In this case Festus had already determined that Paul broke no Roman
laws, and so he had no idea what he should write and send to Nero as the issues of this case
that Nero was being asked to settle. However by good fortune the Jewish King Agrippa and his
sister Bernice had arrived in Caesarea for a visit, so Festus thought that perhaps they could
better understand the accusations against Paul and help Festus formulate a proper letter of
charges to be sent along with Paul to Rome.
Let's re-read part of Acts 26 to begin.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 26:9 – end
Some Bible commentators aren't satisfied with Paul's approach in his speech because they
aren't sure that what Sha'ul is saying is logical. So for them there is doubt as to whether this
account is entirely accurate. While acknowledging their concerns, it seems to me that Paul is
evidently saying that he completely understands his adversaries' mindset as regards their
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
distrust, even hatred, of Yeshua and of the Jewish sect he spawned, The Way, because Paul
himself had once harbored these same views. When witnessing to un-Believers about the
Lord, or even when explaining to long-time Believers about why they should take the entire
Bible seriously (including the Torah) and that manmade Church doctrines need to be re-
examined and some taken with a healthy dose of salt, it is usual for me to explain that not that
long ago I was in their shoes, with the same worldview that the Christian majority holds. What
we read here in Acts 26 is Paul's way of saying that he doesn't condemn his opponents for
their current way of thinking because he understands that they are as ignorant of the truth as
he used to be. Yet at the same time Paul communicates that (excuses aside) a new age has
dawned, the Kingdom of Heaven has broken through, and it is time to set aside old prejudices
and thought patterns and be willing to accept God's sovereign will; and that begins with
accepting His Son, Yeshua, as Lord and Savior.
He goes on to say that he was not only in agreement in principle with the High Priest and the
Sanhedrin concerning Yeshua and The Way, but that he was an active part of the group who
sought to arrest and persecute Christ's followers. He confesses that he voted with the majority
to put Stephen to death for no other reason than he was a Believer. Further, on behalf of the
Sanhedrin Paul traveled from synagogue to synagogue ferreting out any possible Jesus
sympathizers and then trying to get them to blaspheme. In our previous lesson we discussed
the notion that is nearly universal among New Testament commentators that the blasphemy
that Paul had in mind was to get these Messianic Jews to renounce Yeshua. But that is illogical
because from the viewpoint that Paul held at the time, it was believing in Yeshua that was
heretical; not the act of renouncing Him. If Paul could get a Jewish Believer to renounce Christ
and return to mainstream Judaism, it was seen as a happy ending for everyone and was
certainly not blasphemy. So it is clear to me that Paul was trying to get the Believers to say
things against Jewish Law, halakhah, which would then constitute a case of blasphemy and
thus could be taken before the Sanhedrin; a charge, which proved, exacted the death penalty
from the blasphemer.
Now that Paul has established his life history including where he was born, his religious and
political affiliations, and that he was against the very sect of Judaism that he is now part of, he
explains what brought on his radical change of heart. Beginning in verse 12 he tells his story of
meeting the risen Yeshua, who speaks to Paul from Heaven, as Paul is traveling towards
Damascus, Syria to arrest some Believers who have been reported to have fled to a
synagogue there.
As all who have taught for any length of time will tell you, it is sometimes necessary to repeat
some of the more important information so that students have a better chance to digest it. So I
want to say again something that I have said to you in previous lessons: even though most
Bible commentators and Pastors will refer to Paul's meeting with Christ on the Road to
Damascus as his "conversion experience", it was anything but that. Paul did not "convert";
Paul merely learned in rather dramatic fashion that the Messiah that he (and all other Jews)
were waiting for had come, and His name was Yeshua of Nazareth. For a Jew to convert
means that he or she becomes a gentile (or in the religious sense of the New Testament, a
gentile Christian). And in fact it is clearly the aim of many Christian denominations to establish
Paul as leaving his Jewish heritage and religion behind and adopting a gentile one. This
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
doctrine of conversion is widespread in spite of Paul's claims to the contrary in the Bible
because as the early Church Father Chrysostom and others before and after him claimed, Paul
maintained his outward Jewish appearance and customs as an elaborate, but well meaning,
deception so that he might have a better chance of gaining an audience with Jews for the
purpose of telling them the Gospel.
This is the third time we've encountered the same story of Paul's experience with Yeshua
(first in chapter 9 and then again in chapter 22) so we won't go over every detail as Paul
recounts that experience for his distinguished audience. I will mention however that there are
minor differences in small details among these 3 tellings, mainly involving how the bright light
shown, who fell down and who got back up, and who saw or heard what, among those
travelling with Sha'ul. What is key is that the event actually happened, and that it was
inherently supernatural; this is the point that Paul wants to come across to the dignitaries
sitting in front of him and to all who might ever hear this story.
Since the era of the Enlightenment that began in Europe in the early 1700's A.D. the trend of
Christianity has been to search for a rational explanation for what the ancient Bible clearly
wants us to see as irrational to the human mind. And especially in the later 20th and now the
21st centuries among many Christians and Jews, an acceptable explanation of events such as
the plagues that bedeviled Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea waters, and Paul's experience on
the road to Damascus must be presented as something that can happen in the natural realm
since the supernatural is deemed but primitive and unintelligent myth. To that end I found
some words from a one-man play written by Phillip Goble, called The Rabbi from Tarsus, in
which Paul is depicted as being interviewed by his friend and sometimes travelling companion
Luke, giving him information for the gospel Luke wishes to write.
I want to quote this to you because not only is it delightful to hear but because it truly exposes
the folly of any Christian wanting to have their cake and to eat it, too, so to speak. That is, for
anyone to profess faith as a Believer in Jesus, but then to demand that when reading the Bible
we run across things that can only be described as "miracles" we cannot accept them as real
unless a basis in science can be found to explain them, is itself an irrational if not downright
silly stance. And I truly believe that anyone who takes this approach may attach a Christian
label to themselves, but it is in fact a dangerous self-deception that they think allows a person
to have one foot in the Kingdom of Heaven and the other comfortably in the world. Listen to
this because I chuckled over it long after I first read it, and yet it is profound enough that it
added one more solid brick to my personal foundation of faith. Perhaps it will to yours as well.
This is Paul speaking to Luke about his experience on the road to Damascus: "Now let me
pause to clear up one thing, Luke....for the benefit of the scoffers you MUST refute. What
exactly made me switch....NOT religions but vocations, from that of a persecutor to that
of an advocate and an apostle? What was the problem, Doctor? Are the scoffers right?
Was it really just a case of sunstroke? Nervous collapse? Hallucination? Guilt
catharsis? 'What is truth for you, Paul, is not truth for me', they say. 'There are natural
explanations for everything'."
"Yes, yes, Doctor, here is the natural explanation. One day, on the road to Damascus,
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
while I tried to enforce the Law of Moses, piously serving my God with all my heart,
I...the arrestor....was arrested by a naïve superstition. Quite naturally, a meteor just
happened to blaze across the sky. At the very same time, it just happened to thunder, so
that the other rabbis quite naturally did see and hear something. At the very same
time...clumsy me....I just happened to fall off my horse. And at the very same time, I just
happened to hallucinate with a nightmare vision, complete with face, fire and voice, that
just happened to be my ENEMY, who just happened to want me to go to work for HIM!!
And this (work was to be) among people who just happened to be my enemies, the
Gentiles. And at the very same time I just happened to have tissues form over both my
eyes with a purely accidental case of coincidental cataracts."
"Yes, Doctor, there are natural explanations for everything, if one has enough bad blind
faith to go his own way. Many like Nero are lords of their own lives who want to go their
own way, even if it may lead to *. But, Luke, I had to trust God, and like any other
disciple take a step of faith into the mikveh waters and then into the Damascus
synagogue."
Back in Acts 26; Paul continues in his story of his experience with Christ with the words of
verse 14 when he says that the voice from Heaven not only identified himself as Yeshua, but
also spoke to Paul in Hebrew! I find it most fortunate that Luke would include this seemingly
minor bit of information, because Yeshua could have spoken to Paul in his native Greek
tongue, or even in Aramaic in which Paul was conversant. But since Luke says that Messiah
spoke to Paul in Hebrew, would he have said: "Hey Paul, it's me Jesus?" Or would he have
said "Hey Sha'ul it's me Yeshua?" I say that tongue in cheek because whether you realize it
or not, the names Paul and Jesus are strictly English-language words (a language that didn't
come about until 13 centuries after the New Testament was created). So for those who still
have trouble with using the Hebrew names of Jewish Bible characters, and especially for Our
Savior, please note that Christ clearly would have spoken of himself as Yeshua and called
Paul Sha'ul since Luke specifically says that the conversation between Paul and Christ was in
Hebrew.
Then in verse 18, in a sentence that was sure to raise the eyebrows of his aristocratic
audience, Paul says that Yeshua was sending him to open peoples' eyes in order that they
might turn from darkness to light. And that the people he was being sent to were both Jews
and Gentiles. And that those people, Jews and Gentiles, who put their trust in the very same
person who had interrupted Paul's journey of persecution would receive forgiveness of sins
and become a member in the community of those whom God set apart for holiness. So now
Paul has crossed a line; it is one thing to more or less instruct Agrippa and Bernice who,
because of their Jewishness, understood that Paul was speaking as a Rabbi from a Jewish
cultural and religious standpoint. But when Paul said that this trust in Yeshua was also
necessary for Gentiles to have their sins forgiven, this was a direct assault on Festus and his
gods.
But understanding that essentially Agrippa was in attendance because of his Jewishness, Paul
addresses him by name and says that he did not disobey this vision from Heaven. So he went
on to Damascus, then back to Jerusalem, and then journeyed throughout the province of
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
Judea proclaiming the Good News about forgiveness of sins wherever he went. But even more
that people's lives need to reflect that they had turned from their sins and repented.
Repentance is always presented, Old and New Testaments, as the prerequisite to forgiveness
of sins whether that sin was atoned for by the blood of animals on the Temple Altar, or by faith
in the blood that Yeshua spilled at Calvary. Let me repeat that: the writers of the Holy
Scriptures know nothing of a kind of forgiveness that occurs without first sincerely repenting
and turning. I think this is perhaps the single reality that worries me the most for all who
profess Christ. I worry that the weak doctrines taught today (and for a long time, really)
incorrectly tell seekers of God that one can achieve forgiveness of sins by merely professing
Christ, and maybe by attending Church or synagogue from time to time, but they can also go
right on living as before with only lip service paid to actual repentance.
Confessing that one has sinned or is sinning or is contemplating committing a sin, is not
repentance (although confession is a good and needed first step). Notice how John the Baptist
preached one thing only, and baptized for one thing only: repentance. The Baptist did NOT
baptize for forgiveness of sins; but only for repentance to PREPARE for forgiveness of sins.
This naturally followed the Law of Moses in its principles. Before presenting one's sacrifice of
atonement at the Temple Altar, FIRST that person had to have repented and gained a contrite
heart. If they didn't, their sacrifice had no effect. It is the same for Believers today. Too often I
meet people who truly believe that praying the sinner's prayer is the beginning and end of their
obligation to God. How they live their lives, what they fill their minds with, and their personal
behavior aren't seen as a reflection of their faith (or perhaps lack thereof), but rather as
entirely separate issues.
James (actually Jacob), Yeshua's brother and the supreme leader of The Way until his murder
by the High Priest in 62 A.D., had strong words for those in his time who thought faith and
behavior were not connected. And these strong words are there as a warning for us as well.
James 1:22-25 CJB
22 Don't deceive yourselves by only hearing what the Word says, but do it!
23 For whoever hears the Word but doesn't do what it says is like someone who looks at
his face in a mirror, 24 who looks at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he
looks like.
25 But if a person looks closely into the perfect Torah, which gives freedom, and
continues, becoming not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work it requires, then he
will be blessed in what he does.
And lest anyone think that Paul has a different viewpoint on this subject, listen to this:
Ephesians 2:8-10 CJB
8 For you have been delivered by grace through trusting, and even this is not your
accomplishment but God's gift.
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
9 You were not delivered by your own actions; therefore no one should boast.
10 For we are of God's making, created in union with the Messiah Yeshua for a life of
good actions already prepared by God for us to do.
It has always been a struggle in the Christian faith to balance trusting (faith) with works. And it
seems that we always get either too faith-heavy (meaning we see works as perhaps counter-
productive or as even offensive to our faith) or too works-heavy (meaning that we focus so
much on good works that we either get very proud or we lose sight of our first love, Yeshua).
So while Paul is always consistent in insisting that salvation is an act of grace that is not
achieved by our good works, at the same time he counters that if we have truly received the
divine grace brought about by our trust in Yeshua, then it ought to manifest itself as good fruit
in our lives. If the good fruit (synonymous with good works) is not there, this can be an
indication of a serious problem. And this is because we weren't given salvation simply for its
own sake; but rather salvation is the necessary spiritual condition to ready us for doing the
"good actions already prepared by God for us to do".
Finally in verse 20, Paul states the reasons as he sees it for his being harassed and arrested:
1) he took this message of Good News to Gentiles, and 2) he went to Jewish synagogues and
proclaimed the same. So the issue is that the Jewish religious leadership were livid that Paul
took a message of salvation (that they didn't believe in), which was manifest in Yeshua of
Nazareth (who they also didn't believe in), to gentiles who they saw as occupiers. Once again:
we find that the issue is actually political and cultural, not religious. I also want to alert you to
something we discussed last week: it is that in verse 21 where the CJB says "It was because
of those things that Jews seized me.....", almost all English translation will say that it was "the
Jews" (adding the article "the" before the word Jews). The article is simply not there in the
Greek. And by adding "the" to make it "the Jews seized me" it becomes an indictment of
Jews in general. By leaving out the article "the" (as in the oldest Greek documents we have),
then it means that only certain Jews seized Paul. These seemingly minor nuances (or perhaps
better, discrepancies) that appear all throughout most standard English Bible translations are
additive in their effect. Suddenly instead of Paul or Yeshua being accused or persecuted by a
certain group of Jews, we find the entire Jewish race being implicated, which was never the
intent of the Scripture passage.
Paul says he has been able to withstand the plots and attacks against him because he had
God's help. So in the conclusion of his speech he says that he has said nothing except what
the prophets and Moses said would happen. In other words, he is claiming that he has not
created some new doctrine nor has he said anything against normative Judaism. So is he
talking about Jewish Law, here? No. Just as we discussed in earlier lessons about how to
know when Paul uses the term "law" whether he means Jewish Law (Halakhah) or the Law of
Moses (the Torah ), here we see that when he says "the prophets and Moses" it is exactly
synonymous with the term "the prophets and the Law". Saying someone follows Moses is just
shorthand for saying they follow the Law of Moses. So by using the terms Moses and Prophets
together, we can know for certain that Paul is speaking of Holy Scripture and not traditions and
customs. Sha'ul is saying that he is being persecuted for simply believing and quoting the
Holy Scriptures. And we find that Paul said nothing about Yeshua that Yeshua didn't also say
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
about Himself. In the Gospel of Luke we find this:
Luke 24:25-27 CJB
25 He said to them, "Foolish people! So unwilling to put your trust in everything the
prophets spoke!
26 Didn't the Messiah have to die like this before entering his glory?"
27 Then, starting with Moshe and all the prophets, he explained to them the things that
can be found throughout the Tanakh concerning himself.
Paul also says that the Scriptures explain that Messiah would die, and rise from the dead, and
would proclaim light to Jews and gentiles. This first of all put him at odds with the High Priest
and the Sadducees because they didn't believe in resurrection even though the Scriptures
clearly speak of it. But that doesn't matter; in most of Judaism and Christianity traditions and
customs often trump the Bible. If the religious leadership in Paul's day actually believed God's
Word, they would see that Paul exactly fit the profile of the prophesied servant of Isaiah 49
who would announce light to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul is being persecuted for doing the
very thing God says must happen.
Isaiah 49:5-6 CJB
5 So now ADONAI says- he formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Ya'akov
back to him, to have Isra'el gathered to him, so that I will be honored in the sight of
ADONAI, my God having become my strength-
6 he has said, "It is not enough that you are merely my servant to raise up the tribes of
Ya'akov and restore the offspring of Isra'el. I will also make you a light to the nations, so
my salvation can spread to the ends of the earth."
So here the venerated Isaiah says that the day will come when light will come to the nations
(gentiles). What does that mean, to be a "light" to the nations? The word for light in Isaiah is
the same as we find it early in Genesis regarding creation: owr. Owr is better translated as
enlightenment than light. Owr is a spiritual term that speaks of God's enlightenment; it speaks
of good and of truth. It does not mean light that comes from light emitting objects such as the
sun or from stars or from a light bulb. So clearly the meaning here in Isaiah is that God's
enlightenment, God's truth, will be taken by this honored servant to the gentiles. Paul is doing
exactly that.
But now in verse 24 Festus simply loses it; he can't fathom what Paul has been saying
(interestingly Paul wasn't even addressing Festus). To Festus (a man who doesn't know God)
the divine truth that Paul has been speaking sounds like foolish nonsense; the ramblings of a
madman. Of course! One must be "of God" to understand the things of God. Festus was
anything but.
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
1Corinthians 2:14 CJB 14 Now the natural man does not receive the things from the
Spirit of God- to him they are nonsense! Moreover, he is unable to grasp them, because
they are evaluated through the Spirit.
Many years ago my wife and I were visiting her elderly father. A college educated man who
was a retired school teacher, he found the Bible impossible to comprehend. One day we were
sitting together in his living room talking about something in the Bible when he just burst out in
frustration that he has tried and tried to read the Bible but it was just words that formed no
meaning for him. He said he saw that there were sentences and paragraphs and that the
words were actual words; but they made no sense to his mind. He was not a Believer.
A few years later, and only months before he passed away, he made his peace with God. He
entered a local church that had been very kind to him, walked forward and went to his knees
and sincerely prayed for forgiveness. He received Christ. We saw him a few weeks later
reading his Bible and he said all of a sudden the words have meaning and bring him great
comfort; and he couldn't understand why until then those Bible passages were just a jumble of
nouns, adjectives and verbs.
Festus was an educated and intelligent man who worshipped the pagan Roman gods. He had
no relationship with the true God and (he admittedly) knew little about Jews or the Jewish
religion. So Paul's words were just so much noise and clatter to him. Essentially, Paul's
speech and the beautiful life-giving truths that were embedded within it were far beyond
Festus's spiritual capacity to grasp. And this is something we must understand when we
speak to non-Believers about the Lord. Unless the Lord has already done a work in them,
everything we might say seems like foolishness because non-Believers have no spiritual
capacity to understand them.
Paul responds with great courage to Festus that what he is saying is not crazy-talk, but rather
is truth and sanity. And that King Agrippa surely understands these matters (being Jewish), so
that's why Paul was addressing himself to Agrippa and not to Festus. So then Paul confronts
Agrippa and asks him the $64,000 question: "So king, do you believe the prophets?" Agrippa
is incredulous! He's also no doubt somewhat embarrassed so he fires back that he now
realizes that all along Paul has been trying to persuade him to become a Believer! Paul minces
no words and acknowledges that indeed he'd like for Agrippa to become a Believer and in fact
he wants everyone to become a Believer.
That last thought was a real conversation stopper. Agrippa and Bernice had heard enough and
quickly made their exit. But even though in Festus's opinion Paul was perhaps not in his right
mind, and despite Paul's aggressive evangelism, he had certainly not done anything that
deserved death or prison. So essentially Agrippa and Bernice proved to be of no help to poor
Festus; he still had no idea what to tell Nero about Paul's case.
The chapter closes with Agrippa dumbfounded that Paul had appealed to the Emperor
because since he has essentially been found not guilty he could have walked away a free man
right then. But because Paul appealed he would have to remain in custody many more months,
maybe even a year or more, until he could be transported to Rome and until Nero could hear
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 54 - Chapter 26
his case. What Agrippa doesn't know is that God had planned it this way, and Paul was aware
of it and happy as could be that he was about to get a free ticket to Rome so that he could
share the Good News with the Romans and hopefully even with Nero himself (all as God told
him would happen, several years earlier).
What to the average person might seem like a terrible outcome for Paul (STILL remaining
incarcerated for now well over 2 years), was for Paul a victory. What a lesson for us; even the
unpleasant things that happen in life that seem to be anywhere from inconvenient to painful or
even catastrophic as perceived by our fleshly eyes may well be God's plan and purpose for us
if we're willing to take it up. Paul wasn't being punished or ignored by God; he was being
used in one of the mightiest ways we'll find in all of Holy Scripture. But it wasn't glamorous,
comfortable or convenient.
Luke 9:23 CJB 23 Then to everyone he (Christ) said, "If anyone wants to come after me,
let him say 'No' to himself, take up his execution-stake daily and keep following me.
Paul exemplified Yeshua's statement. So the question we each face (if we have the courage
to be honest with ourselves) is how far away from our comfort zones are we willing to go
should the Lord call us? What is the limit to our self-sacrifice and personal discomfort that we
are willing to experience to do the Lord's will? Paul had no limit.
Next time we'll take up Paul's perilous voyage to Rome, and hear one of the most amazing
and dramatic sea stories ever recorded in ancient history.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 55, Chapter 27
There's something about a sea story that has captivated listeners and readers since there
were ships to challenge the awesome power and mystery of the great deep, and survivors to
tell their harrowing tales. People who have never been on a boat nor even seen the ocean are
riveted and enthralled when hearing of gigantic waves and gale force winds determined to
reduce the wooden planks and beams of even the mightiest sailing vessels of ancient times to
kindling. Some of our greatest fictional and real heroes are intrepid sailors and fearless ship's
captains who have faced nature's fury with steely nerves and seamanship skills learned from
harsh experience and instincts. I think that is why so many Bible readers are intrigued by the
Acts 27 story of Paul's struggle and near tragedy at sea on his way to face the Emperor in
Rome.
Great writers have often compared human life to a journey across stormy seas, and some of
our greatest Christian hymns use that theme. That is probably why many Bible expositors, and
why the sermons of countless Pastors, find an allegory of the experience of the human soul to
be at the heart of the meaning of Acts 27. Truth be known, however, too often this sort of
approach to Luke's record of the treacherous journey from Caesarea to Rome winds up doing
little more than finding some cleaver ways to inject the speakers' personal theological biases
and I think this draws attention away from what is being communicated to us.
What we have here is a true story, verifiable in its authenticity. A story which all too many
sailors of the Mediterranean used to face during the thousands of years when wind power was
the primary means of propulsion across its vast and often dangerous expanse. So I don't want
to diminish from both the actual historical event that this is, nor to take away from the Lord's
stated goal that Paul would go to Rome and speak God's truth to the Emperor, by allegorizing.
What we are meant to learn is that not even the seeming limitless and untamable power of the
oceans and our atmosphere could defeat God's will in this regard. This ought to give us great
comfort; for I know that my time to depart this world and go to my heavenly home will happen
only when the Lord determines it. No danger and no force... manmade, spiritual or in
nature....can derail the Lord's plan for my life or for the lives of any and all who trust in Him. I
suspect that what we'll read in Acts 27 had much to do with the inspiring thoughts that we read
from Paul in the Book of Romans after he has successfully made it to Rome despite all the
danger and tribulation he faced along the way:
Romans 8:38-39 CJB
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly
rulers, neither what exists nor what is coming,
39 neither powers above nor powers below, nor any other created thing will be able to
separate us from the love of God which comes to us through the Messiah Yeshua, our
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
Lord.
Outside of Luke's goal to accurately portray Paul's narrow escape from death on his voyage
to Rome, this passage from the Book of Romans is the message we need to take away from
Acts chapter 27. Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 27.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 27 all
Perhaps the key word of verse 1 is "we". "We" tells us that Luke was on board this ship and
so he shared this experience with Paul. It explains the wonderful level of detail that we receive.
But it also tells us something interesting about how prisoners were transported to their
destinations; in this case Rome, Italy. It seems that it was not unusual to have friends and
family accompany them.
We learn that Paul along with some other prisoners (who must have been Roman citizens
because since they were all on their way to Rome it must have been that they had appealed to
the Emperor) were given over to the custody of a fellow named Julius. Julius was a Centurion
and part of the Augustus regiment. There was nothing particularly special about Julius (so far
as we know), except that he along with some troops under his command happened to be on
his way to Rome so Festus had him escort Paul there.
The ship that Julius was on was a cargo carrier; all ships were for cargo, not passengers. It
was the norm especially for grain carriers to have a Roman officer on board as it was
considered an issue of utmost national security for Rome to always have a reliable supply of
grain so that the people were kept fed. The system for carrying vast amounts of grain from the
outlying areas of the Empire to Rome for distribution involved hiring private ships; in general
Rome's navy was designed for war, not cargo transport. However the Roman government had
well-defined standards for the size, construction, and operation of these private cargo ships,
and especially for the grain carriers, so critical were they to Rome's national interests.
We're not told exactly where Paul and his fellow prisoners embarked from; only that the ship
they boarded was an Adramyttian ship whose destination was the coast of Asia. Adramyttian is
not a type of a ship, but rather it designates the port from which the vessel was flagged. It is
modern day Karatash that is on the western coast of Mysia near the Greek island of Lesbos. It
wouldn't have been a large ship, but rather it was designed to sail along the coast. The goal
would have been to take this ship to a port where a larger ship, a grain carrier suitable for the
open waters of the Mediterranean, could be hired to complete the journey to Rome.
Along with Luke a fellow named Aristarchus accompanied Paul. We're told that he was from
Thessalonica, where Paul had visited and created a group of Believers. While we hear of him
on this part of the voyage, we don't hear anymore of him after they transfer to a larger ship
and head to Italy (but that doesn't mean he didn't remain on the ship). Very probably he was
the same Aristarchus that we read about in Colossians 4 and Philemon 1 who is described as
a "fellow prisoner" with Paul.
Verse 3 explains that after departing from the Holy Land the first port of call was Sidon. If they
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
had departed from the port of Caesarea Maritima (and it would seem likely) then it was only
about 70 miles up the coast to Sidon; this fits with the story as it was no more than 1 day's
sailing to get to Sidon. We shouldn't read too much into the route taken; the ships were
commercial vessels delivering goods, and picking up other goods along the way, and so that
would dictate where and when they stopped and for how long. But the other factor was
weather; there was a sailing season, and there was a season that ships virtually quit sailing
because of the dangerous conditions and because the winds changed direction and made
sailing nearly impossible. Our story takes place at a time when the sailing season was right at
its end.
We're told that the Roman centurion treated Paul with consideration; why he had such a
positive attitude towards Paul, or if it was not only towards Paul but also with the other
prisoners, we're not told. The entire Roman world was a status-conscious world. If you were
well heeled and had means, prisoner or not, this made you more important and you were
shown deference. Those voluntarily traveling with Paul would have done so at their own
expense, so perhaps this small entourage influenced Julius's thinking about Paul. But the
entire story paints Julius as a decent man who cared about the lives of others. In addition to
allowing traveling companions with Paul, Julius allowed Paul to visit friends at the ports of call
and let them take care of his needs. Once again we should not assume that this was an
exception to the rule, but more likely it was typical. Probably Paul was one of the fortunate few
prisoners who might have had friends at the various ports. There indeed was a Believing
community in Sidon at this time, so no doubt that is who received Paul upon his arrival there.
The harsh reality is that aboard a ship paying passengers were required to bring their own
food; this applied to prisoners as well so the transport experience could be very different
depending upon your level of wealth and whether you had people to care for your needs or
not.
From Sidon the ship continues on east and north of Cyprus, which would have been the
leeward side of the island nation. This route was followed due to the westerly winds that blew
throughout the summer months, but changed direction come fall. I want to pause here to
mention that an experienced sailor and able scholar named James Smith undertook this same
voyage to test the voracity of Luke's reporting in Acts. James Smith published his findings in a
book called The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. The bottom line is that Luke's report
accurately portrays what the route, weather, wind direction, currents, etc. that we find in Acts
27 would have been like at this time of year.
But now the ship had to cross a significant area of open ocean between Cyprus and the south
coast of Asia Minor. First they sailed along the coast of Cyprus because the winds further out
to sea would have slowed their progress. But these same winds and currents naturally aided a
ship as it crossed the larger expanse to reach Lycia. It was there in Lycia that Julius found a
larger ship more suitable for continuing on to Rome. This ship is called an Alexandrian ship.
Once again, the reason for its designation is that it was flagged in the port of Alexandria,
Egypt. What was a ship all the way from Egypt doing in Lycia? At this time in history Egypt was
the bread basket for Rome providing a major portion of its vast grain needs. This would have
been a much larger ship than Paul had just got off of; a sort of super tanker of grain carriers. It
is believed that Rome needed 400,000 tons of grain per year to feed its people and Josephus
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
claims that Egypt supplied fully one-third of that need.
I mentioned earlier that the Roman government introduced standards for the ships they hired
to bring grain to Rome. One of the standards was that the minimum a ship could haul was 68
tons. In the time of Claudius (a few years before our story) that standard was upped to 340
tons. Roman records indicate that cargo ships varied in size from 50 to 100 feet in length.
There were also some larger vessels that were 130 feet long. One vessel was reported to have
been 180 feet long, with a crew, guards, and passengers totaling 600. Luke says that the ship
that they had just transferred to had 276 people aboard; so it was a medium sized ship. To
give you something to compare it with, the Mayflower that brought the Pilgrims to America's
shore was no more than 100 feet long, and the passengers and crew amounted to about 135
souls. And this was a ship that had some limited accommodations for passengers and of
course was a more advanced sailing vessel than in Paul's day. Our ship in Acts had no
passenger accommodations, was probably slightly smaller, and yet it carried twice as many
people. To say it was crowded and uncomfortable would be an understatement. On the other
hand the expected voyage time was perhaps 2 weeks; the Mayflower took over 2 months to
cross the Atlantic. That said, bad weather and other conditions were known to have made a
voyage across the Mediterranean to Rome to take over 6 weeks. So under the best of
circumstances this voyage was not going to be pleasant.
The journey continues on from Lycia but the winds were not co-operating so they made little
headway. After several days at sea they finally reached Cnidus and here they faced two
alternatives: they could wait for a change to more favorable wind conditions or they could
continue immediately along the eastern side of Crete. They took the second choice, no doubt a
decision made by the ship's owner for commerce reasons. But they still experienced very
rough seas and slow progress and so they put in at a place called Pleasant Harbor, or more
accurately, Fair Haven. Not too far from Fair Haven was the city of Lasea, where they could
have stayed for the winter if they decided to go no further.
Verse 9 tells us that they were at the season when the shipping lanes were closing. It says
they were past the Fast. The Fast was a common expression among Jews that meant Yom
Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when every Jew fasted. If this was the year 59 A.D., which
many scholars think it was, then Yom Kippur was at the end of the first week of October.
Smaller vessels generally ended their sailing season by mid-September and larger vessels by
the first part of November. Sailing usually didn't start up again until mid-March. So the reports
of winds that weren't favorable and of building seas are to be expected for the time of year of
our story. More life and death decisions now had to be made. And Paul, Choleric personality
that he is, of course puts forth his opinion on what ought to be done.
Paul was no stranger to the perils of traveling by ship. In 2Corinthians 11 he says that he was
shipwrecked 3 times! So his stance on the matter (to pause the voyage and winter in Fair
Haven) is understandable. Paul had no official position or authority to affect any kind of
outcome; he was a prisoner on his way to a hearing before Nero. However it is known that in
such matters the ship's crew, ship's owner and passengers would have a council to at least
discuss the options and the consequences of each choice thoroughly. Paul warns that he is
certain that catastrophe lies ahead with losses to the cargo and to lives if they continue in this
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
inclement weather. He is not speaking prophetically; rather he is offering advice based on
personal experience and common sense. But, his advice was rejected. The ship's owner and
the helmsman thought that there was a good chance that they could continue to a better port
since they didn't think that Fair Havens was the optimal choice for spending the next 4 or 5
months! So they departed hoping to make the port of Phoenix, another harbor on the Island of
Crete. Interestingly the final decision was left up to the Centurion Julius and he opted to sail on
to Phoenix, probably because he had several prisoners that he was responsible for. But, there
would have to be a change in the winds for this plan to work, so they had to wait to see what
happened.
Sure enough, the winds changed making sailing to Phoenix possible. So they set out and
followed the coast of Crete going west. If everything went well it would take only hours to get to
Phoenix, less than 50 miles away, and there they would wait out the winter. But suddenly,
without warning, a violent gale blew up and the wind direction changed from a gentle southerly
to a fierce north wind. This means that the ship would be driven towards the south, away from
the shelter of the island. Such winds come off of Crete's Mt. Ida, an 8,000 foot high peak.
Because of the geography of the island, winds are funneled together around the mountain to
create a cyclonic effect and it makes sailing impossible. For one thing, the bow of the boat
cannot be directed into the swirling wind. The ship is now at the sea's mercy and drifting with
no means to control it. Phoenix was out of the question; survival anywhere it could be obtained
was now the mode.
By good fortune the ship was pushed into the leeward side of an Island called Cauda, which
sheltered it for a short time while the crew (with great difficulty) hoisted the lifeboat onto the
ship's deck in order for it not to be smashed to pieces. Lifeboats were dragged along behind
the ship and then brought forward if needed. Next in a desperate measure to keep the ship
from coming apart at the seams and sinking, they wrapped ropes around the hull, under the
ship and back up the other side, like belts. But their biggest fear was getting pushed 400 miles
southwest and onto the Syrtis. This was essentially a huge field of underwater quicksands off
the coast of present day Libya. They next took the measure of dropping something into the
water to slow their drift; I think it must have been something like a sea anchor that creates
resistance to the direction of the movement of the vessel and uses the current to steer it to
some degree. It is not intended to stop the drift or even change its direction very much; the
hope is mostly that it will buy more time for the storm to abate before they hit the dreaded
Syrtis.
Verse 18 says that the heavy weather continued and they had to begin jettisoning the cargo.
The reason for throwing cargo overboard is to lighten the ship because it is taking on water. At
this point the ship's owner has changed tactics from trying to maximize his cargo investment
to trying to save his valuable ship. Three days later the storm is still raging; the ship has taken
on even more water as the seams of the hull begin to separate, the wave action throws tons of
water across the deck, and the hold begins to fill with seawater. The grain down below is
absorbing the water and beginning to swell, not only adding tons more of weight but its
expansion is trying to push the boat apart from the inside out. The spare tackle and rigging is
the next thing to go. Luke continues to speak of "we" because for some time now since the
storm erupted it's been all hands on deck as passengers and crew work together to try to save
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
their own lives.
There were no compasses in those days; all navigating was done by the stars, sun, and by
sightings of land. But the storm had gone on for so long that there were no stars, or even sun,
to see and gauge where they had been pushed to. They could only guess. Such a thing is
disheartening to the best sailors; no doubt terrifying to passengers and soldiers who were not
seafarers. This was one of the worst storms in anyone's memory and many on board felt all
was lost. Nearly two weeks had passed with the ship constantly rolling and being tossed about.
No doubt motion sickness was taking a toll. But also the appetite suppressing emotion of
depression was having its effects; strength (emotional and physical) and the will to survive
were draining away with it. There was little interest in eating. I'm not even sure how they might
have prepared food in those conditions (after all, food didn't come in prepared packets as it
does today). It was usual to bring some small livestock along that could be slaughtered and
butchered on board.
John Newton, a noted clergyman and hymn writer, records this about one of his many sea
adventures:
"We found that the water having floated all our movables in the hold, all the casks of
provisions had been beaten to pieces by the violent motion of the ship. On the other
hand, our live stock, such as pigs, sheep and poultry, had been washed overboard in
the storm. In effect, all the provisions we saved would have subsisted us but a week, at
a scanty allowance".
Everything on board was wet and ruined. But Paul, still managing to keep his head about him,
told everyone that they were all suffering from a lack of food. I suspect he noticed that an air of
hopelessness hung over the crew and passengers; such a thing causes people to want to give
up and passively accept their fate. I guess I can't blame Paul for saying "I told you so!" in
verse 21. He reminds them that he was overruled in his estimation that the best course of
action was to stay right where they were in Fair Haven for the winter. I have read more than a
few commentaries that attempt to excuse Paul for this remark, and even try to find some sort of
pious reason for his words, but I find it unconvincing. I'm not criticizing Paul; who wouldn't
have this attitude after what they had all needlessly gone through because of poor judgment
(and it wasn't nearly over, yet!). I guess I'm OK with it because I would have done the same
thing and it's comforting to know that Paul is as human as I.
Paul then says something astounding. He says to cheer up! No one is going to die, even
though the ship will be lost. Was he delusional? A message of encouragement and hope when
it is clear that all everyone is waiting for is the moment of their death? Had not only days earlier
Paul warned them to stay in Fair Haven otherwise people were certain to die? So now he says
the opposite (that no one is going to die) and he's supposed to be taken seriously? Paul
knows that this is what they are thinking and so explains why his change of view when logically
there is no reason to believe they'll survive. It is because he has had a divine visitation that
told him all would OK, while a few days earlier he was speaking from his natural human self
and his own considerable experience. Verse 23 explains that a messenger of God (an angel)
had appeared to him....literally it stood beside him....and told him not to be afraid. Why not?
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
Because God had promised Paul that he should appear before Caesar and so that is what is
going to happen. God created storms and the seas, and His will can't be defeated by that
which He created. God's purpose, stated several times, has been that Paul should take the
Gospel to Rome.
Paul uses language that needs to be used among gentiles to describe the messenger; he
speaks about the God that he worships. This has to be spoken in this way because the
majority of those onboard worship the Roman and Greek gods. But even they knew that the
Jews worshipped a different god than they do and Paul wanted to be clear that the storm god,
and the god of the sea, and the god of the wind and any other god they worshipped could not
overcome the will of the God of Israel. And the God of Israel has determined that all 276 souls
should survive. The Lord has granted to Paul the lives of everyone onboard the ship, even the
majority who do not worship Him. The suggestion here implies that Paul had been praying for
his shipmates. So Paul is not merely trying to sound brave in the face of inevitable death; he
has received absolute assurance that all will be well even though the trial is far from over; their
ship is going to wreck on land and be lost. I'm not sure there is a better example of what it
means for God to lead us THROUGH a fiery trial as opposed to bringing us OUT of it. The
trauma was going to continue (for several more days actually). The discomforts would be
intense. But God says: trust Me, and in the end it'll be OK.
This also brings up an important point that we must not lose. It is that God is saving Paul and
all the people on board NOT just because they of course want to be saved, or deserve to be
saved, but because God has a larger purpose in mind: Paul getting to Rome to speak the
Good News. The same can work in not such a good outcome. God's purpose may involve us,
and others, not being saved from catastrophe because that too could be part of God's will to
achieve a certain goal. I don't mean to be harsh, but our personal benefit and welfare aren't
necessarily behind all of God's decisions. So we shouldn't be surprised or disappointed in
God when things don't go our way, just because we're Believers or even among His most
devoted worshippers.
Verse 27 begins "It was the 14th night". My goodness! They have been suffering this storm and
all of its horrors now for 2 full weeks! Not knowing if they would live or die for most of that time;
unable to eat; unable to get dry. They were in a part of the Mediterranean called the Sea of
Adria. Despite some commentators claiming that the modern name is the Adriatic Sea that is
not the case; that is not where they were.
The sailors begin to sense that they are nearing land....somewhere. Perhaps they hear the faint
sound of breakers. The first thing to do was to check the water depth; the shallower the water
the closer to land they were likely to be. The first check put the depth at 120 feet. A short time
later they dropped a depth line again: 90 feet. This was a good news/bad news deal. Yes, they
were nearing land. But land was often surrounded by huge rocks that could dash the ship to
pieces in minutes. Since they were still drifting with no control over their direction, yet knowing
they were near land, they dropped 4 anchors from the stern (the back) of the ship and then
waited for daylight to survey the situation. The anchors served as a brake. Dropping anchors
from the rear of the boat was not the usual procedure, but in this case it served a useful
purpose. This kept the bow of the ship (the front) pointing towards land. Had they anchored
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 55 - Chapter 27
from the bow, the ship would have swung around from the wind and they would have been
pointing towards the sea.
A combination of hope and panic now set in. Some of the hired sailors decided to put the
lifeboat that was on the deck into the water and row to the shore, hopefully navigating through
the rocks they feared were there; saving themselves first. It was dark and still stormy, so
hoping they wouldn't be discovered they pretended that they were going forward to drop
additional anchors, this time off the bow. The ever vigilant Paul noticed them immediately,
understood what they were doing and went to Julius and told him that unless these men
remained on board he (Julius) wouldn't survive. Exactly why the sailors needed to remain on
board or it would cause the loss of life to the Centurion (and presumably to others) is not
stated. Perhaps it was because skilled sailors would be needed in the coming hours to help
beach the ship. By this time Julius had learned that it was best to heed Paul and so he ordered
some of his soldiers to cut the ropes that the sailors were using to lower the lifeboat, defeating
their plan. The lifeboat, however, was lost. All 276 were now trapped on the battered ship. To
their thinking all would drown together or survive together in the next few hours. The storm
raged on and no one knew where they were or what morning would bring. I suspect a lot of
prayers went up that night.
We'll learn of the miraculous outcome the next time we meet.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 56, Chapters 27 and 28
Today we will arrive at the final chapter of the Book of Acts. Although it seems like the entire
book has been mostly about Paul, the first half of Acts actually focused mostly on Peter and
the Yeshua movement in the Holy Land. When the focus finally does shift to Paul, the location
also shifts to the foreign lands of the Roman Empire where well more than 90% of Jews lived
in New Testament times.
Before we finish up chapter 27 and then read chapter 28 I want to point out something that
probably has become clear to you; it is that while Paul is usually called the Apostle to the
Gentiles, that is only so in the broadest sense because from beginning to end of Acts, and in
all of Paul's Epistles, he is also ministering to Jews. In fact, whenever he wanders into a new
town or city his first stop is at a Jewish synagogue. I think a better and more properly
descriptive title for Paul would be the Apostle to the Diaspora as his main dealings were with
Jews. And let us always remember that when Paul did go to the Gentiles it was not with the
idea of starting a separate religion for the Gentiles (that early on took on the name
Christianity), but rather it was an offer for the Gentiles to join with Jews in their covenants with
God. Further, when we see Paul take the message to Gentiles we must understand that even
though in some ways it is a new work of the Lord, on the other hand it's not as though this sort
of thing hadn't been already happening. Jews had been proselytizing Gentiles for centuries,
and with some success (we often read about the many God-fearers in the Book of Acts and
also hear about some of their personal stories.....god-fearing gentiles such as the Eunuch from
Ethiopia and Cornelius the Roman Centurion).
Sadly the message from Acts was distorted by most of the early Church Fathers who were anti-
Semitic to one degree or another and so the message was twisted to be one of "the Jews"
rejecting Yeshua while the "Gentiles" accepted Him. This is scripturally and historically
incorrect. We read of tens of thousands of Jews accepting Yeshua in Jerusalem alone; in fact
all of the early "Church" were Jews. Only later do we find Gentiles joining in. And if the
standard for claiming that the Jews as a people rejected their Messiah is that not 100% off all
Jews accepted Him, then so have the Gentiles rejected Christ because certainly not 100% of
gentiles have accepted Him, then or now.
The latest studies of the breakdown of adherents to the various major religions of the world
conducted by the Pew Report occurred in 2010. They say that 33% of the world's population is
Christians, and that it represents the largest single religion in the 21st century. That's
wonderful. But that also means that more than double that number (67%) has not accepted
Christ. Since of the 7 billion people on this planet only about 15 million are Jews, then 99.9% of
all living people today are Gentiles. And since 7 out of every 10 people alive today reject Christ
how can we look in the mirror and say to ourselves, "The Jews reject Christ but the Gentiles
accept Him"? And the numbers of those Gentiles who accepted Christ as opposed to those
who rejected Him were vastly smaller in the early centuries A.D. So when read honestly and
1 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
thoroughly, the Book of Acts refutes some commonly held Christian doctrines that elevate
Gentiles and denigrate Jews in God's eyes.
As we pick up our story of the shipwreck, Paul and all the 276 passengers are trapped on
board the ship, which is anchored by the stern so that the bow points towards the shore. The
storm is still raging and the lifeboat was intentionally scuttled to keep the ship's crew from
abandoning ship and leaving the passengers to fend for themselves. So the only way anyone
is going to survive is that they will either swim to shore or use some of the debris as life
preservers. But any attempt to leave the ship will have to wait until morning, when they can see
exactly where they have anchored and how far from land they might be.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 27:31 – end
In verse 33, just before the sun was coming up, Sha'ul urged everyone to eat. Clearly even
though a few verses earlier Paul had urged the same thing, few must have been able to take in
food. It is not as though everyone would have had the same opportunity to eat; each person on
a ship was responsible for bringing and preparing his or her own food. No doubt some were
too sea sick or nervous to even think about eating. So the ever-practical Paul was merely
being pragmatic; whatever lay ahead in the next crucial hour or two was going to take
considerable physical exertion and people needed to eat to gain some energy and strength. He
reminds them that he knows (from a divine appearance) that everyone will survive, so there is
no need to be so anxious from fear that they can't eat. Likely the ship was much more stable
at the moment, so some minimal level of food preparation was more doable.
Then we learn that Paul broke bread, said the blessing, and everyone ate. When hearing a
sermon or reading a commentary on this passage you can very quickly tell whether the teacher
or Pastor has familiarity with Jewish culture, history or Judaism by their conclusions as to what
was happening here. Here is an example of what I mean. F.F. Bruce, a classic doctrinalist, in
his commentary on this passage says this: "There is a cluster of words and phrases here....
"took bread", "gave thanks", "broke it".....which are familiar in a Eucharistic setting.
This supports the view of many commentators that the meal here was a Eucharistic
meal". In other words, F.F. Bruce and many other mainstream gentile New Testament
commentators insist that here we have a record of Paul performing Communion. This is an
example of someone who has chosen to inject their long held gentile Christian doctrine and
personal beliefs over what any of this actually denoted in Jewish society of that day, and to this
very day. Jews began most every meal with the Barakah, the blessing. The procedure we read
here of taking the bread and breaking it, saying a prayer, and then passing it around was
normal and customary in most every eating situation for Jews and had absolutely nothing to do
with the Church created sacrament of Communion. Most (or at least many) of the passengers
on this vessel were probably Jews and if Paul hadn't done this he would have been seen as
one who doesn't follow Jewish customs. One of the reasons that the institutional Church
WANTS this to be Communion is because Paul has supposedly, by now, given up his Jewish
ways and identity and become a Christian (which, by definition, means the worshipper is a
gentile). To find Paul leading the ship's passengers in a standard Jewish preamble to a meal
(breaking bread and saying a blessing) puts a substantial dent in that claim.
2 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
Using a little of the grain that the ship was carrying to eat, what was left (almost all of it) was
thrown into the sea to lighten the water-logged ship that was sitting heavy in the water to keep
it afloat a little longer (the grain was, by now, ruined by salt water anyway). They didn't know
where they were, but they did see a nearby bay with a sandy beach. In a drama made for the
big screen, the moment of decision arrived; the captain, using all his skills, would try to head
the wounded ship towards the sandy beach and shallower water. They had no further use for
the anchors and besides it was a foregone conclusion that the ship itself would not survive so
they cut the anchor lines in order to allow the wind and waves to do their job and hopefully
push them into shore and safety; but they still needed to be able to steer or the rocks
surrounding the bay would surely crack the hull open like an egg. The twin rudders had been
lifted up and held securely out of the water during the storm so that they didn't break off. So
the ropes holding them up were also cut, allowing the rudders to fall down into the water for the
last time in the ship's life. Then, to provide some forward movement for steering, they put up
the smaller foresail (a sail at the front of the ship) and aimed towards the beach. They didn't
make it. They hit a spot where the waters swirled and tumbled so chaotically that the rudders
became useless and there they ran aground on a sandbar some distance from the shore. This
means that drowning remained a distinct possibility. Worse, they were still in deep enough
waters that the storm waves pounded relentlessly at the flat stern of the hard-grounded ship
and were tearing the already battered vessel to pieces; quick action was needed.
At this point it was every man for himself. The ship was virtually disintegrating under their feet;
a desperate leap into the swirling and angry water was their only hope. But Julius's soldiers
knew that the several prisoners on board would now have the perfect opportunity to escape
during the chaos and there would be no way to know for sure whether they had drowned and
their corpses floated away, or they had managed to survive and fled. So the soldiers
determined to kill all the prisoners. The reason was that it was standard Roman policy that the
soldier responsible for allowing a prisoner to escape on his watch would bear the punishment
that prisoner would have received if convicted. Most who appealed to Caesar were convicted
of capital crimes and hoped to have their cases overturned. But Julius didn't want Paul to be
killed, and at the same time couldn't show particular favoritism; so he ordered his troops NOT
to kill the prisoners, thus taking the responsibility for any who might escape onto himself. In
fact Julius ordered everyone, prisoners included, who could swim to jump in and make their
way to shore as best they could, and those who could not swim to jump in and hang onto to the
debris of the rapidly disintegrating vessel. And, as the angelic messenger to Sha'ul had
promised, all 276 souls made it alive to the welcoming beach.
Why did Julius not do the thing that almost any Roman soldier would have done under the
circumstances, and kill his prisoners? We have been told all throughout this harrowing sea tale
that he had some kind of undefined affinity for Paul. But why would he risk his life for the other
prisoners? It can only be that not only was this a decent man who valued life, but the Lord had
somehow affected him to be so selfless, even if it was not (so far as we now) an affect that led
to his salvation. There is a lesson here; the Lord deals not only with His followers but also with
those who oppose Him. We should never think that the Lord is not working in the lives of even
His enemies, when the enemy has no idea of it. As we watch the boiling waters of this restless,
dying world all around us; waters that we are immersed into just as much as our unbelieving
friends are, too, let us always remember that God will use outsiders to bring judgment upon His
3 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
own, and also to comfort and even save His own. It is the mystery of God, the mercy of God,
and the will of God to do so.
Let's move on to the final chapter of the Book of Acts.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 28 all
Turns out the island they shipwrecked on was Malta. So far as we know, because the term
"we" continues to be used, Luke was eyewitness and fellow victim so everything we read is
accurate assuming the Greek manuscripts handed down to us are accurate. In reality they
weren't as far off course as they had feared; Malta was a regular stop on the Alexandria to
Rome route. However the harbor and port was on the opposite side of the island from where
they wrecked; so no doubt the captain and ship's owner didn't recognize the island landscape
from their current vantage point.
Malta is about 60 miles south of Sicily. Verse 2, in most English Bibles, politely calls the people
of the island "natives"; but that is not what the Greek says. Rather the term is barbaros, and it
more correctly means barbarians. Barbarian was a term that inherently meant people who
didn't speak Greek; but it also characterized a people who were less civilized according to
Roman standards. It is not unlike the English use of the word "savages" that at one time was
used to describe American Indians. That is, the term denotes people who are primitive or
beastly in the eyes of those using the term. When we understand that, then we understand
why so much attention is paid by Luke as to how kind these barbarians were; unexpectedly
kind. The passengers and crew had every right to expect people would show up who might
take advantage of their helpless situation. Pirates and those who pillaged shipwrecks infested
the Mediterranean at this time.
It was cold (it was early winter, after all) and it was rainy and the physically and emotionally
drained castaways sat shivering in the wind. But these "barbarians" immediately came to their
aid, and started a fire to warm them. Paul, never one to sit in the background, went out to
gather more wood for the fire. There were likely a few fires because there were 276 people to
warm. But when Paul was picking up sticks, one of the "sticks" was apparently a snake made
inanimate by the cold weather as snakes (that are cold-blooded creatures) are prone to do. As
Paul carried the bundle closer to the fire, and the snake's body temperature rose, it awoke and
quickly clamped on to Paul's hand and wouldn't let go. The passage says that the snake was
a viper, meaning it was poisonous. The superstitious natives saw what happened and
essentially just sat back to watch how Paul responded to it. Paul shook off the snake into the
fire, and then all waited for Paul to be affected by the venom.
The islanders knew by now that Paul was a prisoner, and so they naturally figured that his
being bitten by a snake was justice decided by fate for some crime he had committed. He had
somehow escaped the shipwreck unharmed, but now the gods weren't about to let him off the
hook for some evil deed he had done so they arranged for him to die by snake bite; however
Paul disappointed them. Luke, the doctor, says that there was no reaction whatsoever. Who
gets bitten by a poisonous snake and is completely unaffected? Therefore the people waiting
for Paul to keel over now decided the opposite; he is not only not being punished by the gods,
4 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
he himself must be a god.
I want to briefly comment that it is not unusual at this point for a Bible commentator or perhaps
a Pastor to begin to explain the roles of serpents in the Bible, and to start to draw comparisons
of this story with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and with the Fiery Serpent in the
Wilderness during the Exodus from Egypt, that looking upon it healed snake bites. I personally
find these comparisons to be invalid across the board. About the only theological message that
I can see in our story concerning the snake is that Paul was supernaturally protected by God
and that God can heal or even prevent injury as He wills it. Luke recorded an incident that was
quite real, and no doubt he was fascinated by the result even if he had no explanation as to
why things went the way they did. My simple view is that Paul still had not arrived to Rome, the
destination God had in mind for him. It was not yet Paul's time to die; so he didn't.
Malta was around 120 square miles in size and therefore had sufficient land to house some
estates. A fellow named Publius owned one of those estates and was the governor of the
island; his land was not far from the shipwreck. When he heard of the disaster he graciously
offered hospitality to the victims. Luke makes it clear that Publius treated everyone in a friendly
fashion and put them up for 3 days. However his father was ill and was in bed with a severe
gastric ailment and dysentery; he also had a fever, which means he had an infection. These
sorts of ailments rarely sorted themselves out in ancient times, rather usually ending in a
painful death. Paul heard of it and went to Publius's father, laid hands on him, and he was
healed. Word spread rapidly and the island people came in droves to have their ailments
healed.
At this time in history generally all people saw illness in a spiritual context. They thought that
demon possession caused illness; they also thought that gods routinely laid diseases on
people to punish them. Think for a moment about what we learned from Leviticus concerning
the skin disease called Tzara'at (most English Bibles erroneously call it Leprosy). Tzara'at
was not a specific skin disease, but rather manifested itself in a number of ways. In modern
medical terms we read of a range of serious skin diseases, but the Bible uses the term
Tzara'at for them all. The important point is that the Scriptures confirm that Tzara'at is caused
spiritually, supernaturally, by God. It is usually in response to an unclean soul. So it isn't like
folks in Bible times (Jews or pagans) were entirely wrong about the source of all disease. Even
doctors like Luke saw it that way; however they had training in certain potions and medications
that could sooth and reduce pain and discomfort. Doctors also were expert at treating wounds,
something that wasn't usually connected to the spiritual world. The concept of germs and
bacteria causing disease was centuries away and so with no other explanation at hand for
illnesses that usually appeared from nowhere, only the spiritual was left. Thus holy men were
often seen as physicians, and usually healing involved prayer. It was also common to for these
holy men to lay hands on a patient and that is what we see Paul doing here. Holy men didn't
grow on trees; and verifiable miraculous healings were even rarer. So it's no wonder that
when Publius's father quickly recovered from what was usually fatal, word spread like wildfire.
Luke simply says this about that: "and they were healed". Paul spent his time healing by the
power of the Lord; and the so-called barbarians were so grateful that when the time came for
Paul and his fellow passengers to sail away, they gave them all the needed supplies.
5 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
Verse 11 explains that after 3 months on the island the shipwrecked group boarded an
Alexandrian ship and set sail. It's hard to pinpoint exactly when this was, but likely it was
around February because that's when the west winds begin to blow. This Alexandrian ship
would have wintered in harbor on Malta. The ship was called "Twin Gods", or in other English
versions merely "Twins". What this is referring to is the ship's figurehead that was customary
on the bow of large sailing vessels. They were the twin sons of the God Zeus, called Castor
and Pollux. These twin gods were believed to be the gods of navigation and safe travel, and
their Constellation was Gemini.
The ship's destination was Syracuse, which lay on the southeast coast of Sicily. It was a
relatively short sail of 60 miles (about a day) and we're told they stayed in port there for 3
days, likely to onload and offload cargo. Luke continues with his detailed itinerary by telling us
that from Syracuse they went to Rhegium, but they had to tack (sort of zigzag) to get there,
meaning it took a little longer. They were essentially island hopping and so they picked up a
nice southerly wind and they sailed on to Puteoli. Puteoli is located on the northern shore of
the Bay of Naples. This was a major port because it was on the mainland of Italy. Now the
ships' cargo (often grain) could be carried overland in wagons and distributed to towns and
villages. Paul's time on a ship was finally over. He had been traveling now for at least 4
months.
Puteoli had a substantial Jewish colony so it is not surprising that there we'd also find
Believing Jews. However we need to notice how far and wide trust in Yeshua had already
spread, and it was certainly not Paul that had spread it to Italy. Many other evangelists were at
work and doing God's will of spreading the Gospel of Yeshua; we just never read about them
in the Bible or know who they were. When Paul met the Believers they offered to keep him for
a week. I must say that as nice as all this sounds, one cannot help but wonder how Paul, a
prisoner, was able to find other Believers and even decide to stay with them. Probably it was
Luke and his other traveling companions who actually did the scouting and found the
Believers. There is no chance that Paul was free enough to not be supervised by a Roman
soldier. But likely it was only one soldier because a trust had been built. Nonetheless the
Believers had to have accepted the Roman soldier to accompany Paul, and very likely the
solider was chained to him most of the time. But let's be clear; in the Roman Empire soldiers
could be billeted where ever the military felt it expedient to put them; and many times it was in
people's homes. So folks, including Jews, were used to having Roman soldiers in their midst,
even staying in their residences. It seems that the farther away from the Holy Land a Jew
resided, the more tolerant they were of the gentile ways; and that gentiles were more at ease
with the Jews. Notice also that it was not just Paul who was invited to stay with the Brethren;
verse 15 clearly says "us". So Luke and others traveling with Paul (and at least one Roman
soldier) all went to stay with the local Believers.
Just a few miles from Puteoli was the Appian Way, one of the marvelous Roman roadways that
helped to interconnect Italy. It was the Appian Way that the group traveled upon to get to
Rome. This was not a superhighway, however, nor was it one of the better Roman highways. It
was described as being "rough and flinty and making significant demands upon travelers".
With little fanfare, Paul arrives in Rome. There he was allowed to rent a place to stay by
himself, but with his personal Roman guard as a housemate of course. No doubt this decision
6 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
to allow Paul this privilege was made by the local judicial authority, and the decision seems to
indicate a belief that Paul's case will likely be dismissed and that Paul is no threat to flee.
Julius's commission to bring Paul (and presumably other prisoners as well) to Rome was
completed and so we hear no more of him. However, interestingly, this is also the end of the
"we" passages. So it seems that Luke is no longer accompanying Paul from here forward.
Only 3 days after establishing himself in his flat in Rome, Paul begins to contact the local
Jewish leadership of what was a substantial Jewish community in Rome. These would have
been mostly traditional Jews, not Messianics. Historians estimate that at this time there was a
Jewish community of between 40,000 and 50,000 in Rome. I think it is interesting and valuable
for serious Bible students to get a good picture of the Jewish community of Rome in New
Testament times. Too much we assume that the Romans were vicious, hated the Jews, and
the Jews lived under terrible Roman persecution and so forth. The evidence, Biblical and
otherwise, says the opposite. We need to take this reality into account when we think about the
Book of Revelation and its several references to Rome. So indulge me, please, as I read to
you a long excerpt from Philo, the noted Jewish philosopher and historian, about his firsthand
perception of the Jewish Community of Rome.
"How then did Augustus (Caesar) show his approval? He was aware that the great
section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber (River) is occupied and inhabited by
Jews, most of whom were Roman citizens emancipated. For having been brought as
captives to Italy they were liberated by their owners and were not forced to violate any
of their native institutions. He knew therefore that they have houses of prayer and meet
together in them, particularly on the sacred Sabbaths when they receive as a body
training in their ancestral philosophy. He knew too that they collect money for sacred
purposes from their firstfruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer
the sacrifices. Yet nevertheless he neither ejected them from Rome nor deprived them
of their Roman citizenship because they were careful to preserve their Jewish
citizenship also, nor took any violent measures against the houses of prayer, nor
prevented them from meeting to receive instruction in their laws, nor opposed their
offerings of firstfruits. Indeed so religiously did he respect our interests that was
supported by well-nigh his whole household he adorned our temple through the
costliness of his dedications, and ordered that for all time continuous sacrifices of
whole burnt offerings should be carried out every day at his own expense as a tribute to
the Most High God. Yet more, in the monthly doles in his own city when all the people
each in turn receive money or corn, he never put the Jews at a disadvantage in sharing
the bounty, but even if the distributions happened to come during the sabbath when
one is not permitted to receive or give anything, or transact any part of the business of
ordinary life, particularly of a lucrative kind, he ordered the dispensers to reserve for the
Jews till the morrow the charity which fell to all. Therefore everyone, everywhere, even if
he was not naturally well disposed to the Jews, was afraid to engage in destroying any
of our institutions, and indeed it was the same under Tiberius. ....."
Doesn't sound very much like persecution, does it? The reality is that the Romans valued
peace. They knew that they had to be tolerant and careful and for whatever reason they were
especially careful with the Jews not to violate their religion or place demands upon them that
7 / 8
Acts Lesson 56 - Chapter 27 and 28
caused them to feel shamed. This was far more than a friendly attitude; it was Roman law.
The Jewish community exerted substantial influence on the Roman government. It is
interesting that this seems to have been something that God did for Israel even when they
were in exile. Recall the favor that Nebuchadnezzar showed to Jews by including many in his
government, including the Prophet Daniel. And then the great and special favor that Cyrus the
Persian showed to Israel when he freed them from Babylon, even helping to pay to rebuild the
Temple in Jerusalem. History reveals that there were many synagogues in Rome (at least
dozen are known by name) and by government edict they were to be left undisturbed, even
protected. Since the Messianic community (Believers) was at this time still seen as merely one
the several sects of Judaism, they too enjoyed the favor of Roman government.
So with this understanding of the excellent relationship that the Roman Jews enjoyed with the
Roman government, we see why Paul felt it necessary to reassure the local Jewish leaders
that he was no rebel, and that he was not here to disturb the peace. And that despite the reality
that it was a certain group of Judeans who had him arrested and has put him through this
ordeal that has been going for almost 3 years, he is not in Rome to bring accusations against
his own nation (his own people).
No doubt the Jewish residents of Rome knew about the constant uprisings in Judea; and they
did not want to be associated with it and did not want to be counted as part of that group, even
though they were fellow Jews. It is also clear from Philo that the Roman Emperors were
enlightened enough to make distinctions between the trouble-making Jews of Jerusalem, and
the rest of the Jews in their Empire who generally just wanted to go-along-to-get-along. Paul
wanted to immediately set these Jewish leaders of Rome at ease that in no way was he part of
that rebellious, trouble-making group.
It is interesting how the Jewish community has, over the years, sort of divided itself into the
group of the zealous who will allow no interference in their Judaism, at any cost; and a different
group who desires to work with their gentile neighbors and authorities to craft a compromise in
order to live and co-exist in peace. Today we find such a similar situation between the Jews of
the Holy Land, Israel, versus the Jews of the ongoing Diaspora. Most Jews in Israel today are
ready to stand, fight, and defend their nation against aggressors, and they brook little outside
interference on their internal affairs. Yet the bulk of European and American Jews are like the
Jews of Rome; they are mainly concerned with peace where they live and are willing to
compromise with the gentile world to attain it. Most Jews of modern Israel will lay down their
lives before giving up land for peace. Most Jews of Europe and America think land for peace is
not only a good idea, but is reasonable, and they find no common ground with the militant
mindset of the modern Jewish Zealots of the Holy Land. Rather, USA and European Jews
typically do not want to be associated with Israeli Jews or identified as one of them. And no
doubt it is because the Jews of the modern Diaspora want to live in peace and quiet wherever
they choose to call home.
Which side is right? Which side is taking the Godly view?
We'll finish up the Book of Acts next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
8 / 8
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 57, Chapter 28 End of Study
Today we bring the Book of Acts to a close. It has been a long odyssey and when we complete
chapter 28 I'll briefly review and summarize the book.
When we concluded last time, Paul was in the presence of the Jewish leadership of Rome.
There were perhaps as many as 50,000 Jews living in Rome at this time, and so there would
have been many leaders. We find that the Roman Jews don't have a great connection to the
Jews of the Holy Land. It might be too strong to characterize it as an us/them sort of
relationship, but clearly the long distance between Jerusalem and Rome, and the totally
different lifestyles represented by the residents of each place, created a challenging barrier
between the tolerant Jews of Rome versus the zealous Jews of Jerusalem. It is probably fair to
say that the Jews of Rome held a similar desire for a peaceful co-existence with the Romans
as did the Sadducees of Jerusalem. Of course there was a price to pay to attain that goal of
peaceful co-existence, and the price was to compromise the Jewish religion with Roman pagan
ways, and to accept and support Roman political rule and Hellenistic lifestyle.
Therefore the Jews of Rome were a bit concerned about Sha'ul who arrived in chains. Was he
a trouble maker; a fomenter of rebellion? They had heard about The Way and they knew of
Paul as an evangelist of this movement, and now he shows up as a prisoner. They had no
desire to be associated with Paul if it might damage the relationship between themselves and
the Romans. Paul well knew this and so was quick to say that he had done nothing against
Roman law or Jewish Law. In fact, he says that the Romans had decided to release him but
some Judean Jews objected and that is why he appealed to Caesar and has come to Rome as
a prisoner.
Let's re-read part of Acts chapter 28.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 28:17 – end
Naturally we are only reading a few selected quotes and recollections chosen by Luke from the
first meeting between Paul and the Roman Jewish leadership, not the entirety of the dialogue,
so we need to do a bit of reading between the lines. The Jewish leadership wanted to know
why Paul was in this predicament and Paul knew they would be skeptical so he initiated a
preemptive strike and called for this meeting. But rather than addressing any specific
accusation, or apparently even identifying who exactly made the accusations against him, Paul
offers that the reason he is here and wanting to speak with these distinguished Jews is
because of the hope of Israel. What is the hope of Israel? Resurrection! That is, he came to
Rome willingly, in a sense, because he desired so much to tell the people of Rome about the
Gospel and how resurrection is the lynchpin of the Gospel of Yeshua. So it is really Paul's
devotion to Israel's ancestral hope that has cost him his personal freedom as opposed to him
having committed some crime against Romans or Jews.
1 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
As was the typically Roman way , the Jewish leadership of Rome answers Paul in a polite and
diplomatic way by saying that they had not received "any letters" from Judea, and further that
no Jew that has come to Rome from Judea has told them anything bad about Paul personally.
So they are willing to at least hear what Paul has to say. What is their interest? It is that what
little they have heard about The Way, as a sect, is not good. And we need to continue to note
that Jews, including the Jewish leadership of Rome, regarded The Way as a sect of Judaism
(as the Scriptures clearly say). So as of the time of this meeting (around 60 or 61 A.D.) no one
knew Believers in Yeshua as being part of anything else other than a peculiar Jewish sect. It
was not in any way seen as a separate religion and certainly not viewed as a new gentile
religion. Thus we must keep in mind that any mention of "Christians" that we find in our New
Testaments during this era is an anachronism (that it, it is reading something that occurred
later on backward in time to before it actually existed). So we must not picture Believers at this
time as strictly divided into Jews and gentiles, with the gentiles belonging to the "Church"
while the Jews belonged to the synagogue. Believers in Yeshua remained nearly entirely
Jewish controlled, with its headquarters in Jerusalem. While this indeed would change later,
that doesn't occur within the timeframe of the Book of Acts.
It is hard to know what is meant by the Roman Jews "not receiving any letters" from Judea
about Paul or The Way. I presume it to mean proclamations from the Sanhedrin telling them to
not associate with Believers who might come to Rome, and to declare The Way as a heretical
movement of Judaism. So essentially the leadership is saying that there is no official complaint
or instruction against Paul or The Way and thus they feel free to have a conversation with Paul
and hear what he has to say about it. As David Stern, a Messianic Jew, points out in his
commentary on Acts, unfortunately modern day Jews are not so open minded about hearing
what Messianics have to say about Yeshua and the Gospel of Christ. Judaism has long ago
decided that Jews who accept Christ should have no audience or association with mainstream
Jews; the ultra-religious being especially adamant on this matter.
This first meeting was essentially a preliminary meeting; it resulted in setting an appointment
for another meeting in which Paul would elaborate on his position. Verse 23 explains that
"large numbers" of Jews came to hear Paul at the next meeting. All day (from morning to
evening) they stayed and listened as Paul walked them through his theology of the Gospel. Or,
as Luke has called it, Paul instructed them on the Kingdom of God. Let me interject that the
terms the Kingdom of God and The Kingdom of Heaven means exactly the same thing; the two
terms are interchangeable. And notice what Paul used to try and persuade these Roman Jews
to his way of thinking: the Torah of Moses and the Prophets. Let's be clear: this means he
referenced Holy Scripture as the phrase "the Torah and the Prophets" used in this way does
not indicate Halachah, Jewish Law.
Like with any group of people (Jew or gentile), some believed Paul but others didn't. And what
always happens in such cases is that as those who came to the meeting were leaving, they
were debating and disagreeing with one another. Clearly the main point that Paul made to
these leaders (beyond his belief that Yeshua is the Messiah), is that one can become a
member of God's Kingdom only by honest, sincere repentance. And it is a refusal to repent
that blocks one's access to eternal life. We learn this because of the Scripture passage that
Paul used to, one last time, try to persuade the naysayers with. It was Isaiah 6: 9, 10.
2 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
Isaiah 6:9-10 CJB
9 He said, "Go and tell this people: 'Yes, you hear, but you don't understand. You
certainly see, but you don't get the point!'
10 "Make the heart of this people [sluggish with] fat, stop up their ears, and shut their
eyes. Otherwise, seeing with their eyes, and hearing with their ears, then understanding
with their hearts, they might repent and be healed!"
Rabbi Yochanan said this about this passage of Isaiah: "Great is the power of repentance
that it rescinds a man's final sentence." So it is not as though Paul was unique in his
theology that it is repentance that paves the way to eternal life with God. But what Paul was
trying to help these leaders understand is that repentance alone doesn't do it. The Gospel of
Christ requires repentance PLUS a dependence on the work of Yeshua on the cross to gain
eternal life. This is something that most Jews could not and, to this day, cannot accept.
But now we hit one of those passages that has been contorted and twisted to fit an agenda;
verse 28. It says that the salvation offered by God has been sent to the gentile nations and that
they will listen. Much Christian doctrine has been created with this verse as its core reference
to claim that this means that Gentiles replaced Israel as God's chosen people. That is, God
rejected the Jews and accepted the gentiles thus replacing the old people with the new people.
Nothing here says such a thing. As I demonstrated in our last lesson, the idea that the Jews as
a community of people rejected Christ but Gentiles as a community of people accept Him is
ludicrous. We know of scores of thousands of Jews in the Book of Acts that accepted Christ,
and far fewer gentiles. Gentiles outnumbered Jews at least 200 to 1 at this time. And as the
chart I showed you previously reveals, in our day no more than 1/3rd of Gentiles have accepted
Christ, with 2/3rd rejecting Him. So the bulk of Gentiles have rejected Christ just as the bulk of
Jews have rejected Christ. Salvation is on an individual, one by one, basis; not as a collective
of people.
When we go back to the Abrahamic Covenant to find the legal basis for salvation, we learn that
it was always God's intention that all the families of the earth would be blessed by what God
did through Abraham's descendants...the Hebrews. This would affect not just Jews or not just
Gentiles. So the purpose of this statement of verse 28 is not to show a transfer of salvation or
preference from one people to another, but rather God said long ago that he would spread the
Gospel to the ends of the earth, and that necessarily includes gentiles.
The Book of Acts ends by telling us that Paul stayed in the place he had rented for 2 years.
And all during that time he was given the freedom to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to
teach about Yeshua. Why Paul was there for 2 years without his case being heard we don't
know. God said Paul would stand before Caesar; but we never learn if he did or not. In fact we
really don't know if Paul ever got out of prison in Rome. Many scholars think he died in prison.
In fact there is a strong hint in 2Timothy (that was written while he was still under arrest) that
Paul sensed that his death was imminent.
2Timothy 4:1-9 CJB
3 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
1 I solemnly charge you before God and the Messiah Yeshua, who will judge the living
and the dead when he appears and establishes his Kingdom:
2 proclaim the Word! Be on hand with it whether the time seems right or not. Convict,
censure and exhort with unfailing patience and with teaching.
3 For the time is coming when people will not have patience for sound teaching, but will
cater to their passions and gather around themselves teachers who say whatever their
ears itch to hear.
4 Yes, they will stop listening to the truth, but will turn aside to follow myths.
5 But you, remain steady in every situation, endure suffering, do the work that a
proclaimer of the Good News should, and do everything your service to God requires.
6 For as for me, I am already being poured out on the altar; yes, the time for my
departure has arrived.
7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
8 All that awaits me now is the crown of righteousness which the Lord, "the Righteous
Judge," will award to me on that Day- and not only to me, but also to all who have
longed for him to appear.
9 Do your best to come to me soon.
That certainly sounds like a statement of someone who was convinced that they had very little
time left on this earth.
So there you have it. We have arrived at the other side of the bridge that I spoke of when we
first started 57 lessons ago. An Old Testament Hebrew Gospel as foretold by ancient Hebrew
Prophets has been transported across a vast chasm of time and culture and has arrived in the
world of the New Testament complete with the synagogue, Judaism, and gentile world
dominance. But was the Gospel taken away from the Jews and turned over to the gentiles as
Christianity claims? The Book of Acts exposes the fallacy of that fundamental Christian
doctrine. We have also seen that the Hebrew-Jewish Gospel was not modified to allow for
gentiles; rather gentiles had always been welcome to join with the Hebrew covenants under
certain terms and conditions. It is that the Jews themselves had to learn that their Traditions,
their Halachah, which had developed since Babylon, had to be reformed to recover the
meaning and truth of Holy Scripture. Yeshua of Nazareth was not only God incarnate and the
Messiah; He was also the great reformer who brought a new clarity to the Gospel and to the
Holy Scriptures in general and to the Law of Moses in particular. Once the needed reforms He
spawned were underway, then the acceptance of gentiles into the Kingdom of God became a
natural progression, even though the majority of Jews recoiled at such a thought and fought it
tooth and nail. It is ironic that today (and for the past 1900 years) that gentile Christianity has
recoiled at the thought that the entire Bible is a Hebrew document, that Our Savior was and is
4 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
Jewish, that Jews do not have to abandon their Jewishness to accept Christ, and that our faith
is, in reality, a faith with Hebrew roots and is not a new gentile creation.
While Paul gets so much of the credit for bringing the Gospel to the gentiles Acts reveals his
fervent and continuing activity with the Diaspora Jewish community. We also saw that it was
Peter who got the ball rolling at the same time that Paul was still an enemy of Yeshua.
Remember that Peter was one of the original 12 Disciples; Paul only arrived on the scene well
after Yeshua's death and resurrection. So Peter sat at feet of the Master for a couple of years
(at least) to hear the unfiltered truth. It was Peter, not Paul, who was there for the monumental
Shavuot (Pentecost) feast in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit descended like fire upon the
Believers. It was also Peter who was taught by the Lord that gentiles were NOT inherently
unclean and that they, too, were part of the promise made to Abraham.
Let's briefly review our step by step journey through the Book of Acts and watch how it leads
us by the hand across the bridge from the Old to the New Testament, if only we'll open our
eyes and ears and be receptive to its message.
Chapter 1 began by identifying the author of the Book of Acts as Luke. He had written an
earlier work that we now call the Gospel of Luke that dealt with Yeshua's life and ministry. But
his sequel, the Book of Acts, deals with what those men whom Yeshua raised up as disciples,
and to whom He entrusted His work on earth, did after His death. Sadly we learned that during
the earliest centuries of Rome-based gentile Christianity the Book of Acts was intentionally
suppressed and thus few Christians knew that it existed. We also learned why it was kept in
the closet: the early Church Fathers (all gentiles) considered it too Jewish, and thus dangerous
to their gentiles-only Christian doctrine.
Chapter 2 documents the awesome arrival of the Holy Spirit at the annual Shavuot celebration
in Jerusalem. This was something that Yeshua promised was needed but would happen only
after He departed into Heaven. The power of the Spirit enabled ordinary Holy Land Jews to
spontaneously speak foreign languages that they didn't know. This unexpected event gave
Peter an opportunity to address the astonished crowds of Jews and tell them about Christ. He
tells them that Yeshua is the Messianic descendant of David that was prophesied from ages
past. Prior to this day Luke says that there were only about 120 Believers in total. By the end of
Shavuot the Believing congregation grew by 3,000....all Jews.
Chapter 3 focused on the disciple Peter; the one that Yeshua obviously favored. On his way to
the Temple (where the disciples tended to congregate) Peter is confronted by a crippled man
who wanted alms. Peter instead healed him by the power of God. The amazed crowd again
gave Peter a platform to speak where he explained that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
has gloried His Son Yeshua of Nazareth; and even though men killed Him, he arose from the
dead and defeated death. Peter tells the people that this same Yeshua is the prophet like
Moses that Moses said would come after him.
Peter had become well known and he was speaking to the people at the Temple about
resurrection. We learn that while the Pharisees and the common folk believed in resurrection of
the dead, the Sadducees (aristocrats who ran the Temple and the Priesthood) did not. This
5 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
issue of resurrection is a source of conflict throughout the Book of Acts. So Peter and John
were arrested by the Jewish Temple police and taken before the Sanhedrin where they were
questioned. The Jewish elders wanted to know how they had managed to heal the cripple. The
disciples made it clear that it was through the power of the one the Jewish High Court had
crucified. Peter and John were ordered to stop speaking in the name of Yeshua; they flatly
refused. The numbers of Believers, all Jewish, continued to grow.
In chapter 5 we met Hananyah and Sapphira, Believers, who owned some property and sold it.
They had apparently promised to give the proceeds to the leadership of The Way to be
distributed to the poor, but they lied and only gave some of it. Hananyah was struck dead by
God for this, and shortly afterward so was his widow. A reverent fear now spread among the
Believers; this was no game they were playing. Miracles of healings continued and this worried
the High Priest since the Believers were becoming highly esteemed by the common folk. Some
disciples were arrested and taken before the Sanhedrin and ordered to stop healing in the
name of Yeshua. While being interrogated Peter told the Sanhedrin that God had exalted
Yeshua to His right hand in Heaven. The Sanhedrin called this blasphemy and some wanted
Peter executed for his heresy; one elder counseled it was better to let this movement run its
course and die out as had countless other similar movements. Peter was flogged and
released.
The number of Believers was growing daily and of course there were growth pains. Greek
speaking Jews (meaning Diaspora Jews) and Hebrew speaking Jews from the Holy land had a
mistrust, if not downright dislike, of one another. The Greek speakers felt that their widows
were not being given an equal share of charity as were the Hebrew speakers' widows. The
leadership council of The Way (the name they had given to their sect) decided that 7 men of
the congregation should administer the charitable funds; and wisely to diffuse the situation they
chose 7 Greek speakers to do the job. One of those chosen was a man named Stephen. By
now priests were joining the ranks of the Believers, which only increased the alarm and anger
of the High Priest. One of the 400 or so synagogues in Jerusalem vehemently opposed
Stephen's message (mainly because he was a hated Samaritan) and hired some men to lie
and say that they heard Stephen speak against Moses and the Temple. He was arrested and
brought before the Sanhedrin on charges of blasphemy.
Chapter 7 tells the story of Stephen's martyrdom. His defense speech to the Sanhedrin
reminded them that their forefathers killed the prophets for speaking the truth, and now this
present generation did the same thing to the greatest prophet ever, Yeshua. Stephen's
execution set off a series of retributions against other Believers and they scattered. But all their
scattering accomplished was to further spread the Gospel message among the Jewish
community.
The Yeshua movement is spreading rapidly in the Holy Land area and chapter 8 shows how
some deceivers will always try to personally profit from, or hijack, a successful ministry. We
read the story of a sorcerer named Shim'on who witnessed the amazing power of the Holy
Spirit that was wielded by Peter and others of the disciples, and he wanted that power for
himself; as a professional magician his thought was to purchase it. Peter strongly rebuked
him. But then something else with great significance occurred; an angel directed the disciple
6 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
Philip to intercept an Ethiopian Eunuch who was a God-fearer. Philip obeyed, showed him a
passage in Isaiah 53 about the Messiah, and the Eunuch believed. Philip baptized him and
now a gentile Believer in Yeshua joined the fold.
The focus begins to shift from Peter to Paul. In chapter 9 we find Sha'ul encounter the risen
Messiah; the conversation takes place in Hebrew. Paul is currently employed by the Sanhedrin
to go to Damascus to find and arrest some of these Believers who had fled the persecutions of
the High Priest in Jerusalem. The experience is so powerful that Paul drops all resistance and
becomes a Believer. Yeshua says gentiles are to be Paul's target audience.
While at this time the movement consisted nearly 100% of Jews, it was becoming clear that
God intended for gentiles to be offered membership. But how could that be? Gentiles were the
enemies of the Jews, and therefore thought to be enemies of God. Tradition, Halakhah, was
that gentiles were born unclean and remained unclean and therefore Jews ought to have
nothing to do with them. And gentiles certainly ought not to be invited to put their trust in the
Jewish Messiah. To counteract this errant belief the Lord confronts Peter in a vision to help him
understand that God does not, and never has, viewed gentiles as inherently unclean. He uses
animals let down in a cloth from Heaven as the visual imagery.
At first Peter thinks this is God testing him about kosher eating. But after thinking about it he
suddenly realizes (in vs. 14) "I now understand that God does not play favorites, but that
whoever fears him and does what is right is acceptable to Him, no matter what people
he belongs to". For some reason, to this day, despite Peter saying he now understands that
this has nothing to do with kosher eating, the institutional Church doctrine is that God told
Peter that this vision was all about food and that He has abolished the kosher food laws. Peter
is now prepared to go to yet another gentile, this time a hated Roman soldier named Cornelius,
who God said his heart was hungry for the truth. Peter went to the soldier's house, told him
the Gospel, and Cornelius and his entire household believed and were saved. In fact, Peter
personally witnessed the Holy Spirit falling upon them.
The key words of chapter 11 are its first words: "The emissaries and the brothers
throughout Judah heard that the gentiles had received the word of God". But with the
addition of more gentiles, resistance increased among many Jews who demanded that gentiles
who were offered to join in Israel's covenants first had to be circumcised and become Jews.
As far as the Jewish Priesthood was concerned, things were getting out of hand. This growing
movement was viewed as a threat to the Temple power structure and so Peter was again
arrested and James, John's brother, was executed. But the Lord once again rescued Peter
because Peter's ministry was not yet completed.
Chapters 13 and 14 switch the scene from the Holy Land first to Antioch where a couple of
disciples were bringing the Gospel to Jews in that city and then on to the island of Cyprus. Paul
then traveled to other nations and as became his custom, each time he entered a new town
he'd go to the local synagogue to preach. Many gentiles, God-fearers, had become welcome
guests at the synagogues, and as Paul and the other disciples preached the Gospel many
Jews and gentiles came to believe in Messiah Yeshua; but others, the bulk, refused. More and
more regions of Asia and the Mediterranean were being evangelized with good results from
7 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
both Jewish and gentile populations.
However the issue of circumcision for gentiles had become a show stopper. Even the disciples
were disagreeing about it among themselves, threatening to divide the group. So Paul and
some other disciples went to Jerusalem to set the matter before the leadership of The Way
hoping to come to some kind of a definitive resolution. In the end it was agreed that while
gentile Believers needed to obey the Biblical purity laws if they were going to fellowship with
Jewish Believers they did NOT have to become Jews (by means of a circumcision), or obey
Jewish Halachah, in order to be full-fledged members of The Way.
In Chapters 16, 17, and 18 the focus is on Paul as he travels extensively throughout the places
where Jews lived in foreign lands. During this time he made a disciple of Timothy who was
Jewish by birth on his mother's side (his father was a gentile). So now we have Believers that
are Jews, some are gentiles, and some are of mixed blood. The Holy Spirit kept prodding
Sha'ul on, further widening the scope of his ministry to include Macedonia. Another incident is
documented by Luke whereby the Devil tried to hijack Paul's ministry. It seems that a girl with
a snake spirit started following Paul around screaming and screeching that Paul was a follower
of the God Most High. Paul not only rebuked the girl but ordered the snake spirit out of her,
demonstrating God's power over the world of demons. Paul was thanked by being thrown in
jail because this girl's masters were profiting over her satanic gift of fortune telling, now
vanished along with the demon.
In Athens, Greece Paul began debating with their famous philosophers about who is the true
God. He spoke the truth of the Gospel to them and shockingly some came to trust even in that
spiritually dark place. We also hear of a Jewish Believer named Apollos who hailed from
Alexandria, Egypt; but he seemed to know nothing of The Way or of the Holy Spirit. He had
been a follower of John the Baptist. So we see that various independent groups of Believers
had popped up, but not all had the needed information or held the correct doctrine.
Some Jewish exorcists saw what Paul and other disciples were able to do and so began to try
to exorcise demons in the name of Yeshua; they were not Believers. These exorcists
encountered one particular demon that was unimpressed by their mechanical recounting of a
name that they thought had mystical power; the exorcists were beaten to a pulp by the demon.
Surprisingly this had a positive effect on Believers and non-Believers alike as they began to
realize that trust, not mindless ritual, was the key to knowing God and having a type of faith
that He accepted as real and sincere and was able to save.
While in Greece, after another journey, Paul discovered a plot by unbelieving Jews to
assassinate him. As always happens, when a movement such as this one begins to grow and
gain attention, opposition will grow more vehement. Some men helped Paul to escape. After
further journeys to more far flung nations Paul decided it was time for him to go to Jerusalem
again; it had been several years since he had been there. On his way to the Holy City, he
stopped at Caesarea Maritima where a prophet named Agav told him that if he went to
Jerusalem he would be arrested. He went anyway.
Upon his arrival in Jerusalem he was greeted by James, still the supreme leader of The Way,
8 / 9
Acts Lesson 57 - Chapter 28 End of Study
and James told him that tens of thousands of Jews had joined the movement and all of them
remained steadfast observers of the Torah. But news arrived ahead of Paul that he had been
teaching against the Torah and Jewish Tradition. A demonstration involving a vow offering was
arranged for Paul to prove his loyalty to the Torah and to his Jewishness; he followed through.
However some foreign Jews from Asia were in Jerusalem for the Shavuot festival, and they
recognized Paul and slandered him by saying that he had defiled the Temple by bringing
gentiles into it. The crowd went into an angry frenzy and the local Roman garrison had to
literally rescue Paul from the crowd. This led to an opportunity for Paul to tell his story of his
turning to Yeshua, and why everyone should, too. The Romans presented Paul to the
Sanhedrin for trial, but the Roman commander could make no sense of the charges brought
against him. Paul told the commander that he was Roman citizen, so now he was obligated to
see to it that Paul got a fair trial under the Roman legal system. When a conspiracy to
assassinate Paul was uncovered, he was spirited away to Caesarea to appear before
Governor Felix.
A trial was held with members of the Sanhedrin present making the accusations. Felix was
unable to make heads or tails of the charges and saw that this seemed to be a matter of trivial
nuances of Jewish law, but nothing meriting death or jail. However not wanting to offend the
High Priest, Felix refused to give a verdict and so Paul remained in jail for 2 years until a new
Governor arrived: Festus. Festus, too, could make no sense of the charges and asked visiting
King Agrippa (a Jew) if he could help him understand. Agrippa listened to Paul and decided
that there was nothing he could add. Paul now played his trump card: he used his rights as a
Roman citizen to appeal to the Emperor. This was his ticket to go to Rome; something God
told him he must do.
The final 2 chapters of Acts details Paul's journey, as a prisoner, to Rome. And here we
encounter a fascinating story of terror at sea as a giant storm interrupts the trip and nearly kills
all on board the ship. Paul is shipwrecked, but all survive because God promised through an
angel that this would be the outcome. Another ship is taken to the shores of Italy and finally
Paul arrives in Rome. Still in custody, he has become so trusted that he is assigned only one
Roman guard, and is even allowed to rent an apartment of his own to live in. During the next
two years he meets with the local Jewish leadership, tells them the Gospel, and many come to
belief, although many reject Yeshua. It seems that Paul has finished all that the Lord had
intended for him on earth, and Paul either dies in prison in Rome or shortly after being
released.
If you have listened and studied diligently over these 57 lessons, you are now well equipped to
read the New Testament in the light it was always intended; as a Hebrew document, about a
Hebrew savior and His Hebrew disciples, as told within a Hebrew cultural backdrop. Next up:
the Book of Romans.
9 / 9