Study of Acts

[job 1:21]

From: https://torahclass.com/ 

Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 1, Introduction
Today we cross a bridge; the name of that bridge is the Book of Acts.
The  dictionary  definition  of  a  bridge  is:  "A  structure  carrying  a  road  or  a  path
across an obstacle such as a river or a ravine." The obstacle we are crossing
over is the ravine (a gulf really) that has historically separated the Old and New
Testaments. The needed structure that spans that gulf is the Book of Acts.
A reasonable question would be: "How can Acts be the bridge between the Old
Testament and the New when the first book of the New Testament is the Gospel
of  Matthew,  followed  by  three  more  Gospels"?  And  the  answer  is  that  the
purpose  of  the  Gospels  is  to  reveal  the  nature,  life  and  times  of  Yeshua  the
Messiah. But the Book of Acts delves into how the followers of a Jewish Messiah,
whose  messianic  office  is  derived  only  from  a  Jewish/Israelite  religion  and  a
Jewish/Israelite  holy  book,  somehow  came  to  purposely  include  the  gentile
world. 
A valued friend of mine who lives in Jerusalem, Messianic Rabbi Joseph Shulam,
says  this  about  the  New  Testament  in  general:  "The  New  Testament  is  a
Jewish document from the 1st century A.D., reflective of the lifestyle and
theology of the Jewish community of the Second Temple period. Produced
mainly  by  Jews  interested  in  promoting  a  Jewish  understanding  of  the
messianic  promises  made  by  Israel's  prophets,  the  New  Testament  texts
constitute  an  inalienable  part  of  Second  Temple  Judaism  and  can  only
properly  be  understood  in  their  original  Jewish  cultural  and  religious
milieu."
                             1 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
There is no better NT book to help us understand 1st century, Second Temple
Judaism than the Book of Acts. Yet the Book of Acts is still not sufficient in itself
to  help  modern  Western  Christians  truly  understand  the  Jewish  culture  and
religion of Yeshua's day, and so I will take us on a number of detours and spend
the time necessary to construct the needed context. I will admit up front that if
you  have  not  studied  the  Torah  and  the  Tanach  with  Seed  of  Abraham  Torah
Class, you will be at a disadvantage. The Old Testament will play a significant
background role in our study of the Book of Acts.  And this is because (as I have
stated on numerous occasions) the Old Testament is the foundation for the New.
Trying to study the New Testament without first knowing the Old Testament is
like walking into the third act of a three act play after missing the first two acts.
You  may  well  get  something  out  of  it;  but  you  will  have  missed  the  character
development and the context for the plot. How the play got from here to there you
don't know, so you fill in the blanks with your imagination and suppositions. In
fact, when the play ends and the curtain drops, your conclusions about the play's
meaning and purpose will be at best incomplete; at worst, it might be far off the
mark.
The  reason  that  I  have  decided  to  teach  the  New  Testament  Book  of  Acts  is
because Christianity, and in many cases Messianic Judaism, has indeed arrived
to the play late and missed, or dismisses, the first two acts as not relevant to a
modern  Believer.    The  result  has  been  some  doctrinal  conclusions  that  are
substantially off the mark. Even worse, these dubious doctrines have fomented
misunderstanding,  if  not  hatred,  between  Jews  and  Christians,  and  also  the
alienation of Jews from their own Jewish Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. So, let's
get started.
As is our custom we will have an introduction to the Book of Acts today as our
first step onto the bridge that spans the gulf between the testaments. And the
best  place  to  start  is  with  the  author  of  the  book.  While  it  is  not  universally
accepted, all but the most ardent skeptics from both the Liberal and Conservative
sides of Christianity agree that the author is Luke; the same Luke who penned
the Gospel of Luke. There are several reasons for this conclusion. The first is that
both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are addressed to the same person:
Theophilos. The second is that the literary style of both the Gospel of Luke and
the Book of Acts are very similar. And third it is clear by the author's own words
that the Book of Acts is essentially the sequel to the Gospel of Luke. Let's look at
the opening paragraphs of both Luke and Acts.
                             2 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
Luke 1:1-4 CJB Dear Theophilos: Concerning the matters that have taken
place    among    us,    many    people    have    undertaken    to    draw    up
accounts 2 based on what was handed down to us by those who from the
start were eyewitnesses and proclaimers of the message. 3 Therefore, Your
Excellency,  since  I  have  carefully  investigated  all  these  things  from  the
beginning, it seemed good to me that I too should write you an accurate
and ordered narrative, 4 so that you might know how well-founded are the
things about which you have been taught.
Let's compare that with the opening of the Book of Acts.
Acts 1:1-3 CJB Dear Theophilos: In the first book, I wrote about everything
Yeshua  set  out  to  do  and  teach,  2  until  the  day  when,  after  giving
instructions through the Ruach HaKodesh to the emissaries whom he had
chosen, he was taken up into heaven. 3 After his death he showed himself
to  them  and  gave  many  convincing  proofs  that  he  was  alive.  During  a
period  of  forty  days  they  saw  him,  and  he  spoke  with  them  about  the
Kingdom of God.
So  according  to  Luke  the  first  book  (the  Gospel  of  Luke)  was  written  about
everything Yeshua set out to do and to teach. But the second book (the Book of
Acts) is about what happened after Christ's death and resurrection. 
What has been forgotten, but was clearly known by the earliest Church Fathers,
is that these two works (or books) written by Luke were essentially two volumes
of a single original work called the "History of Christian Origins"; the contents of
the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  volume  1,  and  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  Acts  was
volume 2. And because it was originally one work (not two separate books as we
commonly  think  of  it),  it  began  to  circulate  among  both  Jewish  and  gentile
Believers as a single work under the single title of "History of Christian Origins".
It was only later that it got separated into two works, with each volume given its
own separate name and identity; that is, it was no longer used as one continuous
book. So only after Luke's original work was divided into two was each volume
given its own name: one became the Gospel of Luke, and the other became the
Acts of the Apostles.
Most of the New Testament books as we call them today were at first in the form
of  letters  or  collections  of  letters,  or  lengthy  monographs  written  for  a  specific
purpose (the Gospels for instance). These letters and monographs were seen as
                             3 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
informative, accurate and helpful documents that circulated among the Believers.
Some letters, especially Paul's, were taken as instructional. The important point
is that they were not at all taken as Scripture or as inspired of God (at least not
on  the  level  of  inspiration  as  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament).  The  first
"Christian" Bible, the one that Christ and all of His disciples used and that was
used all throughout the first 150 years after Christ's death, was the Hebrew Bible
also known to us as the Tanach or the Old Testament. Only around 200 A.D.
would the call come from among some in the Church for the need for a unique
Christian Bible, which would add to the Old Testament what we today call the
New Testament. We'll talk about that more shortly. 
The next usual question about the Book of Acts is when it was created. As you
can imagine there is little agreement about this with the earliest suggested date
being  around  65  A.D.,  and  the  latest  around  115  A.D.  or  even  a  bit  later.
Generally speaking that late date of 115 A.D. is accepted by very few, and mostly
by  those  who  don't  hold  much  stock  in  the  reliability  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  The
majority  of  Bible  scholars  and  Bible  historians  settle  closer  to  sometime  just
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as an early date and 90 A.D. as
the latest date.  My opinion is that Luke completed his work sometime before 70
A.D. For one reason, all of the events and people depicted in the Book of Acts
(such as the reigns of various governors, procurators, and Caesars) happened
not  later  than  68  A.D.  This  is  verified  by  extra-Biblical  Roman  and  Jewish
documents (and by the way, the term extra-Biblical simply means that the source
is not the Bible, it is something else). And even though in the Book of Acts some
of  the  central  activity  takes  place  in  Jerusalem,  there  is  no  mention  of  its
destruction by the Romans. Since that destruction in 70 A.D. was so monumental
and catastrophic for the Jewish people and their way of life it is unimaginable that
Luke would simply skip right over it since was such a game-changer. The only
way to reconcile a much later date with that self-evident reality is that some say
that Luke wrote his book 30 or more years after the destruction of Jerusalem and
so its impact had softened by then and wasn't worth mentioning. That is a major
stretch that seems highly unlikely.
Then  there  is  the  issue  of  what  Bible  scholars  call  the  "we"  sections  of  Acts,
found in chapters 16, 20, 21, 27 and 28. Rather than explain it let me give you an
example of what I mean.
Acts 16:10-17 CJB 10  As soon as he had seen the vision, we lost no time
getting ready to leave for Macedonia; for we concluded that God had called
                             4 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
us to proclaim the Good News to them. 11 Sailing from Troas, we made a
straight run to Samothrace; the next day we went to Neapolis; 12 and from
there, we went on to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that
part of Macedonia. We spent a few days in this city; 13 then on Shabbat, we
went outside the gate to the riverside, where we understood a minyan met.
We  sat  down  and  began  speaking  to  the  women  who  had  gathered
there.  14  One  of  those  listening  was  a  woman  from  the  city  of  Thyatira
named Lydia, a dealer in fine purple cloth. She was already a "God-fearer,"
and   the   Lord   opened   up   her   heart   to   respond   to   what   Sha'ul   was
saying. 15 After she and the members of her household had been immersed,
she gave us this invitation: "If you consider me to be faithful to the Lord,
come and stay in my house." And she insisted till we went. 16 Once, when
we were going to the place where the minyan gathered, we were met by a
slave  girl  who  had  in  her  a  snake-spirit  that  enabled  her  to  predict  the
future. She earned a lot of money for her owners by telling fortunes. 17 This
girl followed behind Sha'ul and the rest of us and kept screaming, "These
men are servants of God Ha'Elyon! They're telling you how to be saved!"
Notice how the narrative in this section speaks about "we" and "us". We know
that one-half of the "we" is Paul because it says so. Who is the other half? The
plain reading of it along with the context makes it clear that the other party of
"we"  is  the  writer  Luke  himself.  In  fact  in  some  of  Paul's  letters  he  refers  to  a
man named Luke who accompanied him at times, and it is difficult to find cause
not to conclude that this is the same Luke who is the writer of Acts. Here is but
one example of finding Luke in Paul's Epistles:
Colossians 4:12-14 CJB 12 Epaphras sends greetings; he is one of you, a
slave  of  the  Messiah  Yeshua  who  always  agonizes  in  his  prayer  on  your
behalf, praying that you may stand firm, mature and fully confident, as you
devote yourselves completely to God's will. 13 For I can testify to him that
he works hard for you and for those in Laodicea and Hierapolis. 14 Our dear
friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send you greetings.
Luke is also mentioned by Paul in 2Timothy 4 and in Philemon 24. The point is
that  while  most  of  Acts  is  Luke  writing  about  things  he  had  been  told  in  his
investigations,  and  taken  from  interviews  with  eyewitnesses,  and  information
extracted from other documents he deemed as reliable, some of what he wrote
about  was  first  hand  knowledge  as  he  actually  personally  knew  Paul  and
participated with him on some of his mission trips. Why is that fact so important?
                             5 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
It is because we first learn of Paul in the Book of Acts, not in his several Epistles.
And it is in Acts that we see the new Believer Paul in his Jewish context, and
learn how it is that he came to be a follower and an Apostle of Christ. Let me say
this another way; Acts gives us the foundational background for understanding
who Paul is, and without Acts we don't quite see Paul as the committed Jew that
he is. It is Luke who knows Paul intimately, and so Luke can speak knowledgably
about  Paul's  devotion  to  his  Jewishness  and  Torah  observance  that  never
waned as a result of his newly found belief that Yeshua was the Messiah Israel
had been waiting for.
I want to explore this fact about Paul as depicted in the Book of Acts because,
frankly, it had much to do with me coming to understand the Hebrew Roots of my
Christian faith many years ago. Without doubt the Apostle Paul can be an enigma
if  not  downright  frustrating.  In  fact  his  fellow  Apostle,  Peter,  found  Paul  very
difficult to understand some times.
2Peter 3:15-16 CJB 15 And think of our Lord's patience as deliverance, just
as our dear brother Sha'ul also wrote you, following the wisdom God gave
him. 16 Indeed, he speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain
some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and
unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
I  readily  stipulate  that  Paul  says  many  things  in  his  Epistles  that  in  one  letter
seems to say one thing, and in another letter seems to say nearly the opposite.
Since Paul was an excellent speaker, well educated and quite articulate by all
accounts,  Peter  can  only  be  referring  to  the  same  issue  that  many  laymen,
Pastors, Bible Scholars and Bible Teachers encounter with Paul: he seems to be
contradictory  on  some  subjects.  Nevertheless,  it  is  unequivocally  so  that  the
modern Church's doctrinal differences hinge on the teachings of Paul. In fact for
at  least  a  couple  of  centuries,  now,  many  intellectually  honest  Bible  scholars
freely admit that we are far more the Church of Paul than we are the Church of
Christ. That is, it is the doctrines extracted from Paul's teachings that form the
bulk of Church doctrine; and the fact that Paul can be (as Peter said) "hard to
understand" is perhaps the primary reason that the Body of Christ has broken
into  about  3000  denominations  because  the  tendency  is  to  pick  and  choose
which statements of Paul suit the denominational authority the best. But another
of  the  main  culprits  for  this  fracturing  of  Christianity  also  has  to  do  with  an
institutional unwillingness to take the Book of Acts at its word as concerns Paul.
Yet another is a reluctance to research what the early Church Fathers had to say
                             6 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
as concerns Paul and the Book of Acts (we'll get into that later).
Let's continue to follow this line of thought a little further because it highlights the
reason that the Book of Acts is critical to our faith, and thus why we're going to
take close to a year to study it. So the issue of how to interpret Paul and where to
place him in a hierarchy of Scriptural authority goes all the way back to around 48
A.D.  with  Peter  (who  was  one  of  Yeshua's  12  original  disciples  who  heard
Messiah's  teachings  directly  from  the  Lord's  own  lips;  teachings  on  the  very
subjects that Paul later expounded upon). One can only imagine how hard it must
have  been  to  hear  Paul  say  words  that  Peter  at  times  couldn't  exactly  square
with what He heard Yeshua say. But about 100 years later, the issue of Paul's
difficult sayings became even more problematic when a fellow by the name of
Marcion decided that it was time to have a Christian Bible, containing teachings
only  from  Christ  Believers.  He  also  decided  that  the  only  reliable  Apostle  was
Paul.
Marcion  of  Sinope  was  a  devotee  to  Paul's  writings;  nevertheless  this  gentile
shipping magnate had a very unbalanced view of Christianity and Paul. In 144
A.D. in Rome (one of the several growing centers of Christianity), he proposed to
the Bishop of Rome a new Bible based upon his belief that the world had entered
a  new  age  because  of  Christ.  Marcion  felt  that  Jesus  was  the  founder  of  an
entirely new religion that had no connection to anything previous to it. For him
Yeshua was Jewish only due to an accident of birth, and that the Hebrew Bible
(the Old Testament) and its prophecies about a Messiah had no bearing on who
Jesus was. Thus, as is the true case in many Christian denominations today, for
Marcion the Old Testament had no place in a Christian Bible or in the Christian
faith. And by the way; let me clear by what I just said. I've been a member of the
Body of Christ for a long time, carefully studied several of the modern Christian
commentators  Liberal  and  Conservative,  and  served  in  enough  Churches  at
various levels to know that while the Old Testament may remain in a particular
denomination's    authorized    Bible,    it    is    considered    somewhere    between
unimportant and irrelevant and would be removed in a heartbeat if congregation
members would stand for it. But it is too sensitive of an issue to tackle quite that
boldly, so it is not touched. Rather the Old Testament is simply ignored. Or in
some cases congregations are warned that it is dangerous and to stay out of it as
studying it might lead them to question or even abandon their faith in Christ.
Now  Marcion,  who  indeed  saw  Christ  as  God,  also  saw  Him  as  the  new  God
while  God  the  Father  was  the  old  God.  And  since  God  the  Father  had  never
                             7 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
appeared on earth before and directly ministered to people, then Christ was the
superior God. Thus we have God the Father as the God of Israel, and we have
superior Jesus Christ as the God of Christianity, thus making Christianity superior
to  the  religion  of  the  Israelites.  And  according  to  Marcion  it  was  Paul  who
faithfully taught this supposed truth. It was Paul alone of all the Apostolic writers
who  kept  the  true  witness  of  Christ;  the  rest  were  too  Jewish  and  therefore
heretics. Thus Marcion proposed a new Bible consisting of two parts: the first part
was to be called The Gospel and the second part was to be called The Apostle.
The Gospel was to be only Luke's Gospel; one that had been suitably edited by
Marcion.  The  Apostle  would  consist  of  nine  letters  (Epistles)  written  by  Paul.
They too had been edited. And that's it.
Marcion  published  his  new  Christian  Bible  canon  and  it  of  course  immediately
caused  a  tremendous  uproar.  One  has  to  ask  a  question  at  this  point:  if
only  one  of  the  four  Gospels  in  circulation  that  Marcion  found  suitable  was
Luke's,  why  did  he  find  Luke's  Book  of  Acts  unfit  for  his  new  Christian  Bible?
First we have to recall something I told you a few minutes ago; Luke's Gospel
and the Book of Acts were originally one unified work produced by Luke, but it did
consist of two volumes. At first it circulated as a book called History of Christian
Origins. But some years later it was divided and made into two separate books:
the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. By now the Gospel of Luke had gained
wide  acceptance  but  the  Book  of  Acts  was  not  viewed  with  the  same  favor  in
some  corners  of  Christianity,  and  certainly  not  in  Marcion's  eyes.  And  those
corners that had disdain for the Book of Acts were generally those who wanted
Christianity to be a gentiles-only religion.
Because Marcion's view was seen as so radical the Bishop of Rome and other
Church Bishops took up the challenge and officially looked at the issue of just
how  authoritative  certain  of  the  circulating  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  to  be
considered. They were not deciding on a new Biblical canon, but rather they were
responding to Marcion's outrageous views. The result was that they gave equal
weight to four particular Gospels chosen from among the several more that were
in circulation around the Church at that time (some Gnostic Gospels were also
part  of  that  mix).  And  the  chosen  four  were  the  ones  we're  familiar  with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They also declared that 10 letters (not 9) written
by Paul were authoritative (not inspired Scripture, just authoritative for instructing
the  Church),  as  well  as  some  of  Peter's  writings.  And  to  Marcion's  greatest
disdain,  the  Book  of  Acts  was  included  as  authoritative.  In  fact,  the  Church
renamed this work of Luke to "The Book of the Acts of the Apostles" (Apostles,
                             8 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
plural),  so  that  it  was  understood  that  the  Church  Bishops  considered  more
writers than only Paul as both authoritative and as Apostles.  Due to the Book of
Acts  being  re-validated,  Yeshua's  Jewishness  was  returned  to  Him  and  Paul
was  given  back  the  context  of  his  own  Hebrew  heritage  and  his  continued
dedication to the Jewish religion.
Now let's talk about the early Church Fathers for a moment because their view
of Paul is a bit different than the modern Church view of Paul (a modern view that
is   actually   closer   to   Marcion's).   While   many   modern   Bible   scholars,   and
language experts, and Bible historians honestly believe that they have a better
idea  of  who  the  various  New  Testament  Bible  characters  were,  and  how  they
lived,  and  what  they  meant  by  what  they  said  2000  years  ago,  they  must
necessarily  also  question  and  at  times  shun  some  of  the  writings  of  the  early
Church Fathers; some who were but a generation or two removed from Paul and
in  some  cases  knew  people  who  had  known  Paul  personally.  I  believe  their
premise is upside down. Rather I contend that those people who are closest in
time to any particular historical event, and especially those who lived within the
social   and   cultural   context   of   that   same   cultural   event,   have   the   better
perspective on how to interpret and understand the meaning and intent of that
event.  So  I'm  quite  at  odds  with  many  post-modern  Bible  scholars  on  that
account.  But  it  also  explains  why  modern  historians  feel  so  confident  in  their
opinions as to easily and often rewrite history to conform to their viewpoint.
So what did the Early Church Fathers have to say about Paul and the Book of
Acts?  Well,  fragments  of  various  works  from  about  40  different  authors  who
commented on the Book of Acts from about 100 A.D. to as late as 800 A.D. have
been   found.   However   there   are   only   3   ancient   works   that   are   complete
commentaries (or very nearly complete) on the Book of Acts that have survived
over the centuries. The oldest is by John Chrysostom from 407 A.D.  The next
oldest  was  written  by  Arator  about  550  A.D.  And  after  that  the  one  written  by
Venerable  Bede  in  735  A.D.  Any  commentaries  written  after  that  time  are
considered too late to be categorized as "ancient Christian commentary".
One  fragment  that  was  found  written  by  the  early  Church  Father  Tertullian  is
especially  insightful  because  he  is  responding  to  Marcion's  heresy,  which  50
years later in 200 A.D. was still unsettling many Bishops (I think the reason for
this  is  that  the  Bishops  were  at  that  time  beginning  to  seriously  address  the
possibility  of  creating  a  New  Testament,  and  if  so  what  documents  might  it
contain). In Tertullian's work appropriately titled "Against Marcion", he says this
                             9 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
(and I quote him):  "You must show us first of all who Paul was. What was he
before he became an Apostle? How did he become an Apostle?" In other
words, since Luke's Acts of the Apostles was where this information about Paul
was  contained,  Tertullian  was  an  advocate  for  this  book's  validity  and  its
importance  for  understanding  Paul  (remember  that  a  key  issue  with  Marcion
concerned Paul and Marcion's characterization of him).
Who Paul is and what he believes and teaches in his religious Jewish context is
found primarily in the Book of Acts. Remove the Book of Acts from the scene (as
Marcion insisted upon) and the Paul of the Epistles becomes a different Paul who
will necessarily be understood differently. That is the magnitude of what we are
dealing with when we decide to undertake a study of the Book of Acts.
Every  Bible  character,  and  every  human  for  that  matter,  has  a  foundational
context  for  knowing  them  and  understanding  them  (and  when  it  comes  to  the
Bible,  for  interpreting  them).  When  we  lift  anyone  out  of  their  foundational
context,  we  get  it  wrong.  This  issue  of  using  the  Book  of  Acts  to  provide  the
foundational  context  for  understanding  Paul  compares  favorably  with  what  I've
taught  you  about  the  importance  of  establishing  the  foundational  context  for
understanding the person and purpose of Yeshua HaMashiach. When we discard
this  well  known,  pivotal  statement  by  Jesus  explaining  His  identify  and  His
purpose   in   His   own   words,   then   we   lose   the   foundational   context   for
understanding who Yeshua is.
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB 17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah
or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I
tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a
stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has
happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches
others  to  do  so  will  be  called  the  least  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  But
whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of
Heaven.
When we read this, we hear our Messiah insist that He did NOT do the very thing
that  the  gentile  Christian  Church  insists  that  He  did:  abolish  the  Law  and  the
Prophets.  And  of  course,  as  most  of  you  are  well  aware,  there  is  an  equal
insistence within Christianity that it is Paul who says Christ DID abolish the Torah
and the Prophets. Truth be told, the position that Christ DID abolish the Law and
the Prophets is precisely what led Marcion to his heresy, and the early Church
                            10 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
Bishops and Church Fathers renounced Marcion for it. And it is also true that if
you read sections of some of Paul's Epistles it is hard NOT to take it that way.
But,  just  as  there  is  a  pivotal  foundational  context  for  understanding  Christ  in
Matthew chapter 5, so there is a pivotal foundational context for understanding
Paul that we will dissect in depth in the Book of Acts.
We've  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  talking  about  Paul,  so  now  I'd  like  change
gears and discuss this central issue: what is the Book of Acts about, and who is
the central character? The answer to this is not easy because Acts covers a lot of
territory. We meet a number of people in Acts such as Barnabas, Peter, James,
Stephen and of course Paul. However I believe I can say with confidence that
you will soon see that the central character in Acts is God; and especially in His
attribute as the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit takes central stage in Luke's sequel.
In fact when we count up the number of times in the entire New Testament that
the Holy Spirit is mentioned by name, we find this interesting spread:  Matthew 5
times, Mark 4, Luke 13, John 3, all of Paul's Epistles in total 16, Hebrews 5, and
Peter 2. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned at all in Revelation. But in the Book of
Acts  we  find  the  Holy  Spirit  mentioned  40  times.  When  we  add  together  both
books written by Luke that means that out of a total of 88 times the Holy Spirit is
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  Luke  speaks  of  Him  53  of  those  times.
Obviously the Holy Spirit was at the forefront of Luke's mind as he contemplated
the  work  of  God  especially  after  Christ  ascended.  We  will  also  find  that  Luke
equates  the  terms  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Spirit  of  Yeshua  (we'll  cover  that  more
when we encounter it in Acts 16).
Further  our  writer  Luke  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  for  him  the  God  of  the
Church is the God of Israel (quite the opposite of Marcion). And that everything
that Christ did and who He was is confirmed and it fulfilled the Old Testament
Prophets. As we progress through the Book of Acts you will notice that Israel's
history is made central to redemption history in speeches by the martyr Stephen
and by Paul.
Therefore in summation I think I can say that while each of the Epistles of the
New  Testament  was  written  to  address  some  specific  issues  taking  place  at
specific congregations of Believers, the Book of Acts was written to accomplish
the dual tasks of defining and reconciling the relationship between Jewish and
gentile  Believers  in  the  1st  century  Body  of  Believers;  and  also  to  put  Peter's
ministry and Paul's ministry in their proper perspectives and on somewhat equal
footing. As Rabbi Joseph Shulam so aptly points out, as we read about Peter and
                            11 / 12
Lesson 1 - Acts Introduction
 
Paul  in  Acts,  Luke  advises  us  that,  1)  the  first  healing  of  both  men  were  of
cripples; 2) Peter healed by merely casting his shadow while Paul healed from
someone touching a cloth he had touched; 3) they both encountered and dealt
with witchcraft; 4) they were both supernaturally released from being imprisoned;
and 5) through all their trials and troubles still they both were able to spread the
Word of God and the truth of the Good News.
Let's  finish  up  today  with  this  thought.  One  of  the  themes  that  is  woven
throughout  the  Book  of  Acts  is  that  what  happens  on  earth  either  is  being
established  on  another  level  in  Heaven  or  has  already  been  established  in
Heaven and is only now happening on earth. And that many earthly events have
a real tangible meaning, consequence, and outcome as they happen (such as
the  death  of  Christ);  but  these  same  events  can  also  simultaneously  have  a
mysterious quality to them that somehow advances God's plan and purpose in
ways that we can't see or measure.
Gregory the Great, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from 590 – 604 A.D.
said  this:    "Holy  Scripture,  in  its  way  of  speaking,  transcends  all  other
sciences because in one and the same statement while it narrates a real
event, it also sets forth the mystery". I have tried to characterize and illustrate
this  impossible  to  explain  divine  phenomena  by  using  the  term  the  Reality  of
Duality.
Next week we shall open our Bibles to Acts chapter one.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            12 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 2, Chapter 1
In our introduction to the Book of Acts last week, one of the several reasons that I
highlighted for deciding to teach this New Testament book (besides the fact that
the Holy Spirit led me to do so), was because it forms the foundational context for
understanding  who  Paul  is.  And  while  much  more  goes  on  in  Acts  than  only
concerns  Paul,  and  we're  going  to  spend  a  great  deal  of  our  study  on  those
things, there is no greater influence on the modern institutional Christian Church
than  Paul's  Epistles.  So  I  can't  help  but  focus  on  Paul,  especially  once  he
enters the scene in the Book of Acts.
Paul was perceived as problematic within the Messianic movement as early as
48  or  49  A.D.  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  claiming  that  Paul  could  be  quite  hard  to
understand. Without doubt this is the same issue that led to James summoning
Paul to Jerusalem for a meeting in 49 A.D. because of things he had heard about
Paul. So what did Peter mean in 2 Peter 3:16 by 'hard to understand'? Did Paul
mumble? Was he a poor Hebrew and Aramaic speaker? Did he speak in circles
or  in  unsolvable  riddles?  Obviously  that  is  not  Peter's  issue  with  Paul  as  Paul
was  always  depicted  throughout  the  NT  as  an  elite  intellectual;  articulate,  a
walking Encyclopedia Judaica, and a persuasive orator even in front of heads of
state. So what was so hard to understand about Paul's words? Since Peter was
an original disciple of Yeshua, who was there with Him as a constant companion
from the beginning of Yeshua's ministry and through the time of His crucifixion
and resurrection; and he had personally witnessed Messiah's ascension into the
clouds,  Peter  had  been  trained  at  the  feet  of  the  Master.  But  when  he  heard
some of the things that the relative new-comer Paul said about various subjects
regarding  the  meaning  and  consequences  of  Yeshua's  advent  as  Savior,  and
what Jewish and gentile followers ought to do as a result, at times they must not
                             1 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
have sounded too much like the instructions that Peter had heard directly from
the lips of Christ.
I can tell you frankly that I have similar issues. There are things that Paul says in
his  many  letters  that  are  at  times  hard  to  square  with  what  Christ  says  in  the
Gospels. Quite recently I had a lively dinner conversation with a long time dear
friend who is one of the most respected, prolific and widely read Christian fiction
writers of our time (I don't need to reveal his name as he is doing well enough
without free advertising from me). And as I discussed with him some of the things
I'm  going  to  discuss  with  you,  he  paused  and  said  that  (and  I  paraphrase)  as
much as Paul has taught him and been a spiritual guide to him, he's not sure
how  much  he  likes  Paul  (on  a  personal  and  gut  level).  That  Paul  could  be
infuriating, arrogant, and sometimes contradictive if not sounding outright double-
minded  on  some  important  theological  matters  that  concern  every  Believer,
gentile or Jew. And I if you don't feel some of that, then you haven't really read
Paul.
Now, while I'm not sure I could be quite as disapproving as my friend, I have had
similar  reactions  as  I've  studied  Paul's  Epistles.  So  do  I  think  there's  a
problem? Yes I do; but the problem is not with Paul, it's with us. Unless and until
we,  and  Christianity  in  totality,  take  Paul  in  his  Jewish  cultural  and  religious
context, and understand that all of his words naturally, reflexively, flow from who
he is in his Jewish context both before and after He met the resurrected Yeshua,
then we will misunderstand his words and their intent. His 13 Epistles (some say
it is 14 if you assume he wrote the Book of Hebrews, which most scholars say he
didn't, and I am in agreement that he did not), Paul's letters do not explain who
Paul is or delve deeply into his cultural and religious background. Rather they
explain what Paul did and said to a wide variety of people, in a wide variety of
circumstances and cultural settings, after his confrontation with the risen Messiah
and his conversion on the road to Damascus. So where do find out who Paul
really is? Where do we find out how we are to understand that the very structure
of  Paul's  sentences  and  the  terms  he  chooses  obviously  reflects  his  Jewish
cultural background and dedication to, and understanding of, his Jewish religion?
We find it in the Book of Acts.
As the gentile Church formed and progressed in the years following the death of
Christ, and then the eventual demise of all of his Apostles, we find a tug-of-war
developing between Church leaders to determine how much Jewishness should
be allowed into gentile Christianity, and how much the Church's doctrines ought
                             2 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
to be influenced by the Jewish context of the Holy Scriptures (not to mention the
Jewishness of nearly all its characters and writers). And as an aside: let me be
clear that while the best technically correct term that I ought to use is Hebrew
rather  than  Jewish,  I  will  use  "Jewish"  more  often  because  it  is  the  more
commonly used term in our day even if from a scholarly standpoint Hebrew is
more nuanced. This issue of Paul's Jewishness is why we talked about Marcion
last week who about 40 years or so after the last of the original Apostles died,
decided that NO Jewishness should follow into Christianity. And to try and assure
that it didn't he fought against using the Book of Acts as instructional or historical
material  for  Christians,  and  only  wanted  to  include  9  of  Paul's  13  letters,  and
even then only versions that Marcion heavily edited. He wasn't entirely alone in
this viewpoint, and his arguments obviously had their long term effect.
One  of  the  things  I  do  to  prepare  my  lessons  is  to  research  several  of  the
scholarly commentaries that Jewish and Christian sources generally agree are
the best; clearly rising above the many other good ones. And as I studied the
various commentaries on Acts, and as I noted the many reference sources used
by these excellent commentators, I found it strange that almost no mention was
made of the comments written by the earliest Church Fathers. Being a natural-
born  skeptic  I  wondered  why  that  was.  Finding  just  what  these  early  Church
Fathers had to say was quite a challenge for me because so much of what they
had  to  say  were  in  languages  (such  as  Latin)  that  I  was  unfamiliar  with.  But,
thanks be to God, by chance I stumbled across a little-known work accomplished
by Francis Martin who not only translated but also collated and correlated what
many of the early Church Fathers had to say about Luke's Book of Acts. And it
has greatly added to and colored what I now understand about this pivotal New
Testament book as it filled in some critical blanks.
Before we read Acts chapter one together, I want to give you a quote from John
Chrysostom,  who  wrote  a  rather  complete  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Acts
around
400 A.D. What he says in only a couple of sentences gives us great insight into
the  mindset  of  the  Church  and  Christianity  in  general  towards  this  book  in  his
day, and in the decades leading up to his commentary. He says this about the
Book  of  Acts:  "To  many  people  this  book  (The  Book  of  Acts),  both  its
content  and  its  author,  is  so  little  known  that  they  are  not  even  aware  it
exists. I have therefore taken this narrative for my subject, both to initiate
those who are ignorant and so that such a treasure shall not remain hidden
                             3 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
out of sight".
Why was this Bible book so little known in Christianity that Chrysostom could say
that even its authorship wasn't known, let alone what it contained? After all, the
Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written by the same author, and the
Gospel of Luke was a mainstay for the Christian community long before it and
other books were canonized as God inspired and made part of a new Christian
Bible that included the so-called New Testament. As I told you last week, Luke
originally  created  a  single  unified  work  called  "History  of  Christian  Origins",
which consisted of two volumes: the Gospel and the Apostles. Essentially these 2
volumes  were  part  A  and  part  B  of  a  total  work  developed  by  Luke.  But  even
before   Marcion's   time   (140's   A.D.)   Luke's   work   had   been   divided   and
separated into two individual books, and they circulated separately: The Gospel
of Luke was one book, and the Acts of the Apostles was the second. Once they
became separated, the continuity and connection of Luke's exquisite work was
lost. Each book presented only half the story. And many in the gentile dominated
Church revered the first half, but didn't much care for the second half because,
as Marcion was bold enough to say out loud, it was too Jewish. The Book of Acts
especially presented a much too Jewish Paul who had been re-molded by many
Church  Bishops  into  an  Apostle  to  the  gentiles  who  was  very  nearly  a  gentile
himself; his Jewishness being an unimportant (if not troublesome) formality that
need not be considered or even brought up.  That is why John Chrysostom could
say that few within the Church knew the Book of Acts even existed.
Take note of this as well: since it has long been known that the Book of Acts is
the  direct  sequel  to  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  why  doesn't  Acts  directly  follow  the
Gospel of Luke in the Bible? Then we'd have the original continuity and flow that
Luke intended. Why did the early Church decide to put the Gospels in the order
of  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  and  then  insert  a  4th  Gospel,  John,  before  then
inserting Acts? Why not Matthew, Mark, John.....then Luke immediately followed
by Acts? After all that is exactly how it is done with Paul, Peter, and others when
there   are   two   parts   to   one   letter   or   one   complete   work   (for   example,
1st Corinthians isn't separated from 2nd Corinthians with other books placed in
between).  Do  you  think  this  was  accidental?  That  the  Church  Fathers  didn't
realize what they were doing when they separated Luke from Acts? Might there
have been an agenda at work, here? Of course there was and the result was
exactly what John Chrysostom revealed at the beginning of the 5th century A.D.;
few Christians knew that the Book of Acts even existed, or that its author was the
Luke of the Gospels, or that Acts was Luke part 2; that's why it was hidden out of
                             4 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
sight. Without the Book of Acts Paul could be more easily recast as a gentile-ish
Jew  who  spoke  against  the  Torah  and  the  Jewish  people,  and  made  gentile
Believers the New and replaced Israel.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter one.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 1 all
We have so many interesting and foundational topics, one after the other, in this
first  chapter,  and  we'll  deal  with  several  of  them.  We've  already  covered
authorship, so we could easily call the Book of Acts, Luke part 2. And like the first
book (the Gospel of Luke) this one is dedicated to the same fellow Theophilos.
Now Theophilos is a Greek word that means "friend of God". There are not just a
few scholars who therefore say that in fact while this is a real name in use at that
time, that it also just as easily could be a general term referring to all of the new
Believers in Christ (as friends of God). We'll not get into the many debates about
this, because most of them in my opinion are specious arguments that ignore the
plain wording before us. Absolute proof of course isn't possible, but there is no
reason to think that Theophilos isn't a rich benefactor who paid Luke to do this
thorough investigation into Yeshua and all that He did and then what happened
to the early movement of Believers after His ascension.
Right   away   in   verse   2   we   see   Luke's   focus   on   the   work   of   God
through the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit, and we'll find the use of this term
Holy Spirit 39 more times in Acts. This means that of all the uses of the term Holy
Spirit in the entire New Testament, the Book of Acts alone contains almost half of
them. In fact the second verse explains that Yeshua gave instructions through
the auspices of the Holy Spirit to the 12 disciples He had originally chosen (11
really  because  Judas  had  committed  suicide).  Thus  Luke  makes  a  strong
connection not just with YHWH and the Holy Spirit, but now with Jesus and the
Holy Spirit. So we see the great unity, the oneness, the echad of God expressed
and understood by Luke.
Luke reminds his readers in verse 3 that after Yeshua arose from the rocky tomb
that He presented Himself to many of His followers and left no doubt that it was
He, and that He was real and alive, not an apparition or a ghost. We find record
of this fact in numerous places in the NT, so here is but one example:
Matthew 28:8-10 CJB
                             5 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
8 So they left the tomb quickly, frightened yet filled with joy; and they ran to
give  the  news  to  his  talmidim.  9  Suddenly  Yeshua  met  them  and  said,
"Shalom!" They came up and took hold of his feet as they fell down in front
of  him.  10  Then  Yeshua  said  to  them,  "Don't  be  afraid!  Go  and  tell  my
brothers to go to the Galil, and they will see me there."
Skip down to verse 16.
16 So the eleven talmidim went to the hill in the Galil where Yeshua had told
them to go. 17 When they saw him, they prostrated themselves before him;
but  some  hesitated.  18  Yeshua  came  and  talked  with  them.  He  said,  "All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore, go and
make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality
of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, 20 and teaching them to
obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with
you always, yes, even until the end of the age."
Then we get a piece of information in verse 3 of chapter 1 that we didn't get in
the Gospels: after His resurrection Yeshua stayed around for a period of 40 days
communing  with  and  instructing  His  disciples.  Why  40  days?  God  instructed
Moses on top of Mt. Sinai for 40 days, and now God (Yeshua) is instructing His
disciples  for  40  days.  40  is  a  Biblical  number  that  symbolizes  testing  and/or
transition.  And  since  we  know  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  arrive  to  dwell  within
humans  on  the  50th  day  after  Passover,  and  we  know  that  Yeshua  arose
on Bikkurim (Firstfruits) and remained on earth for 40 days, then depending on
how one decides to count the days from Passover to Firstfruits (I say it is 3 days)
that it seems probable that 1 week to the day after Christ ascended into Heaven,
Shavuot arrived and with it the Holy Spirit.  One week is 7 days and 7 is the ideal
number and is symbolic of wholeness or divine completion. Makes sense that it
would be exactly 7 days between Christ ascending and the Holy Spirit arriving;
and it follows the Biblical pattern we saw in the Torah and in the Old Testament.
We get one other important piece of information: what was it that Christ mainly
spent His time teaching His disciples about? It was about the Kingdom of God.
And by the way, at times we'll see places in the NT that speaks of the Kingdom
of Heaven; it is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.  And yet as we'll see in a
couple  more  verses,  there  were  aspects  about  the  concept  of  the  Kingdom  of
God that the disciples still couldn't comprehend.
                             6 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
It was during that 40 day period at one of these post-resurrection gatherings that
Yeshua instructed the 11 that they were not to leave Jerusalem but instead to
wait for what the Father promised. So obviously at this particular gathering they
weren't  in  Galilee;  rather  Jesus  met  with  them  in  Jerusalem.  Then  in  verse  4
Christ says something quite interesting that has more depth to it than meets the
eye.  He  says  that  although  His  cousin  Yochanon  (John  the  Baptist)  baptized
people in water, the disciples would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Notice that
with John, the baptizer was the human being, John. But Yeshua didn't say that
they would go out and baptize in the Holy Spirit instead of water, but rather they
would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. One can only imagine what this might
have meant to them; I suspect it was puzzling. So this is where we'll pause and
talk  about  this  because  since  these  11  disciples  are  all  Jews,  and  since  their
cultural  and  religious  context  is  second  Temple  Judaism,  any  talk  among
themselves about baptizing was within the framework of how Jews baptized and
what that act meant to them.
First; the English word baptize comes from the Greek verb baptizeim, and it is a
generic term that means to immerse. So whatever it is meant to symbolize, the
action physically involves immersion of something, usually into a liquid. And the
purpose of being immersed is to take on the qualities of the liquid that person or
object is being immersed into. The term was regularly used as it regards dying
cloth; so a plain cloth is immersed into a vat of dye and it takes on the quality of
that dye, which is to change the cloth to a certain color.
From  the  Jewish  second  Temple  period  perspective,  whereby  Judaism  had
become an amalgam of Traditions that overlapped and intermingled with Torah
commandments  regarding  the  God-ordained  act  of  immersion,  the  purpose  of
immersion  was  generally  to  become  ritually  purified  or  cleansed.    There  were
many ways that ritual purity could be lost, but immersion invariably was the way
to regain that lost purity. In fact, immersion to regain ritual purity was not only for
humans  but  for  inanimate  objects  like  cookware.  The  preferred  place  for
immersion  was  at  a  Mikveh;  a  ritual  bath  that  had  steps  down  into  a  water
reservoir,  and  usually  separate  steps  back  up.  The  water  reservoir  had  to  be
deep enough that the entire body, head to toe, could be enveloped in water. But
when a Mikveh was not available a river or a spring fed lake was acceptable.
I spoke about immersion as a change in status. When someone or something
is    not    ritually    pure    it    is    not    usable    for    God.    When    someone    or
something is ritually clean, it becomes usable for God. And so it was common for
                             7 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
a  person  or  object  to  be  ritually  clean,  then  made  ritually  unclean,  only  to  be
made ritually clean again through immersion. Now to be clear: the water used for
immersion is itself only symbolic and has no magical quality to it. Rather by going
into  the  water  and  immersing  (baptizing),  it  signals  that  you  (or  the  object)  is
willfully changing your status from one condition to another; from being someone
who God is not able to use because you aren't pure enough in God's eyes, to
someone  God  is  able  to  use  because  you  are  now  pure  in  God's  eyes.  As
regards  Believer's  baptism  it  is  symbolic  of  laying  down  our  own  will  and
submitting to God's. It is death and burial of our identity and allegiance to self,
and thus having our status changed such that our new identity and allegiance is
Messiah.
So  whereas  John,  a  physical  human  being,  could  only  immerse  a  person  into
physical water as a show of symbolism, now through Christ, and without the aid
of  a  human,  God  would  immerse  a  person  into  His  Holy  Spirit  and  it  wasn't
symbolic but real. And what did one obtain with immersion into the Holy Spirit?
Power!  Finally, praise the Lord, finally the power to hear God and to obey Him;
to do His will in impossible circumstances. Power to go forth with the Good News
and deliver it to others. And with Christ's disciples at least, power to do miracles
like their Master had done.
To  stay  on  course  let's  talk  about  Yeshua  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit
descended upon Christ. He was the first to receive the Spirit that dwelled within.
And yet, since Yeshua was God the Holy Spirit was as much a part Him as for
His Father. There is only one Holy Spirit, not many. Thus essentially the same
spirit that was within Yeshua, He would share with His 11 disciplines and also
with all who came to faith in Him. I think a good way to look at it is that Yeshua
shared His Holy Spirit with His disciples as the means to empower them to do
what He had done, and what He wanted them to do. This was a first, right? NO!
God  is  a  God  of  patterns;  and  all  that  we  see  happening  in  the  NT,  was  first
patterned in the Old Testament.
Numbers 11:24-26 CJB 24 Moshe went out and told the people what ADONAI
had said. Then he collected seventy of the leaders of the people and placed
them all around the tent. 25 ADONAI came down in the cloud, spoke to him,
took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy leaders.
When  the  Spirit  came  to  rest  on  them,  they  prophesied-  then  but  not
afterwards.  26  There  were  two  men  who  stayed  in  the  camp,  one  named
Eldad and the other Medad, and the Spirit came to rest on them. They were
                             8 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
among those listed to go out to the tent, but they hadn't done so, and they
prophesied in the camp.
How about that? The precedent and pattern had already been set with the first
mediator, Moses, whereby God's spirit that rested upon him was SHARED with
his   "disciples",   the   70   elders.   And   what   did   they   do   as   a   result?   They
prophesied;  meaning  they  spoke  as  God  directed  them.  Two  others  who  had
stayed  in  the  tent  encampment  also  had  the  spirit  rest  upon  them  and  they
prophesied in the camp. But it was short lived. Now we see what we've talked
about time and again; Yeshua, the second and better Mediator, came to bring the
Torah and Prophets to a whole new and higher level of fulfillment. With Yeshua
as Mediator the Holy Spirit didn't just rest upon worshippers, He indwelled. And
the effect wasn't short lived, it was lifelong. When you and I and everyone who
has trusted in Christ were anointed with the Holy Spirit, it was meant to be for a
lifetime. We don't need to occasionally redo it.
We'll move on to verse 6 now, and into another awesome topic, but I don't want
to leave the matter of baptism before telling you this: yes it is symbolic. But it is
also  commanded  by  Yeshua  and  so  that  makes  it  vitally  necessary.  It  is  not
optional. And one of the purposes of baptism is to make a public profession to
fellow  Believers  that  you  have  decided  to  put  down  your  crown,  take  up  the
cross, and join the community of Believers. Will submerging under water change
you? No. Water can't enter into your innermost parts; but the Holy Spirit can and
will. By being obedient to God to follow Messiah's command to immerse and by
being willing to let others around you know of your change of status, you will be
changed.
Since coming to Messiah, have you been immersed? Have you perhaps left a
faith or denomination that was well off the mark and you want to immerse in the
truth of Yeshua, and the truth of the entire Word of God, and not merely in the
image or fantasy of whatever you used to think Him to be? Do you want to boldly
tell the Father and your family and congregation that you now know that through
faith  in  Messiah  you  have  been  grafted  into  the  Covenants  of  Israel;  the
covenants that provide for a Jewish Savior to pay the price for your sins?  Do you
want to declare that the Lord has made you prepared, full of power, and finally
usable by God? Then be immersed (I'll be happy to talk to anyone who wants to
know more at the end of this message).
In verse 6 we see that the disciples still didn't get this Kingdom-of-God thing, not
                             9 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
even  with  God  Himself  (Jesus)  personally  teaching  them  about  it  (one  more
reason  that  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  we  see  in  chapter  two  was  so
necessary). So the disciples ask Yeshua this question: "Lord, are you going to
restore self-rule to Israel?" You see, all of Judaism was breathlessly waiting for a
Deliverer, an anointed one, to come and not only rescue Israel from the hands of
the Romans; but to also restore self-rule. That self rule was to come in the form
of a Davidic King. And the disciples well understood that Yeshua came from one
of the royal lines of David, so He was qualified for the position. And, by the way,
there were many lines that came from David through his many wives. But only
the  line  that  came  through  David's  son  Solomon  was  considered  as  the  royal
line, meaning eligibility to sit on Israel's throne as king. So even though through
all Yeshua had done and taught them the 11 still seemed to harbor the notion
that in His now resurrected body, He would lead Israel in a successful military
rebellion against Rome. This particular expectation of a Messiah was present in
virtually  all  Jews,  whether  they  lived  in  the  Holy  Land  or  in  the  Diaspora.  And
since Christ had proven in every way that He was the Messiah, what would have
been a more logical question that the one the disciples put forward to Him about
Israel and self-rule?
The disciples didn't get it that, at least for this time, Yeshua came only to die as
a ransom for sin. Yeshua's answer to their question is fascinating and important.
He didn't say "no". He essentially said "later".
Acts 1:7-8 CJB  7 He answered, "You don't need to know the dates or the
times;  the  Father  has  kept  these  under  his  own  authority.  8  But  you  will
receive power when the Ruach HaKodesh comes upon you; you will be my
witnesses both in Yerushalayim and in all Y'hudah and Shomron, indeed to
the ends of the earth!"
So  Christ's  answer  to  the  question  'will  Israel  return  to  self-rule'  is  yes  Israel
will. And by the way they had self-rule restored to them in May of 1948 and have
been  under  self-rule  ever  since.  However  that  still  isn't  the  fulfillment  of  what
Yeshua was speaking about; because Yeshua's concern wasn't merely the land
of  Israel  having  independence,  and  being  led  by  a  Jew;  but  rather  that  Israel
would be the core of the Kingdom of God. And that event is still in the future, and
it is what modern Christianity calls the Millennial Kingdom. So while it is going to
come  as  a  surprise  to  many  Believers,  it  shouldn't  surprise  you  to  know  that
Israel  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  will  one  day  be  the  same.  And  Jerusalem  as
capital  of  Israel  will  also  be  the  capital  of  the  worldwide  Kingdom  of  God  with
                            10 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
Jesus Christ ruling on earth as king.
But Yeshua told them that they didn't need to know when this would happen; in
fact the Father is the only one who knows and is keeping it to Himself. So instead
of receiving knowledge of when these events will happen (events they don't yet
fathom), they will (in a matter of days) receive power when the Holy Spirit comes
upon  them.  His  answer  also  completely  blows  away  the  Christian  concept  of
Replacement Theology or that the Jews no longer have a right to the Holy Land;
and instead it now belongs to the gentile Church.
Another important thing that happened here is most instructional for our day, and
it plays into a pet peeve of mine. Jesus refocused them from anxiously staring
into the future and instead told them to concentrate on the now. Whatever lies
ahead in prophecy is important and we can count on it; but we should not live our
lives in waiting mode. Or as with today among too many Believers, constantly
thinking about the coming End Times while the days whiz by and mostly we just
fret and worry about the terrible things we read about the End Times, instead of
our being productive. Folks, there are nearly daily a bevy of false prophets who
send out internet newsletters or write books and try to tell you to watch out for
this month or this blood moon, because the Holy Spirit told them the destruction
of the USA was coming, or the Anti-Christ would appear, or the world would enter
into  war,  or  we'd  have  a  complete  financial  collapse  or  "fill  in  the  blank  with
whatever  catastrophe  is  currently  in  vogue'.    They  sound  so  convincing;  but
when that month or day passes and nothing particularly important happens, they
just move right on to their next false prophecy. Why listen to them? Does it make
you  feel  more  religious,  or  does  it  merely  play  into  your  fears  and  so  you  are
happy you're not alone in those fears? How does it help the Kingdom of God, or
yourself or your family, to be full of fear and trembling about a future no one can
possibly know....because Yeshua Himself said you couldn't? Do you know why
these  false  prophets  continue  doing  this?  Because  they  continue  to  get  an
audience!
Christ  says  that  He  has  told  us  what  we  need  to  know  about  the  outcome  of
God's  plan  of  redemption;  but  the  when  is  not  for  us  to  know.  Rather  as  His
devoted followers we are to get on with the business of doing God's will, living
holy lives, caring for Yeshua's sheep, and doing whatever we can to bring the
lost ones into the Kingdom.
Yeshua telling the disciples to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem, in Samaria,
                            11 / 12
Lesson 2 - Acts Chapter 1
 
and to the ends of the earth tells us a couple of important things. First it tells us
that Jerusalem is the beginning point, like the epicenter of a massive earthquake,
and the Gospel is to ripple outwards from there. It is to spread next to Samaria (a
place  the  Jews,  including  the  Believers,  simply  despised  even  though  most
Samarians  had  some  Hebrew  blood  in  their  veins).  And  then  after  Samaria  to
every corner of the earth; meaning to the gentile world, but no doubt also to the
Jewish  Diaspora.  In  fact,  I  have  no  doubt  that  since  to  this  point  Yeshua  was
100%  about  being  the  Jewish  Messiah  who  came  for  the  Jewish  people,  that
when  the  disciples  heard  this  instruction  from  Jesus  their  first  thought  was  for
their Jewish brothers of the Diaspora (representing more than 90% of all living
Jews) who lived in far flung cities and towns throughout Northern Africa, Asia,
and  Europe.  Little  did  they  understand  just  yet  that  gentiles  were  to  be  an
important part of their work. And that is why we're going to see so much focus on
Paul, the designated Apostle to the gentiles, in a few more chapters.
But telling His disciples to be a witness for Him was said, and understood, within
the common Jewish legal understanding of the term. A witness was part of the
legal system's process of justice. A witness was more than a casual observer to
an event; rather a witness was important and carried real power and knew things.
A  witness  in  the  Jewish  legal  system  was  often  the  accuser.  A  witness  was
believed  in  their  testimony  because  if  they  weren't  truthful  they  could  be
prosecuted. Two witnesses whose testimony matched was typically sufficient for
conviction. And if the conviction was for a capital offense, the witnesses also led
the execution process. Do you want to be a witness for Christ? Then understand
the seriousness of your office, and that only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit can
give you the necessary authority and power to function in that position.
We'll continue in Acts chapter 1 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            12 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 3, Chapter 1 continued
Since  we  are  early  in  our  study  of  the  Book  of  Acts  from  a  Hebrew  Roots
perspective,  I'd  like  to  take  just  a  few  minutes  to  recap  what  we  covered  last
week. We're going to be going quite deep in Acts, and it's going to take time,
and it will help if each week we rehash a few things from the previous lesson.
You are going to find that as we move through Acts we are going to run across a
number of seemingly common and innocent sounding phrases and statements,
but  which  actually  are  important  and  carry  more  weight  than  meets  the  eye.
Some  of  this  is  because  these  statements  often  represent  principles  and
concepts that are uniquely Hebrew, but have been somewhat masked by being
communicated  in  Greek  and  then  translated  into  English  (often  with  a  Latin
translation  in  between).  This  is  not  a  conspiracy;  it's  simply  the  difficulty  of
transliterating  languages  especially  without  the  benefit  of  understanding  the
culture of the original authors and the context of the times in which they lived.
Thus part of the reason for the lengthy time we'll spend in Acts is to regularly
pause to insert some tidbits about the New Testament era in the Holy Land or to
remind  us  of  Torah  principles  that  are  being  played  out  in  the  era  following
Christ's birth.
First, and most importantly, the author of the Book of Acts was Luke; and this
Luke is the same one who penned the Gospel of Luke. In fact those two books of
the Bible that we today read and treat entirely separately were originally a single
unified  work  forming  the  "History  of  Christian  Origins"  that  consisted  of  two
volumes.  At  first  Luke's  work  was  circulated  among  privileged  Christians  in  its
unified form. But at some undetermined point between about 70 A.D. and 140
A.D.,  the  2  volumes  were  separated  and  started  circulating  individually  (most
likely this was just an issue of practicality as the two volumes together formed a
                             1 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
large work). Thus the Gospel of Luke took on a life all its own, as did the Book of
Acts. Each was read and evaluated for its value to Christianity on its own accord.
And as it happened, in some sectors of the Church the Gospel of Luke became
well accepted, but the Book of Acts not so much. In fact some Church authorities
out and out rejected the Book of Acts as "too Jewish" to be of use in this new
gentiles-oriented religion called Christianity.
It needs to be made clear that by the mid 2nd century A.D., Paul's, Peter's, and
John's  letters,  as  well  as  many  Gospels  (several  more  than  only  the  4  that
appear  in  today's  authorized  Bibles)  were  being  used  and  accepted  by  the
Church in its already many branches, but only as instructional and in some cases
authoritative.   However   these   various   documents   were   not   seen   as   Holy
Scripture. Well more than a century after Christ's death and resurrection there
still was no such thing as a New Testament, nor were any of the documents (that
we  now  call  NT  books)  ordained  as  God  inspired  (at  least  not  on  the  level  of
inspiration as to be considered on par with the Hebrew Bible). So the only Bible
in existence at that time for both Christians and Jews, Messianic or Orthodox,
was what we today call the Old Testament.
However in 144 A.D. a wealthy and powerful Christian named Marcion tried to
change  all  that.  He  insisted  it  was  time  to  set  aside  the  Hebrew  Bible  and  to
create a Bible that consisted only of fairly recent documents written exclusively
by Believers in Christ. He accepted only two writers as legitimate: Luke and Paul.
However  he  also  accepted  only  part  of  Luke's  writings;  specifically  Luke's
Gospel. And he accepted only 9 of Paul's letters. He was roundly criticized by
most Church Bishops as a heretic for his stance; yet his insistence on raising the
level of authority for a number of well known documents already in use by the
Church from informative to God-inspired, and thus hoping to create a new and
separate  Christian  Bible,  was  an  idea  that  wouldn't  die.  By  around  200  A.D.
Church councils were meeting to decide whether they ought to create a Christian
Bible and if so, which documents and letters might it include. The rest as they say
is history and so not later than about 220 A.D., a New Testament was added to
the Old Testament and presto! The Christian Bible as we know it was born. It
didn't necessary contain all the same books or have them in the same order that
our modern Bibles use, but it was close.
Last week we also discussed that it seems that the Book of Acts fell out of favor
and became largely unknown to the Church by the start of the 5th century A.D. I
read you a quote by the early Church Father John Chrysostom, who wrote his
                             2 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
commentary on the Book of Acts around 400 A.D., and he attested that the Book
of Acts was not familiar to most Christian leaders. Some of the facts about what
Jesus did after His resurrection are contained only in the Book of Acts (such as
His  remaining  on  earth  and  teaching  His  disciples  for  40  days  before  He
ascended to Heaven). But even more impactful to modern Christianity is that it is
in the Book of Acts that we first meet Paul, and find out who he is and where he
came  from.  We  learn  of  his  conversion  from  militant  religious  persecutor  of
Jewish Believers to devoted follower of Yeshua. And we learn about his Jewish
heritage and his continuing dedication, as a Jew, to the Torah and the Law of
Moses well after his conversion.
We were introduced to the concept of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, which is
different than what John the Baptist offered in water baptism. And that, before
ascending, Jesus told His disciples to remain in Jerusalem to wait for "what the
Father promised". We learned that "what the Father promised" was spoken of in
the Book of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah  31:30-32  CJB    30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,
"when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Isra'el  and  with  the
house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of
Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for
my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant
I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will
put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
What would be the mechanism by which God's Torah would be put within His
people,  and  written  on  their  hearts?  Jeremiah  doesn't  explain  that,  but  the
Prophet Ezekiel does.
Ezekiel  36:26-28  CJB    26  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart  and  put  a  new  spirit
inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart
of flesh. 27 I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live by my laws,
respect my rulings and obey them. 28 You will live in the land I gave to your
ancestors. You will be my people, and I will be your God.
So  "what  the  Father  promised"  centuries  earlier  was,  according  to  Yeshua,
about to happen and the disciples needed to be in Jerusalem in order to receive
                             3 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
it.  Did  they  understand  what  it  was,  exactly,  that  they  were  going  to  receive?
Without doubt, no.
Then in Acts 1 verse 6, the disciples ask Yeshua a question that indicates that
they still did not grasp the purpose of His advent, death and resurrection. They
want to know if He is now going to restore self-rule to Israel. In other words, is
Christ going to lead the Jews in a rebellion against Rome? Yeshua responds to
that question in verse 7. His answer? Not now, but later. He says that the time of
Israel's  emancipation  and  glory  is  not  for  them  to  know.  In  fact,  that  is
information that the Father has not shared and doesn't intend to. We should not
be harsh on the disciples for thinking in these terms; all of Judaism was awaiting
a warrior-Messiah to restore Israel to independence. In fact restoring Israel to self-
rule was thought to be the purpose for a Messiah. So it is no wonder that when
Christ was crucified that the vast majority of Jews, who perhaps hoped it was this
man  from  Nazareth  who  was  the  Messiah,  fell  away  and  were  convinced  he
couldn't  have  been.  After  all,  how  does  a  dead  man  lead  a  military  rebellion
against the Romans?
But in those same words that no doubt caused the disciples to be dismayed (that
Yeshua would not lead a rebellion right now), Messiah also indicated that they
should  take  their  eyes  off  the  unknowable  future  and  concentrate  on  the  now.
They were soon going to get power to become His witnesses not only to Jews in
the Holy Land, but to all people on earth. However to these 11 Galilean men who
heard Christ's words this had to be referring to them being a witness to the Jews
in the Diaspora, not to their gentile enemies!
Why would they think that way? Because Yeshua had earlier set up a prohibition
and specifically told them that they could NOT take the news of the Gospel to
Samaria or to the gentiles.
Matthew  10:5-6  CJB    5  These  twelve  Yeshua  sent  out  with  the  following
instructions: "Don't go into the territory of the Goyim, and don't enter any
town in Shomron, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Isra'el.
This meant that essentially up to this point their ministry had been restricted to
Judea and the Galilee. But now, moments before Messiah ascends to Heaven,
He releases the disciples to go everywhere to proclaim the Good News with no
restrictions. This command was more momentous than the 11 had any idea of at
the moment it was uttered. But the commission to do so was predicated on their
                             4 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
FIRST receiving "what the Father promised" that would fill them with power; and
this would happen shortly, in Jerusalem.
Let's continue now starting with verse 9. We'll re-read parts of this chapter as
we go along today.
RE-READ ACTS 1:9 - 11
This first verse alone could be the subject of an entire sermon. But let's put this
all in context to begin. The 11 remaining and original disciples (Judas was dead)
personally witnessed Yeshua ascend. And how did He ascend? Up and into the
clouds. The passage states that they were all staring into the sky, no doubt slack
jawed, when suddenly two men were standing there with them. I think if I had
been  there,  I  too  would  have  been  so  astonished  and  fixated  on  what  was
happening......watching Yeshua visibly and tangibly float up into the clouds.....that a
hundred people could have showed up to watch and I wouldn't have been aware
of their presence. So sudden appearance out of nowhere of these 2 men (angels,
actually)  wouldn't  have  been  noticed  until  those  men  spoke  and  said,  "You
Galileans!" I'll bet they jumped a little bit when those angels spoke. Let's dissect
this passage.
First is the issue of going up into the clouds, which is actually two issues. 1) Did
Yeshua  go  up  bodily,  or  was  it  only  His  spirit  or  if  neither  then  in  what  form,
exactly, did He ascend? And 2), why into the clouds? Was this simply a colloquial
way of saying he went up into the sky or is there a spiritual or prophetic meaning
behind the word "cloud" in this?
This  first  issue  of  how  did  He  go  up  of  course  is  nothing  we'll  ever  prove.
However I believe the evidence says it was bodily; I do not think the disciples
saw  an  apparition  nor  was  it  Jesus  in  spirit.  I  believe  that  Yeshua  was  in  the
body; the SAME body that hung on that cross. What is my evidence for this? It is
from the same author as the writer of the Book of Acts. In Luke's first volume,
the Gospel of Luke, is the proof of my contention.
READ LUKE 24:33 – 44
Yeshua goes to great lengths to prove that it is He, in the flesh that stands before
His  disciples.  He  says  He's  not  a  ghost.  In  fact,  while  some  say  He  was  in  a
glorified body, then if so His glorified body still bore the scars of His horrible trial
                             5 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
on the cross. For he gladly showed the disciples His disfigured hands and feet,
torn apart by the spikes driven through them by the Roman soldiers. But Jesus all
so ate with them as proof He wasn't a spirit or an apparition. He was still human
and still desired food for His body.
The early Church Father Augustine from around 400 A.D. (he lived at the same
time  as  John  Chrysostom  lived)  expressed  his  viewpoint  on  this  subject  in  a
commentary he wrote on the Gospel of John. And before I read it to you, it is
interesting to note that Augustine's home, and where he wrote and officiated as
the Church Bishop, was a place called Hippo. The modern name for that place is
Annaba,  Algiers  (Algeria)  in  northern  Africa.  He  was  a  theologian  and  a
philosopher, a native of Algiers, who came to believe in Christ in his mid-30's.
He says this:
"How did they see him go? In the flesh they touched, which they felt, the
scars of which they even probed by touching; in that body in which he went
in and out with them for 40 days, manifesting himself to them in truth, not
in any falsity. Not as an apparition, not as a shadow not as a spirit, but as
he himself said, not deceiving 'handle and see for a spirit does not have
flesh and bones as you see me to have". 
This is the true definition of bodily resurrection and since Yeshua is said to be the
firstfruits  of  the  resurrection,  and  in  time  we  shall  follow  in  like  kind,  then  this
seems to indicate that we should expect to be resurrected in like manner. Not
necessary still harboring the scars of life or the conditions of old age or disease,
but certainly as real, fleshly bodies and not as disembodied spirits.
The next issue concerns His ascending into the clouds. Without doubt the most
important Biblical association that connects Christ with clouds comes in Daniel
chapter 7. And Yeshua in Matthew 24 connected Himself with coming back in the
clouds.
Matthew 24:25-30 CJB  25 There! I have told you in advance! 26 So if people
say to you, 'Listen! He's out in the desert!' don't go; or, 'Look! He's hidden
away in a secret room!' don't believe it. 27 For when the Son of Man does
come, it will be like lightning that flashes out of the east and fills the sky to
the western horizon. 28 Wherever there's a dead body, that's where you find
the vultures. 29 "But immediately following the trouble of those times, the
sun will grow dark, the moon will stop shining, the stars will fall from the
                             6 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
sky, and the powers in heaven will be shaken. 30 "Then the sign of the Son
of Man will appear in the sky, all the tribes of the Land will mourn, and they
will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with tremendous
power and glory.
So while Matthew deals with his return to earth in the clouds, the Book of Daniel
deals with Him arriving in Heaven in the clouds.
Daniel  7:9-14  CJB    9  "As  I  watched,  thrones  were  set  in  place;  and  the
Ancient One took his seat. His clothing was white as snow, the hair on his
head  was  like  pure  wool.  His  throne  was  fiery  flames,  with  wheels  of
burning fire. 10 A stream of fire flowed from his presence; thousands and
thousands ministered to him, millions and millions stood before him. Then
the court was convened, and the books were opened. 11 "I kept watching.
Then,  because  of  the  arrogant  words  which  the  horn  was  speaking,  I
watched as the animal was killed; its body was destroyed; and it was given
over to be burned up completely. 12 As for the other animals, their rulership
was   taken   away;   but   their   lives   were   prolonged   for   a   time   and   a
season. 13 "I kept watching the night visions, when I saw, coming with the
clouds of heaven, someone like a son of man. He approached the Ancient
One and was led into his presence. 14 To him was given rulership, glory and
a kingdom, so that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.
His  rulership  is  an  eternal  rulership  that  will  not  pass  away;  and  his
kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
So essentially what we read in Acts about Him ascending into the clouds fulfills
what Daniel prophesied. But then we have the two angels that appeared to the
disciples inform them that as He left them so He would return. He left in clouds,
He will return in clouds, just as Messiah said Himself in Matthew 24. Obviously
this is still future to us.
But  there  is  more  to  be  learned.  Because  if  we  take  the  angels'  statement
literally, upon His return He should set His foot upon exactly the same place from
where He left. So where did He ascend from? Let's read a little more of Acts 1.
RE-READ ACTS 1:12 – 14
It says that the disciples returned to the City of Jerusalem from the Mt. of Olives.
So it seems that Yeshua ascended from the Mt. of Olives. This is actually a bit
                             7 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
controversial. Luke, in his other volume, The Gospel, says this is chapter 24:
Luke 24:50-53 CJB  50 He led them out toward Beit-Anyah; then, raising his
hands, he said a b'rakhah over them; 51 and as he was blessing them, he
withdrew  from  them  and  was  carried  up  into  heaven.  52  They  bowed  in
worship to him, then returned to Yerushalayim, overflowing with joy. 53 And
they spent all their time in the Temple courts, praising God.
Here Luke says Christ ascended from Beit-Anyah. Beit-Anyah means house of
dates.  Christians  call  this  place  Bethany.  Do  we  have  a  contradiction,  even
between the two volumes that Luke wrote? No. Bethany is located on the eastern
slope  of  the  Mt.  of  Olives.  So  essentially  both  of  Luke's  accounts  are  in
agreement;  it's  just  that  in  the  Gospel  Luke  tells  where  on  the  Mt.  of  Olives
Christ ascended. And, as an aside, where does Luke say that Christ's disciples
spent all their time? The Temple. So here we see how these Jewish men who
formed the inner circle of Yeshua's followers continued in their Jewish ways and
in their Jewish religion, by spending all their time at Herod's Temple. They didn't
consider themselves as followers of a new religion, and neither did those who
knew them otherwise they certainly wouldn't have been allowed onto the Temple
grounds.
But  there  are  some  Bible  scholars  and  teachers  who  claim  that  Yeshua  didn't
ascend  from  the  Mt.  of  Olives  but  rather  from  an  unknown  hill  in  the  Galilee.
Where might they get that idea from?
Matthew 28:16-20 CJB  16 So the eleven talmidim went to the hill in the Galil
where Yeshua had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they prostrated
themselves before him; but some hesitated. 18 Yeshua came and talked with
them.  He  said,  "All  authority  in  heaven  and  on  earth  has  been  given  to
me.  19  Therefore,  go  and  make  people  from  all  nations  into  talmidim,
immersing  them  into  the  reality  of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Ruach
HaKodesh, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded
you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the
age."
I  don't  buy  their  premise  that  Yeshua  ascended  from  the  Galilee.  Notice  that
nothing is said about Christ ascending. So the evidence is pretty clear that He
ascended into the clouds from the Mt. of Olives, near the village of Bethany, and
thus that is exactly where He will be returning. But even the location of His return
                             8 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
was not something that Yeshua thought up and did in a vacuum; rather this place
was prophesied long before His advent. In the Book of Zechariah we read this:
CJB Zechariah 14:1  Look, a day is coming for ADONAI when your plunder,
[Yerushalayim], will be divided right there within you. 2 "For I will gather all
the nations against Yerushalayim for war. The city will be taken, the houses
will be rifled, the women will be raped, and half the city will go into exile;
but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city." 3 Then ADONAI
will  go  out  and  fight  against  those  nations,  fighting  as  on  a  day  of
battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies to
the east of Yerushalayim; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from
east to west, to make a huge valley. Half of the mountain will move toward
the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 You will flee to the valley in the
mountains, for the valley in the mountains will reach to Atzel. You will flee,
just  as  you  fled  before  the  earthquake  in  the  days  of  'Uziyah  king  of
Y'hudah.  Then  ADONAI  my  God  will  come  to  you  with  all  the  holy
ones.   6   On   that   day,   there   will   be   neither   bright   light   nor   thick
darkness; 7 and one day, known to ADONAI, will be neither day nor night,
although by evening there will be light.
So I think we have pretty well proven that Yeshua left from the Mt. of Olives and
that is where He will return. But I can't leave this passage of Zechariah until I
point  out  one  eerie  thing  that  we  see  in  14:2.  There  is  says  that  half  the  city
(Jerusalem) will be exiled, but the rest of the people (meaning Hebrews) will not
be cut off from the other half. That prophesy is in the process of being fulfilled.
Jerusalem,  although  in  Israel's  hands  today,  is  currently  politically  divided  into
east  and  west  Jerusalem  and  has  been  for  some  time.  Arabs  occupy  east
Jerusalem, and Jews occupy west Jerusalem. This doesn't really go for the Old
City, the walled portion of the ancient city of Jerusalem, but rather for the newer
sections  of  the  city  built  up  in  the  last  3  or  4  decades.  The  point  is  that  the
Palestinians insist that east Jerusalem, or all of Jerusalem, shall be their capital
city;  and  naturally  Israel  says  "no  chance"  to  either  option.  However  it  is  clear
that almost the entire world including the present Obama administration of the
USA is, as was the previous Bush administration, intent on splitting Jerusalem
and giving half of it to the Palestinians. I feel justified in saying that Israel will not
agree to this; it will have to be taken from them by force. And according to this
passage, the nations of the world will come together to make that happen. And
as we see Europe staunchly against Israel by policy; and we see the USA pulling
away at lightening speed and instead embracing Israel's enemies, the writing is
                             9 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
on the wall. This calamitous event spoken of in Zechariah 14 cannot be too far off
since  the  stage  is  already  set  and  the  players  are  in  place,  which  means  that
Messiah's return cannot be too far off since the loss of half of Jerusalem and the
return of Messiah are coupled together. That doesn't necessarily mean the two
things will happen simultaneously, nor even within days or weeks of each other.
But they will happen in succession.
Let's  move  on.  Notice  in  Acts  1:12  that  it  says  that  the  disciples  returned  the
Shabbat-walk distance from the Mt. of Olives to Jerusalem. This doesn't mean
that  the  day  Christ  ascended  was  the  Sabbath.  A  Shabbat-walk  distance  is  a
measurement  of  distance.  And  what  we  know  from  Jesus'  day  is  that  the
distance assigned to a maximum Shabbat-walk was around 2/3rd of a mile for
residents  of  Jerusalem,  but  the  distance  varied  from  city  to  city.  The  disciples
immediately went to the upper room where they had been staying. Might this be
the same upper room where Yeshua had His last supper? It is possible; however
upper rooms were common in Jerusalem. Most Middle Eastern houses were built
with rooms on the 2nd floor and that's what this is; this was not a commercial
establishment. Residents of Jerusalem and nearby villages often rented out their
2nd  floor  rooms  that  served  as  profit-making  B&Bs  (Bed  and  Breakfast's)  to
travelers, except during the Feast Days (like the one that was coming up) where
according  to  the  Law  of  Moses  Jews  were  required  to  make  a  journey  to  the
Temple. For those appointed times it was not permitted to charge Jewish pilgrims
for  their  lodging.  But  wherever  exactly  the  disciples  stayed  had  to  be  large
because 120 of Yeshua's followers met there.
Verse  13  gives  us  a  list  of  the  remaining  11  disciples  (and  of  course  the  list
matches with all of lists of the 12 original disciples minus the now dead Judas
Iscariot).  But  here  we  find  that  many  women  also  joined  with  the  men,  and
among  them  was  Yeshua's  mother  Miryam  along  with  his  brothers.  The  term
brothers  in  Hebrew  can  mean  everything  from  a  sibling  to  close  friends  to
members  of  one's  tribe  or  nation.  Of  course  here  we  are  using  Greek,  so  the
word is adelphos. However it also carries the same wide range of meaning as the
Hebrew ach (brother). So are these "brothers"' biological siblings of Jesus' (His
blood family) or does this merely mean other male disciples? It so happens that
Matthew  13:55  refers  directly  to  4  of  Yeshua's  sibling  brothers  Ya'acov,
Shim'on,  Y'hudah  and  Yosef.  And  since  the  wording  of  the  verse  in  Acts  is,
"Including Miryam and his brothers", it is clear that these brothers are Yeshua's
siblings (sons of Miryam). And BTW, other unpublished Gospels from that time
claim that although their names aren't given to us Miryam had daughters as well
                            10 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
as sons, which is believable unless she had 5 or more boys but no girls.
What  I  want  you  to  notice  is  that  as  is  typical  of  both  the  Old  and  New
Testaments women are given respect and position alongside men. There is no
indication that the women were considered second class followers or that they
prayed apart from the men. While it was traditional in synagogues to have the
men separated from the women, there is no Scriptural commandment of God to
do so, and there is no indication here that the Believers followed that example in
an informal setting (although no doubt they did in synagogues since it was the
custom).
Let's read the last few verses of Chapter 1.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 1:15 – end
Here we see an address by Kefa, Peter, to the group of 120 people. It is clear in
these  passages  and  others  that  Peter  was  a  leader  and  no  doubt  this  was
because  Yeshua  more  or  less  publically  declared  him  so  when  He  said:  CJB
Matthew  16:18  I  also  tell  you  this:  you  are  Kefa,"  [which  means  'Rock,']
"and on this rock I will build my Community, and the gates of Sh'ol will not
overcome it.
When the opening words of verse 15 say, "During this period", it means during
the  1  week  period  of  time  between  Yeshua's  ascension  and  the  fulfillment  of
"what the Father promised" that would give power to Yeshua's disciples. It was
a  period  of  time  in  which  none  of  them  were  to  leave  Jerusalem.  The  Biblical
Feast  of  Shavuot  was  due  in  1  week  from  Yeshua's  ascension;  but  did  the
disciples know or think that "what the Father promised" (whatever that might be)
was going to occur on Shavuot (Pentecost in Greek)? There is no evidence that
they knew what it was going to be or when it was going to happen, only where: in
Jerusalem.
Thus  Peter  follows  His  Master's  advice  to  stop  focusing  on  the  unknown  and
deal with the now. And the matter that Peter felt was important at the moment
was to replace Judas and get the number of disciples back up to 12. So Peter
opens  the  discussion  by  telling  the  group  that  what  happened  to  Judas  was
prophesied through David and he quotes passages from 2 Psalms (69 and 109)
to make his case. But first, why was it so important that there were 12 disciples
instead of the current 11? That will be the topic we'll begin our next lesson with.
                            11 / 12
Lesson 3 - Acts Chapter 1 cont.
 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            12 / 12
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 4, Chapters 1 and 2
Today we will complete Acts chapter 1 and move into chapter 2. We ended last
time as Peter emerged as the spokesman of the young Messianic movement. In
fact it is probably fair to say that as of the time of his speech to the 120 fellow
Believers   gathered   at   the   upper   room   in   Jerusalem   shortly   after   Yeshua
ascended into Heaven, Peter was the de facto leader even if not in any official
capacity.
Peter  was  the  logical  choice  as  leader  for  the  time  being;  he  was  one  of  the
original 12 disciples (also known as Apostles) of Christ. Once when Yeshua and
the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi, Yeshua addressed the 12 and
asked them who they thought He was. Peter immediately blurted out: "You are
the Mashiach, the son of the Living God". To which Christ said to Peter: "You
are the Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build my community". That seemed to
be  a  clear  enough  endorsement  by  Yeshua  such  that  the  other  11  disciples
accepted Peter as senior among them after Christ.
Let's re-read part of chapter 1 to ready ourselves for today's lesson.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 1:15 – end
Peter stands up in front of the 120 and brings up a subject that addresses the
here  and  now.  That  is,  just  before  Yeshua's  ascension  He  had  instructed  the
disciples that they shouldn't focus on when or how Israel would throw off their
Roman oppressors and gain independence, because it's not for them to know.
Rather  they  should  put  their  efforts  into  matters  at  hand;  and  one  of  those
matters was to remain in Jerusalem in order to receive some kind of power that
                             1 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
will be given them through the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. This special
power would enable them to obey their prime directive to go to all the Holy Land
and then to every corner of the planet with the Good News of salvation. For Peter
the most important immediate matter was to bring the number of Apostles back
up  to  12,  since  Judas  had  betrayed  the  group  and  subsequently  committed
suicide.
Why  wouldn't  11  do?  What  was  so  critical  about  adding  another  so  that  there
would again be 12? It can be summed up by something Christ instructed them
that we find in Matthew 19.
Matthew  19:28  CJB    28  Yeshua  said  to  them,  "Yes.  I  tell  you  that  in  the
regenerated world, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you
who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve
tribes of Isra'el.
Twelve thrones judging twelve tribes, with one disciple seated upon each throne.
But  as  of  that  moment  they  were  one  disciple  short;  that  would  have  left  one
throne empty. And who knew when this regenerated world that Messiah spoke of
would  begin.  Might  it  begin  very  soon?  Might  this  even  be  part  of  "what  the
Father promised" that Yeshua had spoken of? So for Peter there was a sense of
urgency to hurry to replace Judas.
But first Peter wanted to assure everyone that the treason of Judas was foretold,
and therefore it wasn't an unexpected curve ball thrown at God or at them. He
explains that it was King David who prophesied this event and Judas who was
the  fulfillment  of  this  prophecy.  There's  an  issue  in  this  statement  that  needs
some close examination (and it's one of those issues that can be troubling for
Believers). The issue is that Peter says in verse 16: "He (Judas) was a guide for
those who arrested Yeshua; he was one of us and had been assigned part of
our work." Peter confirms that Judas was a legitimate disciple; this man had even
been assigned part of their work. Christ Himself chose Judas. Christ was also the
one who assigned each disciple his work. Judas was (for lack of a better word) a
Believer.  And  yet  this  handpicked  disciple,  one  of  the  original  12,  guided  the
Temple police to come and arrest Yeshua in an infamous betrayal the likes of
which will never be equaled in human history.
So  using  modern  Evangelical  Christian  lingo,  after  His  crime  and  rebellion
against  Yeshua  was  Judas  still  saved?  Had  he  ever  been  saved  in  the  first
                             2 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
place?  Didn't he "believe" in Jesus even though he took money to turn against
Him;  aiding  and  abetting  Christ's  crucifiers?  I  don't  think  I've  ever  heard  of  a
Bible Teacher or Pastor claim that Judas died as a confused but righteous man
whose   ultimate   destiny   was   still   Heaven.   Yet,   it   is   claimed   by   some
denominations that if someone at any time in their life "believed' in Christ then
no  matter  what  happened  from  that  point  forward,  no  matter  how  wicked  that
person  might  become,  regardless  of  lack  of  interest  in  bearing  good  fruit  or
obeying Messiah, no matter if that person completely turned against Yeshua and
openly  renounced  Him,  they  were  still  saved.  Either  that  or  they  had  never
believed   but   were   only   "pretenders".   Judas   was   no   pretender;   He   was
handpicked by the Messiah. As Peter confirmed and could still say after all that
Judas had done: "He was one of us".
The point is this: regardless of whether you adhere to the once-saved-always-
saved doctrine, or simply advocate for Christ, or identify yourself as a follower of
Jesus, that is not sufficient to be delivered from eternal death (Judas checked off
both   of   those   two   boxes).   Rather   we   have   to   understand   and   sincerely
acknowledge WHAT Yeshua is (He is the Son of God and Savior), and we have
to submit to Him fully and sincerely. Judas believed in Yeshua as a Messiah who
would lead the Jews in a rebellion against Rome and reclaim self-rule. But for
Judas that apparently is where his "belief" began and ended. When it became
clear to Judas that Christ wasn't going to lead a rebellion, Judas fell away and
turned against. In fact I suspect that Judas's later treason had a firm and earlier
connection  with  Yeshua  asking  a  famous  question  to  all  12  of  His  disciples
(including to Judas) in Matthew 16, which cuts right to the heart of the matter: 
Matthew  16:13-15  CJB  13  When  Yeshua  came  into  the  territory  around
Caesarea Philippi, he asked his talmidim, "Who are people saying the Son
of Man is?" 14 They said, "Well, some say Yochanan the Immerser, others
Eliyahu,  still  others  Yirmeyahu  or  one  of  the  prophets."  15  "But  you,"  he
said to them, "who do you say I am?"
Believing  in  WHAT  Yeshua  is  must  accompany  WHO  Yeshua  is  for  a  saving
belief to exist. Acknowledging His existence, even His teaching, isn't enough.
James 2:18-20 CJB  18 But someone will say that you have faith and I have
actions. Show me this faith of yours without the actions, and I will show
you my faith by my actions! 19 You believe that "God is one"? Good for you!
The   demons   believe   it   too-   the   thought   makes   them   shudder   with
                             3 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
fear! 20 But, foolish fellow, do you want to be shown that such "faith" apart
from actions is barren?
So  after  Peter  finished  explaining  what  happened  to  Judas  and  that  it  was
prophesied  by  David  and  now  it  was  fulfilled,  what  should  be  done?  So  Peter
issues a quote from Psalm 109:8 as the answer:  "Let someone else take his
place as a supervisor". 
Verse  21  then  outlines  the  qualifications  for  a  replacement  disciple.  First  and
foremost the replacement must have been traveling and living with the original 12
from the earliest times of Yeshua's ministry, even from the day that Christ was
immersed by John the Baptist. This replacement also had to be present when
Yeshua ascended to Heaven. But the focal point of the qualifications was so that
this person could be a witness to Messiah's resurrection. Apparently 2 men fit
the bill: Yosef Bar-Sabba and Mattiyahu. Or in English Joseph Barsabbas and
Matthias. Two qualified men, but only one available position.
Here's  the  thing:  obviously  there  were  others  than  only  the  12  that  followed
Christ wherever He went. But the difference between that 12 and all others was
that Christ had personally chosen and invited those 12 to be His inner circle. So
since Yeshua was no longer here to voice His personal choice, how might the
replacement  be  chosen  in  God's  will?  The  answer?  Casting  lots.  Casting  lots
was a rather common method used to reveal God's choice in a matter.  So the
group prayed to the Lord to reveal His choice and it turned out to be Matthias.
Now the group was back to its full complement of 12.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 2.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 2 all
This  chapter  speaks  of  the  arrival  of  "what  the  Father  promised"  that  Yeshua
had told His followers to wait for in Jerusalem. Because it was probably 1 week to
the  day  from  His  ascension  that  the  day  of  Pentecost  arrived,  their  wait  was
short.
We're going to go deep and get technical for awhile because here at Pentecost
is the starting point of establishing the framework from which we can understand
all that happens from here forward in the Book of Acts; and it also establishes
some important context that will aid us in understanding Peter and Paul.
                             4 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
Pentecost  is  the  English  word  for  the  Greek  pentekostes,  which  means  fifty.
And pentekostes is the Greek translation used for the Hebrew word Shavuot,
which means weeks.  If you've been around Hebrew Roots or Messianic Jewish
teaching for very long, you know that Shavuot is one of the 7 Biblical Feasts as
ordained  by  God  in  the  Book  of  Leviticus.  Let's  not  go  any  further  until  we
understand what Shavuot is both Biblically and traditionally in Judaism because if
ever there was a key to unlock the understanding and context of this chapter, it is
contained in the meaning of Shavuot to Jews of that era.
And before we start that discussion please note: Pentecost is NOT a Christian
holiday created by the Church to commemorate the coming of the Holy Spirit to
indwell  men.  Far  from  it;  Pentecost  (Shavuot)  had  been  celebrated  for  1300
years by Israelites by the time of the event we read about here in Acts. Thus the
amazing events of that day happened on the ancient Jewish holiday of Shavuot.
Let's see if we can understand why the Lord chose that particular appointed time
for the Ruach HaKodesh to come and indwell humans.
First let's understand that Shavuot is part of a system of holy days ordained by
the Lord. The first holy day of that system is Pesach, Passover. The next holy
day is really a holy week called Matza, Unleavened Bread. Matza begins the day
after Passover. Next follows Bikkurim, Firstfruits. Firstfruits takes place the next
day after the Sabbath following Passover. Since the Biblical Sabbath is always
the 7th day of the week, then Firstfruits always falls on 1st day of the week. In
modern times we call the 1st day of the week Sunday.
So the first 3 feasts occur in rapid succession and they happen in the month of
Nissan.  Pesach, Passover, the 1st feast happens on a defined calendar date:
Nissan  14th.  This  is  equivalent  to  our  March-April  timeframe,  so  these  are
springtime  festivals.  To  be  clear  the  assigned  dates,  times  and  progression  of
these 7 Biblical feasts are Scripturally defined; this is not Hebrew tradition. After
the first 3 there is a lull of 7 weeks before the next feast arrives: Shavuot (hence
the alternate name, the Feast of Weeks).
Unlike Passover that always occurs on the 14th of Nissan, the day that Shavuot
arrives is not a fixed calendar date. Rather we are to count 50 days beginning on
the day after Passover. That 50th day is Shavuot.  Let's back up a little. When
we talked about the 3 spring feasts, the 3rd one was called Firstfruits (Bikkurim).
But the reality is that Shavuot is also a firstfruits festival. Thus both the 3rd and
4th Biblical feast days revolve around agriculture and harvesting; the first 2 feasts
                             5 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
(Passover and Unleavened Bread) do not. Rather those two are a remembrance
of Israel's exodus from Egypt.
The 3rd festival, Bikkurim, represents the first of the harvest of the Barley crop.
The  4th  festival,  Shavuot  (Pentecost),  represents  the  first  of  the  harvest  of
the Wheat crop. After Shavuot there is a few month lull until the month of Tishri
arrives, and then the 5th, 6th, and 7th feasts arrive in quick succession. On the
first day of the month of Tishri is the Biblical feast called Yom Teruah; the Feast
of Trumpets. Modern Jews have somewhat changed the nature of this feast day,
formed it into a tradition, and call it Rosh Hashanah; Jewish New Year. Then on
the 10th day of Tishri comes the feast of Yom Kippur; the Day of Atonement.
Then 5 days later on the 15th of the month begins the final feast of the yearly
cycle  of  7  feasts,  Sukkot;  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Tishri  comes  in  the  fall
season.  We won't discuss any of these fall feasts; I only wanted to lay out the
entire cycle, or system, of the 7 Biblical feasts for you.
So let's return now to our discussion of the feast day that concerns Acts chapter
2  and  that  is  Shavuot;  Pentecost.  Besides  its  original  agricultural  motif  and
significance, later it took on a dual meaning as commemorating the giving of the
Law, the Torah, to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Because Exodus 19:1 tells us that the
giving of the Torah occurred in the 3rd month after Israel left Egypt, it is entirely
probable that indeed Moses was given the Torah on a day that the following year,
according  to  a  commandment  of  Yehoveh  that  was  given  in  the  Torah,  would
henceforth be called Shavuot.
The earliest known direct reference to the feast of Shavuot being celebrated as
the day the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai is the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., and it
is found in the Talmud tractates Shabbat and Pesachim. However the Book of
Jubilees  also  alludes  to  Shavuot's  two-fold  nature.  The  Book  of  Jubilees  was
created in the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. What is most important for us to grasp is
that  whether  or  not  God  actually  gave  Moses  the  Torah  at  Mt.  Sinai  on  what
became the day of Shavuot is not the point. The point is that starting well before
the time of Christ Judaism believed that the Torah had been given on Shavuot,
and so the Jewish Bible characters and the Jewish writers of the New Testament
believed  it  and  they  celebrated  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Shavuot,  with  that  dual
purpose in mind. Why does that matter? Because the Book of Acts is written with
this  understanding  as  its  context;  it  was  understood  by  Luke,  Peter,  all  the
disciples and all Jews that in addition to celebrating the firstfruits of the wheat
harvest Shavuot also celebrated the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
                             6 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
And so this fact is naturally reflected in the story of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2
when we know what to look for.
Let me make a Hebrew scholar of you. Midrash is a Hebrew term that means to
discuss  and  interpret  Scripture.  But  there  is  also  a  body  of  ancient  Jewish
literature  called  The  Midrash,  and  in  it  ancient  Sages  and  Rabbis  gave  their
interpretations of many Bible passages (meaning the Hebrew Bible, of course). In
the  Targum  Pseudo  Jonathan  there  is  a  fascinating  interpretation  (midrash)  of
Exodus  20:18  (it  shows  up  as  verse  15  in  the  CJB).  That  verse  in  our  Bibles
reads: 15 All the people experienced the thunder, the lightning, the sound of
the  shofar,  and  the  mountain  smoking.  When  the  people  saw  it,  they
trembled................
This  midrash  sets  up  the  understanding  within  Judaism  that  the  giving  of  the
Torah  on  Mt.  Sinai  came  with  flames  and  with  fire.  Let  me  repeat  that  so  you
understand why I'm taking you where I am: this Midrash I'm about to quote to
you  says  that  the  giving  of  the  Torah  to  Moses  came  with  flames  of  fire.  And
when we see that the Holy Spirit came in the same way, we need to take notice.
"The word that went out of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, was
like  shooting  stars  and  lightening  and  like  flames  and  torches  of  fire,  a
torch of fire to the right and a torch of flame to the left. It flew and winged
swiftly in the air of the heavens and turned around and became visible in all
the camps of Israel and by turning it became engraved on the two tablets of
the covenant". 
Once again, how ever true or fanciful this midrash on the giving of the Torah on
Mt. Sinai might be doesn't matter. The issue is that this was the understanding of
the Jewish people in Jesus's day; it was not questioned. It was as much a part of
regular Judaism then as the cross is for regular Christianity now. But there is yet
another element of this midrash that is every bit as important.
Whereas in almost all Christian Bibles we find the English words "all the people
experienced the thunderings", or "all the people witnessed the thunderings", in
fact  that  is  not  a  correct  translation.  The  Hebrew  says  that  they  SAW  the
thunderings. Thunder is a sound; we see the lightening but we hear the thunder.
This  is  why  instead  of  translating  this  verse  literally,  translators  thought  it
nonsensical  to  write  down  "saw  the  thunderings"  and  instead  wrote  the  words
"experienced" or "witnessed" or some such fairly ambiguous word like that. But
                             7 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
in another ancient Jewish writing called the Mekilta we find another midrash on
this issue of how it could have been possible for the Israelites at Mt. Sinai to SEE
thunder.
"They  saw  what  was  visible  and  heard  what  was  audible.  These  are  the
words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: They saw and heard that which
was  visible.  They  saw  the  fiery  word  coming  out  of  the  mouth  of  the
Almighty as it was struck upon the tablets, as it is said: "The voice of the
Lord hewed out flames of fire" Psalm 29:7. But how many thunderings were
there and how many lightenings were there? It is simply this: They were
heard by each man according to his capacity, as it is said: "The voice of
the Lord was heard according to the power..." Psalm 29:4..........not with His
power,  but  with  power;  i.e.,  with  the  power  of  each  individual,  even  to
pregnant women according to their strength." 
And yet another midrash of the events of Mt. Sinai called Tanhuma, we find this:
"All the people saw the voices. Note that it does not say saw the voice but
saw the voices. Wherefore Rabbi Johanan said: the voice went out and was
divided  into  7  voices  and  from  7  voices  into  70  tongues,  so  that  all  the
nations would hear. And every nation heard the voice in its own tongue and
was amazed. But the people of Israel heard the voice and were not hurt."
Do you understand what you're hearing? The Rabbis taught that when the Torah
was given on Mt. Sinai it was given by means of flames and thundering. And the
thundering was always seen as God's voice since time immemorial. And each
person was able to perceive only as much of God's voice as each was capable.
The  Rabbis  also  taught  that  the  single  voice  that  was  emitted  from  God  and
heard at Mt. Sinai became divided into 7 and then the 7 into 70 languages. Why
70? Because in the Table of Nations in Genesis we are told that God divided the
earth into 70 nations (each, presumably, with its own unique language). So the
idea is that the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai in a way that all the languages of
the earth (considered to be 70) were represented so that all the peoples of the
earth had an opportunity to receive God's Words that formed the Torah.
Once again: whether these Rabbis are right or not is debatable. The important
matter  is  that  this  is  what  people  in  Yeshua's  time  believed.  This  was  the
standard  understanding  within  2nd  Temple  Judaism.  This  is  the  context  for
understanding  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  and  this  is  especially  the
                             8 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
context for the coming of the Holy Spirit on Shavuot. Let me say this more plainly:
Luke  is  portraying  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  Shavuot  as  essentially  the
2nd coming of the Torah on Mt. Sinai. For Luke this awe inspiring happening of
the visible, noisy, coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, complete with flames
and  fire  and  with  many  languages  is  the  second  Mt.  Sinai  event,  only  it's
happening this time on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem.
But more than Luke merely accepting what is happening in this context that is
based on some Jewish traditions that have come from the midrash of Rabbis,
there  is  also  the  fulfillment  of  Biblical  prophesy  that  is  occurring.  Listen  to  this
from the Book of Jeremiah:
Jeremiah  31:30-32  CJB    30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,
"when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Isra'el  and  with  the
house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of
Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for
my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant
I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will
put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
God says that the difference between the new covenant and the older covenant
(Moses' Covenant) is not the content, but rather only the means of giving it. The
older covenant was given out in the desert, on Mt. Sinai, and it was written down
on stone tablets. But the new covenant is that God will write that same Torah
NOT onto stone but rather onto the flesh of human hearts. He will quite literally
insert the Torah into the bodies of His people. But where will this occur? How will
it happen? Part of that answer comes from a prophecy in the Book of Isaiah.
Isaiah 2:3 CJB  3 Many peoples will go and say, "Come, let's go up to the
mountain of ADONAI, to the house of the God of Ya'akov! He will teach us
about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Tziyon will go
forth Torah, the word of ADONAI from Yerushalayim.
Isaiah says that a time will come when the Torah will go forth from Zion, God's
Word from Jerusalem. That is, this next time the Torah (God's Word) comes to
humanity it won't come from Mt. Sinai; instead it will come from Jerusalem. And
where were the disciples when the Holy Spirit came? On Mt. Zion, in Jerusalem.
                             9 / 10
Lesson 4 - Acts Chapters 1 and 2
 
And how did it come? With flames and fire, noise like a rushing wind, and with
languages from every nation on earth. Just like the Rabbis said it had been at Mt.
Sinai.
It  was  no  coincidence  that  the  Holy  Spirit  came  on  Shavuot.  And  it  was  no
coincidence  that  He  came  in  the  manner  He  did  using  the  same  signs  and
miracles  that  the  Jewish  sages  said  had  occurred  at  Mt.  Sinai  13  centuries
earlier.  The  observers  and  recipients  of  this  amazing,  and  perhaps  terrifying,
aerial  display  were  Jews,  in  Jerusalem,  perceiving  everything  that  happened
within a framework of Jewish cultural customs and thinking.
One  of  the  things  that  God  shows  us  in  His  Holy  Scriptures  (Old  and  New
Testaments) and in our personal experiences with Him, is that He communicates
with each of us, and deals with each of us, in ways we can personally understand
and take meaning from.  The Jews of Yeshua's day had long been taught that
the power of God on Mt. Sinai manifested itself in noise, flames and fire, and in
many languages. This knowledge was a given and every Jewish child grew up
knowing it. So when those same signs and miracles that supposedly happened
on  Mt.  Sinai  also  happened  on  the  first  Shavuot  after  Yeshua  ascended,  then
those who had the eyes to see and ears to hear understood that Jeremiah's and
Isaiah's  prophecies  were  fulfilled  at  that  moment.  For  these  Jews  it  was  the
2nd coming of the Torah. And it was the Holy Spirit who brought the Torah this
time,  and  implanted  it  internally  within  individuals,  rather  than  inscribing  it
externally on stone tablets. Who understood this awesome reality? ONLY Jewish
Believers in Messiah and probably not all of them.
But now you understand it and we all need to be about the work of explaining this
to a gentile Church that has so misunderstood what happened on that particular
Shavuot  in  Jerusalem  that  it  has  caused  a  terrible  rift  between  Jews  and
Christians, as well as the creation of numerous Church doctrines that are well off
the mark. The content of the new covenant was not new, it was only the older
covenant renewed. And it was renewed by means of the Holy Spirit imbedding
that original Torah deep into the hearts of Christ's worshippers to enable a much
deeper devotion to it.
Next  time  we'll  continue  in  Acts  chapter  2  and  explore  other  aspects  of  the
coming of the Holy Spirit.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            10 / 10
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 5, Chapter 2 continued
Before we pick back up with Acts chapter 2 (which we still won't complete today)
and  the  dawn  of  a  new  age  brought  about  by  the  arrival  of  "what  the  Father
promised" (the Ruach HaKodesh), let's summarize what we discussed last time.
The first words of Acts 2 sets the scene: "The festival of Shavuot arrived...." And
we read that because of Shavuot, which required all male Jews to gather at the
Temple, all the Believers (and as of this time that consisted only of Jews) were
together  at  one  place  (on  Mt.  Zion  in  Jerusalem)  where  as  a  group  they
witnessed the astounding arrival of the Holy Spirit. The key to unlock the depth of
this chapter, and later chapters, is to understand what Shavuot is Biblically and
in  Hebrew  Tradition  because  regardless  of  what  we  as  modern  day  Believers
might mentally picture when we read the words of Acts 2, and how it has been
typically presented to us by Christian Bible Teachers and Pastors, Luke told the
story in the context of what the Jews thought and believed in that era.
I demonstrated to you through the writings of several ancient sages and Rabbis
(some  dating  to  more  than  2  centuries  before  the  birth  of  Yeshua),  that
while Shavuot (Pentecost) had retained its original Biblical agricultural meaning
and motif, an additional meaning was eventually added as a Tradition. And that
additional meaning was that Shavuot was when God gave the Torah to Moses
on   Mt.   Sinai.   To   flesh   out   this   additional   meaning   we   read   several
ancient  midrashim  (comments  and  interpretations)  about  the  Mt.  Sinai  event.
These  comments  said  that  the  giving  of  the  Torah  came  with  loud  noises
(thunderings, indicating God's voice), fire and flames, and it came in many (or
better ALL) human languages (which were thought to be 70 languages). To be
clear:  during  Christ's  era,  and  for  at  least  200  years  before,  Shavuot  the  4th
                             1 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Biblical Feast of the annual 7-feast cycle, had a dual meaning within Judaism.
This  dual  meaning  was  not  questioned;  it  was  simply  accepted  as  fact  if  not
common knowledge. For our purposes it doesn't matter whether this additional
meaning added through Tradition is legitimate or not (although I speculate that it
is likely legitimate); because the issue is that the Jewish world of the Holy Land
and  the  Diaspora  DID  believe  it  and  accept  it  as  truth.  Thus  since  the  New
Testament was written by Jews and Jewish proselytes such as Luke, this dual
meaning for Shavuot forms the contextual background for the Pentecost event of
the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2.
Thus when we see that the coming of the Holy Spirit was accompanied with loud
noises, flames and fire, and many human languages, then we see that for the
people of that day it was essentially a replay of the Mt. Sinai event some 1300
years   earlier.   So   to   the   Jewish   Believers   who   comprehended   what   was
happening, the coming of the Holy Spirit was the 2nd coming of the Torah. The
difference  between  the  1st  coming  and  the  2nd  coming  of  the  Torah  was
expressed by the Prophet Jeremiah:
Jeremiah  31:30-32  CJB    30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,
"when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Isra'el  and  with  the
house of Y'hudah. 31 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of
Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for
my part, was a husband to them," says ADONAI. 32 "For this is the covenant
I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: "I will
put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
The first coming of the Torah was on Mt. Sinai and God's Word was written on
stone tablets. The second coming of the Torah was on Mt. Zion, at Pentecost,
and  it  was  written  internally  on  the  heart  of  Believers.  Notice  the  not-so-
coincidental  pattern  of  the  1st  and  2nd  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  1st  and  2nd
coming  of  God's  Word  (the  Torah).  But  I  also  want  you  take  note  of  to  whom
Jeremiah says this "new covenant" shall be given. Does it say to gentiles? Does
it  say  to  anyone  and  everyone?  No;  it  says  to  the  house  of  Israel  and  to  the
house  of  Judah.  So  does  this  mean  only  Hebrews  can  partake  of  the  new
covenant sealed in Yeshua's blood? Yes it does, but with a caveat. Paul explains
how it is that gentiles can be included and what kind of attitude gentiles ought to
have if they are included in the new covenant.
                             2 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Romans 11:13-18 CJB  13 However, to those of you who are Gentiles I say
this: since I myself am an emissary sent to the Gentiles, I make known the
importance of my work 14 in the hope that somehow I may provoke some of
my own people to jealousy and save some of them! 15 For if their casting
Yeshua aside means reconciliation for the world, what will their accepting
him  mean?  It  will  be  life  from  the  dead!  16  Now  if  the  hallah  offered  as
firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the
branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you- a wild
olive- were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the
rich root of the olive tree, 18 then don't boast as if you were better than the
branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting
the root, the root is supporting you.
Yet how much of the Church come to the point that the new covenant was meant
for gentiles, to the exclusion of Jews (the house of Judah)? The New Covenant is
for gentiles, the Old Covenant is for Jews. Or that the Jews are obligated to the
Covenant  of  Moses  for  their  salvation,  while  gentiles  are  obligated  to  the  new
covenant for ours? Clearly both OT prophecies and NT writings say the opposite.
So; since the prophecy of Jeremiah says that the new covenant is for Israel and
the Jews, and that the Torah will now be written on their hearts (by means of
God's Spirit as we learn from Isaiah 2), is that what actually happened.? Let's re-
read Acts chapter 2 in small portions today and then I'll comment on each small,
but greatly significant, segment.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2:1 – 13
We're  told  that  tongues  of  fire  came  from  the  sky  (from  Heaven),  and  then
separated into many more tongues and these tongues came to rest upon each
one of them (meaning the Believers) individually. As a result (vs. 4) each Believer
began to speak in different languages as the Holy Spirit enabled them to. The
Greek word that is translated in English as "tongues" and as "languages" is the
same: glossa. So the passage says that glossa of fire rested upon the Believers
and  then  each  Believer  began  to  speak  a  different  glossa.  Glossa  means
language  and  it  means  the  tongue  organ  as  what  we  all  have  in  our  mouths.
Since the tongue is a necessary part of the anatomy for intelligible speech, then
we see why languages were called tongues. But why did Luke call the separate
branches  of  fire  that  landed  on  each  Believer  "tongues"?  Did  they  look  like
human tongues? Possibly, but I doubt it. Instead I believe that the articulate Luke
                             3 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
no doubt was thinking in terms of the ancient understanding of Shavuot that was
common  knowledge  within  2nd  Temple  Judaism.  Let  me  recall  for  you  the
teaching of Rabbi Tanhuma that helped to shape the standard mental picture that
Jews had for what occurred at Mt. Sinai during Israel's exodus from Egypt.
"All the people saw the voices. Note that it does not say saw the voice but
saw the voices. Wherefore Rabbi Johanan said: the voice went out and was
divided  into  7  voices  and  from  7  voices  into  70  tongues,  so  that  all  the
nations would hear. And every nation heard the voice in its own tongue and
was amazed. But the people of Israel heard the voice and were not hurt."
So Luke was employing the word "tongue" in the same sense as this midrash
that  was  a  cornerstone  of  Jewish  understanding  of  the  giving  of  the  Torah  to
Moses on Mt. Sinai at Shavuot. The voice divided into many tongues, and each
person heard the voice in their own tongue (own language). So not only is Luke
putting this Pentecost happening in the context of the long-ago Mt. Sinai event,
he  is  using  the  same  key  words  (such  as  tongue  and  fire)  to  make  the
connection.
But there is yet another connection that must not be overlooked. At Pentecost we
have  one  Spirit  (God's  Holy  Spirit),  being  sent  by  the  Mediator  Yeshua,  now
arisen, ascended and sitting at the Father's right hand, that separates into many
and rests upon each individual Believer. In the Book of Numbers we read of the
precursor to the Pentecost happening, and it happened to, and because of, the
first Mediator, Moses.
Numbers  11:24-25  CJB    24  Moshe  went  out  and  told  the  people  what
ADONAI had said. Then he collected seventy of the leaders of the people
and placed them all around the tent. 25 ADONAI came down in the cloud,
spoke  to  him,  took  some  of  the  Spirit  that  was  on  him  and  put  it  on  the
seventy leaders. When the Spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied-
then but not afterwards.
So the same spirit that Moses the Mediator had (God's spirit) was shared with the
70  elders.  And  when  the  70  elders  received  this  spirit,  they  began  speaking
ecstatic speech (ecstatic speech is usually what prophesying means). Now 1300
years  later  at  Pentecost  the  same  spirit  that  Yeshua  the  Mediator  had  was
shared with all the Jewish Believers; and when they received this spirit, what did
they do? They began speaking ecstatic speech, in different languages. God is a
                             4 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
God of patterns and so everything we see happening in the New Testament was
already established in the Old Testament. Only with the advent of Yeshua and
the Ruach HaKodesh these God-patterns were brought to an even higher level
and meaning. Pentecost was no different. But this also means that in order to
correctly  understand  everything  that  happens  in  the  New  Testament,  we  first
have to know the Torah and the Old Testament so that we learn the patterns and
the background context that the New is built upon.
Now another important question for us to ponder; who was it that received the
Holy Spirit, and who was it that saw everything that happened on that amazing
day? The answer is in verse 5: "Now there were staying in Yerushalayim religious
Jews from every nation under heaven". And then we get a representative listing
of just where these religious Jews hailed from. But please note: ONLY Jews saw
what  happened,  and  ONLY  Jews  received  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is  no  gentile
representation  mentioned  or  implied.  Why  were  all  these  Jews  present  at  Mt.
Zion? Because the pilgrimage festival of Shavuot required it of them. And note
also the addition of the adjective "religious" to describe the Jews that had come.
It wasn't much of a journey to come to Jerusalem for local Judean Jews, nor very
hard  for  the  Galilean  Jews.  But  for  the  Jews  who  came  from  distant  places  it
disrupted their lives for weeks in a major way and was quite costly economically
for  them.  So  the  many  several  millions  of  Jews  who  weren't  all  that  religious
didn't come; only the most devout.
Obviously they weren't all standing at Mt. Zion when this incredible visual display
and loud rushing noise erupted; there were too many Jews in town for them all to
to  be  at  one  place.  But  verse  6  explains  that  because  the  noise  was  so  loud,
others around the city heard it and walked towards where it seemed to be coming
from. Their reaction was bewilderment, or as our CJB says, confusion. And why
were  they  bewildered?  Because  they  were  hearing  the  words  spoken  each  in
their own distinct language. So these bewildered religious Jews weren't in denial
of what was happening; they just didn't know what to make of it.
This short list of nations that these Jews came from is meant to be representative
of the many nations and provinces that formed the Roman Empire. Certainly the
Jews  of  the  Diaspora  were  present  in  virtually  every  nation  of  the  Empire,  but
there were greater concentrations of them in some nations than in others. Notice
how Egypt is mentioned for example. Philo (who lived at the same time as Jesus)
reports that over 1 million Jews lived in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. Almost none
of these visiting Jews spoke Hebrew; rather they spoke their native tongue. It is
                             5 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
no different today. It has taken a concerted effort in modern Israel to teach the
many  Jewish  immigrants  to  the  land  to  speak  Hebrew;  and  a  major  portion  of
Israeli Jews still can't speak Hebrew. Instead they live in ghettos and continue
speaking Russian, Ukrainian, Ethiopian, Polish, German, French, and so on.
Although  some  of  the  visiting  Jews  were  awestruck  at  this  incident  of  the
languages,  others  mocked  it.  But  to  be  sure,  their  mocking  was  as  mocking
usually  is:  sarcasm  and  not  intelligent  response.  The  accusation  that  the
Believers  were  drunk  and  that's  how  they  could  speak  all  these  languages  is
irrational  and  no  doubt  meant  to  be  a  little  humorous.  Part  of  what  made  this
event so difficult for this crowd of Jews to comprehend is that it was apparently
quite well known just who these 12 disciples were, who they represented, and
where they were from. Most were country-folk, from Galilee; they weren't learned
intellectuals. It is a little like the way rural Mid-Westerners in the USA are looked
down upon by residents of New York City and Washington D.C.: they assume
that  the  only  intelligence  that  exists  is  among  themselves.  Many  in  the  crowd
were incredulous that Galileans could possibly be so multi-lingual.
Let's read a little more.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2:14 – 23
Peter, the leader and spokesmen for the 12 disciples, stands up to address the
huge crowd that has come to investigate this noisy rushing wind sound as well as
the cacophony of many foreign languages being spoken at the same time. And
he  begins  by  calling  out  to  "you  Judeans"!  Why  when  the  crowd  was  so
internationally mixed did he call out the local residents of Judea? It was because
the Galilee was cut off from the academic and cultural center of Judaism, which
was located in Jerusalem of Judea. And no doubt Peter recognized that it was
the arrogant Jews from Judea who were the mockers. So addressing the only
half-serious  accusation  about  the  Believers  being  drunk,  he  answered  in  an
equally half-serious response. He says it's so early in the morning that nobody
has had time to get drunk.
Now he goes on to explain what the arrival of the Holy Spirit does mean, and
Peter says that this day was spoken of by the Prophet Joel. He quotes from Joel
chapter 2 (in most Bibles but chapter 3 in the CJB). Peter understands that the
Last  Days  are  now  underway,  and  that  what  everyone  has  just  witnessed  is
essentially a fulfillment of what Moses had hoped for.
                             6 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Numbers 11:29 CJB  29 But Moshe replied, "Are you so zealous to protect
me? I wish all of ADONAI's people were prophets! I wish ADONAI would put
his Spirit on all of them!"
Since  this  prophecy  of  Joel  deals  with  the  End  Times,  and  we  are  currently
studying  a  New  Testament  book,  let's  take  just  a  moment  to  get  some  terms
squared away. The Last Days is a long, indeterminate period of time that begins
once  the  Messiah  has  come  (and  of  course,  He  has).  The  ending  of  this  long
period of the Last Days is the end of the era of humanity, which coincides with
the  entry  into  the  1000  year  reign  of  Christ  when  He  returns.  The  Last  Day
(singular)  is  synonymous  with  the  Day  of  the  Lord  (or  Day  of  Adonai).  This
particular day is still future for us. Is this a literal single day? That is unclear. But it
essentially signals the final wrath of God in the final hours or few days leading up
to Christ ruling the world from His throne in Jerusalem.
So while Peter can correctly interpret the prophetic Scriptures and what He has
personally witnessed with Messiah Yeshua and now the Holy Spirit as the entry
point into the period of the Last Days, the Last Day itself is not known to him.
Thus Joel's prophecy covers from the time of Peter all the way until the end of
mankind's history as we know it.
It is interesting to me that Joel and Peter speak of the sun becoming dark as a
sign because that sign indeed did happen on the day Yeshua was crucified.
Matthew 27:45 CJB  45 From noon until three o'clock in the afternoon, all the
Land was covered with darkness.
Was this darkness at Yeshua's death what Joel was speaking about? Perhaps.
But whatever happened there at Yeshua's execution seemed to be only a local
event. What Joel is prophesying seems to affect the entire world. Nonetheless,
Peter is clear that he views all that has happened as the beginning of the end.
And in fact in some of Peter's and Paul's epistles we find them tying to prepare
folks for the end, which they obviously think is going to happen in their lifetimes.
So that partly explains their sense of urgency in the taking the Gospel message
out at great personal cost.
But now Peter moves into a stage of his speech in which he wants to connect
that  final  line  of  the  Joel  passage  with  Yeshua.  That  is,  where  we  hear  the
Prophet Joel say: "And then whoever calls on the name of Adonai will be saved",
                             7 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
is  referring  to  Jesus  as  the  name  to  be  called  on.  But  this  connection  has  its
problems.  I've  often  told  you  that  the  contents  of  the  New  Testament  consists
(half or a bit more) of Old Testament quotes. And it is best as we encounter each
of the OT quotes in the NT to go back to our Old Testaments and read it there.
Often   there   are   subtle   differences.   Sometimes   the   differences   are   more
substantial because the NT speaker is either paraphrasing, or perhaps molding
the OT quote to better fit what he's trying to get across to his listeners. Here in
Acts 2 as we read Joel's prophecy, it is given to us in Greek (the language of the
New Testament). However what Peter was quoting was written centuries earlier
in Hebrew. So when we see the phrase "whoever calls on the name of Adonai
will  be  saved",  in  Greek  the  word  kurios  is  being  used  to  translate  Adonai.
And  kurios  means  "lord"  (which  is  what  we  find  in  almost  all  Bibles).  In
Christianity it is a given that all mentions of the word Lord (especially in the New
Testament) are referring to Jesus Christ.
Here's the difficulty with that: when we look at Joel in the original Hebrew Bible
(which is what Peter is quoting from of course) we find this: "whoever calls on the
name of YHWH (yud-heh-vav-heh) will be saved". So the Greek New Testament
substitutes the term Lord (kurios) instead of using God's formal name as it is in
the original Hebrew of the Prophet Joel. As those who have studied with us since
Genesis know that the Torah says that God's formal name is Yehoveh. So Peter
says  (quoting  Joel)  whoever  calls  on  the  name  of  Yehoveh  will  be  saved.
Essentially Peter is making the leap that to acknowledge the name of Yeshua as
Messiah  is  the  requirement  to  be  able  to  call  on  the  name  of  Yehoveh  to  be
saved. Yeshua is the sole agent of Salvation; but Yehoveh is the sole source of
Salvation.  And  this  is  something  that  Believers,  Jew  and  gentile,  need  to
understand.  There  a  terrible  doctrine  that  has  existed  since  the  early  Roman
Church,  which  implies  a  replacement  of  Yehoveh  the  Father  with  Yeshua  the
Son. They can speak of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but the Father
is often seen as outdated and irrelevant. Yeshua was given power and authority
from His Father Yehoveh; but Yeshua didn't replace His father. In fact when He
ascended we are told that He went to sit at the Father's right hand. Yeshua is the
way to the Father, not the replacement of the Father. And Peter, Paul and the
other  disciples  had  their  work  cut  out  for  them  to  try  and  find  a  way  to  first
comprehend  this  challenging  reality,  and  then  to  explain  it;  first  to  the  Jewish
people, and then later to uninitiated gentiles.
And make no mistake fellow Believers: without the Holy Spirit indwelling us, I see
no way that a human can apprehend this mysterious understanding. Never take it
                             8 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
for  granted  that  you  understand;  because  what  I  just  explained  to  you  is
unintelligible to non-Believers. It takes faith in Messiah to arrive at that point; truly
a leap of faith. And few seem to be able to make that leap. Count yourself as
immensely blessed that you can and did.
The same Peter who ran and cowered when Christ was arrested, even denying
that he knew Yeshua, now boldly takes aim at this huge crowd of befuddled Jews
standing  before  him  and  tells  them  that  they  are  personally  responsible  for
Yeshua's death! Let me say upfront that this verse is often used in Christendom
to  say  that  the  Jews  are  Christ  Killers.  That  charge  was  often  used  in  *
Germany as a valid excuse for systematically exterminating the Jewish people.
Do not mistake what Peter is saying to this crowd as being the same as the false
charge  of  killing  God  that  is  so  often  leveled  at  the  Jewish  people  in  general.
We'll deal with that shortly.
Peter  then  lays  out  his  case  for  Yeshua  being  the  Messiah.  He  says  that  the
signs and miracles and powerful works that Yeshua did were the result of God's
power  through  Him.  In  fact,  says  Peter,  "You  yourselves  know  this".  In  other
words, many in the crowd at sometime or another witnessed some of these signs
and miracles performed by Yeshua, so what Peter is saying isn't here-say or a
tall tale. Then he goes on to say that Yeshua's arrest wasn't an accident, it was
according to God's predetermined plan. And even more importantly, even though
the Jewish people didn't actually kill Christ, they would use gentiles (those not
bound to Torah) to do it for them. Let's pause here for a moment.
What the phrase in vs. 23 says is: "you crucified by the hands of lawless men".
Let's focus on the word "lawless". In Greek the word is anomos. Nomos means
law, a-nomos is the opposite and it means without law. Thus the CJB translation
of "not bound by Torah" for the Greek word anomos gets the idea across better
because in the Bible the term "law" ALWAYS refers to one of two things: a) the
Torah, the Law of Moses or b) later on, Tradition, Rabbinical law. I can't begin to
emphasize strongly enough that especially when reading the New Testament and
we come across the term law or lawlessness, that the ONLY law this is referring
to is the Law of Moses or Tradition. It has nothing to do with civil laws. It is not
about a leader disregarding his country's constitution. Let me give you a good
example.  In  order  to  do  this  I  will  use  the  RSV  Bible  because  it  phrases  this
passage in the familiar way of most Christian Bibles.
RSV 2 Thessalonians 2:1  Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus
                             9 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, 2 not to be
quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter
purporting  to  be  from  us,  to  the  effect  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  has
come.  3  Let  no  one  deceive  you  in  any  way;  for  that  day  will  not  come,
unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-
called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of
God, proclaiming himself to be God.
What does lawlessness mean in this context (and the word being translated for
lawlessness is anomos so lawlessness is a good translation)? Does this mean
Roman law? Does it mean USA or EU law? Does it mean International law? Of
course not; it is referring to the only law that God deems as relevant: His own
Law, the Law of Moses, the Torah. This passage is speaking of the anti-Christ
who sets himself against God; and what better way to set yourself against God
than to set yourself against His laws and commandments? In this passage of 2nd
Thessalonians this lawlessness (going against Torah) is called rebellion in God's
eyes.
Who  actually  nailed  Jesus  to  the  cross  and  killed  him?  Roman  soldiers  who
were anomos; lawless people living outside of the Torah. Yet as Peter says, the
Jewish people can't escape guilt because they goaded the Romans into doing
their dirty work for them. But if the Jews were communally responsible, then so
were the gentiles.
Peter further emphasizes that the Jews responsible for Christ's death were the
ones  he  says  personally  witnessed  the  signs  and  miracles  Yeshua  performed
and then refused to accept it. These particular Jews were well aware of it (Peter
says at the end of vs. 22, "You yourselves know this"), so they have no excuse.
And  by  the  way,  this  brings  us  right  back  to  when  this  address  to  the  crowd
started in vs. 14 and Peter opened with "You Judeans"! In other words, where
was  Christ  crucified?  Jerusalem  in  Judea.  Who  were  the  Jews  calling  for  the
release of the convicted murder Barabas, but the death of the innocent Yeshua?
Almost  entirely  they  were  Judeans  who  had  no  regard  for  this  filthy  Galilean
rabble rouser who challenged the Jerusalem Temple authorities.
I'll close for today with this: if any Jew is most guilty of killing Christ it is Judas;
one of the 12 original disciples, hand picked by Yeshua. And beyond him it would
be those Judeans who insisted that Pontius Pilate have Jesus executed for them.
                            10 / 11
Lesson 5 - Acts Chapter 2 
 
The  notion  that  all  Jews  living  during  Christ's  day,  or  that  all  Jews  alive  since
then, are somehow guilty of Messiah's death and are somehow to be seen as
Christ  Killers  is  not  only  naïve  it  is  slanderous.  Many  Judean  Jews  may  have
wanted him dead, but it was Roman gentiles who gladly killed him and enjoyed
torturing Him in the process.
We'll continue at verse 24 of Acts chapter 2 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 6, Chapter 2 continued 2
Let us continue today in Acts chapter 2. We're spending an inordinate amount of
time  in  this  chapter  because  there  is  an  inordinate  amount  of  information
contained here concerning one of the most monumental events in human history:
the arrival of God's Holy Spirit to indwell God's worshippers. But also because
there are underlying Scriptures that form the basis for Peter's thought provoking
argument to accept the deity of Yeshua and His position as Lord and Messiah. I
have no doubt that this elegant speech that Peter gives is a result of the training
that  he  received  at  the  feet  of  Jesus;  for  only  a  Jewish  scholar  with  intimate
knowledge of the Torah could have pieced this together, and Peter was no Torah
scholar;  he  was  a  common  Galilean,  a  blue  collar  fisherman.  We're  going  to
examine some of that Scriptural foundation today that Yeshua must have taught
Peter so keep your Bibles handy.
Let's  review  a  few  points  from  last  week,  if  only  briefly.  First,  what  is  called
Pentecost in English is Shavuot in Hebrew, and it's the 4th in the series of the 7
Biblical  Feasts  that  God  ordained  at  Mt.  Sinai.  Originally  Shavuot  was  an
agricultural feast that celebrated the harvest of the Wheat crop; but later Jewish
Tradition added the meaning that it was the day that Moses received the Torah
on     Mt.     Sinai     (which     is     likely).     The     Jewish     commentaries     and
Rabbinic  midrash  about  the  giving  of  the  Torah  to  Moses  on  Pentecost
(Shavuot) tended to focus on the elements that excited the senses: the fire and
flames, the ear-piercing noise, and the many voices of God (that represented all
human   languages).   This   notion   of   the   Torah   arriving   in   this   manner
on  Shavuot  1300  years  earlier  had  become  a  given  in  Jewish  society;  it  was
universally accepted in Judaism as truth and woven into Jewish thought.
                             1 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
Thus when we read Acts chapter 2 we can more readily see that Luke wrote
about the mysterious events of this particular Pentecost (Shavuot) that follows
Messiah's ascension to Heaven within this understanding; and shortly I'll point
out how Peter did the same. 
Another point I made from last week was to understand that to Peter the advent
of  Messiah  and  the  arrival  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  indwell  humans  signaled  the
prophesied entry into the era of the Last Days and, with equal importance, the
arrival of the Kingdom of God. He quotes the Prophet Joel and some Psalms to
make his point. But he also has in mind the Prophet Isaiah, which although he
doesn't   directly   quote,   he   borrows   some   of   Isaiah's   prophetic   thoughts.
Specifically he borrows from Isaiah 2, 55, and 56. Since we've already looked at
Isaiah 2, we'll talk a bit about Isaiah 55 and 56 today. 
Yet another matter we took up last week was for the purpose of defining a pivotal
Biblical term: lawlessness. Evangelical Christians immediately tend to think of the
coming Anti-Christ as the "Lawless One", and so they envision a very bad man
who scoffs at societal laws or sees himself as above the law (somewhat like a
tyrant, an outlaw or a gang member). But that is an incorrect mental picture. In
fact  Biblically  speaking,  this  term  "lawless"  specifically  applies  to  all  who  turn
their backs on God's Torah. The Greek word for law is nomos, and for lawless
(without law, or outside of the law) it is anomos. I urge you to commit those two
Greek words to memory. It shouldn't be terribly hard to do because English uses
similar grammatical word structure. Example: we call a set of agreed to ethical
principles  "moral";  and  the  lack  of  adherence  to  proper  ethical  principles
"amoral" (without morals). Amoral however is not the same as immoral. Immoral
means  a  person  recognizes  the  ethical  principles  but  decides  to  break  them.
However an amoral person recognizes no ethical principles as valid, binding or
pertaining   to   them.   So   nomos   and   anomos   work   exactly   the   same
way. Anomos doesn't mean to break the law, it means to refuse to recognize
the law as valid or pertaining to oneself. But what is essential for us to remember
is  that  in  the  Bible  the  term  law  is  always  referring  to  either  God's  law  or  to
Hebrew Traditions that purport to convey the underlying principles of God's law.
And the only Biblical law that exists from God's perspective is the Law of Moses,
the Torah. So lawless or lawlessness is not referring to the breaking of societal
laws or international law, or any set of laws that are manmade. 
I don't want you to think that this understanding that is a foundational belief and
teaching at Seed of Abraham Ministries concerning the continuing relevance of
                             2 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
the  Torah  Law  is  a  unique  one  for  us.  F.F.  Bruce,  in  his  New  International
Commentary on the Book of Acts says this about the use of the word lawless in
the Bible: ".....lawless men (are meant) in the sense of being outside of the law of
Israel". And what is the law of Israel? The Torah, the Law of Moses. 
So before we re-read part of Acts chapter 2, let's move from theory to practice
as I hit you right between the eyes with an inescapable and uncomfortable reality
that each Believer is faced with. Being labeled as anomous is always a wicked
negative thing in the Bible (Old and New Testaments). And, sadly (dangerously)
most of Christianity today (just like the Romans who crucified Christ) says that
God's  Torah,  the  Law  of  Moses,  doesn't  pertain  to  them.  Thus  most  of
Christianity  today  by  every  Biblical  definition  has  classified  itself,  and  proudly
proclaims  to  be,  anomos.  Without  God's  Law.  I'll  let  you  ponder  that  as  we
move on. 
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2:22 – 36
Verse  22  begins  with  "Men  of  Israel,  listen  to  this!"  some  Bibles  say  it  only
slightly differently. Remembering that to Luke and to Peter the coming of the Holy
Spirit on Pentecost (Shavuot) is the 2nd coming of the Torah, accomplished in
essentially the same way that the Jewish religious leaders and teachers said that
it happened at Mt. Sinai with Moses, then we need to be alert to why Peter chose
the words he did to speak to this huge crowd of bewildered religious Jews who
were in Jerusalem (some journeying extraordinarily long distances) in obedience
to God's commandment to come to the Temple for Shavuot. 
Listen   to   the   words   of   Moses   as   he   recalls   the   events   of   Mt.   Sinai   in
Deuteronomy 5:1.
CJB  Deuteronomy  5:1  Then  Moshe  called  to  all  Isra'el  and  said  to  them,
"Listen,  Isra'el,  to  the  laws  and  rulings  which  I  am  announcing  in  your
hearing   today,   so   that   you   will   learn   them   and   take   care   to   obey
them. 2 ADONAI our God made a covenant with us at Horev. 
And  a  few  verses  later  in  the  same  setting,  during  the  same  speech  to  the
Israelites, Moses said this in Deuteronomy 6.
Deuteronomy 6:3-5 CJB
                             3 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
3 Therefore listen, Isra'el, and take care to obey, so that things will go well
with you, and so that you will increase greatly, as ADONAI, the God of your
ancestors, promised you by giving you a land flowing with milk and honey.
4 "Sh'ma, Yisra'el! ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI echad [Hear, Isra'el! ADONAI
our God, ADONAI is one];
5 and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, all your being
and all your resources.
And, by the way, even though we read the word Adonai in our CJB's, and the
word Lord in virtually all English Bibles that I've ever come across, that is NOT
the  original  Hebrew.  Rather  the  word  is  YHWH,  Yahweh  or  Yehoveh.  That's
right; God's formal name is used in every instance, not the rather generic "Lord"
or Adonai in Hebrew that we read in our modern Bibles. 
It is common in all societies in all ages to invoke phrases and sayings that are
easily  recognizable  by  every  citizen;  sayings  that  evoke  memories  and  mental
pictures (cherished or solemn) of people and places and events. In America, and
I dare say in most of the world, one only has to invoke the words 911 or World
Trade  Center  and  your  audience  fully  understands  your  context  and  any
comparison  you  are  making.  And  so  it  was  for  Luke  as  he  quotes  Peter.  The
Jews hearing Peter instantly grasped the connection when Peter says in Hebrew
"Shema  Israel"  (Listen  Israel!)  and  then  goes  on  in  paraphrase  of  Moses  to
explain the very nature of God and His unity; only this time it is in relation to the
Son  of  God,  Yeshua.  Of  course  not  all  the  Jews  present  agreed  with  Peter's
proposed connection between God and Yeshua, or between Mt. Sinai and what
they just witnessed happen on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. 
And  since  we're  on  the  subject  of  Moses  and  the  pattern  of  Mt.  Sinai  being
repeated  at  Pentecost,  I'll  expound  just  a  bit  on  something  I  quoted  from  last
week.
Numbers 11:25 CJB
25 ADONAI came down in the cloud, spoke to him (Moses), took some of the
Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy leaders. When the Spirit
came to rest on them, they prophesied- then but not afterwards.
                             4 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
I pointed out last week that this event in Numbers 11 set the pattern for what
happened  at  Pentecost  in  Acts  2.  What  I  failed  to  point  out  is  just  how  nearly
identical  the  two  events  happened,  both  centered  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  And
although this opens up its own theological can of worms, we'll open that can just
a wee bit and hopefully close the lid before too many crawl out! Notice that the 70
Elders  began  prophesyinging  (that  is,  speaking  ecstatic  speech),  but  then  not
afterwards (meaning they spoke this way for perhaps minutes or hours and then
it ended). It was the same for the 12 Disciples and all the 120 Believers that were
there at Mt. Zion. That is, when the Holy Spirit came upon them they began to
talk ecstatic speech (in this case, employing different languages). But there is no
record in the Bible or elsewhere, not even a hint or implication, that all of these
Believers who were speaking in tongues (in foreign languages) in the immediate
aftermath, and as a consequence, of the Holy Spirit event continued to do so for
more  than  a  few  minutes  or  hours.  That  is,  just  like  Moses'  70  Elders,  they
prophecied (using foreign languages), but not afterwards. 
Paul says that speaking in tongues is one of several possible gifts that one can
receive as a result of the Holy Spirit indwelling. 
CJB  1  Corinthians  12:1  But,  brothers,  I  do  not  want  you  to  go  on  being
ignorant about the things of the Spirit.
2 You know that when you were pagans, no matter how you felt you were
being led, you were being led astray to idols, which can't speak at all.
3 Therefore, I want to make it clear to you that no one speaking by the Spirit
of  God  ever  says,  "Yeshua  is  cursed!"  and  no  one  can  say,  "Yeshua  is
Lord," except by the Ruach HaKodesh.
4 Now there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit gives them.
5  Also  there  are  different  ways  of  serving,  but  it  is  the  same  Lord  being
served.
6 And there are different modes of working, but it is the same God working
them all in everyone.
7  Moreover,  to  each  person  is  given  the  particular  manifestation  of  the
Spirit that will be for the common good.
                             5 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
8 To one, through the Spirit, is given a word of wisdom; to another, a word
of knowledge, in accordance with the same Spirit;
9 to another, faith, by the same Spirit; and to another, gifts of healing, by
the one Spirit;
10 to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the
ability to judge between spirits; to another, the ability to speak in different
kinds of tongues; and to yet another, the ability to interpret tongues.
11 One and the same Spirit is at work in all these things, distributing to each
person as he chooses.
So speaking in tongues is one of a range of possible gifts from the Holy Spirit. It
is  obvious  from  Paul's  perspective  that  the  gift  of  speaking  in  tongues  is  not
universal among legitimate Believers and that the Holy Spirit chooses to whom
He  shall  give  each  particular  gift.  Not  only  in  our  day,  but  even  in  Paul's,  this
issue of speaking in tongues as a sign of having received the Holy Spirit evokes
great  passion  and  strong  disagreement.  The  Believer's  fellowship  at  Corinth
where Paul was, was struggling with this, no doubt with much dissention and bad
feelings towards one another. So in 1Corinthians 14 Paul attempts to give the
issue some balance and context.
CJB 1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love! However, keep on eagerly seeking the
things of the Spirit; and especially seek to be able to prophesying.
2 For someone speaking in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God,
because  no  one  can  understand,  since  he  is  uttering  mysteries  in  the
power of the Spirit.
3    But    someone    prophesyinging    is    speaking    to    people,    edifying,
encouraging and comforting them.
4   A   person   speaking   in   a   tongue   does   edify   himself,   but   a   person
prophesyinging edifies the congregation.
5 I wish you would all speak in tongues, but even more I wish you would all
prophesying. The person who prophesies is greater than the person who
speaks  in  tongues,  unless  someone  gives  an  interpretation,  so  that  the
                             6 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
congregation can be edified.
6 Brothers, suppose I come to you now speaking in tongues. How can I be
of  benefit  to  you  unless  I  bring  you  some  revelation  or  knowledge  or
prophecy or teaching?
7 Even with lifeless musical instruments, such as a flute or a harp, how will
anyone  recognize  the  melody  if  one  note  can't  be  distinguished  from
another?
8 And if the bugle gives an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle?
9 It's the same with you: how will anyone know what you are saying unless
you use your tongue to produce intelligible speech? You will be talking to
the air!
So my position on the challenging issue of speaking in tongues is this: speaking
in tongues is a real, valid, ongoing and valuable spiritual gift. But just because
this gift happened at a particular Pentecost to the 120 Believers and 12 Disciples
(and  only  lasted  for  a  short  time,  apparently),  that  doesn't  mean  that  it  is
automatic that every new Believer from then forward would speak in tongues. At
Pentecost  it  happened  for  a  specific  divine  purpose:  Jerusalem  was  filled  with
Diaspora Jews coming from all over the Roman Empire, and they spoke different
languages. Most did NOT speak Hebrew or Aramaic. It is my speculation that if
all the Jews at Mt. Zion spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, the manifestation of the Holy
Spirit that caused this speaking in tongues would not have happened as it did
because it would have served no useful purpose.
Just as at Mt. Sinai when God wanted people of every language to understand
His Torah, so God wanted every Jew present at Pentecost to hear and perceive
what was happening in his/her own language. Thus speaking in tongues is one of
several  unique  and  specific  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  having  or  not  having  this
particular gift has nothing to do with one's level of faith or personal merit. It is a
sovereign  decision  of  God  for  whatever  purpose  He  has  for  you,  or  maybe  in
whatever  circumstance  you  find  yourself.  But  the  use  of  the  spiritual  gift  of
speaking  in  tongues  (and  interpreting)  must  be  proper  and  not  contrived,  and
should  not  ever  be  divisive.  Nor  should  we  judge  one  another  on  account  of
having this gift, or not having this gift. And Paul goes to great lengths to explain
this to the Corinthians. In fact, Paul goes on to say that he feels that prophesying
                             7 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
is a greater and more useful gift than speaking in tongues. 
Let me also mention that in the New Testament the word "prophesy" takes on a
different meaning from the Old Testament. In the Old Testament most of the time
(not always) prophesying involved predicting the future and/or establishing new
Scripture. But in the New Testament predicting the future is the exception when it
comes  to  the  meaning  of  prophesying.  In  Christ's  era  prophesying  meant  to
teach,  or  to  expound  upon  God's  Word  (existing  Scripture)  in  an  inspired  or
profound way. The belief in the era of Paul was that God's Word to mankind was
complete and locked up. The Books that formed the Hebrew Bible, and especially
the  Prophets,  represented  the  entirety  of  God's  Word  to  mankind.  Thus  Bible
and Torah teachers were said to be prophesying when they taught; not predicting
the  future  but  also  NOT  adding  to  the  Holy  Scripture.  Usually  it  simply  meant
interpreting  what  the  Bible  (the  Old  Testament)  had  to  say  about  any  matter,
including  the  future.  And  that  was  essentially  what  Hebrew  midrash  was
attempting to do. So in New Testament Bible speak, as your Torah Teacher, it
could be said that I am prophesying to you the congregation. In modern terms, I
am interpreting the Bible and teaching it. 
In  verses  23  and  24,  Peter  speaks  of  what  man  did  versus  what  God  did  in
response to the signs and miracles that Yeshua used to prove who He was. Man
judged Yeshua and condemned Him. Many ordinary Judean Jews in conspiracy
with the High Priests and the Roman Governor had Yeshua nailed to a stake and
killed. But God reversed their decision. Humans killed Messiah; God put life back
into Him. Humans put Christ into the grave; God rescued Him from the grave.
Humans  despised  Yeshua  and  thought  Him  worthless;  God  exalted  Him  and
placed Him at His right hand. 
But  now  Peter  deals  with  a  matter  that  Jews  then,  and  modern  Jews  today
continue to wrestle with; the issue of the relationship between King David and
Messiah. Judaism has different takes on this matter, so there is no consensus.
Some   hold   that   King   David   himself   will   either   be   resurrected   or   will   be
reincarnated in a different body. And this is why Judaism in general works very
hard to find David a perfect man who never sinned (a happy fiction to be sure,
according to the Scriptures). So with that in mind, we can begin to comprehend
why there was great interest, but no doubt much disagreement, within the crowd
of  Jews  listening  to  Peter  as  he  explains  his  view  of  the  relationship  between
David and Yeshua. So in verse 25 Peter begins the topic by invoking a Psalm of
David. Psalm 16:8 – 11 is quoted. And because in the New Testament everything
                             8 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
is  rendered  in  Greek,  we  find  a  few  minor  differences  between  this  Old
Testament  quote  versus  what  we  find  in  the  original  Hebrew  quote.  Here  it  is
from the Old Testament.
Psalm 16:8-11 CJB
8 I always set ADONAI before me; with him at my right hand, I can never be
moved;
9 so my heart is glad, my glory rejoices, and my body too rests in safety;
10 for you will not abandon me to Sh'ol, you will not let your faithful one see
the Abyss.
11 You make me know the path of life; in your presence is unbounded joy, in
your right hand eternal delight.
So the two are very close but not exact. The Hebrew speaks of eternal delight in
God's right hand, which is not there in the Greek NT quote. But what is Peter's
point of basing what he's about to say on these few verses? The issue is as I
mentioned a few moments ago: much of 2nd Temple Judaism believed that King
David  was  the  Messiah  and  thus  would  somehow  return  and  reappear  as  the
Messiah  during  their  day.  Peter  needed  to  explain  that  this  was  an  incorrect
understanding of this passage, and he would use logic, history and some more
Scripture (even David's own words) to prove His point. 
So in verse 29 he lays it out: David died and he was buried. In fact Peter points in
the direction of David's tomb that was likely on the eastern slope of the City of
David at that time and visited by virtually every Jew that ever made his/her way to
Jerusalem.  So  of  this  fact  there  was  no  dispute,  and  his  tomb  made  it  self-
evident. But, says Peter, David in addition to being a king was also a Prophet
(and  Judaism  certainly  agreed  with  that)  and  so  when  there  was  prophetic
Scripture about the Messiah and David's name was included, it was referring not
to David himself but rather to one of his descendants (a literal descendant, not a
reincarnation of David). So David could not possibly have been the Messiah; but
Yeshua, a descendant of David, is. 
What is the proof of this? Again, Peter says David was buried and his body was
in a tomb that was visited every day in Jerusalem. Christ too was buried but His
                             9 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
body came alive and He walked out of that tomb because the grave couldn't hold
Him.  Even  more,  while  David's  bleached  bones  lay  in  that  much-visited  tomb,
Christ is nowhere to be found on earth because unlike King David, Yeshua bodily
ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of Yehoveh (and to this there were
many      witnesses).      Further      Yeshua      received      "what      the      Father
promised", the Ruach HaKodesh, and now has poured out this same Spirit on
His followers. And to this fact, thousands were (on this very day) witnesses to it. 
So in Acts 2 verse 35 Peter quotes Psalm 110 verse 1, stating that the person
identified  as  "my  Lord"  in  that  passage  will  sit  at  God's  right  hand.  Much  of
Judaism felt, and still feels, that "my Lord" is referring to King David. Yet, says
Peter, it can't be King David because he didn't ascend into Heaven; he's dead
and  buried.  Therefore  Peter  says  in  verse  36  that  the  whole  house  of  Israel
(meaning  Judah  and  the  10  tribes  of  Ephraim/Israel)  needs  to  recognize  and
acknowledge  that  Yeshua  is  the  Messiah  the  Prophets  and  King  David  spoke
about. 
Now  at  this  point  I  want  to  pause  and  change  gears  and  discuss  with  you  a
couple of chapters in Isaiah that Peter no doubt was using as a foundation for his
understanding of the relationship between David and Messiah Yeshua. Open you
Bibles to Isaiah 55.
READ ISAIAH 55:1 – 5
The  key  words  in  Isaiah  55  as  pertains  to  our  subject  today  are  these:  "I  will
make an everlasting covenant with you, the grace I assured David." The grace
(the chesed in Hebrew) that YHWH assured David was that a descendant of His
would rule forever. The best place I can think of where this everlasting covenant
that shows grace towards David is summed up is in Ezekiel 37. There we hear
this:
Ezekiel 37:24-28 CJB
24 My servant David will be king over them, and all of them will have one
shepherd;   they   will   live   by   my   rulings   and   keep   and   observe   my
regulations.
25  They  will  live  in  the  land  I  gave  to  Ya'akov  my  servant,  where  your
ancestors   lived;   they   will   live   there-   they,   their   children,   and   their
                            10 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
grandchildren, forever; and David my servant will be their leader forever.
26 I will make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant. I will
give to them, increase their numbers, and set my sanctuary among them
forever.
27  My  home  will  be  with  them;  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  will  be  my
people.
28 The nations will know that I am ADONAI, who sets Isra'el apart as holy,
when my sanctuary is with them forever.'"
Since  David  is  not  immortal  or  eternal,  then  this  has  to  be  referring  to  a  very
special descendant of David who became immortal and eternal. Otherwise his
rule forever was not possible. That descendant was Yeshua of Natzeret, Jesus
the Christ. 
Let's  switch  gears  one  more  time  and  talk  now  about  Isaiah  56.  The  reason  I
want to deal with this now before we finish Acts 2 is because I mentioned last
week  that  as  Jeremiah  31:30  so  vividly  explains  this  "new  covenant"  that  is
sealed in the blood of Christ (that Christianity claims is the foundation for the so-
called New Testament Church) is actually explicitly said to be for the House of
Judah and the House of Israel. 
30  "Here,  the  days  are  coming,"  says  ADONAI,  "when  I  will  make  a  new
covenant with the house of Isra'el and with the house of Y'hudah.
The Church rightly points to this verse as the prophecy of a new covenant that
will be sealed in Christ's blood. However the verse is explicit that this covenant is
for Judah and Israel; there is not a thing here about gentiles or foreigners. As I
have  stated  many  times:  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  Bible  as  a  covenant
between God and gentiles. All divine covenants after Noah are between God and
the Hebrews.
And certainly this passage is emphatic that the new covenant is for Israel. Even
so the Church has got it right that gentiles can be included, grafted in. But the
Church  has  also  gotten  it  wrong  by  making  Christianity  a  new  and  separate
religion,  whose  God  is  Jesus,  and  this  to  the  exclusion  of  the  God  of  Israel,
Yehoveh,  His  Word,  the  Torah  and  even  the  Jewish  people.  God  speaks  in  a
                            11 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
number  of  places  in  the  Bible  about  including  gentiles  in  the  blessings  and
covenants   He   has   given   to   Israel,   but   always   there   are   caveats   and
requirements.  Among  other  things  Isaiah  56  explains  God's  view  on  this
eventual gentile inclusion into the Hebrew faith. 
READ ISAIAH 56 all
So here are the key verses. First, a foreigner joining Adonai (it actually reads
YHWH) should not say "Adonai will separate me from His people". Thus here is
a promise that God will freely accept gentiles who want to join.......who? Him. It
doesn't  say  "join  Israel".  This  means  that  joining  God  is  to  make  the  God  of
Israel your God. But then there is verse 6 that sets some stringent stipulations for
those gentiles who want to join HIM (not join Israel, not become Jews per se). He
says gentile foreigners must 1) serve Him, 2) love Him, 3) be His workers, and 4)
keep His Shabbats and not profane them. And if a gentile foreigner will do these
4 things his/her sacrifices will be accepted. And this is because God's house will
be a house of prayer for all peoples. There are some other fascinating prophetic
words contained in Isaiah 56 that aren't appropriate for our study today, but are
worth your time to consider alone and in prayer. 
Let's end today with this thought. Seed of Abraham Ministries,Torah Class has
never advocated for gentiles taking up Judaism in order to follow Christ; but we
have also never advocated against Judaism except as regards its rigidity against
accepting  Yeshua  as  Messiah  and  essentially  excommunicating  Jews  who  do
accept Him. However Judaism and following God's Biblical Torah are often not
on the same page, anymore than Christianity and following God's Scriptures are.
This chapter in Isaiah 56 is a shining example to both Judaism and Christianity
that  it  is  long  past  time  to  set  aside  our  dubious  manmade  traditions  and
doctrines and theological arrogance to rediscover God's Word, from Genesis to
Revelation. 
Here   in   Isaiah   56   we   see   the   Lord   emphatically   stating   His   insistence
that Shabbat observance is mandatory for gentiles who wish to join Him (again,
it  doesn't  say  join  Israel).  I  emphasize  that  part  about  who  or  what  it  is  that
gentiles  join  because  this  makes  it  clear  that  while  through  faith  in  Yeshua
gentiles are grafted into Israel's covenants, we who are gentiles are not grafted
into national Israel so we don't become Israelites, or Hebrews, or Jews, or the
new  Israel  (that  is,  Replacement  Theology).  The  Hebrew  people,  who  later
became known as Israelites, will always be God's precious treasure; a special
                            12 / 13
Lesson 6 - Acts Chapter 2 cont
 
people set apart from all others. They have endured more than any people group
on this planet for over 3500 years because of their connection and devotion to
the One God, the God of Israel, Yehoveh. Indeed they have stumbled and fallen
many times and paid dearly for it; only to get up, repent, and have God forgive
them and begin anew. And they will always hold a special place in the Kingdom
of God for that reason. 
Do you want to come to God's holy mountain? Do you want to be joyful in God's
house of prayer in Jerusalem, soon to be the world capital with Messiah Yeshua
as  King  of  the  Kingdom?  Do  you  want  your  sacrifice,  who  is  Christ,  to  be
accepted by God the Father so that you can be clean and atoned for? Then God
says: serve Him, love Him, be a worker for Him, and keep His Shabbats. Not my
words, not my rules; they are God's. 
We'll complete Acts 2 and move into chapter 3 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            13 / 13
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 7, Chapters 2 and 3
We'll  close  out  Acts  chapter  2  and  open  chapter  3  today.  But  first  as  is  our
custom, let's quickly review our previous session.
One of the most memorable features of the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell
Believers on Pentecost (Shavuot), was that the 12 Disciples along with the 120
other Believers present began to speak in foreign languages that were unknown
to them. The word used in that era to mean a language was tongue. Tongues
referred  only  to  natural  human  languages  just  as  we  think  of  them:  English,
French,  Spanish,  Hebrew,  Russian,  Arabic,  etc.  Today  the  Church  calls  this
phenomenon  "speaking  in  tongues".  And  there  is  substantial  theological  and
denominational disagreement over whether this spiritual gift is still appropriate for
our time, or if it still exists, and for some it is thought that a Believer must possess
it as evidence of being saved.
Was  there  a  reason  or  a  precedent  for  this  ecstatic  speech  event  to  occur  at
Pentecost in conjunction with the presence of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy
Spirit)?  Indeed  there  was.  Back  in  Moses'  day  we  found  in  Numbers  11  that
when  God  put  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  (not  within)  the  70  Elders  that  Moses  had
appointed  to  help  him  guide  God's  people  through  the  wilderness,  they  all
spontaneously started uttering ecstatic speech. Since it is said that some of the
Spirit that was upon Moses was, by an act of God, shared with the 70 Elders,
then  we  understand  that  it  is  the  same  Spirit  that  is  being  shared  and  not  a
different one or ones. So we have at Pentecost with the Messianic Believers in
Jerusalem  a  nearly  identical  happening  as  occurred  13  centuries  earlier  with
Moses and His Elders during the exodus from Egypt.
                             1 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
There was an important divine purpose for the Holy Spirit enabling these
followers  of  Christ  to  speak  different  languages  on  this  particular  occasion:
thousands  of  visiting  religious  Jews  had  come  to  Jerusalem  from  all  over  the
Roman Empire on a God-mandated annual pilgrimage. The required pilgrimage
was  to  celebrate  the  Biblical  Festival  of  Shavuot  at  the  Temple,  and  these
Diaspora Jews each spoke a language that was native to whichever country they
were  from.  That  is,  most  did  not  speak  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  the  two  common
languages  of  the  Holy  Land  Jews  including  the  12  Disciples.  So  without  this
miracle of languages what the Lord was revealing through the Believers about
Yeshua  and  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  have  been  understood  by  these  many
thousands of visiting foreign Jews.
We also discussed that in one of his letters to the Corinthians Paul addressed the
issue of speaking in tongues head-on because it was causing dissention among
the  new  Believers  at  Corinth;  and  that  same  dissention  continues  among
Christian denominations to our day. We read passages in 1Corinthians chapters
12 and 14 to see that Paul certainly commended those who spoke in tongues.
But he also nuanced it by saying that speaking in tongues was not meant to be
universal among Believers because it was but one of a range of gifts and abilities
that  the  Holy  Spirit  endowed  the  faithful  with.  So  the  exact  gifting  that  each
Believer might receive was done strictly at the sovereign choice of the Spirit. Paul
concluded  that  speaking  in  tongues  was  not  even  the  greatest  among  the
Spiritual gifts. However without saying which gift was greatest or least he did say
that prophesying was greater than tongues.
Then we learned that prophesying in the NT era did not usually mean to foretell
the  future  as  it  did  in  OT  times.  Nor  did  it  have  the  alternate  OT  meaning  of
adding  to  Holy  Scripture.  Rather  in  NT  times  prophesying  meant  to  expound
upon the existing Scriptures (the OT, the Tanakh) that was believed to be closed
up, completed, with no more to be added. In modern terms, then, prophesying
merely means to properly interpret the Bible and to teach it.
Let's re-read part of Acts chapter 2.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 2: 33 – end
The first verses we read bring up the issue of the role of King David in regards to
the Messiah. And in verses that come just before these passages Peter begins to
explain  that  the  Messiah  would  be  eternal;  but  that  King  David  had  died,  was
                             2 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
buried,  and  his  tomb  was  just  a  few  hundred  meters  from  where  they  were
standing.  So  it  is  obvious  that  King  David  wasn't  the  Messiah  since  he  is  not
alive,  and  he  has  not  bodily  ascended  into  Heaven  to  sit  at  God's  right  hand.
However Yeshua, who was killed, arose from the dead, and then ascended into
Heaven  leaving  no  trace  of  Himself  behind,  is  a  descendant  of  King  David
and  is  the  Messiah.  Peter  admonishes  his  listeners  that  many  of  them  were
eyewitnesses to the signs and miracles of Yeshua so there should be no doubt in
them.  These  signs  and  miracles  fulfilled  the  prophecies  of  the  several  OT
Prophets concerning the Messiah, even those prophecies of King David. Thus
this is the proof that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Messiah, He is Lord and King, He
is  eternal,  and  He  is  currently  in  Heaven  with  Yehoveh,  His  Father.  But  then
Peter  hits  them  with  a  roundhouse  right  to  the  jaw.  He  says  to  these  Jews:
"Messiah is this Yeshua, whom you executed on a stake!"
Peter's eloquent argument and his accusation of responsibility to the Jews who
were  listening  to  him  had  its  effect.  Many  realized  their  guilt  and  shame
(especially the local Judean Jews among the crowd). What now? They bore guilt
(mostly  in  a  communal  sense)  for  killing  God's  Messiah;  so  how  could  they
possibly  survive  this  unforgivable  trespass?  Notice  their  response:  "Brothers,
what should we do?" Peter told them to 1) turn from their sins, 2) return to God,
and 3) be immersed (baptized) on the authority of Yeshua. And if they will do
these 3 things they will be forgiven. Of course what Peter is talking about is the
kind of repentance that is acceptable to God.
But the Jewish crowd's reaction to Peter's condemnation of them makes it clear
that  they  inherently  understood  that  repentance  is  above  all  else  an  ACTION!
They asked what to do; not what to pray or what to think. And so Peter said they
were to behaviorally turn from their sins, actively return to obeying God in their
lives, and hurry to be baptized in the name of Yeshua. All of these things were
tangible actions, not a change in feelings or merely a passive change of mind or
heart. This idea of repentance as concrete behavioral change at all levels of our
lives has been all but lost in Christianity. However don't think that this mistaken
mindset  that  feelings  and  words  of  repentance  are  as  good  as  or  better  than
making  actual  life  changes  happens  only  in  our  day  and  age.  Listen  to  this
passage written by John Chrysostom around 400 A.D., taken from his work titled
"Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles".
"What shall we do?" They did what must be done, be we (do) the opposite.
They condemned themselves and despaired of their salvation. This is what
                             3 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
made them such as they were. They knew what gift they had received. But
how  do  you  become  like  them,  when  you  do  everything  in  an  opposite
spirit? As soon as they heard, they were baptized. They did not speak cold
words  that  we  do  now,  nor  did  they  contrive  delays,  even  though  they
heard  all  the  requirements.  For  they  did  not  hesitate  when  they  were
commanded  to  "save  yourselves  from  this  generation",  but  welcomed  it.
They  showed  their  welcome  through  their  action  and  proved  it  through
their deeds what sort of people they were."
Repentance not only requires action; the substance of true repentance IS action.
To say you have repented but it is not reflected in any discernable way in your
life? Only God can know if He has forgiven you, but how can those around you
think that whatever you piously claim is any more than "cold words", says John
Chrysostom, if they see no positive change in you? I tell you frankly that I have
seen many claim repentance and Christ, but few do more than talk the talk. In the
late 90's in a CNN interview, Billy Graham lamented that the follow up from his
Crusades  (that  had  made  him  a  household  word  and  a  giant  in  Christendom)
revealed that of all those hundreds of thousands who left their seats to come and
surround the stage and pray the sinners prayer fewer than 3% showed any signs
of continuing on with what they had professed. And just as a reformed alcoholic
or drug addict can listen to the pleading words of a substance abuser and know
whether  they  are  sincere  or  their  words  are  just  emotion  driven  or  even
manipulation,  so  a  person  who  at  one  time  thought  they  were  saved,  but
suddenly realized that their own actions reflect no fruit of the Spirit in their lives,
no discernable outward commitment to Christ, can often recognize the same in
others.
I  am  a  good  example  of  this.  I  was  raised  in  a  Christian  household  to  model
parents. I can't ever recall a time in my life that I didn't know who Jesus was.
We went to Church as a family. I never heard a bad word from my mother or
father, never heard them argue with one another. They were highly regarded and
trusted  in  the  community.  They  were  kind  and  sweet.  We  were  taught  Godly
principles and our household was quiet, safe, stable and loving. I was baptized
(like so many, on a few occasions!) But in my late 30's my life was plunged into
chaos and despair; and all at once, in a catastrophe that I can only visualize as
like the World Trade Center collapsing all at once into a heap of dust and rubble,
I instantly realized that the cause and fault of my predicament was my own. I had
talked  the  talk  with  the  best  of  them;  but  I  had  never  walked  the  walk  of  a
Believer. There was no fruit; I hadn't endeavored to be different than the world
                             4 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
but rather to be as much like the world as possible. I never considered my life in
relation to the Lord. No one would ever have guessed my claim of Christianity
unless I had told them; and I hardly ever did. I doubt they would have believed
me anyway.
In my despair I realized that while I knew who Christ was, I had never sincerely
repented of my sins nor had any serious intention of following His ways. I had
merely tried to disguise those sins with a thin covering of mouthed words but did
nothing  to  back  it  up.  I  took  salvation  for  granted;  something  cheaply  gained
therefore only lightly valued. I prayed the prayer of forgiveness to relieve some
guilt for awhile, giving me a false sense of security, and then just continued on as
before. While I cannot be 100% certain, as I reflect I do not think I was saved. I
had  lived  a  self-deception  for  most  of  my  life,  but  God  could  not  have  been
fooled.  Yet  out  of  the  ashes  came  a  different  person,  a  restored  person,  who
learned  that  repentance  is  action,  not  cold  words.  Repentance  is  real,  actual,
visible change. The proof of repentance lies in a commitment not to repeat the
same offenses. Peter learned that; John Chrysostom must have as well. And so
did I. It is my earnest hope that you will too, and not have to experience disaster
before you do.
But  getting  back  to  our  passage,  let's  think  about  what  it  was  that  so  worried
those religious Jews that they yelled out to Peter, "What should we do?" They
had accepted some level of culpability for the death of Yeshua; but at the same
time every one knew that they hadn't personally killed Yeshua, nor necessarily
even called for his death. Even so the Torah and the Altar offer no possibility of
atonement for murder, or for those in the conspiracy to murder, or for those that
offer false testimony against an innocent who is then convicted of a capital crime
and put to death. The Law offers no atonement for blasphemy against God (and
what could be more blasphemous than to reject, let alone conspire to kill, God's
Son?) One could repentant, even change and be entirely and sincerely sorry; but
no atonement was available in the Levitical sacrificial system for what the English
Bible  often  labels  as  intentional  or  high-handed  sins.  Thus  their  guilt  and
separation from God clung to them like a stain; it could not be removed at any
price. But Peter offered them a way out.
Notice in verse 38 Peter says: "....and each of you be immersed on the authority
of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins......" The insolvable was
solved if the name of Yeshua was invoked. Peter's instruction telling them to be
immersed (baptized) was to (as David Stern says it): "....absorb completely and
                             5 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
accept totally the work, power, authority and person of Yeshua the Messiah". If
one  does  this  then  forgiveness  of  sins  occurs  (even  for  sins  that  up  until  now
were  not  forgivable  by  any  means  offered  by  the  Torah  Law).  3000  people
rushed to accept what Peter offered them that day and they were immersed into
the name and Lordship of Yeshua.
But to whom is this kind of forgiveness available? In verse 39 Peter says: "For
the promise is for you, for your children, and for those far away; as many as God
may  call".  Where  did  Peter  get  this  idea  from?  Just  as  with  all  of  his  other
premises, he got it from Holy Scripture. We discussed last week how the Prophet
Isaiah, especially chapters 2, 55 and 56, greatly influenced Peter's theology. But
here Peter paraphrases Genesis 28:13 & 14. This is a story of Jacob, before God
renamed him Israel.
Genesis 28:13-14 CJB  13 Then suddenly ADONAI was standing there next
to him; and he said, "I am ADONAI, the God of Avraham your [grand]father
and the God of Yitz'chak. The land on which you are lying I will give to you
and to your descendants. 14 Your descendants will be as numerous as the
grains of dust on the earth. You will expand to the west and to the east, to
the north and to the south. By you and your descendants all the families of
the earth will be blessed.
Abraham  had  many  years  earlier  been  promised  that  the  covenant  God  made
with him would be passed down to his descendants. Jacob was the recipient of
that promise, and now it would flow onward from him.
Peter  says:  "....for  the  PROMISE  is  for  you...."      For  the  Jewish  people  "the
promise"  was  a  well  understood  buzzword  that  meant  the  covenant  God  had
made with Abraham. For indeed this covenant was a promise; it put no conditions
upon  Abraham  it  only  made  guarantees  to  Abraham.  Peter,  as  does  God's
promise to Abraham, says this promise is for your children (descendants) as well,
but also for those far away. Who are those who are far away? It is common in
Christianity to say that this is referring to gentiles and then use Isaiah 57:19 as
the proof text. However as I've demonstrated to you over the years, you can't
just willy-nilly lift verses, or portions of a verse, from the Scriptures and use them
to validate pre-determined agendas. Indeed there is no doubt from many other
verses in the OT (such as we found in Isaiah 56) about foreigners being able to
join  the  God  of  Israel,  and  from  several  more  in  the  NT  that  under  certain
conditions  gentiles  can  be  partakers  in  Israel's  blessings  and  promises  given
                             6 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
through  Israel's  covenants  with  Yehoveh.  However  I  don't  think  that  is  at  all
what Peter had in mind here. For one reason, it would not be until a later time
that God would deal with Peter in a dream-vision (where the Lord lowered a cloth
filled with unclean animals and told Peter to choose and eat) that Peter finally
understood that gentiles were to be actively included into the body of Messiah;
something he was reluctant to accept.
The verse in Isaiah 57 that Christianity nearly universally says is what Peter was
quoting, and it is speaking about the inclusion of gentiles, is this: 19 I will create
the right words: 'Shalom shalom to those far off and to those nearby!' says
ADONAI; 'I will heal them!'" So the doctrinal idea is that those who are far off in
this passage, and thus those who Peter is speaking about, are gentiles. Jews are
near, gentiles are far off. I don't accept that interpretation, especially when one
reads this verse in context.
CJB  Isaiah  57:1    The  righteous  person  perishes,  and  nobody  gives  it  a
thought.  Godly  men  are  taken  away,  and  no  one  understands  that  the
righteous person is taken away from the evil yet to come. 2 Yes, those who
live uprightly will have peace as they rest on their couches. 3 "But you, you
witches' children, come here, you spawn of adulterers and whores!
Then moving down towards the end of this chapter we read:
Isaiah 57:16-19 CJB   16 For I will not fight them forever or always nurse my
anger; otherwise their spirits would faint before me, the creatures I myself
have made. 17 It was because of their flagrant greed that I was angry and
struck them; I hid myself and was angry, but they continued on their own
rebellious way. 18 I have seen their ways, and I will heal them; I will lead
them and give comfort to them and to those who mourn for them- 19 I will
create  the  right  words:  'Shalom  shalom  to  those  far  off  and  to  those
nearby!' says ADONAI; 'I will heal them!'"
This  is  an  obvious  reference  to  Israel's  exiles.  God  is  speaking  about  Israel
(those who rebelled). Gentiles aren't rebels because they never were part of His
chosen people and the God of Israel was not their god. Those who are near are
those  Jews  who  live  in  the  Holy  Land.  Those  who  are  far  off  are  the  Hebrew
exiles  and  the  Diaspora  scattered  about  the  Roman  Empire  and  beyond.  This
includes the House of Judah and the 10 tribes of the House of Ephraim/Israel. So
when Peter spoke of those far off it was the Diaspora Jews and the 10 tribes who
                             7 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
had yet to return. Peter's entire attention was focused on the 12 tribes of Israel,
and no one else.....yet.
Verse 42 then moves beyond the day of Pentecost to what occurred afterwards.
And in this verse is yet another premise that Christians use to establish a dubious
doctrine.  Here  we  read:  "They  continued  faithfully  in  the  teaching  of  the
emissaries,  in  fellowship,  in  breaking  bread  and  in  the  prayers."  This  verse  is
pretty  straightforward  so  what  I'll  focus  on  is  the  reference  to  the  breaking  of
bread. Beginning with the early Roman Church most of Christianity from that time
forward  says  that  breaking  bread  is  referring  to  what  is  today  known  as
Communion; but it decidedly is not about Communion.
Within Judaism then, as now, the breaking of bread stands for the blessing over
what is the basic food staple at most tables, bread. And the symbolism is that
God   sustains   life   with   this   provision   of   sustenance.   In   the   Talmudic
tractate  Berakoth  (which  means  benedictions)  we  find  this  rather  standard
understanding of the breaking of bread by the host of the meal:
"The host breaks bread and the guest says grace after the meal. The host
breaks bread so that he should do so generously, and the guest says grace
so that he should bless the host. The guests may not eat anything until the
one  who  breaks  the  bread  has  tasted.  The  one  who  has  broken  bread
stretches out his hand first, but if he wishes to show respect to his teacher
or  to  anyone  senior  to  himself  he  may  do  so.  The  one  who  acts  as  host
many not break bread until the guests have finished responding Amen."
Before  the  host  breaks  the  bread  a  blessing  is  pronounced  (which  is  why  the
guests  must  say  Amen),  and  then  afterward  the  host  breaks  the  bread.  I  say
again:  breaking  bread  has  no  reference  or  connection  to  the  gentile  Roman
Christian sacrament of Communion. The breaking of bread was in ancient times,
in  Peter's  time,  and  remains  to  this  day  a  common  Jewish  mealtime  ritual
tradition. All Peter was getting at was that the Believers ate meals together and
did so in the standard and customary Jewish way. Thus while Christianity tries to
show Peter moving away from his Jewishness by breaking bread, the meaning is
the exact opposite. In fact in verse 46 the matter is further clarified.
Acts 2:46 CJB  46 Continuing faithfully and with singleness of purpose to
meet in the Temple courts daily, and breaking bread in their several homes,
they shared their food in joy and simplicity of heart........
                             8 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
Notice this as well: the disciples continued to meet in the Temple courts every
day. F.F. Bruce in his New International Commentary on the Book of Acts says
this about what this verse tells us: "The Apostles continued to live as observant
Jews". That sums it up about as well as it can be.
Let's move on to Acts Chapter 3.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 3 all
In the previous chapter, verse 43 says that after Pentecost many miracles and
signs took place through the Disciples. Here in chapter 3 we see one of those
miracles played out.
Verse 1 opens with Peter and John making their customary daily journey to the
Temple. As good observant Jews, they are going at the time of afternoon prayer
variously described in different English Bibles as occurring at the ninth hour or 3
in the afternoon (it's the same thing). The Hebrews had, since their time of exile
in Babylon and the creation of the Synagogue system, prayed 3 times per day.
The morning prayer was called Shacharit; the afternoon prayer Minchah; and
the evening prayer Ma'ariv.
Where did the concept of praying 3 times a day as the proper number of times
come from? From the Prophet Daniel while he was a Babylonian captive.
Daniel 6:11 CJB11  On learning that the document had been signed, Dani'el
went home. The windows of his upstairs room were open in the direction of
Yerushalayim;  and  there  he  kneeled  down  three  times  a  day  and  prayed,
giving thanks before his God, just as he had been doing before.
Thus  from  this  single  verse,  upon  the  earliest  beginnings  of  the  Synagogue
system up in Babylon, the religious Jews face all Synagogues in the direction of
Jerusalem and they pray 3 times per day.
One of the several reasons that Jews might go to the Temple was to be present
at  the  twice  daily  Altar  sacrifices.  These  particular  sacrifices  occurred  in  the
morning and evening. Called the tamid sacrifices (meaning regular or daily) the
Priests performed these 7 days per week, rain or shine, on behalf of all Israel.
What should be noticed is that while the Torah prescribes a certain number of
sacrificial  offerings  each  day  for  all  Israel,  it  does  NOT  prescribe  a  certain
                             9 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
number of daily prayers. Rather the 3 times per day prayer protocol was part of
the liturgy that had been developed in the Synagogue system but was at some
point  adopted  by  the  Temple  authorities.  The  reason  I  even  mention  this  is  to
remind  us  all  that  the  Synagogue  system  was  a  manmade  system  created  in
response to predicament of the Babylonian exile. At that time the Temple was
destroyed,  the  Priesthood  defunct,  and  most  Jews  were  sent  away  out  of  the
Holy  Land  and  to  Babylon.  Thus  there  was  no  means  to  observe  the  Torah
required purity rituals, or to atone for sins by means of Altar sacrifices. There was
no one to teach the Torah, no authority to enforce it, and no place for worship or
teaching  to  occur.  Therefore  the  Synagogue  evolved  as  a  means  to  have  an
alternative  religious  structure.  The  Synagogue  would  develop  new  teachers  of
God's Word, and to be a place for Jews to worship apart from the pagan worship
centers of Babylon, and to simply meet and have fellowship. These are all good
and worthy things.
The  problem  arose  when  alternative  means  for  atonement  were  invented  and
declared by the Synagogue authorities. This was in no way authorized by God or
His Torah. Prayer and Torah study were said to be the new means of atonement
for sins (even though the Scriptures allow no alternative). New rituals and liturgy
were developed, and a religious leadership that was not organized or manned by
Levitical Priests was formed. The troublesome issue is that once the Jews were
freed from their captivity, the Temple was rebuilt and the Priesthood reorganized,
the Altar sacrifices were resumed and everything at the Temple in Jerusalem was
again functioning as it should, the Synagogue system was not disbanded. Rather
the  Jews  now  had  two  different  religious  authority  systems  that  functioned
separately. Some commentators have tried to describe the two systems as being
complimentary and thus all was well. But all one has to do is read a bit of Jewish
history, or even the New Testament, to see that the Temple and the Synagogue
systems were in many ways competitors if not antagonists. So as often happens,
compromises  were  made  for  the  sake  of  peace  or  to  make  the  people  more
comfortable. The 3 times per day prayer at the Temple was one of these many
compromises.
Luke's story of a miracle healing begins as Peter and John are at the Temple
and a crippled man is carried in by his friends to what was no doubt his usual
begging station, which was at the Beautiful Gate. We are told that he was born
crippled meaning he suffered some sort of congenital birth defect. Where is the
Beautiful    Gate?    A    Hebrew    word    for    beautiful    is    yafeh;    when    you
English-ize yafeh you get Jaffa. So some have tried to say that the Jaffa gate in
                            10 / 11
Lesson 7 - Acts Chapters 2 and 3
 
Jerusalem is the Beautiful Gate of our story. I've taken many of you through that
gate and I'm sorry to inform you that this is not the gate that our crippled man
was laying at. For one reason the Jaffa gate came much later. For another it is
nowhere near the Temple grounds. Likely the YafehGate (the Beautiful Gate) is
what is also known in the Mishnah as the Nicanor Gate, the Bronze Gate, and
also as the Corinthian Gate. It was located near the Court of the Women on the
Temple grounds. Its nickname, the Beautiful Gate, came because of its special
magnificence. Josephus tells us that it was made of ornate bronze, inlaid with
gold and silver and was the most spectacular of the several gates on the Temple
grounds.
Begging  was  fully  condoned  and  even  licensed  in  this  day.  Laziness  was  not
tolerated and neither was faking a disability, hence the licensing. In fact giving
alms  to  beggars  was  considered  to  be  an  important  part  of  Judaism.  Let's
remember that there was no government welfare or disability payment system.
Charity was the only way the sick and lame could survive if they were from poor
families. The Torah law was clear that the less fortunate were to be cared for
otherwise they could cry out to God and the guilt would be placed upon those
who refused to help them.
This  story  of  the  crippled  man  that  John  and  Peter  encounter  is  laden  with
information that I don't want us to hurry through. So we'll conclude for now and
take up this story next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 8, Chapter 3 continued
Last week we concluded chapter 2 and began chapter 3 of Acts. And what we
observed  was  that  when  we  take  these  verses  within  the  context  of  the
2nd Temple Judaism of Jesus's era, and understand what the cultural mindset
and backdrop was for the Bible characters involved and for the author (Luke),
only then does the meaning pour forth.
For  instance;  near  of  the  end  of  Acts  chapter  2  Peter  uses  the  term  "the
promise" as the basis for how he interprets the works and person of Yeshua the
Messiah.  And  it  isn't  necessarily  in  line  with  what  we  might  think.  Often  in
Christianity it is said that what Peter is getting at is that "the promise" is referring
to the New Covenant in Christ. And thus, the New Covenant is unilateral; that is
in the New Covenant only God has obligations. The Believer has none. Yet in
fact, what Peter is alluding to is not the New Covenant, but rather a much more
ancient one: the Abrahamic Covenant.
The term "the promise" had for centuries been the nickname for the Abrahamic
Covenant. And indeed it was a promise to Abraham that was unilateral; that is, all
of  its  obligations  fell  to  God.  However  the  New  Covenant  is  anything  but
unilateral nor is it a promise on the order of the Abrahamic Covenant. So Peter
lays out some very specific requirements to take advantage of the new dynamic
brought about by Yeshua's death and resurrection. First, one must actively turn
from their sins. Second, one must sincerely return to God. And third, one must be
physically  baptized  on  the  authority  of  Messiah  Yeshua.  These  were  3  strict
conditions for forgiveness, and thus salvation. So indeed Believers in Jesus had,
and continue to have, obligations for membership to the community of Believers.
                             1 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
In that same vein it is often said that the New Covenant is all about grace, while
another earlier covenant (the Mosaic Covenant) was about works; this is a false
dichotomy. Both covenants were based on grace, because both covenants were
based on the theological concept of substitution of an innocent victim in place of
the  guilty  perpetrator.  The  primary  difference  was  that  the  older  covenant
required the life of an animal as a substitute each time atonement was needed,
while the newer covenant required the life of Messiah as a one-time substitute.
And, as concerns the Law, what could demonstrate more grace than for God to
let the guilty human being live while an innocent animal died in his/her place?
Further, repentance was equally required for both covenants. An animal sacrifice
without  repentance  was  not  effectual.  Saying  one  believes  in  Yeshua  for
salvation, but without true repentance, is equally ineffectual.
What we also saw was that true repentance (the kind that provides forgiveness of
sins) is first and foremost an action. There must be life changes; mere words and
feelings will not do. Past transgressions must end.
Then in chapter 2 verse 39 we have Peter explaining just who "the promise" was
extended  to.  And  his  answer  was  to  those  near  and  to  those  far  away.  In  the
context  of  that  era,  and  to  Peter's  mind,  the  near  were  those  Jews  standing
before him, and the far away were all the Jews and Israelites of the Diaspora. He
was  not  thinking  of,  or  speaking  about,  gentiles  at  all  at  this  time,  and  in  fact
some  months  later  he  was  still  not  thinking  that  gentiles  were  to  be  included.
Then  in  Acts  chapter  10  we'll  find  God  using  a  dream-vision  to  finally  get  it
across  to  Peter  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  was  to  be  extended  to  all  the
families of the earth, not just to Jews.
Acts 10:34-35 CJB  34 Then Kefa addressed them: "I now understand that
God does not play favorites, 35 but that whoever fears him and does what is
right is acceptable to him, no matter what people he belongs to.
Next, still in chapter 2, we discussed the concept of breaking of bread and found
that it had nothing to do with a Christian tradition that was formed a few centuries
after Peter's day. That tradition was invented by the Roman Church and called
the  Sacrament  of  Communion.  The  breaking  of  bread  was  a  regular,  long
established, Jewish tradition of first saying a blessing over the bread at mealtime,
and  then  literally  breaking  it  into  pieces  to  pass  it  around  to  the  diners.
Communion and the breaking of bread are in no way connected.
                             2 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
Lastly we moved into chapter 3 and the story of the healing miracle of a crippled
man. We just got started last week and didn't get much past the first couple of
verses,  so  we'll  re-read  this  chapter  in  its  entirely.  Open  your  Bibles  to  Acts
chapter 3.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 3 all
Scholars say that what is happening in this chapter is that Peter is outlining his
Christology.  Christology  is  one  of  the  several  categories  and  subject  headings
that helps to define any particular Christian systematic theology. It a big word that
simply  means  the  religious  doctrines  that  may  be  derived  from  the  life  and
teachings  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  I  would  agree  that  Christology  is  definitely
contained in this chapter. However what is often lumped in with Christology are
rather standard Jewish understandings and doctrines derived from the Torah and
from the traditions of Judaism. But because they occur in the New Testament,
these beliefs are often thought to be something new that Yeshua taught (perhaps
even different from the Torah).  Some of these doctrines are quite important as
they are foundational to our proper understanding of Messiah and of redemption.
So we will take some time to examine these.
Essentially what we have here in our story is a divine miracle to heal a cripple,
but it is done for a larger purpose than making the lame to walk. It is done both
as  a  demonstration  of  God's  healing  power,  through  Yeshua,  but  it  also  gives
Peter a platform to preach and teach the Gospel.
The cripple was sitting at a gate called the Beautiful Gate that led into the Court
of the Women; it was one of the main entrances into the Temple complex. He
would have been outside the gate and not inside, as the lame were considered
too  blemished  to  be  allowed  too  near  the  Temple  itself.  Not  even  blemished
Levites and Priests were allowed inside the Temple precinct as it introduced ritual
impurity to the sacred area. This crippled man was a beggar because he had no
other  means  to  survive.  And  because  so  many  people  passed  through  this
particular gate, it was prime real estate for beseeching alms. We should not think
that begging was somehow a bad thing; ironically Judaism actually saw giving to
beggars as a way to achieve merit before God. Thus there was a mindset that
beggars served an important purpose in Jewish society by providing a means for
other Jews to practice an important Torah principle: tzedekah. Tzedekah means
charity.  Beggar  and  giver  formed  a  kind  of  symbiotic  relationship  such  that  if
there were no poor and lame beggars, then Jews couldn't perform the required
                             3 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
charity.  In  the  Babylonian  Talmud  tractate  Baba  Bathra,  we  read  this  excerpt
that well sums up how 2nd Temple Judaism viewed giving to beggars.
In  response  to  criticism  from  gentiles  that  challenged  the  Jewish  concept
of tzedekah in that "If your God loves the poor, why does He not support them?"
the  Hebrew  Sages  replied:  "So  that  through  giving  to  them  we  may  be  saved
from the punishment of Gehinnom". Gehinnom is another way of saying *. In
other words, tzedekah had a certain salvation component to it in the minds of
many Jewish religious authorities of that era, and so beggars were a necessarily
thing so tzedekah could happen.
As this particular beggar spotted Peter and John walking by him he stretched out
his hand as usual hoping for some coins. However instead of giving him money,
Kefa (Peter) offered something unexpected. When we read in verse 4 that Kefa
and Yochanon (John) stared at the beggar, this was not a glare of disapproval;
rather they must have felt an unction from the Holy Spirit to do something truly
awesome  for  this  unfortunate  individual.  Eye  contact  is  a  powerful  thing;  by
staring  into  the  eyes  of  this  beggar,  they  made  a  personal  connection.  They
explain that they won't be giving him any money because they don't have any.
However they will give him something valuable that they do possess and are able
to give; something even greater than charity.
Peter reached out his own hand and grasped the hand of the cripple and said:
"In the name of Yeshua of Nazareth, walk!". He pulled on the man, encouraging
him to stand, and miraculously he did just that. In fact after feeling the sensation
of standing for the first time in his life, he began to walk, and then soon began to
leap  around  all  the  time  praising  God.  Let's  remember  that  not  only  had  he
never, since birth, had the ability to walk, his legs would have been horrifically
atrophied. So the Lord not only repaired whatever was impairing his mobility, He
also instantaneously strengthened those rubbery muscles and ligaments.
It is no accident that the term "leaping" is employed to describe how this former
cripple reacted. A Messianic prophecy well known in Peter's day is found in the
Book of Isaiah that predicts exactly this. It is as beautifully lyrical as a Psalm of
David and worth a few minutes to read it all.
READ ISAIAH 35 all
So when the people saw this man crippled from birth leaping around like a deer,
                             4 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
many would have recognized it as a Messianic prophetic fulfillment, which is of
course what God intended and indeed it was. And Peter made it clear that this
healing was in the name of Yeshua.  Notice also that only AFTER he was healed
did the lame man enter the Temple grounds. To repeat: no blemished person, not
even a Levite, could enter the Temple grounds because it brought defilement to
the holiness of the place. So for the first time in his life this man could enter into
the Temple and he could offer sacrifices of atonement at the Altar. Think on that
for a moment; his crippled condition also meant he had no avenue to atone for
his sins. What a great picture this paints of the purpose for the Law of Moses ,
which was provided for God's crippled people as a means to have atonement for
there sins; a means that had not before existed. And then later, through Yeshua,
an ever greater means was provided for the entire crippled world of humanity to
atone for our sins.
Let's take a bit of a detour at this time to talk about a challenging subject that is
brought up as early in the Bible as the Torah and continues on throughout the
New  Testament;  the  relationship  between  sin  and  sickness.  I  ask  for  all  your
attention and concentration because this is not easy, which is why it is not often
talked about in our Synagogues and Churches except only in the simplest terms.
Depending on the various denominational views, committing sinful acts either is
or is not a direct cause of physical sickness. And various Bible verses can be
found to support either doctrine. Here's an example of a passage that seems to
favor believing that sinful acts DO cause sickness.
CJB John 5:1  After this, there was a Judean festival; and Yeshua went up to
Yerushalayim.  2  In  Yerushalayim,  by  the  Sheep  Gate,  is  a  pool  called  in
Aramaic,   Beit-Zata,   3   in   which   lay   a   crowd   of   invalids-   blind,   lame,
crippled.    4  *    5  One  man  was  there  who  had  been  ill  for  thirty-eight
years.   8   Yeshua   said   to   him,   "Get   up,   pick   up   your   mat   and
walk!"  9  Immediately  the  man  was  healed,  and  he  picked  up  his  mat  and
walked.  14  Afterwards  Yeshua  found  him  in  the  Temple  court  and  said  to
him, "See, you are well! Now stop sinning, or something worse may happen
to you!"
But in another passage that seems to say something entirely different, we read
words  that  imply  that  sinning  is  not  necessarily  tied  directly  to  sickness  or
disability.
                             5 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
CJB John 9:1  As Yeshua passed along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His
talmidim asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned- this man or his parents- to cause
him to be born blind?" 3 Yeshua answered, "His blindness is due neither to
his sin nor to that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might be
seen at work in him.
Further, depending on denominational views, since God is able to heal then a
Believer  either  prays  AND  seeks  medical  help,  or  one  should  ONLY  pray  and
shun medical help; the idea being that seeking a human to heal us signifies a
lack of faith in God. We'll deal with both of these matters because it is profoundly
important to our story and to our lives.
The first thing to know about sin and sickness is that from a Biblical perspective
they both represent a lack of wholeness. Sin is the lack of spiritual wholeness;
sickness is the corresponding lack of physical wholeness. And what we learn in
Scripture is that the lack of spiritual and physical wholeness is connected and
work hand-in-hand. We also learn from the Bible that the lack of wholeness is an
affront to the Lord and so He has set down rules and regulations regarding it. In
fact Yehoveh has set up a barrier between him and un-whole mankind because
He  can't  have  un-whole  anything  in  His  presence  as  the  lack  of  wholeness
defiles  holiness.  Therefore  Heaven  is  a  place  divided  and  separated  away
(protected)  from  the  entire  physical  universe,  and  for  humans  the  boundary
between  the  two  cannot  be  crossed  over  without  very  specific  circumstances
occurring. Those circumstances are 1) our physical death, and 2) righteousness
imputed  to  us  (God's  Believers)  by  divine  grace,  and  this  through  God's  son
Yeshua.
Thus, for instance, when I told you that a Levite or Priest with a blemish (like a
missing  finger,  or  a  substantial  burn,  or  a  crippled  foot)  cannot  serve  at  the
Temple, it is because of this principle of wholeness. Essentially the purpose for
redemption is create wholeness in people who are not whole; and everyone is
born  "not  whole",  both  spiritually  and  physically,  because  of  the  Fall  of  Adam
and Eve. Let me say it again because it is one of the most critical and least talked
about  Biblical  principles  of  God:  redemption  is  NOT  the  goal  in  and  of  itself;
rather redemption is the means to the goal.  The purpose and goal of redemption
is the restoration of wholeness to humanity.
Thus  when  sin  (a  spiritual  element)  entered  the  physical  world,  so  did  its
counterpart,  sickness  and  death.  One  of  the  several  outstanding  things  that
                             6 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
Messiah Yeshua's death on the cross did was to pay or atone not only for our
sins (that is our wrong behaviors or wrong attitudes that go against the Torah),
His sacrificial death also paid for our condition of sin, or our sin nature, that we all
are born with. That is, a newborn infant is born with a sin nature before he/she
even  has  an  opportunity  to  commit  a  sinful  act.  The  Levitical  system  of  Altar
sacrifices could pay ONLY for sinful acts; not for our sin nature. And even then,
not ALL sinful acts could be atoned for. Christ's death covered it all, so indeed it
is vastly superior to anything that the death of an animal could atone for. But let
me  also  be  clear:  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  accompanying  sacrificial  system
using animals for atonement worked. Over and over in the Torah after explaining
a law, and what the requisite sacrifice was to atone for breaking that law, it was
directly said that provided the sacrifice was done with an attitude of repentance,
the sinner was forgiven. However it had its limitations.
Thus  sickness  is  the  tangible  physical  manifestation  of  the  invisible  spiritual
condition of sin. It is once again an example of our Reality of Duality principle; the
spiritual world and the physical world operating in lock step. We get a dramatic
illustration of this in the Torah concerning Miryam, Moses' sister.
Numbers  12:6-10  CJB    6  He  said,  "Listen  to  what  I  say:  when  there  is  a
prophet  among  you,  I,  ADONAI,  make  myself  known  to  him  in  a  vision,  I
speak with him in a dream. 7 But it isn't that way with my servant Moshe. He
is the only one who is faithful in my entire household. 8 With him I speak
face to face and clearly, not in riddles; he sees the image of ADONAI. So
why  weren't  you  afraid  to  criticize  my  servant  Moshe?"  9  The  anger  of
ADONAI  flared  up  against  them,  and  he  left.  10  But  when  the  cloud  was
removed  from  above  the  tent,  Miryam  had  tzara'at,  as  white  as  snow.
Aharon looked at Miryam, and she was as white as snow.
Thus Miryam's hidden spiritual condition became apparent on the outside of her
body for all to see: sickness in the form of a skin disease. And so it is the same
for all mankind. We get physically sick because we are spiritually sick. And while
we  can  certainly  mitigate  part  of  that  by  not  committing  sins,  we  cannot  fully
mitigate the other part, which is our sin natures. Those sin natures will stay with
us until we die; and then if we are Believers we will someday return to earth with
glorified bodies that have different natures. Only then will we no longer be subject
to sickness, because only then we will no longer be subject to sin.
One  more  interesting  bit  of  information.  Wholeness,  or  restoration  to  perfect
                             7 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
health, is in Greek holoklerian. It means to bring something to sound well-being
and thus complete health. In the Greek version of the Old Testament called the
Septuagint, this rarely used word refers to an unblemished animal that is thus
qualified for sacrifice because of its soundness. That is, the animal is suitable for
use by God because it is whole. It works the same with humans. A human must
be brought to holoklerian, wholeness, in order to be useable for God.
Now for the 2nd part of the matter of sin and sickness: as a practical issue what
are Believers to do when we inevitably get physically sick? The reality is that the
Biblical  attitude  towards  healers,  medicine  men,  and  physicians  was  strongly
negative. In the Torah, for instance, we read this about healing from sickness or
injury:
Deuteronomy 32:39 CJB  39 See now that I (God), yes, I, am he; and there is
no god beside me. I put to death, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; no
one saves anyone from my hand!
Here's another example:
2  Chronicles  16:12-13  CJB    12  In  the  thirty-ninth  year  of  his  reign,  Asa
suffered from a disease in his legs. It was a very serious disease, yet even
with   this   disease   he   did   not   seek   out   ADONAI   but   turned   to   the
physicians. 13 Asa slept with his ancestors, dying in the forty-first year of
his reign.
And in a famous saying of Christ in the Book of Luke:
Luke 4:23 CJB  23 Then Yeshua said to them, "No doubt you will quote to
me this proverb- '"Doctor, cure yourself!"  
 There was a prevailing attitude among the Hebrews both ancient and in Peter's
day that practicing healing was part magic, part medicine, and short on miracle
and faith. Jews were from skeptical to fearful of Doctors. It was by firm reliance
on the healing power of the Lord that the Israelites depended. The Jews all the
more  despised  the  Greeks  and  Romans  because  the  occupation  of  physician
was usual and normal in their pagan Hellenistic society; medicine was already an
ancient practice. Yet, beginning about 100 years before Christ, doctors among
the  Hebrews  started  to  make  headway  and  were  seen  less  as  heretics  to  the
Jewish religious faith and increasingly as an extension of God's healing hand on
                             8 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
earth. Thus even the author of the Book of Acts, Luke, a man called a God-fearer
who accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys, is explicitly labeled
as a physician. And obviously he was well accepted as there is no evidence that
he had to give up his occupation in order to join the community of Believers.
As  with  all  changes  within  a  society,  attitude  evolution  is  slow  and  so  both
viewpoints of Doctors being counter-to-God and being an agent of God existed at
the same time. In the Book of Apocrypha known both as Ecclesiasticus and the
Wisdom of Sirach, chapter 38, we see an example of this more accepting attitude
of medical practitioners exist alongside the traditional bent against Doctors:
My son, in thy sickness be not negligent but pray to the Lord, and He will
make  thee  whole.  Leave  off  from  sin,  and  order  they  hands  aright,  and
cleanse  thy  heart  from  all  wickedness.  Give  a  sweet  savor  (an  animal
sacrifice) and a memorial of fine flour (the usual Minchah offering that goes
with an animal sacrifice); and make a fat offering..... (But) he that sinneth
before his Maker let him fall into the hand of the physician". 
So the idea is that if a person is righteous before the Lord, then they should seek
healing solely by the Lord. But if a person was an unrepentant sinner then they
should  seek  a  human  physician.  Thus  there  was  an  acknowledgment  that
physicians could indeed legitimately heal, even if they weren't very respected by
the  more  pious  Jews.  In  time  we  find  some  well  known  Rabbis  becoming
renowned Doctors, especially as the Jewish people began to adopt the viewpoint
that  medicine  and  the  skill  of  a  physician  was  itself  a  gift  of  kindness  and
provision from the Lord. In the end, both mainstream Judaism and Christianity
have decided that prayer and medicine are a good prescriptive combination for
battling sickness (although, in what proportion is hardly broadly agreed to and in
some cases medicine is still shunned as an affront to God.)
What this tells us is that Peter and John would have been immediately labeled as
Jewish healers by the Jews who witnessed the formerly lame man become fully
healed. The 2 disciples tried to deflect that by quickly announcing that the healing
was an issue of faith in God, through Yeshua, and thus a divine miracle; they
weren't physicians or practitioners of magic.  
We'll  continue  with  Acts  chapter  3  next  time  and  get  into  additional  important
doctrinal principles introduced by Peter.
                             9 / 10
Lesson 8 - Acts Chapter 3
 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            10 / 10
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 9, Chapter 3 continued 2
Before we move on in Acts chapter 3 with our discussion of the cripple who was
healed  by  the  power  of  Yeshua  through  Peter  and  John,  let's  recall  what  we
learned in our last lesson. 
We talked about the relationship between sin and sickness and found that the
Bible frames the issue as one of wholeness.....or perhaps more accurately the
lack of wholeness... as the dynamic that undergirds the connection between sin
and sickness. When we compare and contrast Bible passages on this subject in
John 5 and John 9 we find in the first instance these words of Yeshua who was
speaking to a lame person he had just healed: "See, you are well! Now stop
sinning, or something worse may happen to you!" But in the second instance
we have Yeshua healing a blind man and when asked by His disciples whose
sins caused this man to be blind, He answered: "His blindness is due neither
to his sin nor that of his parents; it happened so that God's power might
be seen at work in him."
So in the sense that sinning (meaning wrong behavior, breaking the Torah Law)
directly leads to a person becoming ill, Scripture shows that is not necessarily the
case. It can be so, but by no means can we establish a concrete direct one to
one  link  between  committing  sins  and  sickness;  steal  a  car,  get  the  measles.
Commit adultery, get cancer. Rather, it is more about the reality that as a result of
the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, all humans are born in sin (that is, we all
are born with sin woven into our DNA). And the result of this is that we get sick
and we die. So sickness is the tangible physical manifestation and counterpart of
the invisible spiritual condition of sin. 
                             1 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
But to God the issue of sin is the lack of wholeness in His created creatures. All
of His creatures were created whole. But because we now have sin woven into
us,  then  we  are  no  longer  whole;  we  are  blemished.  Sickness  and  death  also
represent a lack of physical wholeness. Thus since nothing that is not whole can
be allowed into the presence of God, and since the Fall of Man nothing remains
whole, what is to be done? Answer: God must restore that which is not whole to
full wholeness. But how? Through redemption. By the blood and the living water
of the Lamb, Son of God, those who profess the Lamb (Yeshua of Nazareth) as
their Redeemer are imputed with a kind of wholeness. It is certainly not that are
bodies  are  made  physically  new  and  whole,  because  Believers  suffer  disease
and die just like the wicked do. Rather it is our spirits that are made whole, and
acceptable, to God such that when we finally shed these un-whole bodies, our
spirits  may  enter  into  His  presence.  As  Paul  so  eloquently  said  it:  CJB  2
Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, then, and would much prefer to leave our
home in the body and come to our home with the Lord.
So a key principle that we learned (and frankly sometimes flies in face of what we
might have been taught in the past) is that redemption is not an end or goal in
itself;  rather  redemption  is  the  means  to  attain  the  goal.  And  the  goal  is
wholeness before God. 
Another thing we discussed was that in Christ's day physicians were viewed with
suspicion  by  the  Jews  (Luke,  the  writer  of  Acts,  was  a  physician).  Generally
speaking, the attitude was that God was the healer, and so a sick person was to
seek  God  and  no  one  else  for  healing.  Thus  medical  healing  by  doctors  and
prayer for divine healing were regularly seen as incompatible. Even so, because
of  the  dominance  of  Greek  culture  and  the  practice  of  medicine  being  so
prevalent in the Roman Empire, Jews sort of readapted their thinking and began
to accept the notion that medical healing and doctors were themselves a gift from
God, and thus could be used in conjunction with prayer for healing provided the
medical  doctor  didn't  practice  magic.  Nevertheless,  while  out  in  the  Jewish
Diaspora  this  concept  of  physicians  and  medicine  as  NOT  being  an  enemy  to
faith in God was easily accepted, in Judea and Jerusalem it was less so. Thus at
the Temple, when Peter and John seemed to have healed the cripple of our story
of Acts 3, they were instantly seen by the locals as faith healers. And so their first
reaction was to make it clear that they didn't heal this man; God healed him. And
that it was done in the name, power and authority of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Let's re-read part of Acts 3.
                             2 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 3:12 – end
The first thing to notice here is that in verse 12 it is reaffirmed to whom Peter is
addressing his speech: to the men of Israel. Peter is not talking to gentiles, as
gentiles are at this point not relevant to anything Kefa (Peter) is thinking about (at
least, not yet). And because this crippled man was so well known, it was clear
that something miraculous had happened to him and it involved Peter and John.
Quickly Peter deflects credit that the gathering crowd wants to give to him and
says that it was neither power from God given to them, nor was it their personal
condition of special godliness. And now Peter gives a speech that is essentially a
Gospel presentation. First, he says that the power to do such miracles is invested
in but one person: Yehoveh; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (that is, the
God of the Hebrews). However this same God has glorified Yeshua of Nazareth,
meaning God has given Christ authority and power that belongs exclusively to
the Father. 
This  concept  of  the  power  belonging  to  God  the  Father,  but  being  given  to
Yeshua His Son, can be difficult to grasp. Thus there are theologians beginning
with some of the earlier Church Fathers who determined that if the Father gave
His  son  His  authority  and  power,  that  means  that  Jesus  now  carries  what  His
Father  used  to  have,  but  willingly  gave  up.  And  that  kind  of  thinking  is  what
results when Yeshua is wrongly cast into a Greek cultural mold, because in the
Greek  god  pantheon,  a  father  god  would  give  power  to  his  son,  but  whatever
power he gave to the son only the son now possessed it and the father god no
longer  had  that  particular  power.  So  the  son-God  could  even  use  that  power
against his father. And while some of you may be thinking that you had never
heard  that  from  a  Pastor  as  regards  the  Biblical  Father  and  Son,  in  fact  this
implication  is  expressed  in  the  doctrines  and  attitudes  of  many  mainstream
denominations. This is why among some Christians Jesus is seen as supremely
relevant, but the Father is seen as less relevant or even irrelevant for so-called
New Testament Believers. 
But  because  Yeshua  was  a  Jew  who  was  born  and  lived  in  a  Jewish  Middle
Eastern culture, the relationship between a typical father and his son was well
understood by Peter's audience. Indeed the family patriarch bore all the power in
the family until he became completely incapacitated or died. If at a certain age of
maturity the firstborn son seems worthy enough to handle some of the father's
affairs,  then  the  father  (at  his  sole  discretion)  will  give  the  son  authority  and
power to act as the father's proxy in whatever capacity the father decides. But
                             3 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
this in no way means that the father has surrendered the familial authority and
power in the sense that he has transferred it to his son, so that now only his son
possesses  it  and  the  father  no  longer  has  a  say.  When  we  see  the  heavenly
Father and His Son portrayed to us in the Bible, we must think in these same
terms because that is precisely what is intended. The Father holds and retains all
power, but he has given power and authority to His Son Yeshua to act as the
Father's shaliach (His agent). And interestingly Peter characterizes Yeshua not
as an equal, but as the servant of the Father. Again, this is but standard Jewish
Middle Eastern thinking about the father and son relationship. 
But just as Peter had done when he bashed the crowd of Jews on Mt. Zion who
were  witnessing  the  Pentecost  event  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the
speaking in tongues, he now lays the same accusation upon the Jews who have
come running to see this formerly lame man leaping around like a deer. He says
that the one whom God glorified (Jesus), they denied and disowned. And when
Pontius Pilate gave the Jewish crowd a choice of pardoning a criminal murderer
or letting the innocent Christ go, the crowd sided with the murderer. The result
was that the author of life (Yeshua) was given the death sentence and killed. 
While we're here, I want to digress for just a moment to discuss Pontius Pilate.
He was the 5th in a series of governors over the Roman province of Judea. And it
is  as  certain  as  anything  can  be  when  we're  looking  back  2000  years  in  the
historical record, that he came into power on what our modern calendars would
say is 26 A.D. He was known as a rigid, reckless and ruthless ruler that tended to
stir up civil disobedience rather than to tamp it down using any kind of diplomacy.
This  was  against  formal  Roman  policy  that  attempted  to  rule  its  empire  in  an
enlightened way, not unlike the way Cyrus had operated the Persian Empire. 
Pilate  was  removed  from  power  by  Caesar  in  36  A.D.  for  a  particularly
unconscionable  act  against  some  Samaritans  who  wanted  to  journey  to  Mt.
Gerizim  to  meet  with  a  prophet.  He  killed  many  of  this  peaceful  assembly  for
ambiguous reasons. My purpose for telling you this is that because Pilate was
the one who condemned Jesus to the cross, then Christ's death had to occur no
earlier than 26 A.D. and no later than 36 A.D. So we have a well defined 10 year
period  for  when  Christ  ministered  and  died.  So  when  we  understand  that  this
miracle  of  healing  the  cripple  at  the  Beautiful  Gate  occurred  not  long  after
Shavuot in the same year that Christ died and ascended to Heaven, then we get
a good point of reference for dating this event. 
                             4 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
In verse 16 Peter pronounces perhaps the most important non-negotiable
doctrine  of  Salvation:  "It  is  trust  that  comes  through  Yeshua,  which  has
given him this perfect healing in the presence of you all". We discussed in
our last lesson the Greek work holoklerian and while here it is being translated
as  "perfect  healing"  essentially  it  is  a  term  meant  to  denote  wholeness.  Thus
Peter   is   saying   that   it   is   Yeshua   through   who   comes   our   restoration   to
wholeness, just as it has for this disabled man. Notice that once the lame man is
made whole, only NOW can he enter the gate into the Temple grounds. And the
requirement  to  receive  this  restoration  to  wholeness  is  trust  in  Yeshua  as  the
Messiah.  Of  course  it  is  this  trust  in  Yeshua  that  Evangelical  Christianity  has
termed grace.....and I can't think of a more appropriate English word than grace
to describe what Christ has done for us. This man crippled from birth (as are all
human  beings)  who  was  made  whole  did  nothing  to  merit  restoration;  it  was
simply given to him as a free gift from God. What an exquisite picture of Salvation
we are offered here in this healing. 
Next  Peter  invokes  essentially  the  same  words  that  Yeshua  did  on  the  Cross,
only slightly modified. In verse 17 Peter says: CJB Acts 3:17 "Now, brothers, I
know that you did not understand the significance of what you were doing;
neither did your leaders." This compares favorably with what we find in Luke
23:   CJB   Luke   23:34   Yeshua   said,   "Father,   forgive   them;   they   don't
understand what they are doing."  We should take notice that the only Gospel
that  records  these  particular  words  of  Christ  is  the  Gospel  of  Luke;  the  same
Luke who wrote Acts. So it is no coincidence that Luke chooses to also record
that Peter borrowed these familiar words from his master to mitigate the fear and
guilt (and probably anger among some of them) that the crowd was feeling. 
And, because the Gospel is consistent and never changes, Peter's words about
what the crowd should do about their guilt for killing God's Son are essentially
the same as he spoke to the crowds on Pentecost: repent. Verse 19 has Peter
saying,  "Repent  and  turn  to  God  so  that  your  sins  may  be  erased".  Now
there is more to this verse that we'll get to in a little while. But first, I'd like to
point out that if you use a KJV Bible that same verse reads like this: KJV Acts
3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out....."  The  CJB  says  "turn  to  God";  the  KJV  says  "be  converted".  We're
going to pause now and take a detour to examine yet another common Christian
doctrine  that  needs  to  be  retired.  And  it  is  the  doctrine  that  says  becoming  a
Christian means to convert. 
                             5 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
This little word convert has enormous implications; and it has much to do with the
wall of separation that has grown between Jews and Christians. And I'll tell you
the bottom line up front before I explain the matter more thoroughly. Peter's call
is  not  to  convert;  it  is  to  turn.  The  dictionary  says  that  to  convert  means  to
change in form, or to metamorphose. To become something other than you are.
But to turn means: to rotate, swivel, or pivot. I hope you heard the rather large
difference  in  meaning  and  outcome  of  the  two  terms  convert  and  turn.  One
means to become something else entirely; the other means to change direction.
So what is it that a person is supposed to do when we repent and come to Jesus:
become something else entirely? Or to change direction? 
The  Greek  word  being  translated  is  epistrefo.  And  remembering  that  what  is
being expressed is Hebrew thought coming from Peter's Jewish mind, then we
need to grasp that the Greek we have it in is effectively a translation. By the way:
I'm not claiming that Acts was originally written in Hebrew. I'm saying that while
the original written text is Greek (so far as we know), the thought and culture and
language of the Bible character Peter is Hebrew. So epistrefo is attempting to
translate the Hebrew word shav, which means to turn back. The issue that has
arisen  from  this  intellectually  incorrect  KJV  Bible  choice  to  use  the  word
"convert" stems from an agenda that the Catholic Church held that indeed one
had to metamorphose like a caterpillar to a butterfly to become a Christian. Or,
even more so, from a cat to a dog. And doubly so for Jews. For a Jew, to convert
to  Christianity  first  and  foremost  meant  to  stop  being  a  Jew  and  start  being  a
gentile.  This  was  no  misunderstanding,  nor  did  they  mean  something  different
than what we mentally picture when we envision conversion. It is precisely what
the  Church  leadership  intended  since  the  thinking  was  that  Christianity  is  a
gentiles-only  religion;  and  this  doctrine  of  conversion  is  deeply  imbedded
(although   often   invisibly   just   below   the   surface)   in   most   of   mainstream
Christianity even if Christians regularly don't recognize it for what it is. 
Words  have  meaning.  Words  create  mental  pictures  that  lead  to  assumptions
and conclusions that we make often without consciously realizing it. And while I
don't  know  what  we'd  do  without  the  written  word  of  God,  on  the  other  hand,
unless  one  is  versed  in  the  original  languages  what  all  of  us  read  from  are
translations. 
But that's only the beginning of the issue of extracting meaning from words. The
meaning of words changes over time. Some English words used in the KJV Bible
translation don't necessarily mean what we take that same word to mean in the
                             6 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
21stcentury. Goodness, during my lifetime there are many English words that I
used in my childhood that have completely different meanings today. And there
are English words that exist today that didn't when I was a youth. 
Thus for you who have followed Seed of Abraham Torah Class over the years,
you  know  that  one  of  our  basic  tenets  is  that  we  must  try  to  understand  what
those words written in the Bible meant to the authors and to the people those
authors  were  directing  their  inspired  words  towards,  in  their  time  and  in  their
ancient Middle Eastern cultural setting. This historical reconstruction is crucial to
extract proper meaning from the words we read in Scripture. What must also be
admitted  is  that  some  of  those  ancient  Hebrew  concepts  have  been  tragically
misunderstood (and at times misrepresented) and so mistranslated into English
words  that  give  us  the  wrong  impression  of  their  intent,  but  do  fulfill  certain
theological agendas.
There are a few Biblical words, though, that have more impact on our Christian
theology, doctrines and philosophy than others and one of those key words is the
term "convert" or "conversion". And while we have found this English word used
in the KJV and a handful of other Bibles, and in our study today of the Book of
Acts chapter 3 verse 19, this is also true as the word "conversion" applies to the
Apostle Paul. And I propose to you today that this word "conversion" needs to be
removed  from  our  Believer's  vocabulary  and  removed  from  our  Bibles  as
concerns  redemption,  repentance  and  salvation  because  it  isn't  actually  there
and doesn't belong being inserted there. Conversion gives us an entirely wrong
impression about what it was that Peter and Luke had in mind in Acts, and what
Paul did in reaction to his experience with Christ, and what he expected of the
disciples that they all made on behalf of Messiah. 
The traditional scholarship over the past several centuries has concluded that the
1st generation Christian community after Yeshua and the Apostles had already
become a distinct religion that was separated from Judaism. Basically the idea is
that Peter was in process of rejecting Judaism in favor of Christianity, and Paul
already had, and along with it he had decided to condemn as worthless servitude
any  attempt  for  new  Believers  to  follow  the  Law  of  Moses  that  was  the  very
heartbeat  of  the  Biblical  religion.  The  term  that  was  coined  by  later  Christian
leaders to describe what this well studied Jewish Rabbi Sha'ul did in his extreme
change  from  being  a  follower  of  Judaism  into  an  anti-law  Christian,  was
"conversion". Paul was a convert we are told. 
                             7 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
But what does being converted mean? A.D. Nock says that conversion means a
deliberate and great change is involved, whereby the old was wrong and the new
is right. And in indeed that is the crux of Christian doctrine to prove that Peter and
then Paul decided that their Hebrew Judaism that obeyed the Torah was wrong,
and this new religion called Christianity that abolished the Torah was right. 
In  the  mid  1970's  a  Bible  academic  named  Krister  Stendahl  urged  his  fellow
scholars  to  drop  the  term  conversion  and  instead  use  the  word  "call".  His
contention  was  that  this  English  word  more  accurately  portrays  to  the  modern
mind what was true: and it is that Peter and Paul did NOT see themselves as no
longer part of Judaism or as Jews who abandoned the Law and the Torah. The
word "call" softened the contrast between the Judaism that these two Messianic
leaders had been practicing and this new and spreading movement that made
Yeshua  of  Nazareth  the  focus.  In  other  words,  for  Peter,  Paul,  and  all  the
disciples what they came to practice after their personal experiences with Christ
was a type of Judaism, not a new anti-Judaism religion. 
Of  course  there  was  push  back  against  Mr.  Stendhal  from  the  institutional
Christian  community  that  wanted  there  to  be  not  merely  a  sharp  contrast,  but
rather   a   complete   break,   between   Torah-based   Judaism   and   this   new
Christianity.    And    this    thought    process    is    based    on    the    idea    that
Paul converted from Judaism to Christianity. It means that he discovered that
the  traditional  Torah-based  religion  of  the  Hebrews  was  wrong,  and  now  he
would follow the new Christianity that in his day had no holy book whatsoever.
After all, it is historical fact that there was no New Testament until around 200
A.D., some 150 years after Paul's time. 
So if Peter and Paul (and of course the other disciples) "converted", then why do
they  continue  going  to  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,  and  making  sacrifices  there?
Why does Paul continue to engage in the vow rituals of first allowing one's hair
to grow, and then cutting it and offering it at the Temple upon conclusion of the
vow terms? Why do they all continue to engage in the Biblical Feasts ordained in
Leviticus? 
But getting beyond Peter and Paul, how do we deal with the two groups that are
routinely  said  to  be  Paul's  converts:  Jews  who  practice  Judaism,  and  pagan
Gentiles  who  practice  idolatry?  On  the  surface  it  would  certainly  seem  to  be
correct  to  say  that  Gentiles  indeed  made  metamorphosis  from  caterpillar  to
butterfly: from the worship of their traditional gods and idols to the worship of the
                             8 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
God of Israel. Here's the reason why the term "convert" still is inappropriate and
misleading even to this situation. In Peter's worldview (which was representative
of   the   general   Jewish   worldview)   the   world   consisted   of   two   religious
communities:     Israel's     and     everybody     else     (everybody     else     was
"the  nations",  goyim  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures).  However  there  were  some
Gentiles who had become something called God-fearers; Gentiles who adopted
the God of Israel as their god. 
So had the Jews reached a point in their cultural evolution of making a distinction
between  Gentiles  and  pagan  Gentiles?  No.  That  kind  of  thought  is  nowhere
present during the era of the Apostles. A culture or ethnicity and their god were
one in the same. So if you are an Israelite you automatically worship the god of
Israel;  if  you  are  Gentile  you  automatically  worship  some  other  god  from
wherever you lived. End of story. Thus in the Book of Galatians chapter 5 Paul
speaks  against  other  so-called  Christian  missionaries  who  are  telling  the  local
Gentiles  of  Galatia  that  if  they  receive  a  Jewish  circumcision,  then  they'll  be
responsible to keep the "whole law" (meaning the Torah and the entire body of
Tradition that most national Jews followed). In other words, the acts of having a
circumcision and agreeing to live a completely Jewish lifestyle mean that such a
Gentile  has  converted;  that  he  has  metamorphosed  from  being  a  Gentile  to
becoming   a   Jew.   And   surprise!   Paul   was   against   this.   He   was   against
conversion.  He  did  not  want  Gentiles  to  give  up  being  Gentiles  to  become
national   Jews.   His   Gentiles   were   to   stay   Gentiles.   Yes,   they   must   stop
worshipping their other gods and bow only to the God of Israel; but they were
NOT to convert (Christianity calls what these Christian Missionaries were doing
that  Paul  was  fighting  against  as  Judaizing).  So  in  Paul's  mind,  the  only  true
converts  were  those  Gentiles  who  intentionally  became  national  Jews  as  the
Judaizing missionaries were insisting upon. 
You see the problem in using the word convert or conversion is it confuses and
misrepresents the situation that is being described in the Bible. The term convert
entangles us in the idea that in Peter's day Christianity was created by Christ (as
the first Christian) as something for people to convert to. 
So if Gentiles were NOT to convert and become Jews, and there was no need for
Jews  to  convert  to  something  else  to  follow  Yeshua,  then  what  was  Paul's
thought about what had happened to him on the road to Damascus and what,
precisely, was he asking these Gentiles he was preaching to, to do? What mental
picture did he have that he was urging them to accept and adopt? When you look
                             9 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
at    Paul's    writings    in    Greek,    he    uses    certain    derivations    of    the
Greek word strefo and they all have something to do with pointing to or turning
to. For example in 1Thess 1:9 we hear Paul say: "You turned to (epistrefo) God
from idols, to worship the true and living God". Interestingly when the Greek got
translated into Latin, the Latin word chosen was converso; and then when the
Latin got translated into English the word chosen was convert. 
So  the  idea  that  Peter  and  Paul  insist  upon  is  that  one  does  not  convert,  but
rather  one  turns.  If  a  Gentile  converted  that  means  he  would  become  a  Jew,
follow Jewish Tradition, and be obligated to follow Jewish ancestral customs. If a
Jew  converted  he  became  a  Gentile  and  gave  up  his  Jewish  heritage.  But  as
Paul said in 1Thess. 1, a new Believer is to turn and unite with God the Father
and with the Lord Yeshua.....Jew or gentile. 
So Paul in trying to explain exactly what it is that he is asking Gentiles to do says
that upon one's faith in Messiah Yeshua, the Holy Spirit enters the Believer and
a  kind  of  spiritual  family  connection  is  made  with  the  Jewish  people.  And  to
illustrate  this,  Paul  likes  to  use  the  Roman  concept  of  adoption  (after  all  he  is
talking to Gentiles). The adopted person does NOT have REAL physical blood or
genetic connection to his or her adoptive family; nonetheless, in a real legal way
and by means of a state of mind this person becomes part of the family by mutual
agreement.  The  adopted  person  makes  a  commitment  to  the  family,  and  the
family imputes family status upon the adopted person. Further, as Paul says in
Romans 8 and Galatians 4 that upon this status change, the adopted person (a
gentile) can now cry out "Abba, Father" in worship. This "Abba, Father" isn't the
Hebrew Patriarch Abraham nor is it Jacob, so no family connection with him is
intended. Rather this "Abba, Father" is referring to the heavenly Father, the God
of Israel and of Abraham. So just as a Roman adopted person would not claim
blood relationship with his new family, he does claim full legal family status based
on law and on mutual agreement. 
Thus this is how we need to view what Peter meant, and what happened to Paul
on the Road to Damascus, and what Paul then expected of those Gentiles that
he would go on to evangelize. He expected them to turn from their god to the
true god. 
When we realize this then we can drop this concept that the disciples converted
from something wrong to something right. That they all left their Jewishness to
become something else. Or that a Gentile is to leave his or her Gentile-ness to
                            10 / 11
Lesson 9 - Acts Chapter 3 cont
 
become something else (a Jew). Whatever change there is, or is being asked, it
is a spiritual turning. 
This also helps us to understand why the Church's insistence that if a Jew wants
to  worship  Christ  that  they  must  "convert",  is  met  with  such  resistance  by  the
Jewish  community  (as  it  should  be).  And  this  is  because  a  right-thinking  Jew
understands  that  by  converting  the  Church  most  certainly  means  that  the  Jew
must  leave  his  or  her  Judaism,  ancestral  Jewish  heritage,  and  Jewish  cultural
customs in order to become a Christian. 
Paul sums up his position rather well regarding Jews and gentiles, and whether
the one should "convert" to become the other, in Romans 2:25 – Romans 3:5
READ ROMANS 2:25 – 3:6
So I ask you to retire the term convert or conversion from your vocabulary, and
instead  begin  to  employ  the  term  "turn"  in  your  words  and  in  your  thinking.
Because  that  is  closer  to  what  Peter  meant,  and  to  what  Paul  did  as  he  was
prepared to take the Good News to the world of the Gentiles.
Well,  as  you  can  see,  because  Acts  chapter  3  is  so  loaded  with  theologically
important issues that arise from the advent of Yeshua and the coming of the Holy
Spirit,  we're  still  not  done  with  Acts  chapter  3.  So  we  will  continue  in  it  next
week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 10, Chapters 3 and 4
We'll  continue  to  go  at  a  measured  pace  through  Acts  chapter  3  and  on  into
chapter 4 because there are so many theological implications that pass right by
us  if  we  don't.  And  when  they  do  come  up  it  behooves  us  to  notice  and  talk
about them.
So; because of a single word that we found in Acts chapter 3 verse 19 in the
most popular version of the Bible ever created, the King James Bible, we spent
much  time  last  week  with  an  issue  of  vital  importance  to  our  faith  and  to
Jewish/Christian relations. That single word is "convert". KJV Acts 3:19 "Repent
ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out....." 
The  reality  is  that  the  English  word  "converted"  is  not  there  in  the  Greek  NT
manuscripts.  Rather  in  Greek  the  word  is  epistrefo  and  it  doesn't  mean  to
convert,  it  means  to  turn  or  to  pivot.  Convert  of  course  means  for  a  thing  to
become  something  else  entirely.  But  to  turn  means  for  a  thing  to  change
direction. So, which is a new Believer to do in order to have our sins blotted out:
convert  or  turn?  Big  difference.  The  choice  of  convert  or  turn  should  not  be
viewed as some highly nuanced scholarly debate that belongs only in the realm
of theologians; rather it is fundamental to Christianity and helps to define what
the terms of our membership into the Kingdom of God are. Why was the word
convert chosen by the KJV translator if the word wasn't actually there? Because
the Roman Church had for over 1000 years declared itself to be a gentiles-only
institution.  Jews  were  welcome  only  if  they  "converted"  from  being  a  Jew  into
being a gentile; a Jew had to quit being Jewish in order to become a Christian.
The underlying theological assumption was that Jews were required to change
from following something that the Church deemed had been wrong (the Biblical
                             1 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
Torah,  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  subsequent  Jewish  Traditions)  to  following
something   that   the   Church   deemed   was   right:   the   New   Testament   and
subsequent Roman Christian Traditions.
Naturally the result was that except for a tiny handful, the world's Jews shunned
Christianity   for   themselves   because   it   necessarily   meant   giving   up   their
Jewishness and their Hebrew heritage. Thus for around 1700 years a formidable
wall  has  existed  between  Judaism  and  Christianity,  but  in  reality  the  wall  is  a
barrier between Jews and their Messiah.
We concluded our last lesson with me urging all who hear my voice to please
remove the term "convert" from your Christian vocabulary. Rather Jews, just as
gentiles, are not required to convert but to turn from our sins and from idolatry
and from manmade doctrines to the One God Yehoveh, and His Son Yeshua. It
is through repentance and turning (not converting) that our sins are blotted out,
says Peter. Paul says that Jews should remain Jews and gentiles should remain
gentiles  in  Romans  2  and  3.  But  our  mutual  salvation  comes  from  the  same
place: the person and Lordship of Yeshua the Messiah. And we are to share one
mutual holy book: the Bible, Old and New Testaments working together as one
unified inspired source of God's Word.
Let's move on now and complete Acts chapter 3 and get started with chapter 4.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 3 and we'll re-read a few verses.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 3:19 – end
Verse  20  speaks  of  "times  of  refreshing"  that  come  for  those  who  repent  and
turn from their sins to Christ. This refreshing comes to us due to the presence of
the Lord. The word refreshing is translating the Greek word anapsyxis. This term
occurs  in  the  Septuagint  (the  early  Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  that
came before the Dead Sea Scrolls), but there it is translated into English as relief
or respite, and not refreshing. So it seems to me that the intent of verse 20 is not
so much that the presence of the Lord will refresh, but that He will provide relief
and rest. This seems to play well with Yeshua's call that we read in Matthew's
Gospel:
CJB  Matthew  11:28  "Come  to  me,  all  of  you  who  are  struggling  and
burdened, and I will give you rest.
                             2 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
And yet even Yeshua's statement to that effect is but repeating what the Father
said in the Torah in Exodus 33:
CJB Exodus 33:14 He answered, "Set your mind at rest- my presence will go
with you, after all."
And the reason that I want to draw that connection concerning rest in the Lord for
you is this: in verse 20 when it is said that the Lord's presence shall bring the
times of anapsyxis (relief, rest) to Believers, who is the Lord in this case; the
Father or Jesus? The answer becomes clear when we look at the remainder of
verse 20: ".....and He may send the Messiah appointed in advance for you,
that  is,  Yeshua."  Obviously  the  "He"  is  referring  to  the  Father;  otherwise  we
have the Messiah sending Himself. So it is the Father who is here being called
Lord.
Verse 21 explains that Yeshua must remain in Heaven until the time comes for
restoring  everything.  That  is,  a  planet-wide  restoration  for  all  who  have  been
elected for restoration will happen upon Christ's return to earth, when the Father
decides it is time. And yet we must also understand from the previous verse that
it is God the Father by whose power the restoration will come, even when the
time of Yeshua's return arrives. This brings us back to another important issue
we  talked  about  last  week,  the  well-understood  concept  in  NT  times  of  the
relationship between father and son (go back to last week's lesson to get a more
thorough discussion on the subject). But the Reader's Digest version is that the
Son is subservient to the Father, and the Father can, and regularly does, give
some of His power and authority to His Son to wield. But this is not a transfer of
power  and  authority  such  that  now  the  Son  possesses  it  and  the  Father
renounces the power and authority He used to have. Rather it is that the Son
becomes the Father's shaliach (his agent, his proxy) to carry out the Father's
will. It is the Father's power through His agent....Yeshua....that is being exercised.
Thus when we read in the book of Matthew: CJB Matthew 28:18 Yeshua came
and talked with them. He said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me...." the first question for us to ask is 'who is it that gave to
Yeshua  all  authority'?  Answer;  the  Father.  And  since  the  Father  and  Son
relationship  of  the  Bible  is  used  strictly  within  the  context  of  Hebrew  Middle
Eastern culture, not Greek or gentile or 21st century Western culture, then we
understand that Christ isn't saying that the Father has transferred all power and
authority  that  He  once  carried  to  His  Son  Yeshua  and  now  has  essentially
                             3 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
become  an  empty  vessel  and  retired.  Rather  what  is  meant  is  that  all  the
Father's  power  and  authority  can  be  wielded  by  the  Son,  Yeshua,  as  the
Father's authorized agent. But the power that the Son wields is still the Father's.
At the end of verse 20 Peter says that this knowledge that he has about Messiah
Yeshua, and what His return means, came from all the Prophets of the Tanakh,
the Old Testament. But is it true, or just an exaggeration, that even the earliest
Prophets looked ahead and saw the day of Messiah coming and spoke of Him?
Yes it is true, and Peter goes on to quote words from Moses in Deuteronomy 18
that gives a stern warning that God is going to raise up another Prophet in the
future, "from among your brothers" (meaning the Prophet will come from the 12
tribes of Israel), that will be like Moses. And Moses was himself both a Prophet
and a Mediator, which indeed is what Yeshua also is. Only Moses and Yeshua
held  that  God-given  privilege  of  Prophet  and  Mediator,  or  ever  will.  And  the
people (Israel) are to listen to this future Prophet....or else. What is the purpose of
a  Biblical  Prophet?  A  Prophet  is  to  announce  God's  will  so  that  the  people
(including the Israelite Kings) know what God's will is. Thus this second Moses,
Yeshua, will also announce God's will. He or she who refuses to listen to God's
will  that  is  announced  through  Yeshua  shall  be  removed  from  his/her  people
(Israel) and destroyed.
So  Peter  is  essentially  saying  that  the  first  Prophet  to  speak  of  Yeshua  was
Moses,  and  then  this  prophetic  testimony  was  carried  on  through  all  the  later
prophets beginning with Samuel. It should not go unnoticed that Samuel was the
Prophet assigned to anoint Saul as Israel's first king, and then later to replace
Saul with David. So many of the pronouncements that Samuel made concerning
David  would  also  apply  to  David's  royal  descendant  Yeshua,  meaning  the
prophecies were Messianic prophecies.
Then  Peter  connects  those  Jews  standing  before  him  with  the  Old  Testament
prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah  by  saying  that  they  are  the  sons  of  the
Prophets.  Saying  these  Jews  are  sons  of  the  Prophets  is  a  Middle  Eastern
cultural expression that means that they are the ones who are the inheritors of
what the Prophets prophesied. Even more they are the ones being spoken of in
the  Covenant  promise  God  made  to  Abraham  so  long  ago  when  He  said  "By
your  seed  will  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed".  And  since  they  are
biologically connected with Abraham, then God has determined that it is the Jews
to whom Christ would first be sent, before anyone else. And this is so that the
Jews  would  be  the  first  ones  to  turn  (epistrefo)  from  their  evil  ways  and  be
                             4 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
saved.
What must be noticed and acknowledged by Christians especially is that the Lord
revolved all His salvation plans, efforts, and even the persons involved, around
Israel. The Word of God in stone was given to a Hebrew (Moses). The Word of
God in flesh was Himself a Hebrew (Yeshua). And both Moses and Yeshua gave
God's Word exclusively to Hebrews. Whatever of God's Word would eventually
go to gentiles went through the lesser ordinary humans such as the Apostles like
Peter and Paul.
Indeed, the roots of our faith are Hebrew roots at every level.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 4.
No  sooner  does  Peter  begin  to  announce  the  Gospel  of  Christ  than  the
persecutions begin. And, since as of this time the only people who were hearing
the Gospel were Jews, then of course it was the Jewish leadership who were the
persecutors. That is the subject of Acts chapter 4.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 4 all
Let's  begin  by  understanding  that  what  we  just  read  is  all  occurring  with  the
context and timeframe of the healing of the crippled man. It is still the same day,
and  what  Peter  said  to  the  crowd  in  Acts  3  happened  immediately  upon  the
healing, and chapter 4 follows in a matter of an hour or so.
Verse one explains that Peter was still explaining about the healing to the crowd
(and   no   doubt   answering   many   questions)   when   apparently   this   growing
assembly  of  excited  and  amazed  Jews  drew  the  attention  of  the  Temple
authorities  who  were  always  on  the  lookout  for  trouble.  Those  who  ran  the
Temple,  beginning  with  the  High  Priest,  held  their  positions  only  because  the
Romans  permitted  it.  So  they  worked  hard  to  be  sure  that  no  unrest  at  the
Temple  would  upset  the  Roman  leadership  and  thus  endanger  their  highly
profitable occupations.
We  are  told  that  a  contingency  of  Temple  leadership  came  to  investigate:  the
priests,  the  captain  of  the  Temple  police,  and  the  Tz'dukim  (the  Sadducees).
This group was quite angry and upset mainly because of the doctrine Peter was
teaching.  And  that  doctrine  was  of  the  bodily  resurrection  of  the  dead,  with
                             5 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
Yeshua as the proof of their claim. We have a couple of items to talk about in this
regard. First, we should remember that these Temple authorities were the same
ones who had just weeks earlier sentenced Yeshua to death and turned Him over
to Pontius Pilate. So since the mood of the times was one of great religious fervor
and the expectation of a Messiah to throw off the oppressive Roman subjugation
that the Jews hated, Jerusalem was always just one spark away from a serious
riot.
Second,  the  Sadducees  were  generally  seen  as  heartless  and  cold  in  their
administration of the Temple and in meting out justice. And they were viewed as
lackeys of the Romans, more determined to stay in power by pleasing Rome than
having concern for justice for their own people, the Jews. The Pharisees were the
more popular party of that day and so the theology of the Pharisees was more
widely accepted by the mainstream Jewish public. This issue of resurrection from
the  dead,  especially  bodily  resurrection,  was  enormously  controversial,  and
naturally the belief of the Pharisees was at the opposite end of the spectrum from
the  Sadducees.  And  the  belief  of  the  3rd  largest  party,  the  Essenes,  was  on
many matters different from both the Pharisees and the Sadducees. So if we can
step back for a moment and grasp the big picture, the main thing the Sadducee
Temple  authority  was  so  upset  about  was  the  issue  of  resurrection  from  the
dead, and that was at the heart of Peter's message. Add to it the other delicate
issue  of  the  many  followers  of  Yeshua  being  pretty  bitter  and  angry  at  the
Sadducees  for  the  injustice  done  to  their  leader  and  we  can  see  why  the
Sadducees  needed  to  intervene  immediately  lest  this  situation  snowball  out  of
control.
Messianic Rabbi Joseph Shulam in his commentary on the Book of Acts used
words from Josephus that described in detail some of the theological differences
between the main 3 parties of the Jews, including the thorny issue of resurrection
from the dead, and he expressed the philosophies of the Sadducees, Pharisees,
and Essenes. I can do no better than that, and I think it is so very helpful for Bible
students  to  understand  just  what  the  mainstream  prevailing  views  were  of
resurrection  in  Christ's  era  so  we  can  better  digest  what  we're  reading  in  the
New Testament; and no place is more affected by these views than the Book of
Acts. Here's what Josephus had to say:
"For it is a fixed belief of (the Essenes) that the body is corruptible and its
constituent matter impermanent (temporary), but that the soul is immortal
and  imperishable  (eternal).  Emanating  from  the  finest  ether  (ether  is  the
                             6 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
invisible stuff that souls are made of), these souls become entangled, as it
were, in the prison of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort of
natural spell. But once they are released from the bonds of the flesh (after a
person dies), then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice
and are borne aloft. They (the Essenes) regard the soul as immortal and so
believe that they ought to strive especially to draw near to righteousness.
Every soul they (the Pharisees) maintain is imperishable (eternal), but the
soul of the good (the righteous dead) passes into another body, while the
souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment. They believe that souls have
the  power  to  survive  death  and  that  there  are  rewards  and  punishments
under the earth (the grave) for those who have led lives of virtue or vice.
Eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while good souls receive an
easy passage to new life.
The Sadducees hold that the soul perishes along with the body (at death).
They do away with Fate altogether, and remove God beyond not merely the
commission, but the very sight of evil. They maintain that man has the free
choice of good or evil, and that it rests with each man's free will whether
he follows one or the other. As for the persistence of the soul after death,
penalties in the underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them." 
Another interesting belief of the Sadducees was that they did not believe in the
Oral Torah, or what Yeshua called The Traditions of the Elders. They held that
only the written law (the Torah Law, the Law of Moses) was valid and it was to be
applied  in  the  strictest  possible  manner.  This  of  course  was  opposite  of  the
Pharisees who put the Oral Torah on par with, or really above, the written Torah.
But  the  bottom  line  for  our  story  in  Acts  4  is  that  the  Sadducees  denied  the
possibility of EITHER resurrection of the soul or body; when you're dead, you're
dead, and your soul dies along with you. Your existence in any form ceases and
there  is  no  afterlife.  At  the  same  time  the  Pharisees  so  strongly  believed  in
resurrection of the soul and transference of that soul into another body (a kind of
reincarnation) that they said that anyone who did NOT believe this doctrine the
same as they did had no place in the world to come (in Hebrew, the olam haba).
Sounds  a  bit  like  Christian  denominations  today,  who  say  if  you  don't  accept
most  of  their  particularly  cherished  doctrines  that  you  might  not  even  be  a
Christian!
Since  it  is  said  that  priests,  the  captain  of  the  Temple  police,  and  Sadducees
                             7 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
were part of the entourage that came to arrest Peter and John, let's talk about
them for a moment. The priests are referring to the chief priests. There were a
number of them, and they were the most senior of the regular priests who were in
charge of the various courses of priests who served in rotation at the Temple.
The  captain  of  the  Temple  police  is  called  the  sagan.  He  belonged  to  one  or
another of the families of the chief priests. He was of very high rank, with only the
High Priest above him, so he carried great authority. The Temple police is the
same police group that had arrested Christ on that infamous Passover night a
few weeks earlier. The Temple police were not Romans, they were hand picked
Levites, although there is evidence that in certain circumstances Roman soldiers
might accompany the Levite Temple policemen. The Sadducees were aristocrats
of   wealthy   families;   and   the   High   Priests   were   Sadducees.   Further   the
Sadducees  were  the  top  officials  of  the  High  Jewish  court  called  the  Great
Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin consisted of a mixture of Pharisees and Sadducees.
The  Great  Sanhedrin  was  the  supreme  court  of  the  Jews  when  it  came  to
religious matters. It operated near the Temple grounds in a building traditionally
called the Building of Hewn Stones. Of course because of the way Jewish Law
worked,  religious  and  civil  matters  overlapped.  Depending  on  who  the  current
Procurator of Judea was (at this time it was Pontius Pilate), the Sanhedrin tended
to deal with most criminal matters provided it was among Jews and didn't involve
gentile  Romans.  It  was  a  group  that  consisted  of  71  men,  and  modeled  after
Moses  and  his  group  of  70  elders.  The  High  Priest  was  the  head  of  the
Sanhedrin.  And  then  the  70  other  members  were  organized  using  a  seniority
system and were seated using a series of benches, much like the way the British
Parliament works. That is, you have the most senior members who sit up front.
Behind  them  are  less  senior  members  and  behind  them  the  most  junior
members.   When   a   senior   member   vacated   his   front   bench   position,   the
Sanhedrin  member  junior  to  him  that  sat  behind  him,  moved  up  to  the  front
bench. When he moved up, the most junior member behind him also moved up
to take his seat and then the now empty back bench seat was filled with a new
member to the court.
So those who came to arrest Peter and Paul bore the greatest legal authority in
Judea  other  than  for  the  Roman  Procurator  Pontius  Pilate,  indicating  just  how
seriously they took this matter of resurrection theology and calling on the name of
Yeshua  especially  as  one  who  was  resurrected  (and  to  this  there  were  many
witnesses).  Because  it  was  late  in  the  day,  the  2  disciples  were  put  into  jail
overnight to be dealt with the next day at the convenience of the court. However
                             8 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
we're  told  that  before  their  arrest  came,  some  5000  men  came  to  faith  in
Yeshua;  a  huge  number  that  indicates  just  how  enormous  this  crowd  had
become  and  it  actually  justifies  the  concern  of  the  Temple  authorities.  In  fact,
although there is some scholarly debate as to whether this number of 5000 is
men and women combined or men only, the word used here is andron and it
means  males,  not  people  in  general.  So  that  means  that  probably  double  that
number (adding in women) came to faith based on Peter's speech and the result
of the healing of the cripple.
In  verse  5  we're  told  that  rulers,  elders  and  scribes  were  gathered  together  in
Jerusalem along with some specific priests to hear the case. Rulers, elders, and
scribes were names for various classes of members of the Great Sanhedrin. The
rulers was an alternate name for the chief priests. Elders refer to Jewish nobility,
but they were laymen and not Levites or Priests. Scribes is a bit hazy, because
over the centuries the term evolved as it took on various meanings. It seems that
in the New Testament era they were a kind of ruling class whose members could
come  from  any  one  of  several  walks  of  life  from  low  order  priests,  to  rich
merchants and even artisans. These were men who had attained a social status
called chakhamim; this Hebrew word was used to denote ordained scholars. So
they were well educated and experts in matters of business and law.
The Scribes were highly educated people especially trained in writing skills. What
we  now  know  is  that  while  learning  and  speaking  languages  fluently,  even
reading  well,  was  common  among  the  Jews  of  Yeshua's  day,  it  was  seen  as
entirely different than learning how to write. Few learned how to write because it
involved  so  much  more  than  how  we  think  of  it  today.  The  High  Priests  and
aristocrats often couldn't write; thus they hired scribes to do it for them. Scribes
of  this  era  had  to  literally  manufacture  their  own  paper  and  ink.  They  had  to
fashion their own writing instruments. So writing involved an entire set of various
skills to accomplish; one didn't just go to the marketplace and buy a few sheets
of paper, some ink and a pen, and get started. In fact ink in those days didn't
even penetrate the papyrus paper; although problematic on the one hand, on the
other the ink sat on the surface of the paper so that it could be wiped or scraped
off if there was an error. A sheet of papyrus paper could even be wiped clean and
reused.
Along  with  the  rulers,  elders,  and  scribes  who  came  to  hear  Peter  and  John's
case,  were  other  named  members  of  the  Sanhedrin:  Annas  (called  the  High
Priest), Caiaphas, John and Alexander. And as verse 6 says they all belonged to
                             9 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
the  high-priestly  family.  Let's  spend  a  little  time  talking  about  the  High  Priest
system in New Testament times.
The first thing to know is that it didn't operate at all the way the Torah prescribed
it. Upon the Maccabean Rebellion of 164 B.C., and the subsequent retaking by
the Jewish rebels of the Temple from the Syrian army and Antiochus Epiphanies
(which, by the way, is remembered by the holiday of Hanukkah), the authorized
High Priest was deposed and sent packing. The now deposed High Priest was of
the line of Zadok, who was the rightful line of High Priests stemming from Aaron.
But the Hasmon family (led by Judas the Maccabee, the hero of the rebellion)
essentially took over the civil and religious governing of Judea. The result was
that  from  that  time  forward  the  High  Priesthood  became  a  political  office  that
could be bought and sold. Even though it was usually occupied by a person of
Levite descent, and equally as usual that Levite belonged to one priestly line or
another, it wasn't of the proper God-ordained line, the line of Zadok.
The  Torah  Law  makes  it  that  the  High  Priest  is  High  Priest  for  life.  Then  only
when he dies, his firstborn son takes his spot, reigns as High Priest until he dies,
and so on. So the High Priest office was inherited and not chosen. But now since
the Maccabean Rebellion, a High Priest might occupy the office for a few months
or years and then decide to vacate and turn it over to another family member (or
have it taken from him), or if the price was right, sold to another family entirely.
So suddenly there were a number of current and former High Priests living at the
same  time  and  they  all  retained  the  title  of  High  Priest  even  though  they  only
served one at a time as the acting High Priest. It is just like it is in America with
high political offices. For instance; all former Presidents retain their title for life,
even after they've left office. Same for Governors. It's just a political tradition.
Thus in Acts chapter 4 while Annas is called High Priest, he was actually only the
Patriarch  of  the  reigning  High  Priestly  family  and  was  not  actually  the  current
High  Priest.  The  current  High  Priest  was  his  son-in-law  Caiaphas,  and  so  for
Annas High Priest was merely an honorary title. John and Alexander were other
members of the High Priest family, but so far as the records show they had not
been  High  Priests  up  to  now.  So  in  the  New  Testament  we'll  occasionally
encounter words to the effect that the High Priests (plural) did so-and-so. That is
not  an  error;  there  were  a  number  of  ex-High  Priests  running  around  who
continued to hold high status.
In  fact  during  the  few  times  that  Judea  was  not  occupied  by  a  foreign  power,
                            10 / 11
Lesson 10 - Acts Chapters 3 and 4
 
such  as  immediately  following  the  Maccabean  Rebellion,  the  High  Priest  was
also head of state. That is he was governor of Judea as well as the High Priest of
the Temple. Hyrcannus is one such example.
In  our  story  Annas  was  the  10th  High  Priest  from  the  time  of  Herod  the  Great
(who  reigned  from  37  B.C.  to  4  B.C.)  So  High  Priests  came  and  went  at  an
alarming rate. Interestingly, Annas was not appointed by a Jewish High Priestly
family  but  instead  by  the  then  current  Roman  governor  Quirinius  in  6  B.C.  So
here we see that even control of the religious establishment of Judea (meaning
the  Temple)  came  under  direct  rule  of  the  Romans  from  6  B.C.  until  38  A.D.
when Agrippa was finally able to restore religious rule to the Jews. Annas held
the office of High Priest for 8 or 9 years before he was removed by the Roman
governor Valerius Gratus. He also appointed Annas' son-in-law Caiaphas as the
new High Priest, an office he held obviously at the time of our story, but would be
deposed in 36 A.D.
I know that's a lot of history; but my intention was for you to get a good picture of
the state of the Temple and the Priesthood and how it operated all during the
time of Christ, and how it was during the time of Peter and Paul right up until the
Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. It is no wonder that Yeshua showed no respect
to the Temple authorities, and that the Essenes split with the Temple, labeled the
Temple authorities as the Sons of Darkness, and set up shop out by the Dead
Sea.
We'll continue with our study of Acts chapter 4 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                            11 / 11
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 11, Chapter 4
We  spent  a  goodly  portion  of  our  previous  lesson  in  Acts  creating  a  kind  of  diagram  to
understand just who the various players were in our story, what their titles and positions meant,
and what the general social and religious conditions of the Jewish people were living in the
Holy  Land.  I  spoke  about  rulers,  chief  priests,  elders,  the  Temple  police,  scribes  and  other
occupations.  We  learned  some  of  the  fundamental  beliefs  and  differences  between  the  3
mainstream social/religious parties of the day called the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes;
and especially as concerns the issue of resurrection from the dead, which was apparently a
controversial topic for the times.  Briefly, the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the
dead, and did not believe in any sort of afterlife. The soul ended its existence at the same
moment  the  body  died.  So  what  Peter  and  John  were  teaching  at  the  Temple  about
resurrection,  and  claimed  happened  with  their  departed  Master  Yeshua,  was  instantly
problematic and flew in the face of what the High Priest accepted as truth.
The Pharisees did believe in resurrection of the dead, but in the sense that while the soul was
immortal and eternal, upon the death of the body the soul of the departed righteous person
passed into another body at some point (sooner or later). But the souls of the wicked were
bound up in torment for eternity. The party of the Essenes also believed in resurrection from
the dead in the form of the soul living on, but not necessarily the body being reanimated nor
the immortal soul being placed into a new and better body. So the future of the soul was to
remain alive, but disembodied.
Of course there were numerous other differences between the 3 parties besides the issue of
resurrection from the dead. What is quite helpful to know when studying the New Testament is
this: the Sadducees were associated and connected to the institution of the Temple and its
Priesthood. In fact at this time the High Priests and the Chief Priests were all Sadducees. The
Pharisees on the other hand were associated and connected to the Synagogue System. As I
noted last week it was the Pharisees who had created the concept of Oral Torah, meaning a
claim of unwritten laws handed down from Moses. And the Pharisees were, for the most part,
the creators of Traditions that in many ways heavily skewed the meaning of the written Laws of
Moses  to  make  them  reflect  the  views  and  beliefs  of  the  Pharisees.  Recall  that  Yeshua
criticized the Pharisees for creating and imposing their Traditions that at times countermanded
the Holy Scriptures in His estimation.
CJB  Matthew 15:1 Then some P'rushim and Torah-teachers from Yerushalayim came to
Yeshua and asked him, 2 "Why is it that your talmidim break the Tradition of the Elders?
They  don't  do  n'tilat-yadayim  before  they  eat!"  3  He  answered,  "Indeed,  why  do  you
break the command of God by your tradition?
The Sadducees generally agreed with Jesus on this issue of Tradition and refused to accept
the validity of anything but the historical written Laws of Moses as recorded in the Torah. That
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
is, they shunned Tradition, or as Yeshua referred to it, the Traditions of the Elders. Why? For
the Sadducees it was mostly because it was the rival Pharisees and the Synagogue system
that  had  created  the  Oral  Torah,  the  Traditions,  so  they  weren't  about  to  adopt  them  for
themselves. 
Thus since the Synagogue and the Temple were indeed rival systems, each with their own
separate authority structures, so were the Sadducees and the Pharisees rivals. The Essenes
wanted  no  part  of  either  the  Synagogue  or  the  Temple  because  they  thought  the  Temple
Priesthood thoroughly corrupt and the Pharisees wrong on their theology. Not much later, just
one  more  generation  after  Peter,  the  Romans  would  destroy  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple,
meaning the priests were out of job. Thus the Sadducees overnight became a relic as they lost
the basis of their power and authority (the Temple and Priesthood). The Pharisees became the
Rabbis as the Synagogue system lived on, and Tradition and Oral Torah were in time written
down  into  an  authoritative  work  called  the  Mishnah,  which  itself  turned  into  the  source
document for Halakah, Rabbinic Law, that all Jews were expected to observe. Rabbis now
ruled Judaism without opposition or competition (except among themselves) and so it is to this
day.
Among the other social and government institutions of the Jews that we discussed was the
Sanhedrin;  the  Jewish  Supreme  Court.  It  was  this  body  that  Peter  and  John  were  brought
before  to  have  their  case  examined.  The  High  Priest  by  right  of  his  position  was  also  the
president of the Sanhedrin. So we see that while there were some Pharisees that sat on the
Sanhedrin, the Sadducees (starting with the High Priest) actually controlled the court and so
more or less dictated the outcomes. The Sanhedrin was not a Biblically ordained legal body,
however it was modeled after the system Moses used during the exodus (at least as far as
there being 70 elders to help govern plus its leader for a total of 71 individuals), and its job
being to judge Israel. In fact, it seems that the institution of the Sanhedrin did not exist until
after the Maccabean Rebellion of the 160's B.C. And its existence would terminate in 70 A.D.
upon the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. It would in time be reborn but as a totally different
kind of institution. The Sanhedrin became the institution of chief Rabbis who met to determine
the  new  and  growing  body  of  Jewish  Law  that  also  goes  by  the  names  of  Tradition  and
Halakah.
And finally we discussed that although in Acts 4:6 a fellow named Annas is called the High
Priest, in fact he was not the currently sitting High Priest; rather it was his son-in-law Caiaphas.
It  is  simply  that  during  this  era  since  the  job  of  High  Priest  was  no  longer  for  life  or  was  it
inherited,  but  instead  it  was  appointed  by  Rome  on  the  basis  of  bribes  and  commissions.
Annas was a former High Priest but also the patriarch of the current High Priest family. And all
living ex-High Priests were allowed to retain the honorary title of High Priest.
Let's re-read a portion of Acts 4.
RE-READ ACTS 4:5 – end
So Peter and John were jailed overnight and then they appeared before the Sanhedrin. And
the question the two disciples were asked was: "By what power or by what name did you do
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
this"? Note that the court didn't in any way dispute what happened; this cripple was indeed
healed. It was a miracle, but done in whose power and whose name? So the outcome wasn't
an issue; it was the theology that mattered to the Sadducees. To the minds of the Jews the
healing of an individual was inherently something beyond the natural power of a human being.
Thus  the  Sanhedrin  wanted  to  know  if  this  particular  healing  might  have  been  sorcery  or
perhaps even blasphemy (that is, the healing done in the name of a false god). Recall that
Yeshua was accused of performing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, the Devil.
But Peter, with the power of the Holy Spirit, had an answer for them. When we're told that
Peter was "filled with the Ruach HaKodesh", it doesn't mean that he was just now indwelt
with the Holy Spirit or that he received more of the Holy Spirit than he had received a few days
earlier  at  Pentecost.  This  won't  be  the  only  time  we'll  see  a  disciple  make  a  speech  and
we're told that he was "filled with the Holy Spirit". It only means that this Believer was given
special  divine  inspiration  for  what  he  was  about  to  say  or  do.  I  am  certain  that  Peter
remembered and was comforted by these words of His Master and so fully expected to be
"filled with the Holy Spirit" at the appropriate moment:
Matthew 10:18-20 CJB
18  On  my  account  you  will  be  brought  before  governors  and  kings  as  a  testimony  to
them and to the Goyim.
19 But when they bring you to trial, do not worry about what to say or how to say it;
when the time comes, you will be given what you should say.
20 For it will not be just you speaking, but the Spirit of your heavenly Father speaking
through you.
I  want  to  comment  on  Jesus's  statement  for  just  a  moment.  Yeshua  is  not  saying  that  His
disciples, the original 12 (or us), should ignore preparation when given an opportunity to speak
God's Word or to speak about the Good News in witness of Him. This is not a call to "wing it".
The 12 Disciples (to whom He was speaking) were with Yeshua day and night and so were
being constantly taught about the Holy Scriptures from the mouth of God Himself. They were in
as intense a teaching environment (for as much as 3 years) that we scarcely imagine. As we
see here in Acts, and throughout the New Testament, these men who had no special higher
learning (all higher learning among the Jews was only religious education), and could quote
Scripture beautifully and in the proper context. They weren't merely good memorizers and so
could speak Bible passages the way a Parrot can mimic but not know the substance of what it
is saying. Rather the Disciples were able to discern sufficiently to understand how to properly
apply the appropriate passages to the appropriate circumstances.
The  Disciples  didn't  have  the  luxury  of  having  Bibles  to  carry  around  or  refer  to  as  we  do.
Yeshua  didn't  have  a  Tanakh,  and  didn't  have  Scripture  scrolls  to  teach  His  students  from
(except occasionally perhaps in a Synagogue). Memory and practice....much time and effort....
was needed to be able to remember and pull up those divine words when called upon. I've
taught you for many years that upon coming to Salvation, the next step must be immersion in
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
water  (to  be  baptized).  But  immediately  after  that  is  to  be  immersed  into  God's  Word.
Otherwise  all  we'll  know  is  what  others  tell  us,  and  often  that  amounts  to  bumper  sticker
sayings or doctrines that might well be true (sometimes not), but come without an underlying
foundation  for  understanding  what  we've  heard  or  how  to  apply  it  to  our  lives.  These  12
disciples who were often accused of being common am ha'eretz (a term literally meaning the
people of the land, but in Christ's day was used in a derogatory way to indicate people of little
wit or systematic education). Yet these ordinary men could confound and intelligently respond
to kings, even Torah teachers, under the most stressful circumstances. It was because a) they
knew God's Word, and b) they had the Holy Spirit to guide them.
I have heard about many of you who have confounded and startled Pastors and Rabbis and
friends and family with your answers to their questions or statements about your faith or about
Biblical doctrines. And some of you have told me that when you are responding that you can't
believe what is coming out of your mouth! And what startles your audience is that most of you
never  went  to  Seminary  or  Bible  College.  But  you  have  diligently  studied  God's  Word,  with
the Ruach HaKodesh as your teacher, and so you know the unfiltered truth. There can be no
higher education than that so don't ever think that you are unqualified to challenge religious
authorities when they have it wrong.
I  can  only  imagine  the  dumbfounded  expressions  on  the  faces  of  the  members  of  the
Sanhedrin as Peter began to speak under divine inspiration. Immediately he questioned their
motives for questioning him. He says "If we are being examined today for a good deed done to
a disabled person"; in other words he's saying that assuming your motive to have us before
you is to actually understand how this healing took place, then he has a direct answer for them.
He goes on to say that he wants them and all Israel to know that this was done in the name of
Yeshua HaMashiach (Yeshua of Nazareth who is Israel's Messiah). They knew exactly who
Peter was talking about, and it conjured up their worst fears. Why? Because they had hoped
that a few weeks earlier after they had managed to get the Romans to execute Jesus for them
that yet another threat to their power and authority would have been eliminated. But instead, it
now  appears  that  they  had  created  a  martyr.  The  followers  of  this  martyr  were  bold  and
fearless, and the huge crowd that had heard and believed Peter the night before was evidence
enough that this Yeshua movement was alive and well and growing even though the founder
was dead and gone.
But after answering their question about whose name and power this healing happened, Peter
just can't stand to leave well enough alone; he goes on to say to the High Priest and the 70
most powerful Jewish officials in the land: "You executed this Yeshua on a stake as a criminal,
but God raised Him from the dead, and now as a result of the power of this Yeshua, the cripple
is healed". Yikes.  This was no polite oratory by Peter; he instantly went for the jugular. Peter
who is supposed to be on the witness stand to defend himself has gone on the offensive even
telling the Sanhedrin that what they did to Yeshua, was obviously against God's will since He
undid it.
Peter now has their attention and so preaches the Gospel of Christ that begins by using Psalm
118. Psalm 118 was well known for reasons we'll talk about in a few minutes, but first I want to
point  out  something  that  frankly  I  delight  in  bringing  up  every  chance  I  get.  The  Gospel  of
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
Salvation was given to mankind in the Old Testament, not the New. Yeshua taught the Gospel
from the Old Testament. The Disciples taught the Gospel to their fellow Jews from the Old
Testament. The Apostle Paul taught the Gospel to the gentiles from the Old Testament. Every
Scripture  passage  the  disciples  and  Apostles  and  Christ  Himself  quoted  was  from  the  Old
Testament. And that is because there would be no such thing as a New Testament for nearly 2
centuries after Christ's passion on the cross. So when people question the relevance of the
Old Testament for modern day Believers, and that Salvation is of the New Testament and not
the Old, you might want to point that out.
I'm of course in no way disparaging the latter part of our Bibles, the New Testament, or am I
lessening its irreplaceable value or inspiration. However for a very long time there has been a
great effort in our Christian institutions (none more so than in the 21st century) to separate the
Old from the New making the Old almost a separate issue, if not a separate book, from the
New with each testament designated as pertinent to different people groups (one for Jews, the
other for Christian gentiles). Although we'll find some of the early Church Fathers holding this
view,  this  was  by  no  means  unanimous.  I  think  it  is  most  instructional  to  include  the  early
Church Fathers' comments in any discussion of the New Testament.
Here is what Venerable Bede (also known as Saint Bede) said in the early 700's A.D. about
the issue of the two testaments (Old and New) as well as the two peoples of the earth (Jew
and gentile) in relation to one another. This excerpt is taken from his Commentary on the Acts
of the Apostles as he speaks specifically about Acts chapter 4 and Peter's Psalm 118 quote.
"The builders were the Jews, while all the gentiles remained in the wasteland of idols.
The Jews alone were daily reading the Law and the Prophets for the building up of the
people. As they were building, they came to the cornerstone, which embraces two walls;
that is, they found in the prophetic Scriptures that Christ, who would bring together in
Himself two peoples, was to come in the flesh. And because they preferred to remain in
one wall, that is to be saved alone, they rejected the stone, which was not one-sided but
two-sided.  Nevertheless,  although  they  were  unwilling,  God  by  Himself  placed  this
stone  at  the  chief  position  in  the  corner,  so  that  from  two  Testaments  and  from  two
peoples there might rise up a building of one and the same faith."
Very wise and profound words from Bede. Psalm 118 is part of the Hallel, which consists of
Psalms 113-118. It is a key part of Jewish Synagogue liturgy. And Psalm 118 begins:
CJB Psalm 118:1 Give thanks to ADONAI; for he is good, for his grace continues forever.
2 Now let Isra'el say, "His grace continues forever."
3 Now let the house of Aharon say, "His grace continues forever."
4 Now let those who fear ADONAI say, "His grace continues forever."
Skipping to verse 14:
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
14 Yah is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.
Then down to verse 22:
22 The very rock that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone!
This  is  agreed  by  Jews  and  Christians  as  a  Messianic  Psalm.  And  we  find  the  use  of  "the
Rock" or "the Stone" as a metaphor for, and reference to, Messiah. Yeshua used it of Himself
as in the Book of Mark. Naturally when He used it, it was clear to those around Him that He
was saying that He was the rock and the cornerstone from Psalm 118.
Mark 12:10-12 CJB
10  Haven't  you  read  the  passage  in  the  Tanakh  that  says,  'The  very  rock  which  the
builders rejected has become the cornerstone!
11 This has come from ADONAI, and in our eyes it is amazing'?"
12 They set about to arrest him, for they recognized that he had told the parable with
reference to themselves. But they were afraid of the crowd, so they left him and went
away.
So  Peter's  use  of  "the  rock  which  the  builders  rejected"  (referring  to  Yeshua)  was  both
accurate and inflammatory because if we had read the last few verses of Mark 11 we would
have seen that when Jesus spoke these words He was in the Temple courts, the province of
the Sadducees. So the "they" who were about to arrest Yeshua for saying that He was the
rock  and  cornerstone  were  the  Sadducees.  And  now  Peter  stands  before  the  very  same
people and uses this same Messianic verse in the same context, pronouncing the same man,
Yeshua, as the stone the builders rejected. But he also indicts the Sadducees as the builders
who did the rejecting.
But then comes verse 12, which to me is one of the most powerful not only in Acts but in the
entire  New  Testament.  "There  is  salvation  in  no  one  else!  For  there  is  no  other  name
under heaven given to mankind by whom we must be saved!"For millions of Believers like
me, this statement is a non-negotiable, foundational principle of our faith. How at any point in
history that a Believer could create or adopt the Two Covenant (or Dual Covenant) Theology
that Jews are saved by the Law and gentiles are saved by Christ is beyond me. And believe
me,  many  well  known  Pastors,  Rabbis  and  Bible  Teachers  who  love  Israel  and  are  at  the
forefront of fighting anti-Semitism, have adopted this Two Covenant Theology that says that
Jews have a different path to salvation than gentiles. They may deny the label, but at the same
time teach that there is no need for Jews to accept Yeshua as their Savior; the Law of Moses
has redeemed them.
Yet to whom was Peter speaking when he uttered these immutable words? He was standing in
the  Court  of  the  Sanhedrin,  on  the  Temple  Mount,  speaking  in  closed  session  ONLY  to
Sadducees and Pharisees: Jews. Not a single gentile heard those words. So the irony is thick;
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
Peter told the Jews that Yeshua is the only name who saves, but today many gentile Christians
say that His words do NOT apply to Jews but only to gentiles. Go figure.
In  Acts  4:13,  the  first  reaction  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  surprise  that  these
presumably uneducated men could speak with such gravitas and authority. Their accents and
their dress gave them away that they were simple Galileans, and they also remembered that
these two (Peter and John) were constant companions with Yeshua (also a Galilean). Rabban
Gamaliel  II,  some  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.D.,  said  these  recorded
words to give us an idea of how the learned Jews looked at the common Jews:  "An uncultured
person is not sin-fearing; and neither is an ignorant person (an am ha'eretz) pious...." So while
the members of the Sanhedrin were boxed-in by the unexpectedly wise and inspired words of
Peter,  a  mere  fisherman,  they  still  gave  him  no  respect.  At  the  same  time,  what  with  the
formerly crippled man standing right there next to the disciples, what was the Sanhedrin to do?
In  verse  16,  in  private  conference,  the  Sanhedrin  admits  that  a  "notable  sign"  (that  is,  a
miracle) had been performed through Peter and John. There was nothing illegal about that,
and so nothing they could do. Fascinating; the leaders of the Jewish religious establishment
have  no  interest  in  the  fact  that  an  otherwise  permanently  disabled  man,  since  birth,  has
regained full use of his body due to a miracle of God. Their only agenda is how this might
affect their personal status and authority. In verse 17 they go so far as to try to squelch this
from spreading! Imagine! The leaders of the religion of the Jews are trying to figure out how to
STOP  any  more  people  from  being  healed  in  the  name  of  Yeshua  because  they  didn't
authorize it, don't control it,  and so don't get credit for it.  Any good politician can perfectly
understand their thinking.
So the only course of action the Sanhedrin could take was to threaten the disciples never to do
it again, with some unnamed consequences if they did so. But especially they say that Peter
and John are never to speak to anyone again in "this name" (meaning Yeshua).  Of course
Peter and John will have none of it, and so in no time they will again be arrested (as we'll find
in the next chapter of Acts). But their second arrest will not go as easy for them because of the
way Jewish Law was administered at this time.
Jewish law in those days held that ignorance of the law was indeed a good excuse. Saying "I
didn't  know  I  was  doing  wrong"  or  "I  wasn't  aware  of  the  law"  was  generally  seen  as  a
legitimate defense. This is even reflected in Peter's earlier statement in Acts 3: 17 when Peter
said to the crowd:
17 "Now, brothers, I know that you did not understand the significance of what you were
doing; neither did your leaders.
18  But  this  is  how  God  fulfilled  what  he  had  announced  in  advance,  when  he  spoke
through all the prophets, namely, that his Messiah was to die.
19 "Therefore, repent and turn to God, so that your sins may be erased;
If the court felt that the accused was telling the truth, and had good reason to perhaps not
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
know the law or understand the ramifications of what they were doing, then the person was let
off  with  a  warning  and  given  some  education  on  the  law.  So  since  the  Jewish  public  fully
understood this legal principle, then Peter was telling the crowd that their ignorance of what
they had done WAS a reasonable defense. However.... now that they understand what they did,
and who this man was that they conspired to kill (Jesus the Christ), then they must cleanse
their  hearts  and  minds  and  never  do  it  again  so  to  speak.  And  they  could  do  this  only  by
repenting.
In Peter and John's case, they had broken no law. But, the Sanhedrin essentially made new
law when they were told they could no longer speak about Yeshua. So once an arrested and
released  person  was  informed  of  the  law,  if  that  person  was  arrested  again  for  the  same
offense there could be no more excuse. Thus because the Sanhedrin warned Peter not to heal
or speak in the name of Yeshua again, when they did so they were arrested and in much more
hot water than they were the first time because now the law stood on the side of the Sanhedrin
because the accused were not ignorant of the law; they broke it deliberately.
In verse 23 Peter and John were released and immediately they went to their fellow Believers
with  the  news.  They  told  them  about  what  had  happened  to  them  and  when  the  Believers
heard this rejoicing broke out as they praised God for His protection and deliverance. Their
communal prayer began by quoting a passage from Psalm 146, and then moved into quoting
Psalm 2 verses 1 and 2:
Let's read Psalm 2 together as then we'll have a better idea of what the Believers had in mind
as they prayed it to the Father.
READ PSALM 2 all
This is obviously another Messianic Psalm that speaks about Yeshua. There is a Hebrew study
principle called Pesher. Pesher interpretation of the Bible is when Bible verses are applied to
current events; and often the Bible verses we read are prophetic. So it is Pesher interpretation
when we look at Biblically prophesied events and try to connect them to things happening all
around us.
I  want  to  point  out  a  short  phrase  in  this  passage  that  to  me  speaks  not  of  Yeshua's  first
coming, but of His second. And the words are in verse 9:  9 You will break them with an iron
rod, shatter them like a clay pot.'"In the Book of Revelation we read a letter in Revelation
chapter 2 from Messiah to the Church. And in that letter we are told the manner in which the
Millennial Kingdom, the Kingdom of God on earth with Christ as our King, will be ruled.
Revelation 2:26-27 CJB
26 To him who wins the victory and does what I want until the goal is reached, I will give
him authority over the nations;
27 he will rule them with a staff of iron and dash them to pieces like pottery,
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 11 - Chapter 4
 
So here we have a direct connection between Psalm 2 and Revelation 2. What was
prophesied in Psalm 2 will happen in Revelation 2. Bede was so very right: the rock that is the
cornerstone connects two walls, the Old and New Testaments.
We'll finish chapter 4 next week. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 12, chapters 4 and 5
Keep your Bibles handy; we're going to be doing a lot of reading today in both Testaments.
Depending on who does the counting, the New Testament consists of somewhere between
45%  and  55%  Old  Testament  quotes.  In  other  words,  the  Bible  characters  of  the  New
Testament regularly use Old Testament quotes to prove their case or to make a point. So if we
were to carefully go through our New Testaments and cross out the Old Testament verses, our
New Testaments would shrink to around ½ the size they are now.
The CJB that we read from for Torah Class makes it easy to spot the OT passages because it
uses bold type to highlight the OT quotes in the New Testament; and a footnote tells us where
in the Tanakh each particular quote appears. However it is not exhaustive and doesn't include
them all. Thus what we see in Acts chapter 4 is Peter quoting a number of Old Testament
passages in his explanation of the Gospel message and in condemning the Sadducean High
Priests for their role in the execution of Yeshua.
One of the major themes in Acts 4 is Peter connecting the well-known Psalm 118 passage
about the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone, with the salvation offered in
Christ. This Psalm was well known by most Jews and committed to memory by many because
it was part of the Hallel that was used in the Synagogue and as part of Festival liturgy. Peter
says  of  Psalm  118  that  Jesus  is  the  stone  that  was  rejected  by  the  builders;  and  that  the
builders are represented by members of the Sanhedrin that he was standing before. This was
more than metaphor; these same Sanhedrin members indeed had only a couple of months
earlier decided that Yeshua should be killed, and enlisted the help of the Romans and Pontius
Pilate to do it for them.
The Sanhedrin that was examining Peter and John could find no legitimate cause to punish
them,  so  they  released  them  with  the  warning  that  they  were  never  again  to  do  miracles
(including healing) in the name of Yeshua; to which Peter said he would not comply. Upon
being  reunited  with  the  other  Believers  in  Jerusalem  who  were  overjoyed  that  Peter  and
Jonathon  came  back  to  them  unharmed,  they  prayed  together  a  common  prayer  that  was
Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2. This Psalm of David asked why the nations (meaning gentiles) raged
and tried to thwart God's plans, when there was no hope of them defeating the Lord. And this
Psalm goes on to depict the national leaders of the gentiles conspiring to fight against Yehoveh
and His Messiah Yeshua.
Let's re-read the last part of Acts chapter 4.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 4:25 – end
So Peter sees Psalm 2 as a prophecy about the Messiah, and says that this has been fulfilled
                               1 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
in the persons of Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with both gentiles and the peoples of Israel
(meaning Jews in a broad sense but in reality those who formed the Sanhedrin). This particular
Herod Peter mentioned is Herod Antipas and he was not the king over Judea at this time; in
fact the history record seems to indicate that there was no king over Judea and Jerusalem for
perhaps a 3 or 4 year time span. Antipas ruled over the Roman controlled provinces of Galilee
and  Perea  as  a  Tetrarch,  a  governor.  Judea  was  ruled  by  Pontius  Pilate  as  Procurator  (a
higher  position  than  a  Tetrarch),  meaning  he  had  nearly  autonomous  power  and  reported
directly to Caesar. So by invoking Herod and Pilate, Peter was indicting the political leadership
of  most  of  the  Holy  Lands  as  co-conspirators  who  joined  together  to  oppose  the  will  of
Yehoveh.
But  Peter,  at  the  same  time  in  verse  28,  acknowledges  that  despite  how  it  might  seem  to
earthly  eyes,  all  that  happened  to  Yeshua  was  preplanned  by  His  Father  Yehoveh  and  so
essentially Antipas and Pilate and those Jews and gentiles that were complicit in the murder of
Messiah were but unwitting tools in God's hands. Please note something of vital importance: it
is  that  God  foreknew  that  these  people  would  do  these  wicked  things  but  that  doesn't
somehow now make them righteous people, nor does it absolve them from their evil intents
and  deeds.  There  has  been  much  heartburn  and  difference  of  opinion  within  the  world's
churches over just how to view Adolf Hitler because it was his horrific attempt to stamp out the
Jewish race that brought us the Holocaust. Yet at the same time the result of the Holocaust
was  a  guilty  Western  world  who  felt  they  had  little  choice  but  to  give  the  surviving  Jews  a
homeland for their own. And of course that homeland turned out to be their ancient ancestral
home, Israel.
As we are well aware this rebirth of the nation of Israel fulfilled several OT prophecies about
the exiled Jews being returned to their homeland, and then to be eventually joined by their
brothers, the legendary 10 Lost Tribes. This prophecy of return is best expressed in Ezekiel 36
and 37.
CJB  Ezekiel  36:24  For  I  will  take  you  from  among  the  nations,  gather  you  from  all  the
countries, and return you to your own soil.
And then in Ezekiel 37:
Ezekiel  37:21-22  CJB  21  Then  say  to  them  that  Adonai  ELOHIM  says:  'I  will  take  the
people of Isra'el from among the nations where they have gone and gather them from
every side and bring them back to their own land.
22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Isra'el; and one king will
be king for all of them. They will no longer be two nations, and they will never again be
divided into two kingdoms.
But as with the issue of Herod and Pilate, are we to give Hitler credit and merit because his
satanic actions directly led to the Jews being given back their homeland thus fulfilling God's
prophetic promise? Hardly. It is just that in some unfathomable way God sees and controls
history from horizon to horizon, and is able to orchestrate the bad intentions of wicked people
                               2 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
to bring about His plans for good.
As the group of joyful Believers was being led in prayer by Peter, we are told that the place
where they gathered was shaken as they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. First, was there an
actual physical shaking as with an earthquake? We don't know; it could be, or it could just as
easily  be  an  expression  meaning  that  this  group  of  Believers  was  spiritually  and  physically
overwhelmed by the power and presence of the Ruach HaKodesh. I mentioned this in our last
lesson but it bears repeating: being filled with the Holy Spirit in this context does NOT mean
that these folks were receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit for the first time; nor does it mean
that the Holy Spirit comes and goes; nor does it mean that there are numerous baptisms of the
Holy Spirit upon the same individual. Rather this is a common way of speaking that means that
some kind of special inspiration of God, delivered by the Spirit, overcame them. And as we find
in the Bible (as with Moses and his 70 elders and at Pentecost), often a special inspiration of
God's  Spirit  manifests  itself  in  human  speech.  So  not  surprisingly  we  find  that  what
accompanied this special inspiration was an ability to speak God's message of salvation with
boldness. In Greek the word that we translate as boldness is parrhesia and it means free and
fearless confidence. And when we understand what has just happened to Peter and John with
their arrest and the threats from the Sanhedrin to never speak of the name Yeshua again, we
can understand why these ordinary everyday Believing Jews needed to be divinely filled with
fearless confidence.
Isn't  it  the  lack  of  free  and  fearless  confidence  that  keeps  many  of  us  from  presenting  the
Gospel to people we meet; even to family and friends? How often I've heard shy Believers
explain that they don't see it as their job to present the Gospel because it's not how they are
wired. Pastors, those trained in the Bible, and people with the gift of Evangelism are to do that.
I'm sorry to tell you that this is not at all what Jesus or any of the writers of the New Testament
instructed. Rather they agree unanimously that it is the responsibility of all Believers, without
exception,  to  spread  the  Gospel.  On  the  other  hand  I  can  assure  you  that  spreading  the
Gospel  has  more  to  do  with  your  personal  countenance,  your  behavior,  and  your  decision
every day to live a life of holiness and righteousness than any persuasive words of the Good
News you might utter. Nevertheless speech is important, and speaking the Gospel goes hand
in hand with living it out for all to see. We aren't given the option of substituting one for the
other or choosing to do only one or the other.
Beginning in verse 32 until the end of the chapter we are told how this spirit-filled community of
Jewish Believers manifested their faith in their daily living. And it began with adopting a lifestyle
much  like  the  Essenes  had  been  living  for  a  few  decades  by  now.  That  is,  these  Believers
worked together with a remarkable selflessness and togetherness, and members even gave up
rights to their own private property, sharing it with other members or selling it and using the
proceeds for the good of the community. Unlike the Essenes, however, this sharing of private
property was neither required nor forced, it was voluntary; a Believer was not compelled to sell
or share his assets in order to become and remain a member of the Believing community in
good standing.
It is interesting to me that the Kibbutzim of Israel generally live in this way to this day (and
more strictly so a few decades ago). That is, no one in a Kibbutz owns property and assets
                               3 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
privately; it all belongs to the Kibbutz community. But then each member is provided housing,
food, clothing, education, and almost all their needs. They work together for the common good.
This isn't Communism whereby the national government owns everything and simply directs
what everyone must do. Rather those who join a Kibbutz have this understanding of sharing for
the common good from the beginning, and each Kibbutz is fully independent. So for those who
have been to Israel and have seen Kibbutzim and know their lifestyle, what we are reading
here in Acts 4 is a close parallel so it gives you a good way to visualize it.
This  chapter  ends  with  an  example  of  the  type  of  community  spirit  that  the  Believers  in
Jerusalem  had.  Yosef,  who  was  a  Diaspora  Jew  from  the  Mediterranean  island  nation  of
Cyprus,  sold  a  field  and  gave  the  proceeds  to  the  disciples  to  disperse  as  they  saw  fit.
Interestingly he was not technically a Jew but rather was a Levite, and had been given the
nickname of Bar Nabba meaning the Exhorter.  I mentioned at another time that the Priesthood
was at this time not operating at all according to the Torah regulations, but instead it went by
manmade traditions. Levites, like Yosef, by Torah regulation were not supposed to own land.
Levites had been given cities to live in and fields to be owned communally just outside those
city walls. So it is apparent that other than for some of the ritual procedures, the Levitical laws
concerning Levites and priests had become abandoned by Christ's era.
Let's read Acts chapter 5.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 5 all
It would have been far better not to put a chapter change between Acts 4 and 5 where it has
been  placed  because  it  blunts  the  intended  impact.  We  ended  chapter  4  with  a  brief  story
about Yosef who sold a field and gave the money to the disciples for the good of the Believing
community. Now to start chapter 5 we get a similar story although it is essentially designed to
draw a contrast and distinction between the two situations that both involved selling personal
property and giving proceeds to the disciples.
A man named Ananias (which was quite a common name in this era) and his wife Sapphira
more or less tried to imitate what Yosef had done, but the less than honorable intent of their
hearts  was  exposed  and  it  resulted  in  their  immediate  deaths.  We're  going  to  examine  this
story in depth for a number of reasons; but one of the main reasons is that this is a story that
has created much anxiety and embarrassment within Christianity because the consequence of
death seems so harsh in comparison to the crime. That is, it is a Roman Christian tradition that
the harsh merciless justice of the Old Testament and the Law has supposedly given way to the
loving and forgiving justice of the New Testament and grace. Or to put a finer point on it, the
God of the Old Testament, the Father, has been set aside for the God of the New Testament,
Christ.  And  while  the  Father  might  quickly  punish  and  chastise,  Christ  would  only  lovingly
forgive us and so Believers bear no consequence for our sins. This is the classic case whereby
false manmade doctrines are established but God's Word shows us something quite different.
The result? A concerted effort to defend the manmade doctrine, and much confusion for Bible
students.
Because God is a God of patterns we find a corollary to this story of Ananias and Sapphira in
                               4 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
the Old Testament. It concerns a man named Achan and we find it in Joshua chapter 7. Let's
read it.
READ JOSHUA CHAPTER 7 all
So this fellow Achan took some of the spoils that belonged to God. This is a violation of the
Law of Herem, also called the Law of the Ban. And the idea is that in a Holy War all the spoils
of war belong to God. After a great victory at Jericho, when the spoils should have been piled
up and burned (since burning them up was the only way to sanctify them and give them to
God), a fellow named Achan misappropriated some of the spoils for himself. This act not only
was  personal  sin;  it  had  the  effect  of  cursing  all  of  Israel.  Thus  in  their  next  attempted
conquest,  the  city  of  Ai,  the  attack  was  a  disaster  and  a  failure.  The  enemy  soldiers  of  Ai
chased away the Israelites, killing several of them, and thus Ai was not taken. Joshua and the
Israelites were devastated because they felt God had promised them victory. So how can they
understand and explain this humiliating defeat?
God explained it to them; He said that someone had taken property, which belonged to Him,
and that this person had to be identified and properly judged.
Achan turned out to be the culprit, he admitted his crime, and the result was that Achan and his
entire family was stoned to death and the family's possessions along with their lifeless bodies
were burned to ashes. So fire and burning can on the one hand sanctify (as we see in the Law
of Herem), but on the other it can be used to utterly destroy (the consequence of the sin of not
obeying the Law of Herem). 
There is yet another OT principle and pattern that needs to be applied to our story of Ananias
and  Sapphira  to  help  us  understand  God's  severe  reaction  towards  them.  It  involves  the
Biblical  principle  of  vow  offerings.  And,  once  again,  many  denominations  don't  like  this
because  in  the  mainstream,  Christianity  doesn't  believe  that  anything  of  the  Old  Testament
and the Law applies to New Testament Believers (and Ananias and Sapphira were, by Church
standards, New Testament Believers). And yet what happened here is directly tied to the Law
of making vows. And if we don't apply the Law of Herem and the Law of Vows to our story in
Acts 5, then we can't make any sense of it. In Deuteronomy chapter 23 we learn this:
Deuteronomy 23:22-24 CJB
22 "When you make a vow to ADONAI your God, you are not to delay in fulfilling it, for
ADONAI your God will certainly demand it of you, and your failure to do so will be your
sin.
23 If you choose not to make a vow at all, that will not be a sin for you;
24 but if a vow passes your lips, you must take care to perform it according to what you
voluntarily vowed to ADONAI your God, what you promised in words spoken aloud.
So to break the Law of Herem, or to break the Law of Vow offering, and not give to God what
                               5 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
was promised is classified as an intentional sin; or better for our English vocabulary, a high
handed sin. It is the worst of the worst kind of sin and for this kind of sin there is no atonement
available (at least not through the Law). I think it would be proper to define these sins, as with
Ananias and Sapphira's sin, as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit of God, because in verse 4, the
final words of Peter to Ananias are: "You have lied not to human beings but to God". And in
verse 9 to Sapphira Peter says: "Then why did you people plot to test the Spirit of the Lord?"
Listen to Christ's own words about this subject in Matthew 12:
Matthew 12:31-32 CJB
31  Because  of  this,  I  tell  you  that  people  will  be  forgiven  any  sin  and  blasphemy,  but
blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh will not be forgiven.
32 One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven; but whoever keeps
on speaking against the Ruach HaKodesh will never be forgiven, neither in the 'olam
hazeh (this world) nor in the 'olam haba (the world to come).
So here is what happened with Ananias and Sapphira and why it happened: it followed the
patterns that God had laid down. The first thing to recognize is that from the first moments of
the inception of the body of followers of Christ, Believers were not perfect, nor did they become
perfect. There is nothing here to indicate that Ananias and Sapphira's actions were those of
pretenders; rather they were merely weak Believers.
Second,  just  as  with  Achan  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  Ananias  and  Sapphira  held  back  for
themselves some of what now belonged to God. Why did the proceeds of the sale of their own
property belong to God? Because they had made a show of selling their property and giving it
all to the Believer's community; God saw this is a vow. But instead of following through they
falsely reported the selling price, and then gave that lesser amount to the disciples keeping the
rest for themselves. It was a deception designed to make them look good in front of everyone.
The Deuteronomy 23 passage we read says that no one is required to make a vow; that is
strictly up to the individual. But, once the vow is made, God will hold us to it. Yeshua speaks
about making vows in this way:
Matthew 5:33-37 CJB
33 "Again, you have heard that our fathers were told, 'Do not break your oath,' and 'Keep
your vows to ADONAI.'
34 But I tell you not to swear at all- not 'by heaven,' because it is God's throne;
35 not 'by the earth,' because it is his footstool; and not 'by Yerushalayim,' because it is
the city of the Great King.
36 And don't swear by your head, because you can't make a single hair white or black.
                               6 / 7
Acts Lesson 12 - Chapters 4 and 5
 
37 Just let your 'Yes' be a simple 'Yes,' and your 'No' a simple 'No'; anything more than
this has its origin in evil.
Ananias and Sapphira should have heeded their Master Yeshua. They had no need to vow to
sell  property  and  give  it  all  to  the  Believers  Community.  Peter  says  in  verse  4  of  Acts  5:
"Before you sold it, the property was yours; and after you sold it, the money was yours to use
as  you  pleased."  Ananias  and  Sapphira  did  nothing  wrong  in  selling  property  and  giving
however  much  or  little  of  it  they  preferred  to  the  disciples.  What  they  did  would  have  been
simple charity; what they did wrong was to turn voluntary charity into a sacred vow to give it all
to their fellow Believers. The instant they did that, the proceeds of the sale belonged to God as
His  holy  property.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  transferred  ownership  to  the  Lord  (whether  they
realized that or not), and then took some of what was now God's holy property for themselves.
This is a lesson for us in modern times. Making a vow to God is a serious matter; it was then
and remains so today. I'm not saying that if you break your vow that God will surely kill you;
but  He  did  choose  to  kill  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  And  Jesus,  knowing  the  hardness  of  our
hearts....including the hearts of Believers.....strongly warned us to simply make our yes, yes and
no, no without invoking a vow in the name of the Lord. Because then it changes the entire
equation to something holy and therefore dangerous.
So what did God intend to accomplish with the dramatic deaths of the Blasphemers Ananias
and Sapphira, beyond divine justice? Verse 11 gives us the answer. "As a result of this, great
fear came over the whole Messianic community; and even over everyone who heard about it."
I think if we are honest, we see a little of Ananias and Sapphira in ourselves. Who among us
hasn't made a promise in our heart to do something righteous, or to not do something selfish
or bad, and either changed our minds or forgotten all about it? Or even more, directed a prayer
towards God that if He would do thus and so for us, then we would respond by doing thus and
so for Him; and He did His part but we didn't follow through with our part. Besides, no matter
how we look at the God principles involved with their deaths, doesn't it seem to our natural
sense of fairness that receiving the death penalty for not turning over 100% of the proceeds of
the sale of their own property to the Believing community is extreme?
I have little doubt that the Believers who witnessed or heard of this event truly understood the
God principles about what happened with Ananias and Sapphira. Yet as F. F. Bruce said in his
Commentary  on  Acts:  "The  fear  which  fell  on  the  whole  community  suggests  that  many  a
member of it (like many an Israelite when Achan was exposed) had reason to tremble and
think: There, but for the grace of God, go I".  Amen to that.
The  Holy  Scriptures  are  there  to  inform,  to  inspire,  but  also  to  warn.  So  for  those  who  still
haven't been convinced, just yet, that God's laws and commandments from the Hebrew Bible
are every bit as relevant and required of us to obey them as are the instructions to us from
Christ  and  His  Disciples  in  the  New  Testament,  let  the  horrific  deaths  of  Ananias  and
Sapphira.....followers of Christ.....be a lesson. Fear God.
We'll continue with Acts chapter 5 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               7 / 7
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 13, Chapter 5
I hope you are enjoying the Book of Acts as much as I am enjoying presenting it to you. In our
Introduction to Acts I said that this book is the vital bridge from the Old Testament to the New,
and I'm sure that by now you are seeing it as the construction of our bridge progresses.
As we began Acts chapter 5 last week we immediately found ourselves embroiled in a long
running Christian controversy due to the rather unsettling story of Ananias and Sapphira, and
we're going to spend even more time with it because its importance to our spiritual and earthly
lives is greater than it might appear in a casual reading. Some Believers aren't aware there is
controversy swirling around this story because those who are especially new to the Hebrew
Roots  perspective  of  understanding  the  Lord  and  His  Word  likely  have  lived  most  of  their
Christian  lives  as  part  of  one  denomination  or  another.  And  Christian  denominations  aren't
known  for  tackling  the  contentious  issues  or  for  presenting  multiple  possible  solutions  to
difficult Biblical doctrines; rather one answer is given as firm and unequivocal and so laymen
often aren't aware that there other quite different viewpoints on the matter.
The  challenge  presented  by  our  story  is  that  beginning  with  the  early  Church  of  Rome,  an
official  attitude  about  the  continuing  relevance  of  each  Bible  testament  was  adopted  that
favored the New and disparaged the Old. Even when over a thousand years later Luther split
the Catholic Church and the Protestant movement arose, most of the attitudes and core beliefs
of Catholic Christianity followed into Protestantism.  But those beliefs as regards the relevance
of the two testaments for Christians in reality takes matters a step further and brings us into the
realm  of  the  very  nature  of  God.  As  David  Stern  in  his  concise  Commentary  on  the  New
Testament  says:  "One  sometimes  hears  presented  as  Christian  doctrine  the  second
century  heresy  of  Marcion  that  the  New  Testament  preaches  a  superior  God  of  love,
while the Old Testament God is an inferior deity concerned with judgment, wrath, justice
and the carrying out of the details of the Law. In the present incident (of Ananias and
Sapphira)  and  at  vv.10-11  we  see  that  the  New  Testament  is,  so  far  as  justice  and
judgment are concerned, the same as the Tanakh (the OT.) God is One. He cannot abide
sin. Fraud is sin, and it is punished."
In other words, in this supposed "new religion" of the gentiles called Christianity whose God is
Jesus, Believers will always be forgiven for our trespasses and never suffer the consequences
of punishment at the hand of God. And this is because our new god is a god of love and not
wrath. And yet in the earliest setting of what is described as the first Believing community of
Jews in Jerusalem (this is who we are reading about in Acts) that was governed by the first
Apostles, when Ananias and Sapphira decided to give to the disciples only some, and hold
back  the  remainder,  of  the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  their  personal  property  God  instantly
snuffed  out  their  lives  for  their  offense.  Thus  we  have  a  real  conundrum  before  us  about
whether God's nature actually has changed from judgment to love (as is typically professed in
the Church). This story in Acts 5, however, directly refutes the Christian doctrine that says that
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
the God of wrath was replaced by His Son the God of love. Because if that's truly the case,
then how can we square that the new God of love would callously kill a husband and wife for
merely not giving a large enough portion of their wealth to the Church? What happened to the
unlimited forgiveness and mercy? Therefore many Christian commentators have attempted to
deal with this embarrassment by suggesting that this story is contrived, or was added later, or
is simply a fairy tale because its outcome is impossible to accept.
I explained last week that it indeed is impossible to understand this story if we don't first know
the Old Testament and the resultant principles that are at play here in the New Testament. And
there are two principles that are front and center: the principles of the Law of Herem (the Law
of the Ban), and also the Law of Vow Offerings. We discussed this in depth last week so I
won't go over it again except to say that they both involve different circumstances under which
a human determines to misappropriate property that belongs exclusively to God. Property that
belongs to God is by definition holy property and thus cannot be kept, used, or consumed by
man. The prescribed consequence for these sins is usually death.
So before we explore more of Acts chapter 5 (beyond the story of the deaths of the husband
and wife who tried to defraud God), I think it is vital to discuss two simple but foundational
concepts  of  Judeo-Christianity,  which  if  not  correctly  understood  lead  to  many  erroneous
doctrines and beliefs; and those two concepts are love and sin. Thus the question for us today
is: from God's viewpoint, what is love and what is sin? I can't begin to tell you some of the
interesting answers I get when I ask Christians what sin is. But defining love comes in a close
second for the many variations I also hear. So take a few seconds to ask yourself (silently)
what you personally believe sin is; and then what love is.
OK, now let's see what the Lord says about it. Turn your Bibles to 1John chapter 3.
READ 1JOHN CHAPTER 3 all
To the shock and dismay of many, the Holy Scriptures tell us that love is not about feelings;
love is an action. Love is reflected by what we do. "Feeling" love is not Biblical love; DOING
love  is  Biblical  love.  That  is  not  to  say  that  love  doesn't  elicit  emotions;  but  too  often  for
Christians emotions are not only the dominant element of love, emotions are the only element
of love. And the emotion of love overrides everything else. Here in 1John we just read this
passage about God's view of love:
1John 3:15-18 CJB
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has
eternal life in him.
16 The way that we have come to know love is through his (Yeshua) having laid down his
life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers!
17  If  someone  has  worldly  possessions  and  sees  his  brother  in  need,  yet  closes  his
heart against him, how can he be loving God?
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
18 Children, let us love not with words and talk, but with actions and in reality!
Biblically speaking, love is to accept, and hate is to reject; these are definitive actions. John
gives an example of love as an action by our Savior laying down His life for us. Yeshua gave
up His life not in theory; not in sentiment or intentions; not in mere promises but actually. And I
remind you we are reading in the New Testament that God demands that our love is expressed
in  terms  of  action,  not  words  and  talk  and  certainly  not  mere  emotions  and  warm  feelings.
Action, says John, is love in reality; all else is not.
Notice  in  verse  17  how  John's  words  tie  so  closely  to  the  crime  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira.
Could John be remembering this startling event that we are told brought great fear to the entire
early   Believing   community?   Because   in   vs.   17   he   says:   "If   someone   has   worldly
possessions and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how can he
be loving God?" Is this not essentially the story and circumstance of Ananias and Sapphira?
But how about sin? What is sin? It is more often than not that Christian brothers and sisters tell
me that in their view sin is whatever the Holy Spirit tells them sin is. This belief is prevalent
enough that I have given it a label: The Doctrine of Situational Sin. That is, what sin is for you
is  not  necessarily  sin  for  me,  and  vice  versa.  Since  Christ,  sin  is  now  fully  customized  and
entirely circumstantial; there is no standard. A sin can be sin today, but it wasn't sin yesterday
and might not be sin tomorrow. So there is no longer a firm, knowable set of rules regarding
sin; it varies person by person and situation to situation. Therefore we can't possibly judge one
another;  we  don't  dare  look  at  something  a  Believer  is  doing  and  say  to  ourselves,  "that  is
sin". And that is because this doctrine of Situational Sin tells us that since we have no way of
knowing what the Holy Spirit told that person, then there is no way of discerning whether they
are sinning or not. Lord forbid we'd ever tell an offending Believer they were sinning because
maybe the Holy Spirit told them that at the moment it wasn't sin for them.
Well, let's see what the Apostle John had to say about sin and just what sin is.
1John 3:3-7 CJB
3  And  everyone  who  has  this  hope  in  him  continues  purifying  himself,  since  God  is
pure.
4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah- indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
5 You know that he (Christ) appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin
in him.
6  So  no  one  who  remains  united  with  him  continues  sinning;  everyone  who  does
continue sinning has neither seen him nor known him.
7 Children, don't let anyone deceive you- it is the person that keeps on doing what is
right who is righteous, just as God is righteous.
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
What did John just say sin is? Violating Torah. Anyone hear any equivocation there? Any room
for adjusting sin to the situation and to the individual and thus making sin at times not-sin? Any
thought that the Holy Spirit can override the written word of God at any time and turn sin into
righteous behavior?
Since I read this from the CJB, let's see what the most popular Bible version ever made does
with that same verse.
KJV  1  John  3:4  Whosoever  committeth  sin  transgresseth  also  the  law:  for  sin  is  the
transgression of the law.
Pretty straightforward. As much as some Believers might like to think that the Law of Moses
has no further bearing on our lives; or as much as it might be comforting to feel that God has
dissolved all standards of sin and instead has now customized sin for each of us; and only that
which you perceive in your heart that the Holy Spirit is telling you is sin is actually sin (and all
else isn't) simply defies the Biblical definition of sin.....including the New Testament definition of
sin that we just read.
Sin is Biblically defined as the breaking of the God's Law, and there has only ever been one
Biblical Law: The Torah Law. If you truly believe that the Holy Spirit would tell you something
different  than  what  God  the  Father  told  you  in  His  written  Word,  then  you  cannot  possibly
believe that God is One.  This also means that the Holy Spirit must be telling you something
different than Christ said about sin. Because in the Sermon on the Mount we read this:
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christ said the Law is not abolished; and He said that we are to obey the Torah laws and teach
the  Torah  laws  so  that  we  can  be  called  great  in  His  Kingdom.  But  now  let  me  connect
something else for you between this quote of Yeshua in Matthew and what Peter said in the
Book of Acts. Going back to Acts chapter 5 look at verse 3. There it says:
Acts 5:3 CJB 3 Then Kefa said, "Why has the Adversary so filled your heart that you lie
to the Ruach HaKodesh and keep back some of the money you received for the land?
The word I'm looking at is filled. "Why has the Adversary so filled your heart?" Peter asks.
The Greek word that is being translated into English as filled is pleroo. And indeed pleroo
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
means to fill, or fill up. So I could say to a gas station attendant, "please pleroo (fill up) my gas
tank". We find that same Greek word pleroo in Matthew 5:17. And I bring this up because I
regularly  hear  that  when  Christ  says  that  He  has  not  abolished  the  Torah  but  that  He  has
completed it that to complete means to finish it; and finish means to bring it to an end. So the
Torah may not be abolished but it is ended (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). However when
we reverse engineer that verse and add the original Greek back into it we get:" Don't think I
have come to abolish the Torah, I have come to pleroo it". Messiah is saying He has come to
fill the Law, or fill it up. Pleroo in no way EVER means to finish or end something and it is
never used that way, nor is it ever translated that way in the Bible. If pleroo did mean to finish
or  end,  then  we  would  have  to  translate  Acts  5:3  like  this:    "Then  Kefa  said,  why  has  the
Adversary so brought your heart to an end?" Doesn't make any sense, does it?
The Law was alive and well for Ananias and Sapphira and all the Believers Peter was leading.
Peter's Master Yeshua told him so; and John confirms that sin is breaking the Law (what sin
was  before  Christ  remains  that  way  after  Christ).  And  what  Law  did  the  New  Testament
Believers Ananias and Sapphira break? At least two laws: the Law of Herem, and the Law of
Vow  offerings.  The  price  of  their  sin  was  instantaneous  physical  death  at  the  hand  of  God
when  their  fraud  was  discovered.  And  there  is  no  indication  or  implication  that  they  were
anything other than Believers in Christ in good standing. But they sinned. This first group of
Believers in Jerusalem was indeed saved; but they weren't perfect. And the Lord intended on
protecting the integrity of this new movement of Yeshua followers at whatever the cost.
Let's reread part of Acts chapter 5.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 5:12 - end
After  the  incident  with  the  deceiving  spirit  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  we  find  the  disciples
meeting  at  the  Temple  Mount,  specifically  at  Solomon's  Portico,  a  popular  public  meeting
place. And what were they there to do? They went to perform many more signs and miracles;
the very thing the Sanhedrin told them they must not do.
That part is pretty straightforward; but what does it mean in verse 13 that "no one else dared to
join them"? Who is the "no one else'? This is especially complicated because the next words
say that "throngs of Believers were added to the Lord". What is clear is that those who dared
not join them at Solomon's Portico were reacting to what had just happened to Ananias and
Sapphira  because  vs.  11  says  that  "as  a  result  of  this  great  fear  came  over  the  whole
Messianic community". So while I can't prove it, it seems to me that those who didn't dare to
join some the Apostles at Solomon's Portico to continue public healings and miracles in the
name  of  Yeshua  were  frightened  Believers.  And  even  so,  the  result  of  the  miracles  and
healings done publically at the Temple Mount was that throngs more came to believe.
I think I can put this in modern application that is a little easier to see. One of the main reasons
that  Christians  will  tell  you  that  they  won't  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Israel  is  fear.  That  fear
doesn't make them any less Christian than those who don't have that fear or overcame their
fear and went anyway. On the other hand, those Jerusalem Believers who were too frightened
to want to be part of the healings and miracles being done in perhaps the most visible place in
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
all  of  the  Holy  Lands  missed  out  on  a  huge  blessing.  They  didn't  get  to  witness,  let  alone
participate in, these awesome works of God that changed the lives of scores and hundreds of
people. And be aware; much like the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost caused an ability
for  all  the  disciples  present  to  speak  in  tongues,  but  only  marginally  so  thereafter,  these
miracles of healing on a massive scale only lasted for a short time. Soon, although we might
still hear of occasional healings in the NT, they would become few and far between.
Because Jews were not sold on the idea of medicine and physicians and instead placed their
hope of the healing of their bodies in the Lord, then it is not surprising that the word spread like
wildfire that many people were being healed by Peter and the disciples. So, verse 16 says that
the  sick  and  those  afflicted  with  unclean  spirits  poured  into  the  Temple  Mount  and  were
brought to the disciples to be healed (please note that every one of them was healed)! No
exceptions. Pity those fearful Believers who were too scared to be part of this unprecedented
outpouring of God's healing power. Who knows how many of them had afflictions that would
have been healed?
We are told that the Jews were so anxious to partake of the healing power that the disciples
seemed  to  wield  that  they  were  happy  to  just  to  have  Peter's  shadow  pass  over  them.  We
need to understand that a person's shadow was considered to be part of the person. And no
doubt some amount of local superstition was at play among those who brought the sick and
those with unclean spirits (meaning they were demon possessed). However even their small
amount of faith in what they saw happening with their own eyes such that they sought it for
themselves  and  others  was  sufficient  for  God  to  heal.  The  religious  officials  of  Jerusalem
didn't have such simple faith. Instead they reacted in jealousy and anger and saw this as an
assault on their power and authority.
Verse 17 explains that the High Priest and "his associates" who were Sadducees (meaning
other members of the Sanhedrin who met mostly on the Temple Mount), came running to stop
what they had previously ordered was not to happen. So, Peter is again arrested, only this time
along with other disciples and they are all put into jail. However once again God overturns what
sinful man has ordained; an angel opens the jail and releases the disciples who go right back
to where they were and they start preaching and healing again.
There are a couple of things about this incident that I'd like to address. The first is the identity
of the angel. The words used in English are: an angel of the Lord. Or in Greek an angelos
kurios. Angel of the Lord is a good and accurate translation of the Greek. Some commentators
therefore make this to be that special angel that we hear of a few times in the Old Testament
(as with Hagar out in the desert and near death) that is called The Angel of the Lord. However
that is not what we have here.
In Hebrew the word for angel is malach. Yet malach is really just a generic word that means
messenger, and most of the time it is a human messenger. However sometimes it is an angel,
but  how  do  we  tell  the  difference?  First  is  context.  But  second  is  that  most  of  the  time  a
heavenly  angel  is  called  a  malach  elohim;  that  is  a  messenger  from  God.  A  few  times  a
heavenly angel is called a malach adonai; that is a messenger from the Lord. In other words,
the word malach has to be modified by adding another word to it in order for us to be informed
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
that the messenger is a heavenly one; an angel. That is what is happening here in Acts 5:19.
The  term  "an  angel  of  the  Lord"  is  translating  the  Hebrew  thought  of  a  malach  adonai.
Alternatively, when we are speaking of that special angel, The Angel of the Lord, in Hebrew it
is written: malach YHWH. That is, God's formal name is used. And I believe that this special
"angel"  is  no  angel  at  all  but  rather  it  is  yet  another  manifestation  of  God  Himself  because
anytime the malach YHWH speaks, He speaks on His own authority and uses the first person
I,  me.  A  regular  angel  makes  it  clear  that  he  comes  in  God's  authority  bringing  God's
message, and not his own.
The second issue I want to discuss is something we last discussed some years ago, but it is
time to bring it up again because I fear the need is upon is: and that issue is civil disobedience.
Or more to the point: should a Believer ever engage in civil disobedience against our governing
authorities?  Of  course  there  is  mixed  opinion  on  this,  often  stemming  from  Paul's  famous
command to obey our human government.
Romans 13:1-6 CJB
CJB Romans 13:1 Everyone is to obey the governing authorities. For there is no authority
that is not from God, and the existing authorities have been placed where they are by
God.
2  Therefore,  whoever  resists  the  authorities  is  resisting  what  God  has  instituted;  and
those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are no terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you like to be unafraid of
the person in authority? Then simply do what is good, and you will win his approval;
4 for he is God's servant, there for your benefit. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid!
Because  it  is  not  for  nothing  that  he  holds  the  power  of  the  sword;  for  he  is  God's
servant, there as an avenger to punish wrongdoers.
5 Another reason to obey, besides fear of punishment, is for the sake of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes; for the authorities are God's public officials, constantly
attending to these duties.
Yet,  here  in  Acts  we  see  Peter  and  the  disciples  defiantly  refusing  to  obey  their  local
government because, in their view, they should obey God and not man when the two are in
conflict  (Acts  4:19).  I'm  going  to  try  to  summarize  my  opinion  on  how  Believers  ought  to
approach this very real issue recognizing that by no means is mine the final word.
First, we should understand the difference between preferences and morals. For instance: I
prefer one brand of cereal over another. Or I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. Neither
of these choices involves morals. Instead these are decisions of our intellects that God allows
us  to  make  with  no  heavenly  consequences  for  our  choices.  However  moral  choices  are
different; Believers are to get our moral standards only from God. Example: I choose to insist
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
that  prayer  and  the  10  Commandments  must  be  removed  from  our  schools  for  the  sake  of
evenhandedness  and  societal  fairness.  Or  I  choose  to  tell  the  truth  rather  than  lying  to  a
business associate. These are choices of the will; and the human will was given to mankind by
the Lord as the means by which we make moral choices.
Next,  we  have  to  understand  that  most  of  what  goes  on  between  citizens  and  their
governments involves preferences. Paul brings up the issue of taxes for instance. How much
tax and in what form we pay it is a choice our government makes, and it is a preference as
opposed to an issue of morality. That I don't like it or that it can be burdensome or even unfair
in my view doesn't make it a moral issue. Healthcare is another example of preference. You
can  like  or  dislike  Medicare,  or  Obamacare,  or  the  often  proposed  nationalized  health  care
system  modeled  after  Canada's  and  Europe's.  But  this,  too,  is  a  matter  of  preference,  not
morality. Speed limits, food safety laws, zoning ordinances, even those troublesome EPA laws,
are all preferences and don't usually involve morality but they can anger us and impinge on
our personal freedoms. That some politicians or voters try to frame these matters as moral
issues doesn't make it so. They just use "moral" to evoke greater passion for their position, or
as a means of manipulation.
On  the  other  hand  what  could  be  greater  examples  of  moral  issues  legislated  by  the
government than abortion, homosexuality and * marriage. God is clear about the value of
every life; and is even clearer that marriage is in His province alone and it is a bond between a
male  and  a  female.  We  are  told  in  numerous  passages,  Old  and  New  Testaments,  that
homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight. So for our government to glorify these things
and to force it upon our society is a moral outrage.
I  am  persuaded  that  in  Romans  13  Paul  is  insisting  that  we  obey  our  governments  over
matters that do NOT involve morality. And I'm equally convinced that Peter believes that he
has no choice but to speak God's Word and to spread the Gospel, and to heal in the name of
Yeshua as a fundamental moral issue. Therefore I believe that this is how we as Messianics
and Christians, Jews and gentiles, need to approach the matter.
Civil disobedience in the instance of matters of preference is not called for and in fact the Bible
discourages us from it. I cannot say that there aren't cases where civil obedience is called for
if  the  matters  of  preference  are  in  the  extreme  (such  as  a  90  or  even  100%  tax  on  all  our
income that would render us as slaves). But barring something that extreme we should not
refuse  to  pay  our  taxes  because  we  don't  like  the  system  or  we  think  it  doesn't  meet  our
standard  of  fairness.  However  I  firmly  believe  that  civil  disobedience  is  warranted  and
necessary, if not our duty, when it comes to obeying God over obeying our government who
has made immoral laws and is forcing us to follow them. Peter and the disciples in breaking out
of prison with the Lord's help and going back to healing and preaching, is our example.
I'll close with this possibility that could easily become real in America. In Canada, it is illegal to
speak  against  homosexuality  from  the  pulpit.  It  is  considered  hate  speech  and  there  is  no
sanctuary from it anywhere, not even in the privacy of your home. An infamous case in the
Province of New Brunswick occurred just a few years ago. A Pastor was arrested for teaching
on God's commandments involving sexual immorality, and of course homosexuality was part
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 13 - Chapter 5
 
of it. He was arrested, and brought before a judge who jailed him for 3 months until he finally
agreed to undergo government sensitivity training and signed a document saying that he would
never again speak against homosexuality in his church.
Were there demonstrations of Believers against this? No. Did Believers try to bust him out of
jail?  No.  Did  other  Pastors  intentionally  speak  out  against  homosexuality  from  the  pulpit  in
support and dare the government to arrest them all? No. Did Believers go on strike or block
intersections or hand out leaflets and besiege their government in protest? No. There was no
civil disobedience and so it was kind of a back page story in the Canadian newspapers. And I
say to you unequivocally, there should have been civil disobedience.  If Peter had been there, I
assure you there would have been.
Fellow  Believers,  civil  disobedience  is  absolutely  called  for  when  we  are  being  forced  to
commit  immoral  acts,  or  to  condone  government  sanctioned  immorality.  Should  we  seek
confrontation? No. Should we do everything as peaceably and non-violently as possible? Yes.
But there will be a cost. There is no shame in going to jail or paying a fine over refusing to be
obedient to human civil government but obedient to the Lord. You may even have a business
taken from you for refusing to do the immoral. But if that's the case then that is what should
happen. And whatever happens, we should all count it as joy that the Lord has allowed us to
suffer for His sake.
As we read in this same chapter of Acts that we are studying, in verses 40 -42:
Acts 5:40-42 CJB
40  After  summoning  the  emissaries  and  flogging  them,  they  commanded  them  not  to
speak in the name of Yeshua, and let them go.
41  The  emissaries  left  the  Sanhedrin  overjoyed  at  having  been  considered  worthy  of
suffering disgrace on account of him.
42 And not for a single day, either in the Temple court or in private homes, did they stop
teaching and proclaiming the Good News that Yeshua is the Messiah.
So the issue is not whether Believers can or should act in civil disobedience if that time should
come.  The  issue  to  have  the  courage  to  act,  and  then  to  accept  the  likely  consequences
handed down by our human authorities.
We'll finish up Acts chapter 5 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 14, Chapter 5 continued
Amidst the incredible outpouring of God's Spirit through the miraculous works and deeds of
the disciples, what we see in Acts Chapter 5 is a rising level of tension and conflict between
the followers of Yeshua and the local Jewish Temple authorities. At first it was warnings from
the High Priest Caiaphas to stop healing in the name of Yeshua. When this warning wasn't
heeded  it  followed  with  floggings.  And  in  the  next  chapter  the  tension  spills  over  to  the
Synagogue and thus is taken up by the population of Jerusalem at large. That is, at first it was
those whose livelihoods and status centered on the Temple (the Sadducees, Priesthood and
Sanhedrin) that had issues with Peter and the Believers; and interestingly these issues were
mostly  about  a  perceived  threat  to  their  personal  power  and  authority,  although  the  sticky
matter of resurrection also played a role. But then in Chapter 6 we will see the Synagogue take
up  the  persecution  of  Believers  for  mostly  theological  reasons  that  primarily  interested  the
Pharisees. And these theological issues were less about Holy Scripture and much more about
Synagogue customs and traditions.
From a broad panoramic view we see that the spiritual change in Believers brought about by
the  advent  of  Christ,  and  the  subsequent  empowerment  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  help  but
affect the tangible physical world we live in. The notion that our faith can be separated from our
daily lives, behaviors, decisions and activities is not feasible if true and sincere faith actually
exists within us. The effects of our salvation change everything in us and how we relate to
everything  around  us.  Thus  while  a  political  philosophy  can  indeed  call  for  a  separation
between faith and state, in practice for the true Believer this is an impossibility. This reality
automatically brought Peter and the 11 disciples (as well as their followers) into unavoidable
direct confrontation with the powers-that-be.
I don't recall who said it, but I once heard a person insist that if a Believer isn't a pariah to the
world then they aren't trying hard enough. All throughout the Scriptures we are presented with
a mental picture of a wide, yawning chasm between the ways of the World versus those who
put their trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "What has light to do with darkness?",
Yeshua asks His disciples. Therefore persecution of Believers by the World is inevitable and
we should not be surprised that when we come to faith it not only involves incalculable gain but
also loss in the form of relationships and perhaps other things that have meant so much to us
in our past but are now incompatible with our new life. Peter's admonishment is that since this
fact is inescapable, why not consider it joy if you are being persecuted (experiencing loss) for
your  faith  in  Yeshua  because  in  persecution  and  suffering  there  can  be  no  better  concrete
proof that you are firmly on the side of divine righteousness and holiness?
So it is an irony that a religion of peace and love was born and will remain in confrontation, if
not battle, with the World until Messiah returns to take charge. This confrontation is what we're
seeing in the Book of Acts, and it ought to be what we're experiencing in our own lives. Since
this is the case, then last week we discussed the thorny issue of what we should do when our
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
government  installs  immoral  laws  and  insists  that  we  obey  them.  And  here  in  Acts  we  find
Peter  making  the  decision  that  when  God  orders  one  thing  and  human  government  the
opposite our pathway is clear: obey God, and let the chips fall where they may. This brought us
to  the  matter  of  civil  disobedience,  which  from  the  Believer's  perspective  I  would  define  as
knowingly and openly choosing to disobey immoral manmade laws in order to be obedient to
the Lord. We'll not review that conversation from last week, but I will sum it up by saying that
the answer is that yes, if civil disobedience is our only avenue to obey God, then as Believers
we must take it. And that may well mean we pay a price for it that includes loss of personal
property, fines, or perhaps going to jail. What I'm proposing is not hypothetical or something
that  belongs  in  fiction  books;  it  is  here  and  upon  us  now.  A  few  weeks  ago  in  America's
northwest  a  Christian  bakery  refused  to  create  a  wedding  cake  for  a  *  couple.  The  local
government is currently trying to put them out of business. In France, just this week, a political
leader has been indicted on hate crime charges for saying that Islam is a religion of violence
and it worships a false god. I told you the story in our last lesson of a Canadian minister who
spent 3 months in jail for teaching from the Bible about homosexuality; not publically but inside
the  walls  of  his  own  church,  to  his  own  congregation.  If  this  sort  of  thing  is  not  already
happening where you are, it soon will be so it is better to decide now what you will do.
As we left off last week, Peter and the disciples had been arrested (again) by the Sadducees
and the Sanhedrin for healing the sick in the name of Yeshua and spreading the Gospel of
Salvation  in  Messiah.  While  they  were  in  jail  an  angel  of  God  broke  them  out  in  some
miraculous way such that when the prisoners were found missing, prison officials found the
locks were still intact and the guards were still on duty; but the jail cell was empty. God had
once again overruled that which man had decided, but was against God's will.
Let's re-read part of Acts chapter 5.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 5:17 – end
Through His angel God told the disciples to return to the Temple Mount and continue to speak
about  this  new  life.  The  new  life  was  referring  mainly  to  the  eternal  life  given  to  Believers
through  faith  in  Yeshua.  They  entered  the  Temple  grounds  at  daybreak  meaning  that  their
escape from jail had been during the night. No doubt they went immediately there and had not
returned to their homes, yet. The Temple grounds closed at dark and didn't open again until
daybreak.  Since  it  was  morning  the  High  Priest  arrived  to  his  post  and  convened  the
Sanhedrin. It seems their first order of business was to deal with these radicals who refused to
stop  healing  in  name  of,  and  speaking  about,  their  dead  Master,  Yeshua.  So  they  told  the
prison guards to go and get the men from their cell and bring them. Dumbfounded the prison
officer said that even though everything was secure and the guards were at their posts, the
holding cell was empty.
Escapes like this just didn't happen, and especially when the guards had shown no signs of
being derelict of their duties; in fact there is not even a hint of accusation that the guards had
fallen down on their jobs. Thus the result was that the Captain of the Guards and the High
Priest  were  perplexed  as  this  simply  made  no  sense.  But  suddenly  some  unnamed  person
comes and tells the High Priest that these escaped disciples are right back at the Temple and
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
teaching the people! Luke doesn't tell us who this informant is, but no doubt he was in the
employ of the Sanhedrin because he was aware that the disciples should have been in jail and
now back up on the Temple Mount in defiance of the local authorities.  The Captain himself
went up with a contingent of Levite guards to the Temple Mount and sure enough there they
were. Apparently the Captain went out of his way to treat these disciples respectfully because
he didn't want a riot on his hands. After all, people were getting healed right and left and those
who were afflicted were anxiously waiting and hoping that they too would be healed. Roughing
up the healers wouldn't sit well. So now again standing in front of the Sanhedrin Caiaphas, the
High Priest and President of the Sanhedrin began to interrogate them.
Recall that the first time Peter and John were arrested, they were let go because they had
violated no law. But before they were released the High Priest told them they were not to teach
or heal in the name of Yeshua henceforth. He had essentially made new law (and had the
authority to do so) and Peter and John were acutely aware of it. The High Priest now reminds
them  of  this  so  that  no  excuse  of  ignorance  of  the  law  could  be  claimed.  But  then  the  real
cause  of  concern  for  Caiaphas  slips  out;  "moreover,  you  are  determined  to  make  us
responsible for this man's death" (this man referring to Christ).  What this passage actually
says  is  that  "you  are  determined  to  bring  this  man's  blood  upon  us".  Bringing  blood  upon
someone  means  to  accuse  them  of  unjust  killing;  murder.  Shedding  innocent  blood,  dam
naki in Hebrew, is a grievous sin for which there is no atonement in the Law of Moses.
This  statement  of  Caiaphas  about  the  disciples  trying  to  pin  the  crime  of  blood  upon  him
directly ties to a passage from Matthew 27.
Matthew 27:20-26 CJB
20 But the head cohanim persuaded the crowd to ask for Bar-Abba's release and to have
Yeshua executed on the stake.
21 "Which of the two do you want me to set free for you?" asked the governor. "Bar-
Abba!" they answered.
22 Pilate said to them, "Then what should I do with Yeshua, called 'the Messiah'?" They
all said, "Put him to death on the stake! Put him to death on the stake!"
23 When he asked, "Why? What crime has he committed?" they shouted all the louder,
"Put him to death on the stake!"
24  When  Pilate  saw  that  he  was  accomplishing  nothing,  but  rather  that  a  riot  was
starting, he took water, washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, "My hands are
clean of this man's blood; it's your responsibility."
25 All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"
26 Then he released to them Bar-Abba; but Yeshua, after having him whipped, he handed
over to be executed on a stake.
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
Notice  that  it  was  the  head  cohanim,  head  priest  Caiaphas,  who  persuaded  the  crowd  to
beseech Pilate to let the murderer Bar-Abba go and instead to crucify the innocent Yeshua. Let
me  say  this  way:  it  was  the  chief  religious  leader  of  the  Jews  who  insisted  that  the  people
convict Jesus and pardon Bar-Nabba. So what were the common people to do if the head of
their religion insisted that it was the godly thing to do to choose a certain way? Thus in verse
25 when the crowd followed their High Priest and carelessly said that Yeshua's blood would
be upon them and their children, then the one who bore most responsibility was Caiaphas.
Now,  perhaps  3  months  later,  Caiaphas  is  furious  and  defensive  when  Peter  tells  him  that
indeed the blood of the Son of God is upon him. And for this there is no atonement, no escape.
The High Priest is not used to being talked to like this.
So in Acts 5 verses 29 – 32 Peter answers Caiaphas's question about why they were back at
the Temple doing what he had expressly told them not to do. He says, "We must obey God
rather than men". Peter isn't using the words, of course, but he is speaking of justifiable civil
disobedience. My fellow Believers he is speaking to us as much as he was to the High Priest.
In today's world we (and by we I mean YOU and I) are being battered and threatened with
Biblically  immoral  demands  from  our  civil  authorities  (and  sometimes  from  our  religious
authorities)  to  do  things  that  God  expressly  forbids.  From  *  marriage,  to  homosexual
ministers, to a casual acceptance of a woman's right to kill her unborn child, to insisting that
we back the corrupt UN and a non-people who call themselves the Palestinians; and instead
we are to boycott and in every way possible stand against God's people Israel. We are not to
pray  at  government  functions;  we  cannot  let  our  children  wear  a  Jesus  Loves  You  shirt  to
school. We must accept and embrace adherents to Islam as a show of love and tolerance.
Peter is showing us the way to respond; but do we have the fortitude and courage to do it? I
can guarantee you that you will be called backward, a hater, ignorant, a fundamentalist, and a
heretic is you do respond. Not too long from now I think the word terrorist will be added to that
list. So far, I don't see very many who are willing to brave the accusations of men and stand
up for what is right. Earlier in Acts 5 we read of Believers who were too afraid to go and stand
with  Peter  at  Solomon's  Portico  in  defiance  of  the  civil  authorities'  order  to  not  preach  the
truth of Messiah. So fear of the repercussions of disobeying people in authority in order to obey
God is not a new phenomenon or challenge for Believers. It is something that we shall face
nearly daily until we depart this earth or until Messiah makes His return.
If ever you are looking for a brief summation of the Gospel to tell friends and family who won't
give you anything but a few moments of their time, simply copy word for word verses 30 – 32. I
mean that quite literally; write it down, copy it, reduce it in size, and stick it in you wallets. Let's
go through Peter's Gospel step by step. First he identifies who God is: He is the "God of our
Fathers". Who are the Fathers of the Jews? The Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This
is as important in our time as it was back then. The peoples of the earth worship no fewer gods
today  than  in  Peter's  day;  so  for  someone  to  say  that  they  worship  god  only  has  meaning
when  their  god  is  positively  identified.  And  the  God  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob
worshipped is the God of the Israel, YHWH; there is no other. This is why (to the shock and
anger of many) I openly and firmly say that the God of Islam is a false god; He is not the same
as the God of the Bible. This verse, among many others, is proof. Islam says that their god is
the god of Abraham and Ishmael. Ishmael worshipped the moon god and before God chose
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
Abraham, so did Abraham worship the moon god along with a few others. The God of the Jews
is the God of the Tanakh, the Old Testament. The god of Islam is the god of the Koran, the
Islamic  holy  book.  Thus  Peter  identifying  the  true  God  as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and
Jacob makes a distinction between Him and all other gods.
The next point is that God exalted Yeshua whereas Caiaphas and his crew had Him killed.
Saying Yeshua was raised up is meant both in the sense of resurrection and glorification by
placing Christ at God's right hand in Heaven. As I've mentioned before; God's decision about
Yeshua was the opposite of men's decision, so He simply overturned the decision to kill Jesus
and un-killed Him.
How Messiah was killed also matters; He was hanged on a stake. Hanged doesn't mean to
place a rope around the neck; it means to impale on wood. Of course what this is referring to is
Yeshua's  crucifixion.  This  matters  because  several  Messianic  prophecies  call  out  various
elements of Messiah's execution. We find these in Isaiah 50 and 53, Psalms 22, 34, and 69,
and a few other OT passages. So Yeshua's death fulfilled the ancient prophecies in detail.
After that, Peter says that Yeshua is Ruler and Savior. That is, He is not only the Messiah in
the sense of being a sacrifice for sins. He is also God's chosen ruler over mankind; Christ has
authority.
And why did God make Him Ruler and Savior? Verse 31 says it is so that Israel would do
t'shuvah  (Hebrew  for  repent).  Stop  and  think:  so  that  WHO  would  repent  did  God  make
Yeshua Savior? Israel! So once again the Two-Covenant Theology that the Law of Moses is
for Israel and Christ is for gentiles is shot down. In fact, notice something I've mentioned a
couple of times; Peter has so far shown no interest in gentiles (as relates to Christ and the
Gospel). In fact it will take a particular incident that is recorded in Acts chapter 10 before God
gets the message across to a reluctant Peter that Yeshua is for all peoples, not just Jews.
And,  Peter  says  that  "we"  (meaning  the  12  Disciples  plus  others)  are  witnesses  to  all  this.
They physically and tangibly saw these things with their own eyes. But finally, Peter states that
God gives the Holy Spirit to everyone who obeys Him. Not to some of whom obey Him; and
not  to  those  who  do  NOT  obey  Him.  In  this  context  obeying  God  means  to  welcome  His
Messiah, Yeshua, and to follow His instructions. So the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a key
element, and is part and parcel, of salvation.
Let's sum up Peter's Gospel presentation in 7 points:
1. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
2. Yeshua  was  executed  by  humans  on  a  Cross,  thereby  fulfilling  the  OT  prophecies
about Him
3. God resurrected Yeshua from the dead
4. God exalted Yeshua and has placed Him at His right hand, in Heaven
5. Yeshua is not only Savior, He is Ruler.
6. Repentance  of  our  sins  that  comes  from  the  knowledge  of  Yeshua  is  required  for
forgiveness of our sins
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
7. All who Believe and obey God are given the Holy Spirit to indwell them
Then verse 33 gives us the response from the members of the Sanhedrin to Peter's Gospel
presentation. And what we hear is about what happens when people hear the Gospel; they
react in one of two ways. Either they are cut to the quick, feel convicted and open their hearts
to it; or they are cut to quick and react in anger and reject it. The Sanhedrin was so hostile to
the Good News that the consensus was to put Peter and the disciples to death.
The only thing that stood between the deaths of Peter and the disciples was a man named
Gamaliel. One of the few Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, he was known at that time as perhaps
the greatest Torah teacher in the Holy Land. The Apostle Paul was trained up in Gamaliel's
teaching  academy.  Gamaliel  cautioned  a  much  more  measured  approach  to  this  problem.
Before we discuss what he said, let's see who Gamaliel is.
Gamaliel  was  a  member  of  the  most  prestigious  Pharisee  family  in  the  Holy  Land.  He  was
considered as unrivaled in His knowledge of the Torah. He was also known as Gamaliel the
Elder, which helps to distinguish him from a grandson named after him (Gamaliel II) who was
part  of  the  council  of  Yavneh  that  some  years  after  the  Roman  destruction  of  Jerusalem
finalized the OT canon as we know it today. Gamaliel II also helped to revise the Synagogue
and  Rabbinical  systems  more  or  less  as  has  come  down  to  us  in  our  time.  It  is  so  very
important to our understanding of the New Testament to grasp that Gamaliel the Elder, and
Paul, were products of the Synagogue and not of the Temple. The Synagogue was run by the
Pharisees,  and  their  doctrines  and  teachings  revolved  around  Oral  Torah,  also  known  as
Tradition. We'll talk much more about this at a later time because we must understand that the
same term (such as the word "law") can mean different things depending on whether one is
operating  within  the  principles  of  the  Synagogue  or  operating  within  the  principles  of  the
Temple.  This  is  why,  I  might  add,  Paul  trips  up  scholars  and  laymen  alike  in  trying  to
understand his writings. 
So Gamaliel the Elder makes an eloquent speech to the Sanhedrin, not so much on behalf of
the disciples but rather out of enlightened self interest as well as personal religious doctrine.
He takes the tact that before the Sanhedrin acts harshly it should consider what happened to
other recent movements of radicals and zealots and he offers two well-known examples. The
first is of a man named Todah who convinced people that he was a special person that ought
to  be  followed  (and  no  doubt  this  involved  some  sort  of  rebellion  against  the  Roman
occupation). About 400 men became dedicated followers. However when Todah was arrested
and executed, his movement ended.
Then there was the case of Judas the Galilean who led another uprising against the Romans
about 30 years earlier. Apparently the catalyst for his cause was the Roman census taken for
tax purposes. But as soon as he was captured and killed, his movement also disintegrated and
caused  no  further  trouble.  So  the  lesson,  says  Gamaliel,  is  that  if  a  political  or  religious
movement is a strictly human endeavor then when its founder and leader is killed, his followers
will soon grow disheartened and fall away on their own.
His  conclusion  is  that  since  in  all  likelihood  this  will  be  the  same  case  with  these  Yeshua
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
followers, then no action at all is probably the best policy. However, if in the off chance this
movement  really  is  God-ordained,  then  no  action  is  also  the  best  policy  otherwise  the
Sanhedrin would find themselves fighting against God.
Very  smart  man.  But,  let  us  also  remember  something  else:  the  Pharisees  were  generally
sympathetic  to  their  own  Jewish  people,  whether  radicals  or  ordinary  citizens,  and  were
strongly  against  the  Roman  occupation.  So  while  the  Sadducees  were  beholden  to  the
Romans and always co-operative with them, it was against the law of the Synagogue (run by
Pharisees)  to  turn  Jews  over  to  the  Romans.  Because  before  his  speech  the  Sanhedrin
wanted  to  have  Peter  and  the  disciples  executed,  that  would  necessarily  mean  Roman
involvement  since  Jews  were  not  allowed  to  carry  out  their  own  capital  punishment.  The
Sadducees had no issue with that, but as a Pharisee and leader in the Synagogue system,
even  the  thought  of  turning  Jews  over  to  the  Romans  to  be  killed  went  against  Gamaliel's
convictions.
The Sanhedrin took Gamaliel's advice. After the deliberation the disciples were called in and
once again ordered to stop healing and teaching in the name of Yeshua, and then released.
But not before they were flogged. Why were they flogged? Because they indeed were guilty of
breaking the law. The law they broke had been established just a few days earlier when Peter
and  John  were  arrested  and  plainly  told  that  they  could  not  preach,  heal,  and  teach  in  the
name  of  Yeshua.  So  some  punishment  had  to  happen  or  the  Sanhedrin  would  look  weak.
Obviously  the  flogging  was  not  extreme  as  they  returned  back  to  their  fellow  Believers
immediately afterward.
What a victory for the followers of Christ! They had stood up to the Sanhedrin and not given in
on their faith. This would set the tone for years to come that Believers were willing to suffer
anything to obey Messiah and take the Good News to everyone regardless of opposition. The
CJB says that they were actually overjoyed at being seen as worthy to suffer "disgrace" for the
sake  of  Yeshua.  The  Greek  word  being  translated  as  disgrace  is  atimazo.  Atimazo  most
literally means shame in the sense of loss of one's honor. Among Middle Easterners while the
pain of flogging was certainly a major part of the purpose for flogging, every bit as important
was  that  culturally  flogging  brought  shame  upon  the  victim.  Shame  doesn't  mean  ashamed
like we think of today in the West whereby guilt is the result. Shame was not a feeling of guilt; it
was  a  demeaning  social  status.  A  person  who  was  shamed  was  looked  down  upon  by  his
family, friends and countrymen. It was a very undesirable social stigma because honor was the
status that all people wanted to maintain.
Thus when one was shamed, it became that person's sole goal in life to do whatever it took to
recover  his  or  her  honor.  Different  Middle  Eastern  societies  vary  a  little  in  how  shame  was
resolved  and  honor  recovered.  But  often  this  included  killing  the  person  who  inflicted  the
shame. Thus even today we'll hear of the term "honor killing". This is a killing for the purpose
of recovering an individual's or a family's honor. In fact, shame and honor was the point of
Christ's  famous  turn  the  other  cheek  statement  in  Matthew  5:39.  And  the  idea  was  that  as
horrible as being shamed was in Jewish society, one should be willing to suffer it for the sake
of the Kingdom of God, and not lash out.
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 14 - Chapter 5 cont.
 
Thus if you were a Jewish Believer and saw Peter acting joyfully after his flogging and now in
his condition of cultural shame, it would have caught you off guard. Thus the final statement
that ends this chapter that says that the disciples who still bore their flogging marks went right
on teaching and proclaiming the Gospel both in private in people's homes, and in public at the
Temple, has a much greater meaning than it does to modern day Believers. This is because
shamed people were shunned; they weren't invited into other people's homes. And shamed
people hid themselves; they certainly didn't go out in public on their own volition and draw a
crowd  to  boot,  or  they  would  have  been  publically  ridiculed.  And  yes,  of  course  they  were
continuing in their civil disobedience as they defied the court order to stop teaching and healing
in the name of Our Savior Yeshua.
We'll begin Acts chapter 6 next time that prepares for the story of the first Christian martyr,
Stephen. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 15, Chapter 6
We are going to explore some topics today that are as relevant to helping us to understand the
Book  of  Acts  as  they  are  challenging  to  stay  focused  and  to  digest.  We're  also  going  to
discuss things about the Jewish religious institution that most Jews don't know much about. If
you have studied with us for a few years this will likely be a little easier. So here we go.
As I look back over the several decades of my life, I realize that one of the greatest gifts that
the Lord has given to me was an opportunity to travel internationally. In my corporate career,
as I first started travelling, it was mainly to Western Europe. I was so excited to get to see
different countries I had only read about or seen pictures of! Until then I had never ventured
further than the border towns of Mexico, which wasn't much of a stretch since I was born and
raised  in  southern  California.  So  after  business  meetings  and  on  weekends  I  would  do  as
much  sightseeing  as  possible.  But  after  some  years  of  traveling,  as  the  novelty  of  long
overseas flights and sightseeing wore off, I learned some unexpected and valuable life lessons
that have greatly affected my worldview.
As I then traveled to other continents and spent time in the Middle East and Egypt, my eyes
were  further  opened  and  this  is  where  my  experiences  began  to  bleed  over  into  my
understanding of God's Word. My purpose in telling you this is not as a mini-biography but
rather to say that among the unexpected things I learned was that cultural differences among
nations and people can be profound, and that every individual on this planet has their values,
personal concerns and worldviews shaped by their local cultural (usually the one they were
born into). Before I started to travel I had always accepted the old cliché as unchallenged fact
that people are the same everywhere; same values, same wants and desires, with the only
difference  being  the  details:  language,  economic  opportunity,  available  technology  and  the
stage  of  their  national  development.  It  turns  out  that  those  who  say  that  have  either  never
traveled abroad or never got involved in the local society beyond being a tourist.
Culture and its associated language determine how we perceive the world around us and how
we communicate about those things. In the case of the Bible (especially the New Testament),
culture and language affects even the use and meaning of rather common words and terms.
Using  modern  day  examples  of  what  I'm  getting  at,  what  the  word  justice  means  in  the
Kingdom  of  Jordan  is  nothing  like  what  it  means  in  America.  The  value  of  life  in  Egypt  is
entirely different than it is in Israel. The definition of ethics and morals in Brazil is not the same
as it is in Canada.  And as concerns the Bible it goes so far that what various Bible characters
mean by the words they use changes depending on the era, on what their political, regional,
and religious affiliations are, where they are from and at times who they are talking to.
Early  in  the  Bible  (in  the  Old  Testament),  the  issue  of  cultural  differences  as  it  shapes
worldview is basic; pagan versus not pagan. And at that time that meant Hebrews as opposed
to everybody else. Words and terms were pretty static and so their meaning could be applied
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
more universally. Cultural change occurred very slowly. As we page through the Bible things
accelerate;  we  see  the  Hebrews  begin  to  interact  more  with  gentiles,  and  then  later  as  the
Israelites form national coalitions with former enemies intermarriage becomes the norm, and
then later still as the Jews are exiled and forced to live among and mix in much more intimate
ways  with  gentile  cultures  in  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  Empires,  the  lines  blur  further
between Jewish and gentile society and so the meanings of terms and words gets much more
complex.
If we had retained the Apocrypha in our Bibles, then we could further follow the progress of the
Israelites  when  the  complexities  of  their  society  increased  as  living  among  gentile  cultures
became permanent, even a desired thing. Years before Christ a major split had occurred in
Jewish culture: there were now the Diaspora Jews versus the Holy Land Jews and they had
distinct societal differences and life philosophies. By the time we open the first pages of the
New Testament and are immersed into the era of the Roman Empire, we are dealing not only
with  a  world  cultural  milieu  that  resembles  London  or  New  York  City,  we  have  the  Jews
themselves  broken  into  a  number  of  factions,  each  holding  widely  disparate  beliefs,  often
having  opposing  agendas,  depending  upon  different  sources  of  documents,  doctrines  and
religious authority figures to obtain divine direction, even at times insisting on using a certain
language while shunning others as heresy.  
What I've just explained to you is the intricate backdrop of the New Testament from Matthew
to Revelation. Among Jews there was not just one point of view nor was there a single unified
Jewish  culture.  What  we  must  realize  is  that  whatever  composite  mixture  the  Biblical  New
Testament Jewish society was it in no way resembled the worldviews common in the West
today; so what they had in mind by what various people said often gets lost in translation or is
heavily filtered through a Western mindset as we read the Bible. So today within the context of
Acts chapter 6 we're going to explore some cultural issues that are not meant to complicate or
confuse  us,  but  rather  to  untangle  Scriptural  difficulties  (and  sometimes  seeming  Scriptural
contradictions) and explain better what our various characters in the Book of Acts meant by
what they said, and why they thought the way they did. Without understanding this, modern
Believers will make incorrect assumptions that result in dubious doctrines that can lead us well
away from the truth. So open your Bibles to Acts chapter 6.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 6 all
As this chapter opens we're given a rough time frame; it is around the time that Peter and the
disciples were arrested by the Sanhedrin and then flogged for preaching the Gospel and doing
miracles in the name of Yeshua.  So the setting for this chapter is still Jerusalem, as it has
been since Acts chapter 1. Take note: even though all the disciples are Galileans, just as their
Lord  and  Master  Yeshua  was  also  from  the  Galilee,  the  nucleus  of  their  new  sect  is  in
Jerusalem.  This  makes  sense  because  Jerusalem  was  the  religious  power  center  for  much
(although not all) of Judaism. And for the 12 disciples and the new Believers and also for the
Romans,  these  members  of  the  sect  called  The  Way  were  not  seen  as  a  new  religion  but
rather as a relatively small but quickly growing movement of Jews within Judaism. However not
everything was going well.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
The first verse of Acts 6 explains that there was growing antagonism between two factions that
composed  the  Believers  in  Jerusalem.  And  the  main  bone  of  contention  had  to  do  with  a
perceived unfairness with the distribution of support to widows based on whether they were
Hellenists or Hebrews. The first thing to tackle is what the author Luke had in mind when he
referred to one group as Hellenists and the other as Hebrews. This represents the first of the
troublesome  cultural  differences  among  Jews  that  I  spoke  of  earlier,  which  we  need  to  be
aware of in order to better understand the make-up of the earliest Believers in Christ.
In  Greek  the  words  are  Elleniston  (which  we  translate  into  English  as  Hellenists),  and
Ebraious  (which  we  translate  into  English  as  Hebrews).  This  is  the  first  time  in  the  New
Testament that we find the term Hellenists and while there are some disagreements among
Bible  scholars  on  the  finer  details  of  what  this  term  means  to  communicate,  at  the  least
Hellenists means people whose first language is Greek. Further it means that these people
have,  to  some  level  or  another,  adopted  Greek  and  Roman  cultural  viewpoints  (called
Hellenism). These Hellenist Believers are still Jews; but very likely most are Diaspora Jews
who either made Torah ordained pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Shavuot and as a result of the
awesome Pentecost experience of the arrival of the Holy Spirit decided to remain permanently
in the Holy Land. Or some were those who formerly lived in foreign lands but for whatever
reasons had relocated to Judah at an earlier time.
This distinguishes the Hellenists from the Hebrews who were the native Holy Land Jews. The
Hebrews spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic, or likely both languages as they were similar. I've
explained in other lessons that languages are invariably linked to culture. So there were built-in
cultural differences between the Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew speaking Jews. In fact,
I think it is reasonable to assume that there was a definite language barrier that often created
frustration  and  misunderstanding  between  the  two  groups  of  Christ  followers.  And  to  use
modern terms to help us understand the unease between the two groups, the Hellenist Jews
were closer to what in our time we might call Liberal Christians versus the Hebrew Jews that
we might equate to Conservative or Fundamentalist Christians.
For  anyone  who  has  been  fortunate  enough  to  spend  time  immersed  into  modern  Israel's
vibrant society, the issues among Jews who hail from different languages and cultures is very
much on display. The result is distrust and constant collisions between the cultures. When one
has to deal with the government agencies (which in Israel is a given), and especially when
dealing  with  the  national  healthcare  system,  it  is  often  chaos  because  so  much  of  Israel's
population  cannot  speak  Hebrew.  And  also  because  often  the  social  and  governmental
structure of wherever these Jews have migrated from is totally different from that of Israel and
so they can't make any sense of how the system works. So things can quickly dissolve into
frustration, anger and a lot of shouting. This is what we see happening here in Acts chapter 6.
But what exactly is the issue of the widows that has so many Believers unhappy? The matter
of widows in ancient times is another thing that Western culture doesn't really understand, but
since the situation with widows is often brought up in the Bible, then let's take a few minutes to
get a handle on it. Obviously, there was no government welfare system in those days to care
for orphans, the disabled, the unemployed, or for poor widows. Rather that responsibility fell
mostly to the religious system and to personal charity. However since a widow is the result of a
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
marriage situation, then there were legal sanctions involved.
At the core of most marriages between Hebrews was the Ketubah; the marriage contract. This
is not a marriage license. Rather it is a standard legal agreement that states how property is to
be  handled  during  the  time  of  the  marriage,  what  happens  to  property  if  the  marriage  is
dissolved,  and  especially  how  a  widowed  wife  is  to  be  supported  should  the  unfortunate
occasion arise (and it arose frequently because wives were always much younger than their
husbands).
Legally, within first century Jewish society, a widow by definition possessed a valid Ketubah.
Unlike  in  modern  times  in  Western  culture  where  typically  a  wife  inherits  her  deceased
husband's  property  by  default  unless  there  is  a  will  or  prenuptial  agreement  that  says
otherwise, in ancient times a woman had no rights of property inheritance and no amount of
legal  paperwork  could  change  that.  Therefore  the  Ketubah  spelled  out  the  terms  for  her
support by the deceased husband's family who would inherit the husband's property.
One of the marriage contract principles was that the widow was to be cared for at a level that
would  allow  her  to  maintain  similar  living  standards  that  she  had  been  enjoying  with  her
husband. Usually this involved the widow getting to keep the house that she and her husband
resided in. Property could be designated for use for her support; however she didn't receive
ownership of the property. It is only the income from the property that she could receive and it
was up to the husband's family to be honest and diligent in the property administration.
However if she remarried, all rights to income ceased because she would have received a new
Ketubah from her new husband thus voiding the former Ketubah. Some widows received a
comfortable living. But the common Jews had little if any property and so a widow was often
left without much, if any, support. Thus the Torah Laws commanded that the local community
provide her food and a modest means of support. However from a government standpoint this
support was considered voluntary charity and could not be compelled. Thus the widow had to
rely on the goodwill of her family and of her community. If none was forthcoming she was in a
dire situation.
Typically in the New Testament era the religious entity that oversaw a widow's support was
the Synagogue. The Temple had not played a major role in that matter since before the exile to
Babylon. If there was a dispute it would have been directed to the Sanhedrin.
In our story the 12 disciples felt that the complaint that the Hellenist widows were receiving less
than the Hebrew widows was legitimate so they took action. A general meeting of the local
Believers  was  called  to  work  it  out.  As  is  typical  of  congregations  people  first  look  to  the
leadership to be the ones to handle matters. But the 12 disciples told the congregation that
they didn't think it right that they should take time from studying and teaching God's Word in
order to "serve tables". To serve tables doesn't mean to be waiters.  Rather to serve tables
means  to  take  on  the  responsibility  of  overseeing  food  distribution.  But  as  our  story
demonstrates,  congregation  leaders  need  to  have  the  starch  to  stand  up  and  say  that  they
cannot and must not try to do everything; the congregation has duties as well. And it seemed
good  to  the  disciples  that  food  distribution  to  the  widows  was  an  appropriate  thing  for  the
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
congregation to handle. It was decided that the congregation would select 7 men of especially
good character to supervise the matter. The 12 disciples, if in agreement, would then officially
appoint them and consecrate them into service with the laying on of hands (semichah).
What  is  interesting  is  the  7  they  chose;  every  one  of  them  had  Greek  names.  In  fact,  one
named  Nicholas  was  a  gentile  by  birth  and  had  been  living  in  Antioch  of  Syria,  but  had
converted to Judaism, meaning he had in fact become a Jew. So it appears that the 7 chosen
might have all been from the Hellenist faction, who were the ones making the complaint. Since
the complaint came from the Hellenists it seems the Hellenists were given the job of solving it.
So  here  is  a  great  application  to  take  from  this:  if  you  want  to  complain  about  something
around here don't be surprised if you are tasked with fixing the problem! One thing I'd like you
to notice: if it is so that all 7 were Hellenists then it means that Stephen who would soon be
persecuted and martyred was also a Hellenist Jew.
Verse  7  reiterates  that  the  number  of  Believers  was  constantly  growing  and  substantial
numbers  of  priests  also  joined.  This  issue  of  priests  joining  the  Believers  caused  great
heartburn  for  the  Priesthood;  after  all  it  was  the  High  Priest  who  had  this  group's  leader
(Yeshua)  killed,  and  it  was  the  High  Priest  (as  President  of  the  Sanhedrin)  who  had  twice
arrested  Peter  and  the  last  time  had  him  flogged.  So  priests  joining  the  ranks  of  Believers
would have been seen as disloyal. Priests (common priests) only worked for the Temple two
weeks  per  year.  There  were  24  courses  of  priests  that  served  in  rotation.  So  priests  had
regular jobs and crafts to support them and their families. But, they also would receive some
portion of the Temple sacrifices to supplement their incomes (this was Torah Law). It is hard
for me to imagine that the priests who joined the Believers kept their positions as priests. So
there was a great cost for them to make such a commitment.
It's at verse 8 that the focus shifts to Stephen, previously described as a man full of faith and
the Holy Spirit. Here we see that much like the 12 disciples, Stephen was so exceptional in
faith and fervor that he too was able to perform great miracles. He apparently was also quite
fearless and outspoken and so this provoked fierce hostility among some of the other local
Jewish factions. So in verse 9 we find that a particular synagogue took action against Stephen.
This was known as the Synagogue of Freedmen and it consisted mostly of Diaspora Jews from
such places as Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia and Asia. To help us understand just how far flung
Jewish communities had become since Babylon, consider that Cyrene was in Northern Africa
and today is known as Tripoli, Libya. Alexandria was an enormous port city in Egypt and goes
by the same name to this day. At the time of Christ, Philo tells us that close to a million Jews
lived there. Cilicia lay on the Mediterranean Sea coast in what is today modern Turkey. It is
probably not a coincidence that this place is mentioned because Paul came from Tarsus, a city
in Cilicia. Considering what comes next in Acts chapter 7 (Stephen's martyrdom) and that Paul
was  involved  in  it,  the  Synagogue  of  Freedmen  may  well  have  been  the  one  that  Paul
belonged to. At this time Asia was the name for the western parts of Asia Minor with Ephesus
as its capital. So Asia, as used here, is like saying northern Europe or southwestern United
States.
The name Synagogue of the Freedmen indicates that the Synagogue mostly (or at one time)
represented former slaves, but by no means does that indicate that all members were slaves at
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
one  time  or  another.  There  were  many  Synagogues  in  Jerusalem,  and  some  were  directly
connected to Synagogues that had their origin in the Diaspora.
Here would be a good place to stop, put down our Bibles, and get a better understanding of
Synagogues  in  New  Testament  times.  I'm  not  sure  I  have  the  words  to  emphasize  the
importance  for  modern  Believers  to  understand  what  we're  about  to  learn  because  it  alters
how we read the New Testament and especially how we read and understand the words of
Paul. And it is nearly unanimous in the modern Church that Paul is the foundational source of
the doctrines used by Christianity. So how Believers understand Paul is vital to our faith.
In  New  Testament  times  and  in  the  3  centuries  or  so  leading  up  to  it,  the  world  of  the
Synagogue was separate and distinct from the world of the Temple. And, especially important,
is that words and terms held in common between the Temple and the Synagogue were used
differently and meant different things to those who were attached to the Temple versus those
who were attached to the Synagogues. Even more, it can be generally stated that while priests
and Levites were attached to the Temple, all other Jews were attached to the Synagogue and
only had limited contact with the Temple depending on their distance from it.
We are going to be pretty thorough in our study of the Synagogue and its profound impact on
Judaism and on the writers of the New Testament. Thus we'll not finish today. Let's begin by
briefly reviewing some things we discussed a few weeks earlier. The Jews of the Holy Lands at
the time of the Book of Acts were divided into 3 main religious groups that were something like
political   parties   blended   with   religious   denominations.   They   were   the   Sadducees,   the
Pharisees, and the Essenes. However there was a 4th group called the Samaritans that usually
isn't discussed because even though they considered themselves Jews, and even though they
claimed  Moses  and  the  Law,  they  were  by  design  disconnected  from  Jerusalem  and  the
Temple. This situation goes back in its origin to the time of King Jeroboam around 925 B.C.
who reigned not long after King David and then Solomon.
The Samaritans in time had set up their own Temple at Mt. Gerizim in Samaria, and instituted
their own Priesthood, and so shunned the Temple and Priesthood in Jerusalem. They used
their own version of the Scriptures called the Samaritan Pentateuch, that was indeed the Torah
but  with  a  few  key  modifications  to  validate  their  beliefs.  I  won't  talk  further  about  them
because  they  are  not  important  to  our  study  just  yet.  Just  know  that  although  they  called
themselves Jews, in fact they represented tiny remnants of the 10 northern Israelite tribes most
of  whom  had  mixed  their  genes  with  foreigners.  Certainly  some  of  the  Samaritans  were
legitimately connected to the tribe of Judah (at least from times long past). However it was
because of the Samaritan's refusal to adhere to the Jerusalem based Temple of the Holy Land
Jews,  or  even  the  Synagogue  based  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  that  they  were  ostracized  and
considered as impure and untouchables.
The  Sadducees'  sphere  of  operation  was  the  Temple.  The  Pharisees'  sphere  of  operation
was  the  Synagogue.  The  Essenes  disconnected  from  the  Temple  because  they  deemed  it
wicked and corrupt (they were right); but they also seemed to remain relatively friendly to the
Synagogue,  even  if  they  didn't  join  it,  and  so  set  up  their  own  religious  centers.  They,  too,
wanted nothing to do with the Samaritans.
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
It  is  vital  to  pause  and  remember  that  God,  through  His  Torah,  provided  one  place  of
communal worship and ritual and one only: the Wilderness Tabernacle that was used during
the exodus, and then later the Temple that was located on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem. But when
the Babylonians destroyed the Temple in 587 B.C., and hauled the Jews away to Babylon, the
one authorized place of communal worship and ritual was no longer in existence and most of
the Jewish population now lived as captives in a foreign land almost a thousand miles away
from the Holy City. Thus we read in Daniel about the Jews finding alternative ways to meet
together, pray and worship.
It  is  due  to  the  difficult  circumstances  of  Babylon  that  the  Synagogue  was  created.  The
Synagogue at first was a place of meeting for Jews that was apart from the pagan worship
places.  The  people  were  taught  the  Torah  and  the  Prophets  to  keep  the  religion  of  the
Israelites  alive.  Without  the  priests  to  oversee,  lay  people  became  the  Synagogue  leaders.
Torah prescribed Temple ritual was replaced with study and prayer. Traditions and customs
were developed to deal with the situation of Jews living far from home, in a gentile controlled
world, where at least for a time the Temple didn't exist and Jerusalem lay in ruins. Without the
Temple the Jews couldn't atone for their sins or renew ritual purity when they became defiled.
The Traditions and customs created by the Synagogue purported to solve that problem. So
when  King  Cyrus  the  Persian  liberated  the  Jews  from  Babylon  and  took  their  Empire  from
them, 95% of the exiled Jews didn't return to the Holy Land. This 95% is what we today called
the Diaspora....the dispersed....Jews.
As the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah explain, the Temple was eventually rebuilt and the city of
Jerusalem  restored.  The  Priesthood  was  re-established  and  sacrifices  on  the  Temple  Altar
resumed.  But  by  the  time  this  had  occurred,  the  Synagogue  had  become  a  reality  if  not  in
name,  then  in  concept;  the  last  couple  of  generations  of  Jews  had  grown  up  within  an
alternative religious system. The Jewish exiles were comfortable with it and didn't question its
ways and rules, and the new religious authorities had no interest in giving up their power and
positions  merely  because  the  Temple  was  once  again  operative.  They  had  adapted  and
learned to live without the need for a Temple and Priesthood for more than 70 years. Besides,
in  the  years  ahead  the  95%  of  Jews  who  lived  so  far  away  from  the  Temple,  worshipping,
praying, learning, and being governed by local religious authorities was far more convenient
and practical. Thus eventually the Jews found themselves with 2 religious systems each with
its own religious authority: the Synagogue and the Temple.
Let me be clear: it is not that the Synagogue disavowed the Temple or was against the Temple
or discouraged their people from going to the Temple. There is no evidence that ritual sacrifice
took place at the Synagogue, and the Temple was still the center of the Jews' religion. The
Synagogue  authorities  did  not  see  themselves  as  the  new  Priesthood.  It  was  expected,
especially  of  those  who  lived  close  enough,  that  Jews  should  go  to  the  Temple  to  observe
certain observances and appointed times found in the Law of Moses. Yet, we are left with the
thorny issue of the Jews having one God-ordained system, the Temple, which found itself in
some  ways  in  competition  with  a  relatively  new  man-made  system  the  Synagogue.    The
relationship between the Temple and the Synagogue was muddy and messy. Yet Jews found
no conflict of conscience in belonging to a Synagogue whose authorities determined how the
Law ought to be followed by its members, while at the same time submitting to the authority of
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 15 - Chapters 6
 
the High Priest on matters of ritual and sacrifice that could occur only at the Temple. So it is as
though the result of the invention of the Synagogue was that Judaism had compartmentalized
Jewish life; everyday activities and behavior was legislated and dictated by the Synagogue.
The occasional ritual and sacrificial needs were legislated and dictated by the Temple. That
may not be how the Lord had ordained it; but that is how it was.
Christians  joke  that  (at  least  in  America),  if  you  don't  like  the  Church  you're  attending  just
cross the street to another one. And it is true; I was born and raised in a tiny community of less
than  1000  people;  but  we  had  at  least  4  churches  operating  all  the  time  and  sometimes  5.
None of them were full. It was not much different in Jerusalem. Even in the Holy City with the
Temple rising up on Mt. Moriah in all its splendor and glory; a place where people could go
every day if they wanted to that they might study, pray and worship,  the Jerusalem Talmud
reports  that  there  were  480  Synagogues  in  Jerusalem;  the  Babylonian  Talmud  puts  that
number at 394. Either way that is a staggering number of houses of worship for one city. But it
also demonstrates the fractured nature of Judaism and the Synagogue system.
The bottom line is that wherever there was so much as a colony of Jews a Synagogue would
be found there. Thus the Synagogue and Synagogue life is central to the New Testament. It is
no wonder that Yeshua often found His way to Synagogues to reach out to His people. CJB
Luke 4:16 Now when he (Yeshua) went to Natzeret, where he had been brought up, on
Shabbat he went to the synagogue as usual. He stood up to read......
Paul, too, of course frequented Synagogues. CJB Acts 17:2 According to his usual practice,
Sha'ul went in; and on three Shabbats he gave them drashes from the Tanakh..........
Thus when we read Paul, we must always understand that he is the product of the Synagogue
and not the Temple. This is proof enough that Oral Tradition, which was the foundation of the
Synagogue system of behavior and liturgy, had a profound effect on Paul's life, thoughts, and
vocabulary.
We'll continue on this topic next week and finish up Acts chapter 6. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 16, Chapter 6 continued
Ready to get a little "heavy duty" today? I hope so.
As we opened Acts chapter 6 last week it was prudent that we take the time to explore some
ancient Jewish cultural issues in  order for us to better understand not only what was taking
place throughout the Book of Acts, but also throughout the New Testament. And then more-so
how  the  principles  that  are  revealed  ought  to  be  brought  forward  and  into  application  2000
years later for modern day Believers, Jewish or gentile. And I want to forewarn you that our
exploration  has  only  just  begun,  because  the  advantage  of  the  Hebrew  Roots  approach  to
Bible teaching is to teach God's Word within the context of the culture of the people who wrote
it. What they meant is what the Bible means and how we are to understand it. But it is a Bible
era Jewish culture that is being presented to us; so it is not only foreign to gentile Christians,
but very often foreign to modern Jews.
Therefore  I  consider  it  so  important  for  serious  Bible  students  at  this  point  in  your  learning
process  that  I  want  to  review  in  some  depth  because  much  of  what  we  discussed  isn't  the
easiest thing in the world to assimilate and absorb; however it does make all the difference in
extracting the truth and thus discerning correct doctrine from the New Testament.
Early in chapter 6 we found that this group of Believers that Peter was leading in Jerusalem
was  neither  entirely  harmonious  nor  as  like  minded  as  we  might  have  hoped.  And  so  a
complaint arose that of the two main factions that formed the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem,
one  felt  it  was  being  discriminated  against.  Those  two  factions  are  given  the  names  of
Hellenists  (Elleniston  in  Greek),  and  Hebrews  (Ebraious  in  Greek).  Thus  the  first  thing  to
understand  is  that  while  Hellenists  and  Hellenism  (which  means  Greco-Roman  culture  and
lifestyle) is often portrayed as negative or wrong, in the context of the Believers in Jerusalem it
is a relatively neutral term that is simply meant to identify a set of common cultural traits about
one faction. However, then as now, people from one culture regularly criticize or see as inferior
practices and customs from people of a different culture.
Being a Hellenist means that a person's mother tongue is Greek. Only a few of these Greek
speakers could also speak Hebrew. Second it means that they were Jews from the Diaspora
who  were  born  and  raised  in  foreign  nations  outside  of  the  Holy  Land.  Diaspora  Jews
represented around 95% of all living Jews, making the Jews who were born and raised in the
Holy Land a distinct minority; but a minority that generally felt superior to the foreign Jews.
Third  it  means  that  whatever  their  Jewish  religious  experiences,  the  experiences  of  the
Hellenists were formed by the teaching of Rabbis at their Synagogues. And finally it means
that the Bible they used was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible dating
from 250 B.C. And this Bible had a few small but significant differences between it and the
Hebrew Bible. Notably, the vast majority of Diaspora Jews never found their way to Jerusalem
and the Temple for the Biblical Festivals or to make sacrifices on the altar for atonement for
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
their sins because they lived hundreds if not a thousand or more miles away and such a trip
was  so  expensive  and  time  consuming  as  to  be  a  practical  impossibility  for  all  but  the
wealthiest or most zealous. Yet they didn't usually feel that they were living in a state of sin or
ritual impurity for not being able to sacrifice at the Temple Altar; the Synagogue had come up
with customs and Traditions that purported to give them atonement by other means.
The other faction of Jerusalem Believers called Hebrews was called so mainly because their
native language was Hebrew. They were born and raised in the Holy Land and even though
they,  too,  revolved  their  daily  religious  lives  around  the  Synagogue  and  teachings  of  the
Rabbis, they did have regular connection with the Temple as they were near enough to attend
all the required Festivals, could come to make altar sacrifices for atonement as needed, and so
on. So to be clear: the term Hebrews in this context doesn't mean that this faction of Believers
was racial and ethnic Hebrews and the Hellenist faction was not. It more spoke to language,
place of birth, and a general lifestyle philosophy; not a lack of Hebrew genealogy.
Next we spoke about the subject that was at the center of the dispute between the Hellenist
and Hebrew Believers, which was the distribution of food to widows. I won't go over all the
information  we  discussed  last  week  about  widows  in  that  era.  Just  recall  that  supporting
widows  who  had  little  to  no  other  means  of  support  was  charity  and  that  fell  mainly  to  the
members  of  whatever  Synagogue  she  belonged  to.  Peter  and  the  11  other  disciples  who
formed the leadership of the Jerusalem Believers all belonged to the Hebrew faction; they were
born in the Holy Land (Galilee), spoke Hebrew, and were comfortable going to the Temple for
ceremony and sacrifice. So how much prejudice the Hellenist widows were suffering from that
was real and intended, or it was mostly perception from people who felt more like outsiders
that  were  dealing  with  language  and  cultural  barriers,  is  hard  to  tell.  Nonetheless  the  12
disciples  thought  the  problem  valid  enough  that  they  had  the  congregation  select  7  men
specifically to supervise support for all the widows. Due to the Greek names of the 7 it seems
all but certain that they all must have been from the complaining Hellenist faction. This group
even included one who was a gentile by birth but who had fully converted to Judaism, and
another who was an exceptionally spirit-filled man that would soon become the first martyr for
his faith in Yeshua: Stephen.
Next  we  discussed  that  while  the  3  best  known  and  socially  acceptable  religious/political
parties of Jews were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, in fact there was a 4th that most
Jews of that day refused to recognize as being legitimately Jewish at all: the Samaritans. As
their name implies they occupied an area called Samaria, which the Jews of that day no longer
considered as part of the Holy Land, so despised were the Samaritans. The Samaritans were
seen as traitors to Judaism, the Synagogue and the Temple for a number of reasons. First was
because the Samaritans were an ethnic mixture of tiny remnants of the 10 northern Israelite
tribes who had somehow managed to avoid deportation at the hands of the Assyrians some
700 years earlier and along the way had interbred with gentiles. Some were from the tribe of
Judah (Jews) and had also gone to Samaria and in many cases they too married foreigners
and had children. But second, from the religious perspective, the Samaritans committed the
unpardonable act of erecting their own Temple in Samaria at Mt. Gerizim and creating their
own separate Priesthood. They went so far as to make modifications to the Torah of Moses to
reflect  their  beliefs  (this  is  called  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch)  and  they  did  not  accept  any
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
writings as Scripture other than their modified Torah. That is, they didn't accept as Scripture
any of Israel's Prophets. Thus they were judged by the Holy Land Jews as more unclean and
untouchable than if they had been gentiles and were worshipping some of the standard pagan
gods. For the Holy Land Jews the Samaritans perverted and mocked everything that was holy
to them and they hated them for it.  So the Samaritans had no ties whatsoever with the two
standard Jewish religious institutions of that day: the Synagogue and the Temple.
Then we got into a substantial discussion about the Synagogue as an institution completely
separate and apart from the Temple. This is no trivial matter; it is perhaps one of the larger
keys that, if understood, can unlock the mysteries of the meaning of many New Testament
passages and none more so than the difficult words of Paul; I'll briefly point out the highlights
of that topic.
First, we find no mention of the Synagogue in the OT. That is because the Synagogue was a
purely  manmade  institution  eventually  created  by  the  exiled  Jews  in  response  to  their
predicament of having been hauled off to Babylon by the Babylonians in the early 6th century
B.C. The Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, the Priesthood abandoned, and the Jews found
themselves  captives  living  in  a  gentile  world  among  pagan  gods.  They  could  not  ritually
cleanse themselves, they could not eat kosher food, they could not sacrifice to atone for their
sins, and none of the required Levitical rituals of the Torah for Shabbat or the Festivals could
be accomplished.
Thus at first, mainly for the purpose of separating themselves from the pagan Babylonians,
they  began  meeting  together  and  soon  they  acquired  buildings  and  appointed  leaders  and
teachers  and  in  a  few  decades  they  established  a  complex  system  of  religious  authority,
teachings,  and  new  traditions  that  addressed  their  many  conundrums.  While  much  of  this
solved practical problems that the Jews faced none of this was God-ordained. The Synagogue
would not be led by priests but rather mostly by self-appointed or elected lay people. But the
Synagogue served a useful purpose in Jewish social and religious life mainly by keeping the
far flung Jewish communities connected with a common identity. They didn't assimilate into
the gentile world and disappear as what seemed to have happened to their Israelite brethren,
the 10 "lost" tribes. The Synagogue and Judaism were born together out of necessity and in
time became the center and pulse of Jewish life.
As  we  get  into  the  era  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testament,  even  though  the  Temple  and
Priesthood had been restored and operating for centuries, the Synagogue continued to flourish
as  well.  The  party  of  the  Pharisees  had  become  the  leaders  of  the  Synagogue.  Religious
schools had been set up, and the most famous was that of Gamaliel. These schools had no
connection to the Priesthood or Temple; rather they were the source of Rabbis for the many
and growing number of Synagogues. And what is so critical for us to grasp is that the teaching
of the Synagogue centered on Oral Torah, also known as Tradition, or as Jesus once called it
"Traditions of the Elders".
This stood in direct opposition to the Temple and Priesthood that was run by the party of the
Sadducees.  They  did  not  accept  as  valid  the  Traditions  of  the  Elders  as  taught  in  the
Synagogue;  rather  they  accepted  only  the  written  and  original  Torah  of  Moses  and  the
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
Prophets as their Scriptural authority.
Let's discuss the concept of Oral Torah, Tradition, before we get back into Acts chapter 6 so
that we can all be on the same page. Oral Torah or Tradition are interpretations of the Torah
Law (that is, the Law of Moses). It is somewhat like doctrine is to Christianity; it's only that
different terms are used. In Judaism they use the term Traditions; in Christianity the parallel
term is doctrines. That is, within Christianity every denomination has decided to interpret the
Bible in its own way, and comes to some conclusions about what Scripture passages mean.
Then when these interpretations are adopted by Church authorities, they're called doctrines.
For example, Southern Baptists have the doctrine of eternal security that says that once you
are saved there is no way and no circumstance under which you lose your salvation. This is
their    interpretation    of    Scriptures    in    that    regard.    Catholics    have    the    doctrine    of
Transubstantiation whereby when one takes communion, the wine literally becomes blood (not
symbolically but it actually, supernaturally changes form) just as the bread literally becomes
flesh. This is their interpretation of the Scriptures in that regard. Both the Southern Baptists and
Catholics however would not really agree that these are merely interpretations; rather to their
minds this is what Scripture plainly says. So, from their perspective they are teaching the Bible
when they teach their doctrines; they are considered one and the same. There is nearly no
distinction made between doctrine and Scripture except perhaps at the academic level.
It  is  the  same  with  Judaism.  We  can  rightly  speak  of  Oral  Torah  as  interpretations  of
Scripture, but essentially to the minds of Rabbis and their Jewish congregations the Oral Torah
is  merely  the  discovery  of  the  true  inherent  meaning  of  the  written  Torah,  thus  there  is  no
difference between the written Torah of Moses, and the Oral Torah of the Rabbis.
Saul Kaatz in 1923 published a book in Germany that tried to help explain to mystified gentile
Christians about the Jewish mindset of Oral Torah (aka Traditions of the Elders). He said this:
"Every interpretation of the Torah given by a universally recognized (Jewish) authority
is regarded as divine and given on Mt. Sinai, in the sense that it is taken as the original
divinely willed interpretation of the (Scriptural) text; for the omniscient and all-wise God
included  in  His  revealed  Torah  every  shade  of  meaning,  which  divinely  inspired
interpretation thereafter discovered."
So, from the Jewish viewpoint, every interpretation given by recognized Jewish Rabbis in the
Talmud was actually something Moses had received from God at Mt. Sinai long ago, and over
time inspired Sages and Rabbis discovered these truths. It was not received in the sense that
these  interpretations  were  also  written  down  by  Moses,  but  rather  the  interpretations  were
supernaturally and organically contained hidden within the letters of the Torah in the same way
that the fruit of a tree is contained in a kind of hidden form within the seed from which came the
tree. So if the written Torah of Moses is the tree, then the Oral Torah is the fruit of that same
tree. Since they both come from the same seed, then they are essentially of identical divine
substance.
Again; while that concept might sound strange to gentiles, it is only because of the terms that
are used in Judaism. If I gave you as an illustration that the Bible is the tree, and the doctrines
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
of the Christian Church are the fruit of the tree, then because they both come from the same
seed (and the seed is God), then they are organically inseparable and therefore essentially of
the same divine substance. What I just told you is generally speaking the Church's position
about  Church  doctrines  even  if  you  weren't  aware  of  it;  that  is,  there  is  no  discernable
difference between the Bible and Church doctrine. If the Church teaches their doctrine, they
feel they are teaching you the Bible. If the Synagogue teaches their Traditions, they feel they
are teaching you the Torah. While I don't agree with that stance of either the Church or the
Synagogue, some would fight to their last breath to defend it.
What I just told you isn't usually ever expressed to the congregation within Christianity. Rather
it is taken as a given that doesn't need expression. So we can listen to months and years of
Church sermons that might not include much more than a few words taken from a handful of
Bible verses, but at the same time Pastors insist that what they are doing is teaching the Bible.
The same goes with Judaism. The Synagogue leaders will teach what Rabbi so and so says
from  the  Talmud  and  expound  on  it  for  hours,  while  perhaps  including  no  more  than  a  few
verses from the written Biblical Torah. But at the end of the day, they will insist that what they
are  doing  is  teaching  the  written  Biblical  Torah.  This  perspective  is  only  rarely  challenged
because it represents a couple of thousand years of custom.
This brings me to my last point before we get back into Acts chapter 6. The result of this reality
is that the meaning of terms gets blurred. As regards Judaism, the term Torah can mean what
it originally meant: the written Torah of Moses as we find it in the Bible. Or Torah can mean
Oral Torah because Judaism sees that as essentially the same as the written Torah. Thus the
term law can mean one of the Laws of Moses as written and found in the Torah of the Bible, or
it can mean a tradition or ruling as handed down by a Rabbi as his interpretation of the Torah
of Moses. And in the New Testament we run across this challenge of regularly trying to discern
what a Bible character means by the terms he or she uses (and especially as concerns the
term "law").
The reason I've taken so much of your time with this over the last couple of weeks is this:
in the New Testament ALL the writers were products of the Synagogue system to one level or
another. None were priests so far as we are aware, so they certainly weren't products of the
Temple system as run by the Sadducees. So what does that tell us about their vocabulary and
the meaning of the terms they used? It means that they were schooled in Tradition, Oral Torah,
by  their  Synagogue  leaders  and  their  vocabulary  reflected  that  important  fact.  Certainly
Scripture  was  read  and  known,  and  Scripture  was  believed  in  and  trusted;  some  knew  the
Torah and the Prophets better than others who knew mostly Traditions. But at the same time
the  Oral  Torah  that  interpreted  those  Scriptures  was  seen  as  every  bit  as  divine  and
authoritative and trustworthy as the original Scriptures themselves.
Before we move on I want to give you as an example of the effect of these Jewish cultural
realities the Sermon on the Mount, whereby Yeshua was seen as great Rabbi (and a Rabbi is
by definition a product of the Synagogue).  So He did NOT quote Scripture per se. Rather He
spoke to His listeners in the same way as all Rabbis of His era did; He referred to what earlier
interpreters of Scripture said (remember how Yeshua said, "you have heard that our fathers
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
were  told"  and  then  went  on  to  say,  "but  I  tell  you"),  and  followed  by  giving  His  own
interpretation of Scripture.  This procedure was fully accepted and expected by the Jews sitting
there on the hillside listening to Him because they understood the process of how Oral Torah
was created (and no doubt not everyone accepted this Rabbi's teaching). Thus to the minds of
those hearing Jesus, He was merely creating new Tradition in the customary way (even if it
was more profound than anything they had ever heard before because they were hearing it
from God!). 
We aren't done with learning about the Synagogue and its deeply rooted role in Jewish life
and, most importantly for us, in the creation of the New Testament. But for the time being we'll
pull off of this fascinating subject and get back to Acts chapter 6.
Let's begin reading at chapter 6 verse 8.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 6:8 – end
Here we meet the exceptional follower of Christ, Stephen. And since he was so full of grace
and of Holy Spirit power God did great miracles through him. And now for the first time we see
the Synagogue come against Stephen and the Believers. And since their interpretations of the
Torah  couldn't  stand  up  against  Stephen's  they  took  the  bold  action  of  accusing  him  of
blasphemy. Specifically they said that he blasphemed against both Moses and God.
To blaspheme Moses doesn't mean to go against Moses the person. Rather it means to go
against what God gave to Moses. Thus the sense is to go against the Torah given at Mt. Sinai.
Rabbis  were  infamous  for  hurling  the  accusation  at  one  another  that  they  are  blaspheming
Moses  or  destroying  the  Torah  when  they  disagreed  on  important  interpretations.  So  the
charge of blaspheming Moses wasn't as serious or unusual as it might sound.
But what does the far more serious charge of blaspheming God mean? How does one do that?
Obviously there was no question among anyone that Stephen was a Jew who worshipped the
God of Israel; so he didn't renounce God. In this era the accusation of blaspheming God was
nearly exclusively about one thing: pronouncing God's formal name out loud or even writing it.
This was a Synagogue tradition that began in the late 300's B.C. There is no evidence that the
Temple  shared  that  belief.  After  all,  the  Sadducees  who  ran  the  Temple  were  purists  and
accepted only the original written Torah of Moses and the several Prophets as authoritative.
And  the  OT  is  not  only  NOT  against  pronouncing  God's  name,  it  uses  God's  name  6000
times, and has almost every Hebrew Bible character of any importance speaking God's formal
name. The Hebrews were encouraged in the OT to call on God's name. In fact, many Hebrew
names included God's formal name, although usually in abbreviated fashion.
Interestingly  the  prohibition  against  using  God's  formal  name  stemmed  from  a  Synagogue
ruling  that  a  child  should  never  call  his  father  by  his  given  name  as  it  was  deemed
disrespectful. From that grew the notion that if it was disrespectful to call one's human father
by his given formal name, how much more so to call our Heavenly Father by His formal name.
Thus  began  the  Oral  Tradition  that  it  was  wrong  to  pronounce  God's  formal  name,  and
eventually it was considered so serious as to be blasphemy.
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
I want to stress this yet again. The OT not only doesn't prohibit the use of God's name, it says
God's  people  should  call  on  His  holy  name.  And  further,  the  only  admonition  and  ruling
against  using  God's  name  is  found  in  the  rabbinical  rulings  (such  as  the  Mishna  and  the
Talmud). And what are the Mishnah and the Talmud? Oral Torah, Tradition. And who wrote the
Mishnah and the Talmud? The Rabbis. And what did the Rabbis represent? The Synagogue.
Let me be clear; I'm not in any way demeaning the Synagogue or the Rabbis. I'm saying that
when doctrines and Traditions of men begin to take over, Biblical truth inevitably takes a back
seat. Or as Christ once famously said:
Matthew 15:1-9 CJB
1  Then  some  P'rushim  and  Torah-teachers  from  Yerushalayim  came  to  Yeshua  and
asked him,
2 "Why is it that your talmidim break the Tradition of the Elders? They don't do n'tilat-
yadayim before they eat!"
3 He answered, "Indeed, why do you break the command of God by your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who curses his father or
mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say, 'If anyone says to his father or mother, "I have promised to give to God
what I might have used to help you,"
6 then he is rid of his duty to honor his father or mother.' Thus by your tradition you
make null and void the word of God!
7 You hypocrites! Yesha'yahu was right when he prophesied about you,
8 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me.
9 Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were
doctrines.'"
In no way was Christ putting down all Traditions and customs and Jewish doctrines. He was
saying that while there is a place for them in our faith, they are to be subservient to the Holy
Scriptures.  Oral  Torah  (Tradition)  is  NOT  equal  to  the  written  Torah  of  Moses.  Church
doctrines are not equal to the Bible. And this is because Traditions, customs and doctrines are
manmade and therefore subject to opinion and error, while the Holy Scriptures are God-made
and thus infallible.
Notice that we are expressly told in verse 13 of Acts 6 that those who made the accusations
against Stephen were FALSE witnesses. What do false witnesses do? They lie and fabricate.
So we don't have to speculate; the charges against Stephen of constantly speaking against
the Temple and against the Torah are false charges. And what exactly are the charges that
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 16 - Chapters 6 cont.
 
amount to blasphemy in their eyes? The charges are that Stephen says Yeshua was going to
destroy  the  Temple,  and  that  He  has  changed  CUSTOMS  that  Moses  handed  down  to  the
Jews. Note: it was not the Laws of the Torah that they accused Stephen's Master of changing,
but  rather  the  CUSTOMS.  That  is,  they  are  speaking  about  one  thing  only:  Oral  Torah,
Traditions. But recall; to the Jewish mind Tradition and the actual written Torah were the same
things. And indeed I demonstrated to you that the Sermon on the Mount was given in typical
rabbinical  fashion,  as  Yeshua  first  said  what  earlier  interpretations  of  the  Law  were  (earlier
Traditions) but now what He says is the proper interpretation. Indeed Stephen was challenging
the currently accepted Oral Torah rulings and customs. But he, like Yeshua, was in no way
challenging the Torah of Moses.
As for the charge that Yeshua was going to destroy the Temple? We could go deeply into that
as many commentators have. But I have only one thing I want to say about it; this was a silly
and phony charge designed only to illicit murderous emotions. From their viewpoint how could
Yeshua destroy the Temple? He was dead and gone! Crucified in front of them. The accusers
certainly didn't believe that Yeshua was alive, resurrected, and living in Heaven with God! No,
in the end this was about one thing only: Stephen was speaking against the Traditional Torah
interpretations  as  taught  in  the  Synagogues.  Thus  we  are  told  that  it  was  Jews  from  the
Synagogue of the Freedmen who were making these charges.
The final verse of Acts chapter 6 has Stephen standing before the Sanhedrin. Thus this street
mob  did  not  defy  or  overwhelm  the  Sanhedrin  to  lynch  Stephen.  Whatever  happened  to
Stephen would be decided, or at the least condoned, by the Supreme Court of the Jews. And
whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in  what  they  decided,  they  were  the  legitimate  civil
government of the Jews.
I love the final words of this chapter as it says Stephen's face looked like the face of an angel.
And angels are regularly depicted as emitting bright light; so from the Jewish perspective, and
according to the now voluminous Synagogue traditions concerning angels and demons, the
idea  is  that  Stephen's  face  was  bright  and  shining  in  a  supernatural  way.  Luke's  idea  in
reporting this phenomenon was to compare the glow of Stephen's face with the same Moses
that Stephen is on trial for supposedly speaking against.
Exodus 34:29-30 CJB
29 When Moshe came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the testimony in his
hand, he didn't realize that the skin of his face was sending out rays of light as a result
of his talking with [ADONAI].
30 When Aharon and the people of Isra'el saw Moshe, the skin of his face was shining;
and they were afraid to approach him.
Next  week  we'll  begin  with  Acts  chapter  7  and  the  trial  and  martyrdom  of  Stephen.  We're
going to discuss some fascinating things about Stephen that will surprise you.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 17, Chapter 7
The final words of our last lesson were meant to prepare us for today's teaching in Acts
chapter 7. Here we find Stephen, full of grace and power, standing before the Sanhedrin with a
mob of angry Jews wanting to lynch him for supposedly blaspheming Moses, God and the
Temple. We were told in Chapter 6 that Stephen had gotten into an argument with members of
the Synagogue of the Freedmen (no doubt over doctrine) and they simply couldn't compete
with or refute his wisdom, nor could they match the authority with which He spoke because if
was not a fair fight: he had the Holy Spirit and they didn't.
How many in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots movement have tried diligently, patiently,
lovingly to show Bible teachers, professors, Pastors and Elders, Rabbis, even Believing friends
and family members what God's Word so plainly says about a number of important subjects
that are central to a correct understanding of our faith; only to face anger and accusations of
heresy when these religious leaders have no defensible response to explain their dubious
doctrines. Thus Acts Chapter 6 verses 10 and 11 explain that because those Stephen tried to
persuade had no defensible response to Stephens teaching, they retaliated by using false
witnesses to fling false accusations against Stephen. However in the name of intellectual
honesty, it is also the case in the Biblical era that witnesses can be called false not for lying,
but rather when it is discovered that they did not witness the actual event, are presenting
second hand evidence or hearsay, and thus their testimony is disqualified. We can't be 100%
certain that the latter isn't the case, but we can be 99.9% certain that it is not, because it is
inconceivable that Stephen actually suggested that Yeshua (who is dead) would destroy the
Temple, or that Stephen denied Moses. 
As Stephen is being interrogated we are told that his face began to glow like that of an angel.
This compares with what happened to Moses as he descended from Mt. Sinai after a close
encounter with God. So Luke's idea in including this bit of information (that otherwise adds
nothing to the narrative) is to show that God was present with Stephen and that what Stephen
was about to say in response to the questioning is divinely inspired.
Let's read Acts chapter 7, the longest continuous speech by anyone in the Book of Acts.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 7 all
Verse 1 specifies who is questioning Stephen; it is the High Priest who at this time was
Caiaphas. Because the High Priest doubles as the head of the Sanhedrin, it is his prerogative
to lead the questioning of the accused if he chooses to do so. And the question is: "Are these
accusations true?" The response of Stephen is long and doesn't really address the question
directly. Why didn't he just say "no", or perhaps explain that the charges were exaggerated or
greatly distorted from what he had said? We need to keep at the forefront of our minds as we
view this story that the false accusers were from a local Synagogue. Thus while they
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
occasionally visited the Temple for sacrifice and ceremony, their main allegiance and the place
where they received their religious doctrines was their Synagogue. So was it really so
upsetting to them that Stephen supposedly said something against the Temple? Yes and no;
the matter of the Temple we will discuss shortly in a way you won't expect. But the primary
issue was their claim that he was blaspheming Moses. What they meant by blaspheming
Moses was that to dispute their Traditions was blasphemy. And this was because the
Traditions (also called Oral Torah) that were rabbinical interpretations of the written Torah of
Moses, was the epicenter of the Synagogue and whatever it was that Stephen said they took it
as an assault on those cherished Traditions.
Essentially Stephen was charged with teaching against everything that Judaism stood for.
We've spent much time in trying to understand the place and nature of the Synagogue in New
Testament times, but we need to also remember the nature of Judaism at this same time.
Before Babylon, Jewish life and religion sought direction from the Temple; that was the God-
ordained way and it was generally the only source available. It was the Priests and Levites job
to (among other things) teach the people the Law of Moses and then to enforce it. If we were to
invent a name to call the body of teachings and the way of life that the Priests taught we could
rightly label it Hebrew-ism. That is, the civil code for the Hebrews with its rules and regulations
was essentially the Torah itself. And it was to be followed by all Hebrews since it was given by
God at Mt. Sinai through Moses to all Hebrews (all 12 tribes plus the Levites).
However several centuries later that situation changed dramatically. Around 700 years prior to
Christ, 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel were sent away in exile to foreign lands for their
disobedience to God. The Assyrians were the Lord's hand of judgment. The 10 tribes that
formed northern Israel were conquered and scattered throughout the vast Assyrian Empire and
due to their disinterest in being Hebrews any longer, most assimilated into the world of the
gentiles throughout the giant Asian continent, and others were sent into North Africa. What
remained of the Hebrews in the Holy Land was the tribe of Judah and most of the tribe of
Benjamin; but rather quickly Benjamin assimilated into the tribe of Judah. The name that was
given to the people of Judah was Jews. And soon enough they too would be exiled from the
Holy Land, only for them it would be into Babylon.
Because one result of the Babylonian conquest was the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple, and thus the end of a functioning Priesthood, so the Hebrew-ism that used the Torah
of Moses as its civil and religious code was soon replaced with something else. And that
something else was a mixture of Torah and newly formed traditions. Since this was only
applicable to those of the tribe of Judah (the 10 tribes no longer being present, having melded
into the gentile world), this new hybrid religion became the basis of Judah-ism; the religion of
Judah. The Jews at that time didn't actually refer to their religion as Judaism; that is something
that came centuries later. Nonetheless, all the practices and customs that in time gained the
label of Judaism were being developed and practiced by the Jews during and after their
Babylonian captivity.
So to be clear, it was against this hybrid religion of Torah and Tradition whose home was the
Synagogue, a religion that we call Judaism, that Stephen is said to have offended. Remember;
the Temple was controlled by the Priests and the Sadducees. And the Temple and the
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Sadducees denied the validity of the very thing that the Synagogues taught, believed in, and
demanded adherence to: Traditions, Oral Torah. So, as mainstream Christianity regularly
claims, was Stephen distancing himself from the Law of Moses and from the culture of the
Jews? That is, that the Believing congregation to whom he belonged was in process of ceasing
to be Jews and instead becoming Christians?
Verse 2 immediately answers that question. "Brothers and fathers" he says, "listen to me".
Stephen makes it clear that he regards himself as one of them, and they remain a part of him.
He is in no way separating himself from the Jews of Judea. And from here he goes on to recall
the heritage that he feels he shares with his brothers and sisters, the heritage that all Jews
know starts with Abraham whom he calls "our father" (not your father or my father, but rather
OUR father). So far so good.
It is important to note that everything that Stephen is quoting about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
Joseph is theoretically taken directly from the Torah so that he could demonstrate both his
knowledge of the Torah as well as his dedication to it. But a problem arises that isn't easy to
spot unless you know what to look for. If we check with the Hebrew Bible, some of the details
that Stephen quotes don't line up. I need you to pay close attention to this, please, because
this isn't trivial. For instance, in verse 4 Stephen says that during the time Abraham was living
in Haran, his father died and then God made Abraham move to the land (that is to Canaan,
which is now Judah). Genesis 11:26 says that Abraham's father Terach was 70 when
Abraham was born and then Genesis 11:32 specifically says that Terach died at the age of
205. But Genesis 12:4 says that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran. 70 plus 75
equals 145; so that would make Terach 145 years old when he died, not 205. Yet 205 is what
the Hebrew Tanakh clearly says. One of these numbers has to be incorrect, but which one?
And this was as evident to the people of that day as it is to us. So what to do?
We talked last week about the Samaritans who had established their own Temple and
Priesthood, but who also modified the Torah in some ways to match their traditions. And one of
the ways they did that was to change Genesis 11:32 to say 145 years instead of 205. In other
words, they decided that there was an error in the math and so they corrected it in their Torah.
The Sanhedrin to whom Stephen was speaking would likely have immediately noticed the use
of the number 145 instead of 205, since this was an area of dispute. Would they say then that
Stephen had made a basic mistake that most Jewish children would have recognized? No.
This would have told them something important that infuriated them all the more; Stephen was
quoting the Samaritan Pentateuch; the holy book of the despised Samaritans. Why would he
do that? In order to keep this train of thought and move to the point I would like to make, drop
down to Acts 7:14. There we have Stephen saying that Jacob and all of his relatives went
down to Egypt to meet Joseph; all 75 of them. However the Hebrew Bible says this in Genesis
46:
Genesis 46:27 CJB27 The sons of Yosef, born to him in Egypt, were two in number. Thus
all the people in Ya'akov's family who entered Egypt numbered seventy.
The Hebrew Tanakh says 70, not 75. However in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Greek
Septuagint, the number is indeed 75. Remember that I pointed out last time that Stephen was
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Hellenist Jew; his name was Greek, his first language was Greek, and he would have originally
come to Judah from somewhere foreign. Here's the crux: was Stephen perhaps from
Samaria? Could he have been a Samaritan? The people present would have caught the
differences between the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Torah because the Synagogue mostly
used the Greek Torah while the Temple strictly used the Hebrew Torah. But there is yet
another clue that pretty well nails matters down. Move down now to Acts 7:15 and 16. There
Stephen says that the place that Abraham bought for a tomb for his family was in Shechem,
and he bought that tomb from Hamor of Shechem. Listen however to the Hebrew Tanakh (the
Old Testament) and what it says about where Abraham bought a burial plot and from whom.
Genesis 23:17-20 CJB
17 Thus the field of 'Efron in Makhpelah, which is by Mamre- the field, its cave and all the
trees in and around it- were deeded 18 to Avraham as his possession in the presence of
the sons of Het who belonged to the ruling council of the city.
19 Then Avraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Makhpelah, by Mamre,
also known as Hevron, in the land of Kena'an. 20 The field and its cave had been
purchased by Avraham from the sons of Het as a burial-site which would belong to him.
Yes, I know that Stephen was talking about burying Jacob and Joseph, and not Sarah, in
Shechem. However once again listen to another passage from the Hebrew Tanakh:
Genesis 49:29-33 CJB
29 Then he (Jacob) charged them as follows: "I am to be gathered to my people. Bury me
with my ancestors in the cave that is in the field of 'Efron the Hitti,
30 the cave in the field of Makhpelah, by Mamre, in the land of Kena'an, which Avraham
bought together with the field from 'Efron the Hitti as a burial-place belonging to him-
31 there they buried Avraham and his wife Sarah, there they buried Yitz'chak and his wife
Rivkah, and there I buried Le'ah-
32 the field and the cave in it, which was purchased from the sons of Het."
33 When Ya'akov had finished charging his sons, he drew his legs up into the bed,
breathed his last and was gathered to his people.
The point is that the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, says that Jacob was buried in the same cave
that Abraham buried Sarah and that cave was bought from Efron the Hittite, and it was near
Hebron, not Shechem.
So why the glaring discrepancy? Was Stephen just a poor student of the Bible and he is
mumbling nonsense? No. The Samaritan tradition was that Abraham bought the cave from
Hamor and buried everyone near Shechem, not Hebron. Why this different tradition? Because
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Shechem was in Samaria and Hebron was in the south of Judea. Stephen was quoting the
Samaritan tradition about the burial place of the Patriarchs. Why else would he do that if he
weren't a Samaritan? He certainly wouldn't have learned that at the Temple. I went through
this little Sherlock Holmes exercise to make the point that it is nearly certain that Stephen was
himself a hated Samaritan who had practiced the Samaritan religion until sometime before he
became a Believer. My speculation is that he was probably a Jew who lived in Samaria from
birth, and so was of course taught the Samaritan traditions, and he had not yet let go of the
Traditions of the Samaritans, or just as likely didn't even know that the Hebrew Bible had a
different tradition. And once that became clear to his accusers from the Synagogue and the
Sanhedrin, he was quite literally a dead man walking. To them Stephen being a Samaritan
would explain his supposed bent against Judaism and it explains to us why the men of the
Synagogue reacted so irrationally about the supposed destruction that Stephen's master
Yeshua (even though he was dead) was going to wreak upon the Jerusalem Temple. After all
the issue of the Temple was a very sensitive one; the Samaritans had a rival Temple at Mt.
Gerizim and thought the Jerusalem Temple illegitimate and vice versa. Jealously and rivalry is
a terrible thing, especially when it involves religion. But Stephen being a Samaritan would also
explain the blind hatred that they felt towards him (once they figured out that indeed he was a
Samaritan) and thus their murderous desire to kill him immediately.
Let's back up now to verse 3, which begins Stephens's long overview of the history of the
Hebrews to which he claims brotherhood. We'll not go over every detail, but rather simply
follow his path. Since it was with Abraham that God made a covenant that created the Hebrew
people and set aside a particular land for a national homeland, it is the logical place to start. I
want you to notice that the main point Stephen makes about Abraham concerns the land. The
land is the key, because the land and the people (the Hebrews) are organically connected.
Thus we see Stephen speak about how Abraham was to leave his land, and go to a land that
God would show him. And then after Abraham's father Terach died, only then did Abraham
journey to that land. And next Stephen says that although Abraham didn't receive any land for
his own, the land did go to his descendants.
Then in verse 8 land is used in a different way. Before Abraham's descendants receive the
land God has set aside for them, they will be aliens in a foreign land where they will be slaves
for 400 years.
The next milestone is that Abraham received the rite of circumcision as a sign of the covenant
made between God and Abraham. To reiterate: the Abrahamic Covenant primarily concerns
land. Note something that is often misunderstood: circumcision was first used as the sign of
the Abrahamic Covenant, which happened around 5 or 6 centuries before it was incorporated
into the Covenant of Moses. So while the Abrahamic Covenant was built around land, the
Covenant of Moses was mostly about people; it was about how redeemed people are to
behave and conduct themselves before the Lord, and about what a relationship between God
and His people is to look like. Circumcision was incorporated into the Law of Moses; thus we
see how circumcision regarding Abraham's covenant that was about land, was integrated with
the Mosaic Covenant that was about God's people. God made the two issues of His people
and His land inseparable through the single sign of circumcision.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Next the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are passed to Isaac, and of course Stephen
points out the all important circumcision ceremony, the B'rit-milah.   He quickly moves to
Jacob, son of Isaac, as next in line and that Jacob became the father of what Stephen calls the
12 Patriarchs. He is not confusing the well know term "the Patriarchs" (meaning Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob); rather he is just using the term patriarchs in a more general way as referring
to founders of the 12 tribes of Israel.
The next stage of history that Stephen recounts is of the life of Joseph. There are for sure two
points to this part of Stephens's speech. First is that it shows the fulfillment of God's oracle to
Abraham that Israel would wind up in a foreign land as slaves before they received their own
land inheritance, and how it came about. Second is that Stephen points out how Israel
continued with a long pattern of at times being faithful, and at other times being rebellious. And
how God would punish, and then rescue, with the goal of redemption for Israel's grave
trespasses and thus never closing the door on the possibility of God's mercy and Israel's
restoration. Yet, there may well be a third point that Stephen is making by focusing on Joseph;
Joseph's life somewhat mirrors that of Messiah Yeshua. And considering that Stephen was all
about preaching the Gospel, I am convinced that he intended to draw this parallel. And he
does so by pointing out that Joseph was the savior of Israel by bringing the clan to Egypt to
survive a famine. But, at first Israel didn't recognize their own brother, and thus didn't know
for a time the identity of their savior as one of their own.
Stephen recalls that once it was established that Joseph would save Israel, his father Jacob
brought all his clan to Egypt, and that it was there that he died, but his bones were brought with
Israel when they left Egypt for Canaan. And says verse 17, this was a fulfillment of God's
oracle to Abraham to first send Israel to a foreign land, and then rescue them from it and bring
them into their own land, the Promised Land.
Now Stephen sets the stage for the advent of Moses by briefly speaking about Israel's terrible
time in Egypt shortly before their deliverance when newborn Hebrew babies were cruelly killed
on order of the Pharaoh. And this was due to the dramatic multiplying of Israel's population in
the most impossible of circumstances. One of the things being accomplished here is that
Stephen is cementing his personal identity with Moses, calling him beautiful, so that any
charges against him that he would blaspheme or deny Moses would be seen as absurd. 
Stephen goes on to explain that in a wonderful irony, Moses (a hated Hebrew) was raised in
Pharaoh's household and given the best education. But then verse 23 tells us something that
ties in with our long discussion of Judaism and the Synagogue. Stephen says that Moses was
40 years old when, still as a member of Pharaoh's household, he decides he wants to go visit
his Israelite brothers. This of course doesn't mean that there was a journey involved; it just
means that Moses had been segregated from the Hebrew community that lived next to the
ethnic Egyptian community. Here's what I want you to catch: nowhere in the Torah do we find
that Moses was 40 years old when he went to see his Israelite brothers. So did Stephen just
use a bit of rhetorical license to invent a number to embellish his story? Of course not; in fact it
was a number that at least the mob that wanted to kill him would have agreed with. You see,
the number 40 is a Tradition; it came from the Synagogue. And since Stephen was, as were all
Jews in this era products of the Synagogue (except for the Priests and Levites who were
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
products of the Temple), he simply took this Tradition of Moses being 40 at this time as
immutable fact. I point this out because it is another opportunity to demonstrate that the
thought processes of the writers and Bible characters of the New Testament....all of it..... revolve
around the Synagogue and Oral Torah (Tradition) that was taught there. They did so
automatically and unconsciously because that's what they knew; it was simply part of who
they were. It is not unlike Christianity accepting December 25th as the date of Jesus's birth.
There is not one hint in the Bible that this is so; but because Roman Church authorities long
ago deemed it to be so, few in the modern Church would even think to question it. December
25th as Christ's birthday is a manmade tradition with no basis of historical fact or record, and
neither is Moses being 40 at the time of the event in Egypt that Stephen refers to historical fact
or record; it too is a manmade tradition. But Lord help anyone who would dare to challenge
either of these points. That is the power of long held customs and traditions and doctrines
especially in a religious environment. Sometimes the effect is benign; at other times it is
malignant and causes grievous doctrinal error.
In verse 25 Stephen makes the point that Moses, like Joseph, was rejected by his brother
Israelites (again, his point is to make an obvious connection to Yeshua). But, says Stephen,
Moses was rejected because the Hebrews didn't understand that he was to be their deliverer,
their savior. So he kind of softens his rhetoric by making the Israelites early rejection of Moses
and Joseph (and by association, Yeshua) due to ignorance rather than knowingly choosing to
deny the Son of God.  Next Stephen quotes Exodus 2:14 and says that when Moses
intervened in a dispute among Hebrews they retorted, "Who made you ruler and judge over
us....?" So what we see is Moses' second act as a Mediator; but this time as a mediator
between 2 Israelites. And these combatants question Moses' authority over them. But more
they remind Moses of his first act of mediation when he killed an Egyptian for striking a
Hebrew. So here we see God's future Mediator mediate with both gentiles and Hebrews on
earthly matters. But we also see how hard hearted the Hebrews had become. As a result,
Moses fled to Midian from fear of prosecution for murder.
Stephen now turns to the moment when Moses became God's official Mediator, as he
describes the Burning Bush event. But once again we see Synagogue Tradition play a role in
Stephen's speech. He beings verse 30 by saying, "After 40 more years an angel appeared to
him in the desert...." In fact the Torah does not say Moses' age when he fled Egypt, nor how
long he spent in Midian. The best Torah reference we get in determining Moses age is in
Exodus 7:7 when we're told that Moses was 80 years old the first time he confronted
Pharaoh.  So here Stephen merely quotes Oral Torah, assuming it as fact, and I must say that
I find it mildly amusing that since his speech wound up in the New Testament, Moses being 40
when he fled Egypt and spending 40 years in Midian is taken by the Church to be Biblically and
historically accurate when in fact it is ancient Synagogue Tradition.
Now Stephen starts to narrow his message and purpose by saying that Moses, the one who
was rejected by the people of Israel saying, "Who made you a ruler and judge?", is in fact the
very ruler that God had chosen to be ruler and judge over His chosen people, Israel. In other
words, the people were wrong to question Moses; in fact they at first ridiculed and rejected
God's appointed ruler and judge. But this time Stephen adds to his characterization of Moses
by adding the word "ransomer". This of course starts to draw his story closer and closer to
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 17 - Chapter 7
 
Yeshua. And Stephen says in verse 36 that it is this man, Moses, who as God's deliverer took
Israel out of Egypt through great miracles and signs, and led them through the desert
wilderness for 40 years. And, knowing that the Synagogue members and the High Priest and
the Sanhedrin whom he was addressing wouldn't in any way dispute his logic and conclusion
to this point, he now reminds them that this same Moses that was venerated by all Jews is the
one who said that at a later time God would raise up a prophet like him from among the
Israelites. The unspoken question is: so who is this prophet like Moses?
Stephen returns to the theme of disobedience by saying that now that Moses' authority from
God had been revealed the people of Israel did not want to obey Moses. In other words, this
was not an act of ignorance but rather a display of willful rebellion against God (and by
extension against Moses, God's Mediator). The intended implication is that it is not Stephen
who is speaking against Moses but rather his accusers who are the rebels. And he uses the
incident of the Golden Calf as an illustration of willful, knowing, intentional refusal to obey God.
There Aaron, High Priest of Israel (and don't miss Stephen's implied connection between
what Aaron did and what Caiaphas is currently doing), built god images and led the people into
rebellion and into worshipping false gods.
As we near a close for today, I'll pause for just a moment so that we don't lose the forest
amidst the trees: this immense, undying respect that Stephen is showing towards Moses IS his
answer to Caiaphas about whether the accusations against him are true. And at the same time
Stephen is turning this mock trial on its head from being the accused, to becoming the accuser,
by comparing his persecutors with the worst of the historical rebels against God and Moses,
making them one and the same. And don't think for a moment that everyone there didn't fully
comprehend what Stephen was doing.
We'll conclude the story of Stephen as the first recorded Believing martyr next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 18, Chapter 7 continued
We are well into Stephen's speech of Acts chapter 7, which will end in his death by stoning.
His speech is essentially a recounting of Israel's record of unfaithfulness towards God, and
being stubbornly resentful towards God's prophets, beginning with the Patriarchs. His words
are not meant to defend himself (something the accusers were expecting); they were meant to
turn the tables to accuse his accusers. The discourse is also meant to remind the members of
the Sanhedrin, as well as the angry men of the Synagogue of the Freedmen who were the
ones who dragged Stephen to the Jewish High Court and claimed that he had blasphemed
both  God  and  Moses,  that  the  history  of  the  Hebrews  is  all  about  their  rejection  of  God's
prophets  who  bring  messages  of  warning  and  chastisement  from  the  Lord,  and  then  their
bewilderment when they are oppressed by foreigners and exiled from the Promised Land. 
During  his  speech  Stephen  draws  intentional  parallels  between  Joseph,  Moses,  David  and
Yeshua. This infuriates all who were present even more. But in reality Stephen was doomed
nearly  from  the  beginning  of  his  acceptance  of  Christ  because  of  his  background  and  his
nature. Stephen was an outspoken, bold and fearless man who today we would probably label
as  a  fanatic.  He  was  also  a  Hellenist  Jew,  which  meant  that  his  first  language  was  Greek.
While this was the norm outside of Judea, in Jerusalem it was frowned upon by the Holy Land
Jews,  even  though  Greek  was  heard  everywhere  throughout  the  holy  city.  It  seems  all  but
certain that he was also a Samaritan; a people group that were despised and rejected by the
mainstream Jewish community. Now as a Believer in Yeshua as Messiah, he was part of a
small  minority  faction  within  Judaism;  one  whose  reason  for  existing  (worshipping  the
deceased  carpenter's  son  from  Nazareth  as  the  Jewish  Messiah)  was  not  accepted  as
legitimate by most of the rest of Judaism. Stephen was a pariah to Jews, to Judaism, to the
Temple and to the Synagogue, and he seemed to have gone out of his way to speak his mind
to anyone that would listen. He was about to pay the ultimate price for his uncompromising
stance on Yeshua.
Let's re-read the last half of Acts chapter 7.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 7:35 – end
Remembering that the reason for Stephen's trial is that he supposedly blasphemed Moses,
Stephen reminds his accusers that their forefathers as captives in Egypt did not want to obey
Moses even after all the miracles and signs he performed there. In fact, a few weeks after their
escape from Egypt (and their tyrannical Pharaoh) many of the Hebrews began turning their
hearts  back  towards  Egypt.  Stephen  refutes  the  charge  against  him  of  being  opposed  to
Moses by declaring that Moses was ruler and ransomer of Israel. Of course, unless Stephen
was naïve, he full well knew that the charge against him was not that he was actually against
Moses the man; it was that Stephen questioned the Traditions of the Elders (Oral Torah) that
the  Synagogue  insisted  is  what  Moses  taught.  In  Christian  terms,  Stephen  challenged  the
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
doctrines of the local church.
Stephen makes a comment in verse 37 that quotes Deuteronomy 18:15, obviously making the
point  that  Stephen's  Master  Yeshua  is  the  one  being  referenced.  Let's  read  the  entire
passage in Deuteronomy to understand Stephen's point.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19 CJB
15 "ADONAI will raise up for you a prophet like me from among yourselves, from your
own kinsmen. You are to pay attention to him,
16 just as when you were assembled at Horev and requested ADONAI your God, 'Don't
let me hear the voice of ADONAI my God any more, or let me see this great fire ever
again; if I do, I will die!'
17 On that occasion ADONAI said to me, 'They are right in what they are saying.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen. I will put my
words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I order him.
19 Whoever doesn't listen to my words, which he will speak in my name, will have to
account for himself to me.
First, Stephen is saying that this is a Messianic prophecy of Moses. Yeshua once said this
about Moses in John chapter 5:
45 "But don't think that it is I who will be your accuser before the Father. Do you know
who will accuse you? Moshe, the very one you have counted on!
46 For if you really believed Moshe, you would believe me; because it was about me that
he wrote.
47 But if you don't believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Yeshua is referring to what Stephen just quoted.
Second, Stephen is saying that Israel should be expecting this new prophet and understand
that he is going to be in the mold of Moses more than in the mold of King David (and in the
mold of King David is what Judaism generally expected, and continues to expect, the Messiah
to be). Third is that this prophet Moses speaks of will be one of their kinsmen, meaning he will
be a Hebrew. And finally, since God will raise up this prophet like Moses, and God will put His
own words into this prophet's mouth as with Moses, then those who refuse to heed him are
directly disobeying God and will be held personally liable to God for their sin.
So Stephen says that the people rejected their deliverer, Moses; and even more when Moses
went up to Mt. Sinai to receive God's Word they grew impatient for his return and so during his
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
absence began devising other ways to satisfy their longings and desires. The Israelites began
worshipping other gods, specifically making a calf god, offering a sacrifice to it, and holding a
celebration over what they had made with their own hands. The result? God turned away from
them.
Let's pause for a second and face something that no one in the modern institutional Church
wants to hear, but sadly, it is so: this description of what the Israelites did while waiting for
Moses to return is precisely what is happening to many Christians as we wait for Yeshua's
return. Moses came because God sent him, and Moses redeemed God's people. Christ came
because God sent Him, and Christ redeemed God's people. Moses ascended to the top of Mt.
Sinai, and there to be with God to receive God's Word directly from God. Christ ascended to
the true dwelling place of God, Heaven, to receive God's Word directly from God His Father.
Moses and Messiah Yeshua both promised they would return after a time of being with the
Father.
But  the  people  of  Israel  grew  restless  and  tired  of  waiting,  and  decided  that  Moses  was
perhaps  not  going  to  return,  or  had  been  indefinitely  delayed.  They  wanted  answers  and
solutions  now.  They  began  to  doubt  Moses  so  they  slipped  back  into  their  old  ways,  and
determined that their intellect and their ability to craft their own solutions with their own hands
was the right way to go. They found a willing religious leader to go along with them in Moses'
brother, Aaron. The result was that they worshipped a god who was not their god (it wasn't
even real), even though they were confident that they were worshipping their god. Christianity
during the 2000 years Christ has been gone has grown impatient. God's Word has grown old
and tired among many followers, and so Christians by the millions have slipped back into their
old ways, no longer trusting God's Mediator, Yeshua, and by association also not His Word,
the Bible. Instead some of our religious leaders have used their own intellects and agendas to
fashion new doctrines and ways made with their own hands and minds that are pleasing to
their followers.
Slowly these new doctrines have caused the Bible to be whittled down from its original. Early
on the Old Testament was severed away by the Roman Church as irrelevant to Christians;
today many denominational leaders warn that merely reading the Old Testament is dangerous
to our faith. Thus it is common practice in our time that a Bible contains no Old Testament
(especially  for  new  Believers)  only  the  New.  Inevitably  the  New  Testament  has  also  been
whittled down with the argument that really all that matters is our salvation in Christ; anything
and everything beyond that is secondary or optional.  How we live our lives after our salvation
is not that important; only that our ticket to Heaven has been validated. On this earth our only
real duty is to "love", in whatever way we choose to define love. So mostly only the Gospels
matter  along  with  perhaps  a  few  select  passages  from  Paul's  writings.  Thus  a  "Bible"  that
consists only of the Gospels is now common and is often what is handed out to new prospects
by evangelists. Imagine the message that sends to those who are seeking God.
The  result  is  that  too  many  Christians  now  worship  a  god  and  a  savior  that  bears  little
resemblance to the God and Savior of the Scriptures. Long ago I taught you that there are only
2 ways for us to know God: His name and His characteristics. When Believers no longer know,
or care to know, God's characteristics beyond love and mercy, and don't think that we have
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
any obligation to learn His Word or to obey His commandments, we are worshiping a god that
is a product of our intellects and that is just as false as the calf god that was fashioned by
human hands out in the Wilderness. That a substantial group of the Israelites bought in to the
manmade  calf  god  was  a  proof  to  themselves  that  it  must  be  right  and  true.  That  many,
perhaps a majority of Christians have bought into the newer manmade definitions of God, of
Messiah, and of His Word means to Believers that it must be right and true.
God used the smallest and least prominent of the tribes of Israel, the Levites, to rid Israel of the
calf worshipper leaders and to restore truth. God is in process today of raising up the smallest
group of Believers who long to learn His Word, to rediscover God's written truth, to reinstitute
God-ordained appointed times and worship practices, and to obey His commandments. The
history of the Israelites perfectly parallels the history of Christianity.
If you think this is not the case then consider the next Scriptural quote by Stephen, which is
taken from the Book of Amos chapter 5:25 - 27. And by the way, if you were to compare this
quote by Stephen as it is presented in Acts to what is found in Amos in the CJB, you will find
distinct differences because the CJB is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. The quote we
find coming from Stephen's mouth in this passage in Acts is taken from the Greek Septuagint.
This once again points up how the Synagogue differed from the Temple, as the vast majority of
the Synagogues were Hellenist.
So that we can all follow along, I'll re-quote exactly what Stephen is recorded to have said
in Acts 7:42 and 43:
42 So God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the stars- as has been
written in the book of the prophets, 'People of Isra'el, it was not to me that you offered
slaughtered animals and sacrifices for forty years in the wilderness!
43 No, you carried the tent of Molekh and the star of your god Reifan, the idols you made
so that you could worship them. Therefore, I will send you into exile beyond Bavel.'
This is what the prophet Amos told the Israelites was their history and their condition; to say
that Amos's listeners didn't much like what they heard is a monumental understatement. Thus
few believed what God's prophet Amos said about Israel and to Israel. Why didn't they accept
it? Their answer would have been: "When did we gather to together in the worship place of
Molekh ?" When did we worship the god Reifan ?" That is, Israel didn't feel that they were
worshipping other gods; they sincerely believed they were worshipping their god Yehoveh; but
in fact the god they worshipped was the god that they imagined. Therefore Yehoveh sent them
away from Him. The same thing is happening today in Christian places of worship around the
globe (thankfully not all, of course). So the question for Believers is: will you react as the crowd
did when Peter stood before them and indicted them for believing false doctrines of men and
rejecting the true Word of God, whereby they repented and wanted to know how to change? Or
will you react as do the Sanhedrin and the Synagogue members when Stephen indicted them,
and they hardened their hearts and minds and demanded that yet another of God's prophets,
Stephen, who brought them this Word from God be killed?
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
Starting in verse 44 Stephen's address shifts a bit to the matter of the Temple. This was yet
another  accusation  from  the  Synagogue;  that  is  that  Stephen  was  supposedly  speaking
against the Temple claiming that Yeshua would destroy it. The narrative of the Temple moves
us into the time of King David, yet another Messianic figure well recognized by all Jews. The
saga  begins  with  the  Wilderness  Tabernacle,  a  tent.  God  ordered  Moses  to  have  this  tent
made exactly after a pattern that Moses was shown. After Moses was replaced by Joshua,
Joshua had the tent brought into the land and placed at Shiloh. It remained there until King
David (not for the entire time, as it was moved to Nob leading up to David). And Stephen says
that David sought God's permission to build a Temple, a dwelling place for the Lord, but that
his son Solomon was the one who actually built it.
Stephen again points up something that the Jews did not want to hear: God did NOT ask for a
Temple, did not SEEK a Temple for Himself, and only essentially showed mercy to David by
allowing  David's  son  to  build  a  Temple  because  David  so  badly  wanted  to.  In  verse  48
Stephen  once  again  brings  up  the  issue  of  manmade  things  being  used  to  worship  God.
Stephen says that God does not live in places made by human hands. Oh my; that is NOT
what  the  Sadducees  and  Temple  authorities  believed  and  neither  did  those  from  the
Synagogue. Never mind that Stephen goes on to quote the truth of Holy Scripture from Isaiah
66:1 and 2:
CJB  Isaiah  66:1  "Heaven  is  my  throne,"  says  ADONAI,  "and  the  earth  is  my  footstool.
What kind of house could you build for me? What sort of place could you devise for my
rest?
2 Didn't I myself make all these things? 
God  well  knows  the  way  humans  are  wired.  If  you  erect  a  Temple  or  a  Shrine,  it  will  often
become  more  important  than  the  one  in  whose  honor  it  was  built.  We  love  to  build  grand
religious edifices because they make US proud! We seriously think we are doing something for
God when we construct monumental showplaces and call them holy sanctuaries. How often
I've heard Pastors and Elders at church building meetings speak about the need to spend big
and make things especially beautiful because we want to give to God our best. But the "best"
that God wants from his worshippers is the best of the fruits of the spiritual gifts He has given
to  us  to  use  to  benefit  others  and  God's  Kingdom;  not  the  best  most  lavish  buildings  that
money can buy.
So often we unconsciously think that God is more present in a Church or synagogue building
than anywhere else; and the more grand a building is the more present He is. But as is pointed
out again and again in Holy Scripture, nothing made with human hands is perfect enough for
God to entice Him to dwell there, and neither can humans ever build a structure that contains
God.  Even  when  it  comes  to  sacrificial  altars  God  doesn't  want  anything  fancy,  because
humans not only cannot perfect that which God has already created, all we can do is to defile
what  He  has  already  made  when  we  try  to  modify  it  and  make  it  better  according  to  our
standards. Very early on in God's Torah commandments He speaks of this principle.
Exodus 20:21-22 CJB
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
21  For  me  you  need  make  only  an  altar  of  earth;  on  it  you  will  sacrifice  your  burnt
offerings,  peace  offerings,  sheep,  goats  and  cattle.  In  every  place  where  I  cause  my
name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you.
22 If you do make me an altar of stone, you are not to build it of cut stones; for if you use
a tool on it, you profane it.
The stones as found lying around on the ground are more preferable to the Lord than cutting,
polishing,  ornamenting  and  *  them  together  to  make  a  beautiful  altar.  Why?  Because
God's creation is perfect just the way it is. Our attempts to enhance these things, and then use
them to honor God, are in vain. So Stephen's point is that the Temple building is held in much
too high of regard. It is not something that God wanted in the first place; it is merely something
that He allowed for the sake of King David and Solomon and for Israel.  But His allowing it
came  with  cautionary  warnings  as  we  just  read  in  Exodus.  Nonetheless,  Solomon  built  a
Temple  so  grand  and  so  lavish  and  expensive  that  foreigners  traveled  to  Jerusalem  just  to
view it. And who do you suppose got the praise for that Temple? Solomon! Which is exactly
what he hoped for.
So  the  Temple  had  taken  up  a  life  all  its  own.  The  building  was  what  mattered  to  the
Priesthood, the Sadducees, and to most Jews. It was a national symbol and a point of pride.
What went on in that building was secondary. In fact, we need to remember that the only place
in the Temple that God's presence ever showed up was above the Ark of the Covenant. Well,
ever since the destruction of the Temple and the exile to Babylon the Ark had gone missing.
When Nehemiah and Ezra built the new Temple, there was no Ark of the Covenant in the Holy
of  Holies;  and  it  remained  empty  right  up  through  the  time  of  Christ  and  until  the  Temple's
prophesied destruction by the Romans in 70 A.D. That's right: the Temple had not held the
Ark  of  the  Covenant,  and  presumably  God's  presence  had  not  been  there,  since  the
Babylonian exile and subsequent return.
So  Stephen  is  telling  them  that  the  magnificent  Temple  wasn't  God's  idea,  it  was  a  human
idea. But King David didn't care; he wanted a Temple for his God just like the other kings had
Temples for their gods. And then as Stephen's speech builds to its crescendo, he let's them
have it with both barrels. 'You stiff necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You
oppose the Holy Spirit. You do the same things your wicked fathers did.'
But as bold and offensive as all that was, Stephen then goes all in; 'your fathers killed those
who  told  in  advance  about  the  coming  of  the  Righteous  One  (the  Tzaddik,  meaning  the
Messiah), but YOU were the ones who actually murdered the prophesied Righteous One when
he  arrived!  Yet  you  claim  to  be  the  ones  who  receive  the  Torah  but  you  don't  keep  it'.
Stephen's life was over. He had bashed the Synagogue and the Temple authorities and they
weren't about to take this humiliation lying down.
Most of what Stephen said doesn't need any explanation; however notice he says that "you
claim to be the ones who received the Torah". Obviously it was Moses who received the Torah
1300 years earlier and not these people he was talking to.  No; as we have discussed Stephen
was  using  standard  Synagogue  language  and  thought  processes  when  he  uses  the  word
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
"Torah".  The  religious  leaders  (Rabbis)  of  the  Synagogue  were  said  to  be  "receiving  the
Torah", but what they and Stephen were referring to was Oral Torah, Traditions of the Elders,
which they saw as divine and on par with the original Torah of Moses as given on Mt. Sinai.
Stephen's  words  demonstrate  the  lack  of  distinction  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  in  that  day
between  manmade  doctrines  versus  the  God-made  Torah  of  Moses:  Genesis  through
Deuteronomy.  We  have  precisely  the  same  condition  among  so  many  Believers  today  in
Christianity,  and  much  of  Messianic  Judaism.  It  can  be  difficult  to  untangle  long  held  and
cherished doctrines, customs and traditions from the actual Word of God. And attempting to do
so, and speaking about it, often brings great anger and dissention. That is why there weren't
very  many  prophets  of  God  that  we  hear  of  in  the  Bible,  and  it's  also  why  their  lives  were
rarely pleasant. Humans of all ages and eras want to hear what we want to hear; and want to
believe what makes us comfortable. Only sometimes are God's Believers on an actual search
for the truth; most of the time we search to find a leader or congregation that will validate what
we have predetermined that we prefer to believe.
Starting  at  verse  54,  we  see  Stephen's  demise.  Grinding  or  gnashing  of  teeth  is  a  Biblical
idiom that speaks of deep upset, anxiety or frustration and we are told that this is the emotional
condition of those who heard Stephen's speech; they couldn't stand to hear one more word.
With Stephen now knowing for certain that he had but minutes to live, the Lord gives Stephen
a peace that passes understanding. And God does this by filling Stephen with His Spirit such
that Stephen's face radiates and he is given a glimpse into Heaven whereby He sees Christ
standing at the right hand of God. While Stephen's statement is reminiscent of Psalm 110:1
and  Daniel  7:13,  it  doesn't  precisely  mirror  either  one.  Yet,  it  is  clear  to  me  that  Stephen's
purpose is not to necessarily directly quote Scripture but rather to describe what he saw as a
fulfillment of those 2 Scripture passages. And since Son of Man was a well-known epithet that
Yeshua  liked  to  call  Himself,  there  was  no  further  room  for  doubt  among  those  present:
Stephen was claiming that Yeshua was in Heaven with God. No segment of Judaism at this
time, other than for Yeshua's followers, believed that a human being (including Jews), even in
spirit,  could  ascend  to  Heaven  and  be  in  God's  presence.  This  went  against  all  Jewish
doctrines.
This was the final straw; all restraint vanished. Verses 57 and 58 briefly describe the stoning of
Stephen.  Since  stoning  has  proved  to  be  the  standard  form  of  execution  used  among  the
Hebrews  all  during  the  Biblical  period,  let's  explore  it  a  bit  to  understand  it  better.  The  Old
Testament gives us 18 cases in which capital punishment is called for; among these are for
immoral  sexual  behaviors,  blasphemy,  incest,  profaning  the  Shabbat,  murder  and  idolatry.
When we read that Stephen was rushed outside the city to be stoned, it reflects the laws about
stoning  and  executions  in  general.  In  the  Mishna,  section  Sanhedrin  part  6,  is  the  detailed
information about stoning. Now while the Mishna was admittedly not created until around 170
years after Stephen's stoning, there is ample evidence to suggest that these same rules we're
about to hear applied during the New Testament era. I'll quote just a few parts of this Mishnah
so that we learn how this procedure took place.
"When sentence of stoning has been passed they take him forth to stone him. The place
of stoning was outside, far away from the court, as it is written bring forth him that hath
cursed without the camp (Lev. 24:14).  One man stands at the court (the Sanhedrin) with
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
a towel in his hand, and another is mounted on a horse.......near enough to see him. If one
in the court said, 'I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal', that man waves
the towel and the horse runs and stops him from being stoned.................. The place of
stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses knocked him down.....if he
died that sufficed......if not a second witness took a stone and dropped it on his heart .....if
he died that sufficed. If not, he was stoned by all Israel, for it is written the hand of the
witness shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterward the hand of all the
people (Deut. 17:7)."
So the idea is that first the condemned is to stand at an elevated place, and then is pushed off
that  place  by  one  witness  such  that  hopefully  he  lands  on  his  head  and  dies.  If  he  is  only
injured and not dead, then a second witness must take a large heavy stone and throw it down
on his chest with the idea that it would break some ribs and make him unable to breathe. If that
doesn't do the trick, then everyone else in attendance of the stoning must cast stones at him
until he dies. Pretty brutal. Witnesses are those who make the accusations at the trial, and give
testimony against the accused. In our case, we are directly told that the witnesses were false;
they were liars. Thus by causing the unjust death of an innocent person, the Law was that false
witnesses were now murderers and themselves subject to capital punishment, which included
permanent separation from God.
Our verse says that the crowd rushed Stephen outside the city; this complied with Torah Law
that neither execution nor burial could occur "inside the camp" (in this case the city limits of
Jerusalem) because death causes ritual impurity.  So we have here an authentic account of
stoning accomplished according to the Law.
But  here  we  are  also  first  introduced  to  Sha'ul,  Paul,  with  but  a  slight  mention.  Most  Bible
versions  say  that  the  witnesses  (the  executioners)  laid  down  their  coats  at  Paul's  feet.  It  is
hard to be certain, but it appears that Paul is playing some kind of official role at the execution
(possibly  as  an  officer  for  the  Sanhedrin),  and  he  was  not  merely  a  random  or  convenient
person to hold and guard the outer garments of those doing the stoning. In Acts 22:19 and 20
Paul admits his participation in this event.
Let's be clear; some Bible commentators try to make this an illegal execution. That is not true.
We are specifically told in Acts 6:15 that everyone in the Sanhedrin was present as they saw
the glow in Stephen's face as he made his case. So while perhaps not every i was dotted or t
crossed from a technical legal standpoint, this execution was legal and fully sanctioned by the
Jewish High Court with the High Priest Caiaphas officiating. It was by no means a citizens'
lynching.
Chapter 7 concludes with Stephen shouting almost the same words as Christ did as he was
nearing  death:  "Lord  forgive  them  for  they  know  not  what  they  do".  But  before  that  he
commends his spirit to Yeshua as the rocks pelted him knocking him into unconsciousness.
We  are  told  not  that  he  died,  but  that  he  fell  asleep.  While  saying  "fell  asleep"  to  describe
one's death is not unusual in the Bible, it is always used in the death of a righteous person. It
is my personal conviction that the reason "fell asleep" is used instead of "died" is a view to
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 18 - Chapter 7 cont.
 
the possibility of resurrection.
Let's close with this wonderful hope that is available for all who trust in Messiah Yeshua, taken
from 1st Corinthians.
1Corinthians 15:51-58 
51 Look, I will tell you a secret- not all of us will sleep! But we will all be changed!
52 It will take but a moment, the blink of an eye, at the final shofar. For the shofar will
sound, and the dead will be raised to live forever, and we too will be changed.
53 For this material which can decay must be clothed with imperishability, this which is
mortal must be clothed with immortality.
54 When what decays puts on imperishability and what is mortal puts on immortality,
then this passage in the Tanakh will be fulfilled: "Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 "Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?"
56 The sting of death is sin; and sin draws its power from the Torah;
57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Yeshua the Messiah!
58 So, my dear brothers, stand firm and immovable, always doing the Lord's work as
vigorously as you can, knowing that united with the Lord your efforts are not in vain.
Death  is  final  for  the  unsaved;  but  death  more  resembles  a  peaceful  "sleeping"  for  the
redeemed in Messiah. Death is its own end for the non-Believer; sleeping is temporary with an
awaking when it is over. Stephen, indeed, merely went to sleep.
We'll begin Acts chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 19, Chapter 8
We have a wide variety of issues that are going to come up today in Acts chapter 8 that I think
you'll  find  interesting.  Last  week  we  concluded  Acts  chapter  7  with  the  stoning  death  of
Stephen,  the  first  disciple  of  Christ  to  die  as  a  martyr.  Sadly,  like  his  master  Yeshua,
Stephen's  death  was  at  the  urging  of  his  own  people,  the  Jews.  And  as  with  Yeshua,  the
underlying  issue  that  brought-on  Stephen's  execution  was  one  of  a  fierce  disagreement
over halakhah; Jewish law. To be clear, the particular halachic issue in question had to do
with Yeshua's declaration as being the Messiah, something that only a small minority of Jews
at that time accepted. But it also serves to highlight just how sensitive was the issue of Biblical
interpretation, Oral Torah, such that too much disagreement could literally lead to loss of life.
We've  had  some  in-depth  discussions  about  the  Synagogue,  and  about  Oral  Torah  also
known  as  Tradition.  And  that  Oral  Torah  was  but  interpretations  of  the  Torah  of  Moses;
however  then,  as  now,  the  interpretations  as  given  by  revered  Rabbis  and  especially  when
eventually  written  down  into  the  Mishnah  and  Talmud,  are  considered  as  divine  as  is  the
original Torah given on Mt. Sinai. So now let's learn another term: halakhah. Usually it is said
that this word means Jewish Law; and Jewish Law is referring not to the Bible but rather to
rulings  made  by  Rabbis.  However  we  need  to  nuance  that  just  a  bit  so  as  to  properly
understand what is in the minds of the Rabbis and lay Jews when that term is employed.
Halakhah more literally and appropriately means, "The path that one walks".  Certain rulings
and laws define that uniquely Jewish path and set down boundaries. The word halakhah is
derived from the Hebrew root word heh-lamed-kaf, which means to walk, or to travel or to go.
Thus halakhah represents the overall legal code of conduct that Jews are supposed to live by.
If you were to ask a Rabbi where the laws of halakhah come from he would tell you that they
come from three sources: the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah, and long held customs some of
which are so old and obscure that no one really knows when they started or why they were
begun.  However,  as  I  have  taught  you  over  the  last  several  weeks,  from  the  Jewish
perspective, you cannot stick a sheet of paper in between the Torah of Moses and Oral Torah
(Traditions),   because   they   are   seen   as   essentially   one   in   the   same   substance.   Now
academically (which is how I am speaking at the moment) a Jewish scholar would parse his
words and agree that from a technical viewpoint the Torah of Moses is indeed a different and
older document than the Talmud. And customs aren't quite the same things as the Torah of
Moses or even the Bible interpretations that have become lawful Traditions. But in practice,
and in weight, the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah and customs are all seen as generally equally
valid and authoritative.
But  even  more  difficult  to  grasp,  especially  for  gentile  Christians  and  students  of  the  New
Testament, the terms used for these 3 sources of halakhah (the Torah of Moses, Oral Torah,
and  customs)  are  commonly  used  by  Jews  interchangeably.  And  we  will  find  that  Paul,
especially,   in   his   epistles   will   often   use   terms   like   law   and   customs   and   traditions
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
interchangeably. Why? Because that was merely the everyday mindset and the common way
of speaking among Jews in New Testament times. Thus depending on his audience and his
purpose,  Paul  (who  was  himself  a  scholar)  would  use  these  Jewish  terms  as  commonly
spoken  among  ordinary  Jews  in  casual  conversation,  or  he  might  get  more  technical  and
nuanced as he dealt with the deeper matters of Scriptural truth.
So as we go forward just understand that what halakhah means to the Jewish world is the
overall body of laws that governs Jewish life. And these laws are set down almost exclusively
by  Rabbis,  hence  the  nickname  rabbinical  law  or  Jewish  law.  Thus  when  a  Jew  speaks  of
halakhah, rabbinical law or Jewish law, these all mean the same thing. And as we reach the
time of Yeshua, halakhah consisted mostly of the rapidly developing Traditions (Oral Torah) of
the Synagogue leaders. Be aware however that not all Rabbis and Synagogues believed in the
same Bible interpretations; they didn't all go by some universally accepted halakhah. Part of
the reason that there were so many Synagogues located in Jerusalem is because so many
different Rabbis taught their own interpretations as superior to any other. It is no different than
in Christianity whereby we can all say that we are Christians, yet at the same time we have
several thousand denominations none of which agree with the others on all points of Biblical
interpretation.  And  the  disagreements  are  often  perceived  as  being  strong  enough  that  we
don't  believe  we  can  worship  together  comfortably.  Thus  Christianity  finds  it  necessary  to
divide ourselves into many denominations and churches. This is essentially what Jewish life
and religion was like at the time of Christ.
One more associated Jewish term and we'll move on. In Hebrew the word for commandment
is  mitzvah  (mitzvot  is  plural).  So  in  the  Torah  we  find  that  as  Moses  is  receiving  God's
instructions on Mt. Sinai, the rules he is receiving are called mitzvot: commandments. Thus in
halakhah, individual rulings and instructions of the Talmud (the written rulings of the Rabbis)
are also called mitzvot because in Judaism they generally carry the same weight as do the
commandments given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And, it has become so in Judaism and
Christianity  that  the  English  words  law  and  commandment  have  become  synonymous  and
interchangeable;  a law is a commandment and a commandment is a law. So today when a
Jew speaks of mitzvot he's not so much thinking of Mt. Sinai, rather he's thinking about the
many rulings and laws of the Rabbis. However just to confuse things a little more, the word
mitzvah can mean something else; it can mean doing a good deed or an act of kindness. I'm
sorry to tell you that even this gets nuanced to another level; but I'm also happy to tell you that
we won't go there today!
Our little walk down an avenue of everyday basic terms used in Judaism is for one purpose; to
help you understand the substance of Judaism and the Synagogue as it was in Christ's era
and in the era of the Apostles. These terms and their meanings that have your heads spinning
right now were as well understood for them, as how to turn a water faucet on and off is for us
today. The Jewish people, and the Jewish writers of the New Testament, didn't have to think
deeply as they used and communicated these terms; the context of the conversation dictated
exactly how to understand their meaning. It was instinctive, automatic, easy. At the same time,
the NT era Jews also weren't speaking or thinking in terms of explaining Judaism and Messiah
to gentiles whether contemporary to them, or from decades to hundreds of years later. It is our
problem and our task as modern day Believers to dig and research and find out what these
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
terms meant to those Jews who wrote them. Of course the easy way out (a truly false way) is
to declare a Christian doctrine that says that Scripture is so mystical that whatever it means to
whomever reads it, in whatever culture or language, in whatever period of history we might
live, is what it means; no context is necessary. So we are told not to worry about what the
writers  intended.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Christianity  has  become  a  disjointed  armada  of
rudderless ships aimlessly wandering on a stormy sea, having lost its direction, purpose, and
first love. Let's keep moving forward in the hope that we can help to right that ship and get
back into God's will for His worshippers.
Open your Bibles to Acts chapter 8.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 8 all
Luke minces no words about his personal friend Paul. He says in verse 1 that Paul was in full
agreement with the execution of Stephen. Different Bible versions will use different terms to
characterize Stephen's execution: killing, death, or even murder. The Greek word that is being
translated is anaireses; it means to destroy, kill or murder. This Greek term is meant to denote
an unjustifiable death or the destruction of something that is undesirable. So while Stephen's
execution was indeed legally sanctioned by the Jewish High Court, none the less Luke makes
it clear that this death was not justifiable; it never should have happened. As we learned in
Acts 7, it took false witnesses making up false accusations to get Stephen condemned. But
even  if  the  charges  had  been  true,  to  raise  his  "crime"  to  the  level  of  blasphemy  of  God,
thereby giving cause for capital punishment, is itself dishonest and unjustifiable.
Verse 1 continues that the execution of Stephen opened the floodgates of persecution upon
the Believers living in Jerusalem. The result was that most of the Believers fled Jerusalem,
however  the  12  disciples  remained  behind.  I  want  to  address  the  sensitive  issue  of
characterizing and labeling the believing community in Jerusalem. Almost all Bibles will say
something like: "And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in
Jerusalem".  The word I want to focus on is church. The Greek that is being translated is
ecclesia;  it  is  a  rather  generic  word  that  means  an  assembly.  It  can  denote  any  kind  of
assembly. In our case this is, of course, an assembly of believers in Yeshua. So what's the
problem  with  using  the  term  "church"?  First,  I  think  that  David  Stern's  translation  of
"Messianic  community"  far  more  appropriately  characterizes  the  assembly.  These  were
exclusively  Jewish  Believers  who  were  being  persecuted.  Second,  the  term  "church"  is
anachronistic; that is, no such thought of the word "church" as referring to a unique religious
system based on Jesus Christ would exist for hundreds of years. So inserting the word church
is to read backward into the holy text something that didn't exist in that era.
Church  was  originally  a  Latin  word  that  meant  assembly.  So  as  with  the  Greek  ecclesia  it
could apply to most any kind of assembly for any purpose. Later the term "Church" was co-
opted and became by default a term for the members of a new Rome-based, gentile religion
that  worshipped  Jesus.  This  targeted  use  of  the  term  church  developed  only  after  gentiles
wrested control of the Yeshua movement away from the Jews, and after it became centered in
Rome, and after it became a thoroughly gentile religious institution. So, to call the initial group
of Jewish Believers in Jerusalem the church is paint an intellectually dishonest picture, and
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
frankly is an insult to the memory of those first Jews whose persecution for their belief in Christ
we  are  now  reading  about.  The  reality  is  that  this  was  about  one  sect  of  Judaism  being
opposed and bullied by other sects of Judaism.
It was important that despite the bulk of the Believers leaving Jerusalem to avoid persecution
(in  whatever  form  it  was  taking)  that  we  find  the  12  disciples  remaining  there,  because  it
permitted the core leadership of the Believing community to hang on to its position of authority,
and thus to keep the movement alive and retaining an official direction.
So it is with the backdrop of suspicion, danger and persecution that we find some courageous
Believers nevertheless stepping forward to claim Stephen's body to give him a proper burial,
and then to go through the customary Jewish mourning rites to honor him. There is little doubt
that  the  reason  the  local  Believers  performed  his  funeral  is  because  Stephen  had  no
immediate  family  show  up  to  do  the  sad  task.  Whether  they  stayed  away  out  of  fear,  or
because they saw Stephen as a traitor, or there just wasn't any family nearby we don't know.
However  it  is  the  duty  of  immediate  family  to  deal  with  the  death  of  a  loved  one.  Even  so,
Jewish tradition is that a corpse has to be buried by sunset; so word couldn't have yet reached
Stephen's family up in Samaria, assuming he had family there.
Verse 3 contrasts the caring nature of the 12 disciples to properly bury their brother in the faith,
Stephen, to the cruel Paul who hunted down frightened Believers in their own homes, taking
them into custody. I again remind you; these Believers who were being pursued had committed
no   crime.   The   issue   was   over   halakhah;   the   Messianic   sect   followed   different   Bible
interpretations (ones taught to them by Yeshua) than the other sects of Judaism did. And the
main point of disagreement was the same one that exists to this day: who is the Messiah? The
description of Paul's actions is further proof that Paul was operating in some kind of an official
capacity  for  the  Sanhedrin.  Certainly  any  arrest  would  have  been  by  court  order;  a  private
citizen  couldn't  just  go  out  and  arrest  people  as  they  saw  fit.  And  equally  as  certain  the
Romans wouldn't have had any involvement as this was strictly a Jewish religious matter; no
breach of Roman law had occurred and there was no threat to Roman sovereignty from the
Believers.
Do not get the idea that this persecution of Believers was the first or only violent in-fighting
between  factions  of  Judaism  that  occurred  over  matters  of  halakhah.  One  of  the  most
infamous incidents of struggles among Jewish factions occurred between two of the greatest
rabbinical  academies  in  the  Holy  Land;  that  of  Hillel  and  the  other  of  Shammai.  They  were
rivals and each taught a halakhah that differed from the other in some important ways.  Just
before the Jewish revolt that led to the Roman destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70
A.D.,  an  intense  confrontation  arose  between  adherents  to  these  two  schools  of  Jewish
thought  over  the  matter  of  a  proposal  called  the  Decree  of  Eighteen  Things.  This  was  a
proposal that would establish several important rabbinical rulings that affected some sensitive
issues  of  halakhah.  The  disagreement  over  its  contents  (and  we  don't  know  what,  exactly,
was  in  that  document)  was  so  severe  that  a  number  of  disciples  of  the  school  of  Hillel
murdered  a  significant  number  of  disciples  of  the  school  of  Shammai  in  order  to  stop  the
proposal from going to a vote. 
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
As are so many things with God, the result of this persecution of Believers produces the
opposite results from what man intended. Those Believers who were chased out of Jerusalem
didn't  go  into  hiding;  they  merely  went  elsewhere  and  began  to  spread  the  Good  News  of
Yeshua.  Let's  be  clear;  for  the  moment,  the  persecution  was  limited  to  Jerusalem.  So  the
Believers fled to other villages and towns in Judea, Galilee, and even to Samaria as we hear
with the story of the Believer Phillip.
Verse 5 says that Phillip went to a city in Shomron; Shomron being Hebrew for Samaria. This
Phillip is not the Phillip of the original 12 disciples; rather he is the Hellenist Believer Phillip who
was one of the 7 men chosen to deal with the food distribution to the widows. We know this by
deduction  since  verse  1  explains  that  the  emissaries  (meaning  the  12  disciples)  stayed  in
Jerusalem while the others fled. This means that Phillip was a Greek speaker, and Greek was
a language commonly spoken in Samaria. No doubt Phillip knew some Hebrew and Aramaic
as well, so he was a good candidate to go to Samaria and preach the Gospel.
Phillip's  destination  also  shows  that  the  Believers  had  adopted  their  Master  Yeshua's  view
that the Samaritans were just as worthy as others to be told of the Good News, despite the fact
that Samaritans were considered unclean and traitors to Judaism. Nevertheless Phillip in the
power of God healed and drove out unclean spirits in Yeshua's name, and this caused the
Samaritans to listen to what he had to say. Remember: the Samaritans were not considered
Jews. In fact, exactly what they were is not easy for us to define, and neither was it for people
of that era. There was a thread of Jewishness, but an equally large thread of gentile-ness in
Samaria's  population.  So  in  the  eyes  of  Judaism,  Samaritans  were  an  unclean  mixture,  an
ungodly hybrid. They weren't quite Jews, and they weren't quite gentiles.
The Samaritans created a huge problem theologically for the Rabbis that would continue on for
centuries, such that the Talmud devotes an entire section on how to deal with them; it is called
Tractate Kutim. Kutim are what the Jews called the Samaritans, and this was because the city
of Kutah was where many foreign immigrants were brought in by the Assyrians to repopulate
the land. What is interesting is that in Tractate Kutim while the Rabbis say that Samaritans are
to  be  excluded  from  the  Jewish  community  because  "they  have  become  mixed  up  with  the
priests  of  high  places",  that  in  fact  they  can  re-join  the  Jewish  community  if  "they  have
renounced Mt. Gerizim and acknowledged Jerusalem and the resurrection of the dead". So
what we see is that the issue for the Rabbis about the Samaritans had far less to do with them
being  a  mixed  genealogy  of  Hebrews  and  gentiles,  but  rather  that  the  Samaritans  didn't
practice any  kind of accepted, traditional Judaism. They practiced a religion based on their
own version of the Torah of Moses, yet they didn't believe in the Prophets of Israel. But even
without accepting the Old Testament Prophets, the Samaritans were still expecting a Messiah
largely  because  of  Moses  saying  that  in  time  a  "prophet  like  me"  would  arise.  I  think  it  a
reasonable assumption that Moses' statement would have been the basis of the approach that
Phillip took in delivering the Good News to the Samaritans since while they revered Moses,
any talk about fulfilling the Prophets of the Bible (something they didn't accept so they weren't
familiar with them) would have ended the conversation.
Phillip's approach to true evangelism is a great application lesson for all modern day Believers
to  consider.  When  we  are  speaking  to  non-Believers  about  Christ  it  is  important  that  we
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
approach them on their terms and in the context of what they understand and are capable of
hearing and absorbing. We find Paul doing exactly this on more than one occasion. This is why
the more typical Western Evangelical Christian approach of presenting the Romans Road or
other such Gospel formulas as found on Tracts to explain one's need for redemption is only
useful if the un-Believer has spent some time in church and is at least a little familiar with the
concepts  and  the  lingo.  Non-churched  people  cannot  make  heads  or  tails  out  of  such
information or of the terms we commonly use. And neither of course can Jews nor people of
other religious backgrounds.
As a result of his approach Phillip had marvelous success in Samaria as we're told in verse 12
that many were immersed, both men and women. Phillip's success and the amazing signs and
wonders that he performed caught the eye of a well known local magician named Shimon; or
in  English,  Simon.  In  fact  we  are  told  that  Simon  became  a  Believer  and  that  after  he  was
baptized, he clung closely to Phillip. No doubt to Simon, a practitioner of the magic arts, what
Phillip did made him feel like Phillip was a comrade in the profession and he wanted to learn
from him how to do these signs and miracles that Shimon hadn't been able to.
It makes sense that Simon would practice his occupation in Samaria where every sort of belief
was  tolerated.  This  man  fascinated  especially  the  early  Church  Fathers,  and  there  arose
among them for centuries great debates over whether Simon was actually saved, or if he was
merely an imposter. Justin Martyr who lived only a couple of generations removed from the
New Testament era wrote about Simon, calling him Simon Magus (Simon the Magician), and
says that Simon was from the Samarian city of Gitta, but later he moved to Rome. In fact, the
Gnostic sect of Christianity claims Simon as a kind of Gnostic Church Father. There is a hint of
Gnosticism where we see in verse 10 that Simon called himself The Great Power of God; this
terminology fits nicely with Gnostic philosophy.
Now  things  start  to  get  quite  theologically  dicey  for  us.  And  I  need  you  to  be  open  minded
about what I'm about to say to you as the association between salvation, baptism, and the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit varies greatly among Christian denominations and is among the
most sensitive issues that causes much divisiveness in the Church. Verse 14 tells us that the
12 disciples in Jerusalem heard about what was happening in Samaria as a result of Phillip's
work  and  so  Peter  and  John  went  to  Samaria  to  see  for  themselves;  no  doubt  they  were
skeptical considering the frayed Jewish relationship with these unclean half-breeds. But even
more, the passage in verse 15 explains that ONLY when Peter and John came and prayed for
those who had been immersed, did they receive the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit. So; are
we to take from this verse that the acts of coming to faith in Christ, and then being immersed in
His Name, are completely separate from the issue of being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which
seems to be the case here? I researched a wide variety of Bible translations and even some
ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts; and they all come out the same. So there is no
error and no disagreement over the plain meaning that these new Samaritan Believers, already
baptized, had not yet received the Holy Spirit and didn't until Peter and John came to give it to
them.
This issue is important for us so I want to take a moment to re-read this short passage; please
follow along with me in your Bibles.
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
Acts 8:14-17 CJB 
14 When the emissaries in Yerushalayim heard that Shomron had received the Word of
God, they sent them Kefa and Yochanan,
15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Ruach HaKodesh.
16 For until then he had not come upon any of them; they had only been immersed into
the name of the Lord Yeshua.
17 Then, as Kefa and Yochanan placed their hands on them, they received the Ruach
HaKodesh.
It was only when Peter and John laid their hands on these already baptized Believers that they
received the Holy Spirit. Notice that there is no suggestion that Phillip's baptism of them was
inferior or defective or premature (that is, that perhaps they didn't quite believe just yet). There
is  no  hint  that  Peter  and  John  even  preached  to  the  Samaritan  Believers  to  clear  up  any
theological misconceptions that Phillip might have accidentally created. Further we usually find
in the New Testament that once a disciple preached the Good News, and a person came to
faith  in  Yeshua,  if  there  was  water  suitable  for  immersion  nearby,  baptism  was  generally
immediate.  And,  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  faith  in  Messiah  is  also  usually
immediate as evidenced in Acts chapter 10. So it seems reasonable to say that what we see
here  as  regards  the  Holy  Spirit  coming  later,  and  by  means  of  human  intervention,  is  an
exception to the rule (if there even is a rule).
Let me add to this by saying that in Paul's case of his coming to faith in Yeshua in Acts 9, it
seems that the Holy Spirit fell on him after he believed but BEFORE he was baptized. So what
are we to take from all this? Most Evangelical Christian denominations say that the sequence
is that instantly upon belief, the Holy Spirit indwells and then baptism comes after (sooner or
later), but strictly as symbolic. Most Pentecostal Christian denominations say that, like here in
Acts 8, baptism in water is a separate event from baptism of the Holy Spirit. So a person can
be saved, and immersed in the Name of Yeshua, but still not have the power of the Holy Spirit
in  them.  I'm  not  here  to  dispute  any  of  this  except  to  say  that  clearly  the  New  Testament
shows that God does NOT seem to have a rigid formula about the sequence of coming to faith,
baptism,   and   receiving   the   Holy   Spirit.   We   see   it   happen   differently   under   different
circumstances.  And  if  God  doesn't  have  a  rigid  doctrine  about  the  sequence  then  neither
should  we  adopt  a  rigid  doctrine  about  the  exact  sequence,  nor  should  we  question
someone's  faith  as  insincere  or  incomplete  because  they  didn't  go  through  the  same
sequence that we did or that our religious leadership says they should.
Since we are temporal creatures (that is we're earthbound and controlled by time and space),
then we have little choice on earth and in practice but to devise some sequence or another for
ceremonial  matters.  That  is,  we  have  to  have  some  order  of  doing  things  or  everything  is
random and chaotic. Yet we also don't have to demand that our way is God's way and that
there is no other way. Thus here at SOAM for instance, we expect a person to come to faith,
and then to approach our Elder to request immersion. The Elder then contacts that person,
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
asks them to pronounce their faith to him, and discusses the meaning of water immersion with
them.  Once  these  important  preliminaries  are  completed  only  then  will  a  SOAM  pastor
immerse that person in Living Water. While standing in the water the baptismal candidate is to
publically  profess  his/her  trust  in  Messiah  Yeshua  to  witnesses  and  to  acknowledge  their
undying love and allegiance to Him. This sequence is not accomplished in the belief that what
we do is the only possible God-authorized baptism protocol, but rather as a logical, practical
approach that seems to meet all Biblical criteria.
But now a big question looms before us: were the Samaritans really saved? And how about
Simon  Magus?  After  all  we  see  him  being  strongly  rebuked  by  Peter  in  the  next  couple  of
verses. Many Christian leaders and commentators insist that what Peter did was to essentially
excommunicate Shimon; so perhaps he was a Believer for a few days, but no longer. Others
say that Simon is so superficial in his belief that he could not possibly have been genuine at
any point.
Verse 18 begins by Simon observing that the Holy Spirit came when Peter and John laid hands
on  these  Samaritan  Believers.  Apparently  there  was  something  visible  and  tangible  that
occurred  that  impressed  Simon;  but  we  don't  know  what  it  was  and  I'm  not  about  to
speculate. However afterward Simon gets excited and he wants to have this same spectacular
power that Peter and John possess. After all, he was a revered magician and was used to
wielding supernatural power. So he offered to give money to purchase this ability. Peter bluntly
tells Simon that this is not a power that can be purchased; rather if he ever obtains it, it will
come as a free gift from God. Peter continues that Shimon will have no part in this matter and
that he needs to repent of his wrong attitude and pray for forgiveness.
From this incident there is much doubt in some quarters of Christianity if Simon was actually
ever saved. My view is that from the information we are given, the Samaritans were indeed
saved and so was Shimon saved and remained so even after Peter's strong rebuke. Verse 13
says  straightaway:  "Moreover,  Simon  himself  came  to  believe".  Look;  Simon  was  reacting
according to everything he knew from his past. It takes time to unlearn wrong things, and to
drop bad habits. Simon had no previous training in the Torah, or even in Traditions, like any
ordinary Jew had received because he wasn't a Jew!  Everything was new to him. Only a few
days earlier he was a proud pagan Sorcerer; how could he be expected to understand the finer
points of his faith and of God's Word so quickly?
As  for  Simon,  nowhere  do  we  see  anything  but  a  repentant  response  from  him  after  Peter
chastised him. No arguing, debating, or denial. And we also never hear of Simon renouncing
his relationship with the Lord. Simon was saved. What may have happened at a later date,
outside of any Biblical information, I can't say.
But my own personal experience with the Lord has taught me something valuable. Being a
Believer is an ongoing process that involves a never ending renewal of our minds. Paul calls
this process being perfected; not achieving perfection. So don't be discouraged if you aren't
moving along in your journey with Christ as quickly or smoothly as you hoped. At the same
time, don't expect God to do all the work. You must make a sincere effort to learn and mature,
and when you err be open to being chastised by God at times, just like Simon was. None of
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 19 - Chapter 8 
 
this indicates that God has abandoned you nor that you don't have a relationship with Him.
We should not think this of ourselves, nor should we think it of anyone who insists that they are
worshippers of Christ but sure don't seem to act like it sometimes.
In today's world of anything goes, pleasure at any cost, gender confusion, sexual freedom with
a  lack  of  boundaries,  insatiable  hunger  for  wealth,  self-centeredness  and  entitlement,  and
other  non-Biblical  lifestyles,  we  need  to  expect  that  new  Believers  who  come  from  this
background aren't going to instantly behave in a Godly manner the moment they come to faith
in  Messiah.  We  have  an  entire  world  full  of  Samaritans  and  Simons.  They  can  only  be  as
sincere in their new faith as they know how to be. They need training in God's Word and they
need discipling and encouragement in their everyday lives, and it will likely be needed for years
to come. Perhaps you can be that person who comes alongside to guide and to mentor.
We'll finish up Acts chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 20, Chapters 8 and 9
In many ways Acts chapter 8 is a significant pivot point. Up to now all the activity concerning
the knowledge and spreading of the Good News of the Gospel has taken place in the city of
Jerusalem, has been strictly among Jews, and the focus of events has revolved around the
works of the 12 Disciples. But the sudden, horrific and unjust stoning to death of the Believer
Stephen (given full legal sanction by the Sanhedrin as overseen by the High Priest Caiaphas),
marked  the  beginning  of  an  open  persecution  against  the  Believing  community  of  Jews  in
Jerusalem.
If  we  step  back  and  consider  what  is  happening  here,  it  is  helpful  to  realize  that  this
persecution  was  upon  one  particular  faction  of  Judaism  (the  Jewish  disciples  of  Messiah
Yeshua) by other factions of Judaism that didn't agree with the Believer faction's halakhah;
that is, some of the traditions and doctrines of the Believers were in disagreement with some,
but not all, of the traditions and doctrines of other sects of Judaism. In fact the main point of
disagreement  was  over  the  identity  of  the  Messiah,  and  to  a  lesser  degree  the  Messiah's
nature. We're really not made aware of any other serious doctrinal disagreements (at least not
up to now).
Labels  are  very  tricky  things  that  can  on  the  one  hand  be  useful,  and  on  the  other  be
dangerous. When we attach a label to a group or to a person, to a concept or to a doctrine it is
done  with  the  direct  purpose  of  creating  a  kind  communication  shorthand,  or  perhaps  a
codeword  of  sorts.  A  label  is  designed  to  paint  a  quick,  sometimes  subconscious,  mental
image  so  the  conversation  doesn't  get  bogged  down  in  details.  Labels  often  illicit  knee-*
emotional responses. Used enough, labels become stereotypes that are near to impossible to
alter or correct later on. Because most Bibles will at this point in the New Testament label the
Jerusalem Believers as "Christians" or label them collectively as "the Church" then there is a
false picture created of Jews lining up against Christians; or of Judaism coming into violent
opposition  to  Christianity.  And  of  course  when  we  think  of  Christians,  Christianity  and  the
Church we think of gentiles carrying Bibles under their arms, of the sign of the Cross present
everywhere, of buildings with steeples outside and neat rows of pews inside, and of Nativity
Scenes and Christmas trees. But we need to erase all of these thoughts because that is not at
all what we are witnessing here in the Book of Acts, at any point. It is just the Bible translators'
misuse of these English labels that creates an inappropriate and historically false mental image
that I want to spend a little time to straighten out.
I pointed out in prior lessons that to use the term "Church" in the Book of Acts to collectively
label the followers of Yeshua is what is called an anachronism; that is, it is a term (even a
concept) that didn't occur until far later in history, at least a century after the Bible was closed
up. So to read the term "Church" (as we think of it today) back into the Book of Acts creates a
false impression. In a couple more chapters we'll read in most English Bibles that it was in
Antioch that the first use of the term "Christians" was coined. But in fact that, too, gives us the
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
wrong impression. In the original Greek of the New Testament the term is christianos, so it is
easy to see how the English word Christians was created from it. But christianos is taken from
the Greek word Christos. As expertly explained in the Strong's Concordance, Christos means
anointed one and it is merely translating the Hebrew word mashiach, Messiah, into Greek.
Thus  the  term  Messianic  means  followers  of  Messiah.  So  originally  whereas  Messianics
literally meant followers of the anointed one, so does christianos literally mean followers of
the anointed one. So while the English word Christians is a reasonable translation, once again
what comes to mind when we say Christians? Christian is a centuries old label; and when we
think  of  Christians  we  subconsciously  think  of  gentiles,  crosses,  churches,  Christmas  trees,
choirs dressed in robes, and if you are Catholic you think of cathedrals, priests, the Virgin Mary
and the Pope.
However the closest thing the Jewish Believers formulated as a label for themselves was The
Way.  Apparently  other  Jews  referred  to  them  at  times  as  Notzrim  and  Natzratim,  which
translates best into English as Nazarenes, meaning people connected to Nazareth, Yeshua's
hometown. The point I'm desperate to help all of my Jewish and gentile brothers and sisters in
the Lord to see is that everything that is happening to this point in the Book of Acts is taking
place exclusively within the Jewish community. The Synagogue and all that went with it is at
the  center  for  Yeshua's  followers  as  it  is  with  the  other  factions  of  Jews.  The  followers  of
Yeshua (The Way) were unique ONLY in the sense that their particular Rabbi was the crucified
Yeshua who they also believed was the Messiah. But other Jewish factions didn't agree with
this, so they rose up against the members of The Way.
Lest  you  think  this  sort  of  thing  as  concerns  Jews  and  Judaism  is  unique  to  the  New
Testament, I assure you it is not. A large modern day Jewish sect called Chabad has gone
through a painful, fairly recent, split. The leader of the Chabad Lubavitch faction was a much
beloved Rabbi named Schneerson. He passed away from natural causes in 1994. But some
among his faction declared him to be the Messiah, and say that he is not really dead as we
commonly think of death; rather he is in hiding and sometime soon will resurface. This claim
has caused a contentious split of Chabad among those who declare Schneerson as the Jewish
Messiah versus the majority who don't.  Using the terms we have recently learned, the split in
Chabad  is  over  halakhah;  Traditions  or  Oral  Torah.  The  Oral  Torah  of  the  main  faction  of
Chabad says that the Messiah has not yet come; the Oral Torah teachings of the Lubavitch
faction of Chabad says that the Messiah has appeared, is gone but will soon reappear, and he
is  Rabbi  Schneerson.  So  I  think  God  has  given  modern  day  Believers  a  very  good  way  to
better understand the background and sense of the issue that was causing the persecutions of
members of The Way in Acts chapter 8, if only we'll pay attention. Again: the issue with the
death of Yeshua, the death of Stephen, and now the general persecution of Believing Jews in
Jerusalem was over disagreements concerning halakhah; Oral Torah, Traditions, doctrines.
You will notice as we move along that as fervent as the persecution of Jewish Believers was by
the  other  Jewish  factions,  there  was  never  the  thought  expressed  that  the  Believers  had
somehow abandoned Judaism, stopped being Jews, or were forming an entire new religion.
The  Believers  did  not  even  isolate  themselves,  as  did  the  Essenes,  and  the  Essenes  were
perfectly accepted as Jews even if their brand of Judaism didn't sit all that well with most of
the other brands of Judaism.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
There are so many valuable lessons of application to learn from this, but I'd like to focus on
just one because it is especially relevant to our time. It is that among those who call ourselves
Christians  or  Messianics,  no  matter  what  faction  or  denomination,  we  need  to  display  love
towards one another. Because if indeed we all count on Yeshua for redemption, then we all
share one Spirit; God's Spirit. That doesn't mean that we can't strongly disagree on doctrines
and traditions, call one another on the carpet, leave one denomination or faction because we
think  they  are  on  the  wrong  track,  and  then  join  another  that  we  think  is  more  correct.  No
matter which group a Believer belongs to, if they hold to Yeshua (Jesus) as the true and only
Savior, and Son of God, who is Himself God, then we are brothers and sisters in the faith. We
should never behave in such hateful ways towards one another like these factions of Judaism
in Jerusalem did in the Book of Acts who are in such disagreement with a couple of doctrines
of this Messianic Judaism faction that it breaks out into outright persecution and hatred.
I'm not speaking of tolerance; I'm speaking of love. I'm not speaking of validation of wrong
theology in order to be inclusive, or compromising of principles to find a humanly comfortable
middle ground. I'm speaking of our own attitude and behavior. I constantly speak out against
several erroneous theological principles that are characteristic of the mainstream institutional
Christianity of the 21st century, especially as regards a bent against Israel and the belief that
the Torah is only for Jews. But I sure don't disagree on every point, nor do I say that those
who do not believe precisely as I do are not Christians because of this disagreement. Rather
my goal is to encourage my brothers and sisters in the faith (Jew and gentile) to return to the
truth of God's Word and to accept it for what it says; to abandon weak manmade doctrines
that are not in accordance with Scripture, and to live by God's laws and commandments that
Christ says we are obligated to do, and will not change in the least until the heavens and earth
pass away.
So in Acts chapter 8, we find that those Jewish followers of Yeshua who were under threat of
persecution  from  their  fellow  Jews  fled  Jerusalem  for  other  parts  of  Judea,  and  also  to  the
Galilee  and  somewhat  surprisingly  to  Samaria.  I  say  "surprisingly"  because  the  people  of
Samaria were seen universally by Judaism as ungodly, unclean hybrids who were neither Jew
nor  gentile;  a  people  to  be  shunned,  and  a  place  to  avoid.  And  for  Jews  of  that  era,  even
though Samaria originally formed the heartland of the Promised Land, at the moment Samaria
was acknowledged as foreign and so its residents were foreigners. This is not because of any
declaration  by  Rome,  but  because  of  a  declaration  by  Judaism.  This  was  because  the
Samaritans  practiced  what  the  Jews  considered  to  be  a  perverted  form  of  Torah-based
religion, with their holiest place being Mt. Gerizim, and their Priesthood having no connection
to Levites or to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Thus  we  find  the  disciple  Phillip,  a  Hellenist  Jewish  Believer,  going  to  Samaria  and  (once
again, surprisingly) having success in bringing the Gospel to those who would seem the least
likely to want to hear anything from a Jew: the Samaritans. No doubt news of this success
startled the 12 Disciples in Jerusalem and probably out of skepticism they dispatched Peter
and John to see for themselves. And, indeed, there were a number of Samaritans that Peter
and  John  judged  had  accepted  Yeshua  as  Savior.  But  then,  last  week,  we  addressed  the
sensitive issue of the Holy Spirit, and when and how the Holy Spirit indwells a Believer. For in
Acts chapter 8 we see that even though the new Believers of Samaria had accepted Christ,
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
and  been  baptized,  they  had  not  yet  received  the  Holy  Spirit.  John  and  Peter  arrived,  laid
hands on these Samaritans and so the Spirit came upon them.  And yet in other places in the
Bible, we'll find that the sequence is faith in Christ with instantaneous indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. In other passages, the Holy Spirit doesn't come until water baptism. And in yet other
places the Holy Spirit comes after coming to faith but before immersion.
Intellectual  honesty  demands  of  us  to  not  cherry  pick  and  choose  but  one  of  these  several
different  examples  of  Holy  Spirit  indwelling  as  the  only  legitimate  one.  However  most
denominations have indeed picked one and demands that others been seen as heresy. The
lesson to take from this is that God is not formula driven. There is no precise sequence of faith,
baptism, and indwelling of the Spirit that is authorized by God, or demanded by Him, with other
sequences  being  prohibited  or  to  be  judged  as  not  genuine.  Rather  it  seems  to  be
circumstance driven and somewhat flexible.
And  now  before  we  move  on  to  the  final  verses  of  chapter  8,  let's  recall  the  issue  of  the
Samaritan  magician  named  Shimon  (Simon  in  English).  He,  too,  accepted  the  Gospel.
However upon viewing Peter and John call down the Spirit of God into Believers, he was so
impressed that he wanted to have that same ability so he offered money to the disciples to be
taught how. Peter sternly rebuked him, such that some Bible commentators claim that Simon
was excommunicated. There is nothing in this passage that makes any such suggestion. And
any  thought  that  Simon  wasn't  saved  just  because  he  didn't  instantaneously  drop  his
misguided  beliefs  for  the  true  beliefs  stated  in  God's  Word,  is  actually  the  norm  for  most
anyone  at  any  time,  including  up  to  our  modern  era.  We  can  believe  long  before  we
understand more than the most basic principles of salvation. And these deeper, and necessary
understandings are to be the next step for all Believers; but it doesn't happen overnight, and it
takes time and effort.
So the bottom line so far in Acts chapter 8 is that for the first time the Gospel is being taken
outside  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  even  being  taken  to  those  who  don't  practice  Judaism,  and
many are coming to faith. And we also see how an ordinary disciple, Phillip, (not one of the 12
leaders) is now being focused upon as doing great miracles and bringing many of the least
likely to Christ. Let's see what Phillip does next.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 8:25 to end
Peter and John teach the Samaritans about God's Word to give some firm foundation to their
new  faith  in  Messiah  Yeshua  and  then  they  return  to  Jerusalem.  Recall  that  this  task  of
teaching God's Word as well as witnessing for Messiah, is what the 12 disciples agreed was
their true calling and what they ought to spend all their time doing. This points up that regular
congregation members (like Phillip) do not have to be Bible scholars or experts in theology to
take the Good News to those who need to hear it. In fact I think that the best protocol is for the
congregation  to  evangelize  to  individuals,  and  for  the  leaders  to  teach  and  mature  the  new
Believers.  Effective  evangelizing  is  almost  always  one  to  one  and  relational  as  opposed  to
informational;   but   teaching   can   be   (and   usually   is)   most   effective   in   a   one-to-many
environment. Why? Because God has equipped every Believer to take the Good News to non-
Believers. But only some have been given the gift and responsibility of teaching.
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
An  angel  now  instructs  Phillip  to  journey  back  southward  to  the  road  that  goes  between
Jerusalem and Gaza. Gaza was at one time one of the 5 major city-states of the Philistines;
however it was destroyed just after 100 B.C. and was not rebuilt. So by the time of Christ Gaza
was more of a general location than a specific city or town. That said in this era the water well
at  the  ruins  of  Gaza  was  still  operating,  and  it  was  one  of  the  few  water  sources  available
before entering the Sinai desert. Very likely the road to Gaza from Jerusalem was a way to
access the Via Maris trade route that more or less followed the Mediterranean Coastline. It
went all the way south to Egypt, and thus when we hear of this Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip
would  witness  to,  who  was  on  his  way  home,  he  would  naturally  take  the  Via  Maris  to  get
there.
This Ethiopian was a dignitary in the employ of the Kandake of Ethiopia; not of Candace the
Queen  of  Ethiopia  as  many  Bibles  have  it.  Kandake  is  a  title,  and  it  denotes  a  particular
dynasty  of  royalty  over  Ethiopia.  It  was  a  dynasty  of  female  rulers:  Queens.  Ethiopia  was
located  south  of  Egypt  and  is  what  the  Bible  calls  Kush.  These  dark-skinned  people  were
descendants of Ham's son Kush, thus the Biblical name for the place.
It  is  clear  that  this  eunuch  believed  in  the  God  of  Israel,  as  he  had  been  in  Jerusalem  to
worship. In his royal chariot, he was reading the scroll of Isaiah when Phillip spotted him. It
may not seem so on the surface, but there is no doubt a divine pattern is being established
here, and it is interesting to me how Phillip is the one that is setting it. A eunuch is a castrated
male. There were a number of reasons for this castration, but none of it had to do with any kind
of punishment. Rather it prevented marriage, which kept his loyalty squarely upon the person
whom he served. And it limited him to any other kind of vocation as well as marking him for life.
Often removing the male genitalia was for religious purposes especially when serving a female
god or ruler. We must remember that at least from a Biblical viewpoint, castration is seen as
mutilation  and  wrong.  For  one  thing,  it  means  that  this  man  will  never  have  offspring;  his
bloodline  will  end.  In  the  most  ancient  Hebrew  way  of  thinking  that  means  no  afterlife  is
possible,  since  in  some  mysterious  way  one's  afterlife  is  at  least  partially  contained  in  his
children.
But a mutilation of the genitals is also seen as an affront to life itself since fruitfulness in the
form of producing offspring is not possible. Even more, a castrated man may not become an
Israeli national citizen because Deuteronomy says this:  CJB Deuteronomy 23:2 "A man with
crushed or damaged private parts may not enter the assembly of ADONAI. This issue
arises because a man cannot fulfill his role in the Abrahamic Covenant to reproduce; thus that
man cannot be part of Israel.
As  concerns  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  a  castrated  male  is  very  limited  in  where  he  can
worship and in which rituals he can participate. It is likely that if this eunuch was permitted to
enter  the  Temple  Mount  at  all,  it  was  in  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles;  or  more  likely  he  was
prohibited from the Temple area altogether and only came to a Synagogue. That would explain
his interest in Isaiah as that was a Synagogue favorite particularly in this era. Thus there is no
doubt that this Ethiopian eunuch had not converted to Judaism and become a Jew because he
wouldn't have been allowed to; rather he was a God-fearer. He was a gentile who worshipped
the God of Israel.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
So what we see is that Phillip has been dealing with those whom Judaism customarily wanted
little to do. He was dealing with outcasts and those that normative Judaism looked down upon
to one degree or another; first the hated Samaritans, then a sorcerer, and now the castrated
male gentile. And what did Phillip do? He brought these outcasts into the Kingdom of God.
What a hope, and what a God-pattern is shown to us. There is no one low enough, broken
enough, wretched or ruined enough that Yeshua cannot heal their spirit and bring them into His
Kingdom. There is no heritage or race that is excluded. Submit to Christ, and God accepts us.
As is typical of Luke, he says that the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) directed Phillip to go up and join
the eunuch on his chariot. Was this a voice Phillip heard, or some kind of internal unction?
We're  not  told.  But  when  Phillip  inquires  of  the  man  what  it  is  that  he's  reading,  and  if  he
understands it, it is clear that the eunuch does not. He says someone needs to explain it to
him.
We're given the excerpt from Isaiah that the eunuch is reading and it is from Isaiah 53. The
words of Isaiah 53 that we see quoted in Acts chapter 8 more resemble the Greek Septuagint
version rather than the Hebrew Tanakh version. This would make sense since few outside of
the Holy Land could read or speak Hebrew; however Greek was widely known. And of course
this is a Messianic prophecy that the eunuch is reading, which would be most difficult to grasp
if  one  had  not  grown  up  in  a  Jewish  culture.  But  even  then,  the  Synagogues  had  various
interpretations  of  its  meaning,  the  most  accepted  being  that  this  suffering  servant  who  was
humiliated and denied justice was referring to Israel as a whole and not to an individual.
Acts 8:32-33 CJB
32 "He was like a sheep led to be slaughtered; like a lamb silent before the shearer, he
does not open his mouth.
33 He was humiliated and denied justice. Who will tell about his descendants, since his
life has been taken from the earth?"
The eunuch sees that the plain reading of this passage indicates an individual so he wonders if
Isaiah  is  speaking  about  himself  or  is  it  someone  else?  This  gave  Phillip  the  opening  he
needed. He of course informed the man that this was speaking of Messiah Yeshua and he
explained the matter and the Ethiopian believed.
It is the Ethiopian, not Philip that seems to raise the issue of immersion. The eunuch obviously
had  spent  sufficient  time  among  Jews  and  studying  the  Bible  that  he  was  familiar  with  the
mikveh and immersion in water. The way the eunuch asks the question is like this: "Is there
anything that should prevent me from being immersed?"  This no doubt was something he
had run into before due to his condition of being castrated and being gentile; it may well be that
he had not been allowed to immerse and was wondering if now he could.
Where  they  found  the  water  to  immerse  we  don't  know.  But  wherever  it  was  it  met  the
requirement of it being Living Water (meaning the source of the water had to be water that
moved, like the ocean, a river, or a spring). And since Phillip and the eunuch entered the water
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
together the source was of reasonable size. Upon immersion of the unnamed eunuch, we are
told that Phillip was suddenly snatched away, his job here completed. The Greek word used for
snatched  away  is  harpazo,  the  same  word  we  find  in  1Thessalonians  4  that  speaks  of
Believers being caught up into the air to meet Christ in the clouds. So what happened here
was a miraculous and unexpected act of God; Phillip didn't just quickly leave the scene on his
own. Phillip suddenly finds himself in Ashdod near the Mediterranean Sea. There he continues
to proclaim the Good News and journeys town by town northward about 50 miles to Caesarea
(this is speaking of Caesarea Maritima), which was an impressive and bustling port city that
had been greatly improved by King Herod. There he would have met people from every sort of
nationality and religion.
Let's move on to Acts chapter 9.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 9 all
After our being briefly introduced to Paul at the end of chapter 7, the story now turns back to
him in chapter 9 and he becomes the focus. I said in the introduction to the Book of Acts that it
is critical that because almost all Church doctrine comes from Paul, so we must learn who Paul
is  before  we  are  properly  equipped  to  read  and  decipher  his  God-inspired  letters.  And  that
while  his  Epistles  like  Galatians,  Romans,  Corinthians  and  so  on  indeed  give  us  Paul's
theology, they don't tell us who he is, why he thinks like he does, and most importantly what
his terms mean to him. We'll find that information only in the Book of Acts. And without that
and some other information about Synagogues and Judaism in general, it is not possible to
correctly interpret much of what Paul says. And what we find is that he is a Diaspora Jew born
in Tarsus of Cilicia. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, a tribe that Judah had centuries earlier
absorbed and so those of Benjamin were called by the same name as those of the tribe of
Judah:  Jews.  But  it  is  also  interesting  to  note  how  after  all  this  time,  at  least  some  Jews
continued to also identify with their original tribal family heritage even when they lived outside
of the Holy Land.
So  while  I've  spoken  on  Paul  before,  let's  review  a  little  and  I'm  going  to  add  more
information.  The  2  names  he  goes  by  in  the  New  Testament  are  Paul  and  Saul,  or  more
correctly  Sha'ul,  the  same  name  of  the  1st  king  of  Israel  who  was  from  Paul's  tribe  of
Benjamin,  King  Sha'ul.  Paul  is  Latin,  Sha'ul  is  Hebrew.  Since  Latin  and  Greek  were  the
primary  languages  of  the  Roman  Empire,  then  it  is  not  surprising  that  Paul  would  have  an
alternative Roman name. What we can be sure of is that his given name was Sha'ul and not
Paul because in Acts 13 we read: 9 "Then Sha'ul, also known as Paul, filled with the Ruach
HaKodesh....."So Paul was an assumed name that he used sometimes because it more fit his
life as a Diaspora Jew.
Paul's  hometown  of  Tarsus  was  quite  large:  around  ½  million  population.  It  had  a  sizeable
Jewish  community  with  many  Synagogues.  Paul's  first  language  was  Greek,  but  he  also
spoke Hebrew and Aramaic because Hebrew and Aramaic were similar and it was typical of
highly  educated  Jewish  scholars  to  know  both  languages  since  the  many  Jewish  religious
documents contained both Aramaic and Hebrew script. The Church Father Jerome, who lived
in the late 4th and early 5th centuries A.D. claims that Paul's family lived for a time in Gush
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 20 - Chapter 8 and 9
 
Chalav in the Galilee; but as the result of war they migrated to Tarsus where Paul was born.
Paul specifically says that he was born into Roman citizenship, something that was not usual
for Diaspora Jews. So his father was a Roman citizen by some means. Since Paul will use that
Roman citizenship to his advantage let's see just what that bought him. First, the benefits of
being a Roman citizen covered virtually every aspect of life. Everything from judicial sentences
to  tax  penalties  was  less  for  citizens  than  for  non-citizens.  Class  also  mattered;  the  higher
classes of Roman citizens used different courts than the lower classes, and the higher classes
were more or less presumed innocent while the lower classes were generally presumed guilty.
It  seems  pretty  clear  from  what  we  read  of  Paul's  encounter  with  the  court  system  that  he
knew his way around the judiciary, and could demand an audience with a king or very high
Roman official to personally look at his case. There is little doubt that Paul's family had status.
As  Rabbi  Joseph  Shulam  cleverly  observes,  one  of  the  most  enviable  rights  that  a  Roman
citizen had that others didn't was the right to appeal a court decision. Further a citizen was
protected  against  unjust  private  or  public  arrest,  and  he  couldn't  be  punished,  tortured,
incarcerated or executed by local judicial authorities. Thus we see that when Paul was arrested
for speaking the Gospel he was eventually taken to the highest authority in Rome when he lets
it be known that he is a Roman citizen and demands his rights. Paul was used to privilege in
his life, and it didn't end when he became an Apostle.
Paul was a Pharisee because Paul's family was a family of Pharisees; something rare outside
of the Holy Land. However if his family had migrated some years earlier from Galilee to Tarsus
as  Jerome  claims,  then  joining  the  party  of  the  Pharisees  while  in  the  Galilee  and  then
continuing to consider themselves as practicing Pharisees even while living in the Diaspora
makes more sense.
There is more that we need to understand about Paul the person, and I want to take all the
time needed, so we'll stop here and continue next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 21, Chapter 9
We  began  Acts  chapter  9  last  week  but  I  purposely  postponed  getting  too  deep  into  the
Scripture  passages  to  instead  focus  our  attention  on  the  person  of  Paul;  or  better  Sha'ul,
which was his given Hebrew name. Paul is the English version of a Latin word that is probably
Paulus and it seems that in general he used that name, and that name was used of him, when
he was dealing either with Jews from the Diaspora or gentiles who were subjects of the Roman
Empire. Then dealing with Hebrews he seems to mostly use Sha'ul (Saul in English).
My reason for pausing at this point, and delving deeper into Paul, is that much of what will
occur  for  the  remainder  of  Acts  will  involve  Paul  to  varying  levels.  There  is  no  more
misunderstood, misquoted, and influential source for Christian doctrine than Paul; so it is vital
that we do all we can to uncover what Paul intends to tell us. Yet we can no more hope to
understand what Paul meant by the things he did and said in his many letters that dominate
the New Testament, than we can hope to understand what Homer meant by what he said in
his  great  epic  poems  "The  Iliad"  and  "The  Odyssey",  or  by  what  Tolstoy  said  in  "War  and
Peace",  until  we  understand  them  as  the  unique  individuals  that  they  were  who  lived  at
particular times in history, and in the context of their culture, language, upbringing, education,
and life experiences. Every writer speaks from the position of their own particular worldview,
the lens through which they see history and happenings unfold and interpret them, even if they
aren't  fully  conscious  of  it.  So  to  pretend  as  though  Paul  was  a  blank  sheet  of  paper  who
didn't have a personal worldview, or that whatever it was that he wrote is so mysterious that it
transcends whatever worldview he may or may not have held, is not only illogical it makes him
less than human. And for those theologians and Bible commentators who demand that Paul is
culturally neutral or his words have little or no connection to who he is as a human person,  it is
for no other reason than for that writer or translator to be fully freed to make whatever he or
she wants to make out of Paul's words. 
So  I  have  been  putting  together  a  picture  for  you  of  who  the  historical  Paul  is  before  we
examine  what  he  says;  where  he  came  from,  what  influenced  his  religious  and  societal
thoughts and beliefs, and what the terms he regularly used meant to him in the context of his
particular  Jewish  experience.  It  is  complicated  because  just  like  for  anyone,  we  can't  be
entirely described and labeled according to only one aspect of our lives. We can no more fully
describe Paul by using the term Jew and thus anticipate his actions and reactions and thought
processes than we can fully describe a random person as a Christian and assume too much
only from that. This becomes especially important when some of the most critical doctrines that
are foundational to our faith as Believers in Christ comes directly from the writings of Paul. 
For those listeners who might think that what I'm covering is not something that anyone but a
Bible academic needs to know, think again.  For 21st century western gentiles, even though
you might not realize it, Paul couldn't be more of a foreigner to us. So let's continue adding to
Paul's biography.
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
Last time I said that Paul was originally a Diaspora Jew who was born and raised (at least for a
time) in Tarsus of the province of Cilicia. It was a large city and so Paul was anything but a
country boy like Yeshua was. At some point he came to the Holy Land to live and to go to
religious school. He came from a prestigious family who identified themselves as Pharisees,
something  rather  unusual  when  a  Jewish  family  lived  outside  of  the  Holy  Land.  The
social/political/religious  divisions  within  Judaism  that  are  represented  by  the  parties  of  the
Sadducees,  Pharisees,  and  Essenes  were  mostly  present  in  Judea  and  the  Diaspora  Jews
didn't tend to divide themselves up and label themselves that way. In the Diaspora occupation,
craft, and social status usually determined which Synagogue one might attend; not so different
from modern Christianity.
It is significant that Paul was a Roman citizen, another unusual status for a Jew. Not unheard
of, but not typical; and this status was greatly advantageous to Sha'ul bringing him credibility
as well as affording him special rights. This further emphasizes the privileged life he was born
into, and his ease of operating in both Jewish and gentile environments.
Paul was a Greek speaker as his first language. However in order to attend the elite Academy
of Gamaliel in Jerusalem for his religious training, he had to be fluent in Hebrew and be familiar
with Aramaic. But even more the Academy of Gamaliel was so distinguished that in order to be
a student Paul would have had to demonstrate amazing potential, as only a handful of the best
and brightest were admitted. What were the students taught? The Tanakh (the Old Testament,
the   Hebrew   Bible)   and   Halakhah;   that   is,   they   were   taught   the   Scriptures   and   Oral
Torah....Traditions. We find Paul quote Scriptures dozens of times in his letters so he knew his
way around the Bible. However, just as it is in Christian institutions, it is not so much what the
Bible actually says that matters as much as what the teacher says the Bible means by what it
says.  Put  another  way,  Bible  interpretation  was  the  key,  and  the  interpretations  are  what
separated the various factions of Judaism from one another the same way it separates the
several thousand modern day Christian denominations from one another.  And since Gamaliel
was  a  Pharisee  (and  so  was  Paul  even  before  coming  to  the  Holy  Land),  then  it  was  the
Biblical  interpretations  of  the  Pharisees,  meaning  the  Traditions  of  the  Pharisees,  that  Paul
learned.
So I want to stress again: the world of the Pharisees was the world of the Synagogue.  And the
world  of  the  Synagogue  stressed  Oral  Torah,  Traditions.  So  Paul's  thought  processes,  the
very  fiber  of  his  understanding,  was  most  influenced  by  Halakhah,  which  was  the  body  of
Jewish law that controlled everyday life for Jews.  The Temple and the Priesthood however
was the world of the Sadducees, and they stressed the Torah of Moses. They did not accept
the Halakhah of the Pharisees; of course that means that they had their own interpretations of
what the Law of Moses meant by what it said, and it was in many important ways different from
the interpretations of the Pharisees and therefore often different from what was taught at the
Synagogues. So the Temple and the Synagogue were rivals in many aspects.
Synagogues in the Diaspora used the Greek Septuagint as their Bibles. The LXX was a Greek
translation of the Tanakh that had been created about 250 B.C.; although in the Holy Land
some Synagogues used the Hebrew Bible (the original Tanakh) depending on the affiliation of
the  Synagogue.  Paul  would  have  been  most  familiar  with  the  Septuagint.  Although  born  in
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
Tarsus, Paul says in Acts 22 that he was "brought up" in Jerusalem. Luke says that at the time
Paul was holding the cloaks for those who would stone Stephen he was a "young man". A
"young man" in that day was between roughly 24 to 40 years of age. So Paul had lived for
some time in Jerusalem and was heavily indoctrinated in the type of Judaism present in the
Holy Land more so than in the type of Judaism practiced in the foreign lands of the Diaspora.
So although Paul had been subjected to Hellenist influences early in his life, it would be quite
incorrect to label Paul as a Hellenist Jew. As an elite academic he was familiar with both sides
of the fence, so to speak. He was as comfortable among the Hebrew Jews as he was among
the Hellenist Jews.
I'll stop here for now in describing the historical Paul by giving you an example of how knowing
a person's worldview, culture, and life context matters so much when interpreting what he or
she has to say. I'm going to take this example not from Paul, but from His Master Yeshua. I do
this for a couple of reasons; first because we see that even Jesus Christ was not a blank slate.
At  least  what  we  might  characterize  as  the  human  attribute  of  Him  had  a  definite  personal
worldview and a life context that we need to grasp so that we can correctly understand what
He  meant  by  what  He  said.  After  all,  He  was  a  rural  Galilean  Jew,  a  craftsman,  who
communicated with, and lived among, other common, blue-collar every day Jews. And the life-
context I want to highlight is that Yeshua's world was the world of the Synagogue, not of the
Temple. And second, although he didn't belong to any party, it is my opinion that he was likely
closest in religious philosophy to that of the Essenes. Nonetheless even though we are told
that He had no formal religious training, it was the world of the Synagogue that He lived in and
frequented, and not the world of the Temple. In fact the New Testament record shows that He
only visited Jerusalem and the Temple during the Biblical Feast days, and that in order to obey
requirements  of  the  Law  of  Moses.  Thus  He  well  knew  the  teachings  of  the  Rabbis.  He
certainly didn't need training in the Word of God since He WAS the Word of God. The point is
that He was quite familiar with the terms of the Synagogue because that was part of standard
Jewish social life.
The example I want to give to you comes from Yeshua's most famous and extensive speech,
the Sermon on the Mount. After plainly and emphatically stating in Matthew 5:17 -19 that He
did  not  come  to  change  or  abolish  the  Law  of  Moses  or  the  Prophets,  so  no  one  should
interpret what He is saying in that light, in verse 21 we read this:
CJB Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that our fathers were told, 'Do not murder,' and that
anyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment.
When a Jewish teacher or a Rabbi is in a debate (a Midrash) or instructing on the Torah, the
first  thing  they  say  is  what  a  prominent  teacher  or  Rabbi  has  previously  said  about  it.  And
Christ says that what this crowd of Jews had been told by the earlier teachers of their fathers
was  "do  not  murder"  because  they'll  be  judged  for  it.  But  now,  in  typical  rabbinical  fashion,
Christ gives His interpretation of the commandment to not murder. So in the next verse He
says:
CJB Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who nurses anger against his brother will be
subject  to  judgment;  that  whoever  calls  his  brother,  'You  good-for-nothing!'  will  be
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
brought before the Sanhedrin; that whoever says, 'Fool!' incurs the penalty of burning in
the fire of Gei-Hinnom!
For   Yeshua's   followers,   this   was   Yeshua's   Oral   Torah,   or   Tradition,   about   what   the
commandment  to  not  murder  means.  And  despite  all  the  erroneous  teachings  we've  heard
that  essentially  Christ  lessened  the  restrictions  of  the  commandments  of  Moses,  thereby
making it easier and less burdensome, in fact we find that He made them much stricter. Here
harboring anger or even saying something unkind against a brother (meaning a fellow Hebrew)
was considered to break the commandment against murder.
A few verses later we hear: 
CJB Matthew 5:31 "It was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get (a divorce
decree).'
So in the same familiar rabbinical format Yeshua now discusses a hot topic of His day, divorce.
And  He  begins  by  saying  what  has  been  previously  declared  by  the  earlier  Synagogue
teachings  about  divorce  is  that  the  wife  must  receive  an  official  divorce  decree  and  if  the
husband will do that, then he meets all the requirements of the commandment. But then in the
next verse He says what His interpretation of the law of divorce is:
CJB Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground
of  fornication,  makes  her  an  adulteress;  and  that  anyone  who  marries  a  divorcee
commits adultery.
We  see  that  just  as  with  the  murder  topic,  Yeshua's  interpretation  about  divorce  was  far
stricter.
The rather standard Christian teaching on this passage is that Yeshua was speaking against
the Law of Moses and essentially canceling the commandments from Mt. Sinai and replacing
them with His own. Had you been a Jew in that day, and regularly attended the Synagogue,
you  would  have  heard  this  form  of  debate  and  teaching  countless  times.  And  it  in  no  way
challenged or changed the Law of Moses; it was simply an issue of how to correctly interpret
the Law of Moses.
Paul as a trained Rabbi also thought and spoke in the same usual customary way of Rabbis.
Thus while to the uninitiated gentile Yeshua might sound as though he is setting up a new
system of Laws and speaking against the old system (but He is not), so it is that when we hear
Paul  speak  about  the  Law,  even  though  it  might  seem  so  to  a  gentile,  he  is  never  talking
against the Law but rather is offering His interpretation of the Law. And he is doing this in light
of  his  own  life  experiences  as  a  Pharisee,  and  owing  to  his  training  at  the  Academy  of
Gamaliel,  but  now  greatly  influenced  with  the  divine  revelation  of  the  risen  Christ  and  what
Christ's disciples taught him.
What I'm telling you is not speculation; it is historical fact derived from a number of reliable
sources.  If  you  can  but  get  your  mind  to  accept  it  then  reading  Paul's  letters  changes
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
dramatically. His attitude towards the Law no longer seems negative at times, and some of the
supposed  contradictions  he  occasionally  seems  to  offer  disappear.  Suddenly  everything  he
says comes right back into line with the Torah, and with what Christ taught. We also see that
while Paul is in no way repudiating or pulling away from Judaism, often he is arguing against
many of the erroneous Traditions of Judaism that were popular, although incorrect.
So with that as our background, let's get into the Scripture passages of Acts chapter 9.
Let's re-read just the opening verses of Acts 9.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 9:1-19
Most  commentators  will  refer  to  Acts  9:1  -19  as  The  Conversion  of  Paul.  Nothing  could  be
more misleading or inaccurate; and, I'm sorry to say, while I don't think it is meant that way, it
is one of the most anti-Semitic Christian catch-phrases that one could use. In fact, Paul himself
spoke out against the concept of conversion when a Jew or gentile comes to faith in Christ.
I've spoken against the use of the term conversion and all that the word entails and I won't
repeat  that  teaching,  although  I  will  briefly  summarize.  In  the  dictionary  and  certainly  in  the
sense of the word as we think of it today, to convert means to metamorphose. It means to
become something entirely different. A caterpillar will convert, or metamorphose, to a butterfly.
The result is that there is no longer any resemblance between a caterpillar and a butterfly; all
traces of the caterpillar have disappeared and an entirely new creature has emerged. Paul did
not metamorphose from a Jewish caterpillar to a Christian butterfly.
Rather Paul turned. That is, he turned away from wrong interpretations of the Law and the
Prophets and turned towards the right interpretations. He turned away from rejecting Yeshua
as the Messiah that the Law and the Prophets pointed to, and turned towards accepting Him
not only as Savior but as God. Paul did not become a new creature; he was simply the same
creature  with  a  new  understanding.  He  did  not  cease  being  a  Jew  and  instead  became  a
gentile. He did not stop obeying the Law of Moses, and start obeying a new set of Laws that
Yeshua supposedly created. He did not renounce Judaism and adopt Christianity, and he did
not stop going to the Temple or the Synagogue and instead become a church-goer. So my
name for Acts 9:1 -19 is The Turning of Saul.
The chapter opens with Saul's condition before he turns. He is working furiously to stamp out
this new sect of Judaism that calls itself The Way. Paul is not intending to personally murder
anyone; that wasn't his job because he was an academic. But no doubt, as with Stephen, he
was hoping that by ferreting out and arresting Yeshua's followers that the result would be the
same.  Thus  in  verse  2  we  find  that  Paul  goes  to  the  High  Priest  and  asks  for  letters  of
authorization  to  the  Synagogue  leaders  to  identify  and  hand  over  to  Paul  anyone  in  their
congregations that might be Yeshua sympathizers. Why go to the High Priest for permission?
Because the High Priest was head of the Sanhedrin and Paul was operating in some kind of
official capacity for the Sanhedrin. And why go to the Synagogues? Because especially in the
Diaspora the Synagogue functioned the way Churches do in rural settings. That is they are
typically the local meeting place; town hall and sanctuary rolled into one. The Synagogue was
the  social  and  religious  hub  of  the  Jewish  communities  operating  in  foreign  lands,  and  this
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
represented around 95% of all living Jews.
This also shows that even though there was a separation of authority structure and operation
between the Temple and the Synagogue, that since the Sanhedrin was the Jewish High Court,
and the head of the Jewish High Court was the High Priest, then the Temple of course had
authority in a certain sense over the Synagogue and those who attended. Thus we find Paul on
the  road  to  Damascus  with  a  letter  of  authority  to  round  up  Believers  in  any  of  the  several
Synagogues there. Damascus was in Syria, part of the Roman Empire, but of course outside of
the Holy Land. Since the Believers of Jerusalem fled after the execution of Stephen no doubt it
was these fugitives that Paul was searching for.
It was a 130 mile journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and somewhere along the route Paul
was confronted by God; or better by Yeshua in spirit. A bright light burst from the sky and it
was so terrifying and sudden that Paul fell to the ground in fright; a voice rang out from the
clouds that asked Paul why he was persecuting him. Actually Luke says that the words from
Heaven said Sha'ul, not Paul, indicating that the language Saul heard was Hebrew. Sha'ul of
course is puzzled and confused and asks who it is that is speaking to him. The voice says it is
Yeshua.  Clearly  the  point  of  Yeshua  identifying  Himself  with  the  persecuted  Believers  is  to
show full solidarity with them. But it also makes the point that from the divine perspective to
reject and persecute a worshipper of Messiah because they are doing the will of the Messiah is
the same as rejecting and persecuting the Messiah Himself.
Our CJB is correct to say that Paul's response was "Sir, who are you?" unlike most versions
that say "Lord, who are you?" When Sha'ul responded he was not meaning lord in the sense
of the Lord God, but rather in the sense of addressing a person of authority; so "sir" carries the
best meaning.  Yeshua responded by telling Paul to get up from the ground and complete his
journey to Damascus. But when he got there someone would be sent to meet him with further
instructions.
Verse 7 explains that Paul had companions traveling with him; they saw the light, they heard
the voice, but they saw no one who was speaking. They were frozen with fear and could say
nothing. But Sha'ul was blind. It was not the intensity of the light that blinded him or the other
men would have been blinded as well. Nor was Paul being punished for not believing. Might
his visual blindness be a living metaphor that exposed his spiritual blindness? Yes, I think so.
There  were  much  earlier  events  in  Israel's  history  that  essentially  accomplished  the  same
thing.  One  was  when  Miriam  spoke  out  against  her  brother  Moses  and  questioned  his
authority. She instantly broke out in Tzara'at, an unclean skin disease that is divinely caused.
Thus  Miriam's  spiritual  health  was  revealed;  she  was  spiritually  unclean  on  the  inside  even
though she looked so pious on the outside.
Sha'ul's companions had to lead him by the hand the remainder of their journey to Damascus
and he stayed blind for a time after he arrived. During that time he neither eats nor drinks. He
was blind, not ill, so very likely he was fasting as he realized he had encountered God and
because  of  Christ's  instructions  he  knew  he  was  about  to  hear  more  from  God  through
someone   else.   Fasting   to   prepare   for   God's   oracle   was   Biblical   and   it   is   invariably
accompanied with prayer.
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
There  was  a  particular  disciple  of  Christ  in  Damascus  named  Hananyah.  Hananyah  is  a
Hebrew  name,  so  this  person  was  a  Jew  originally  from  the  Holy  Land,  likely  one  of  the
fugitives Paul was seeking to arrest. The Lord comes to Hananyah in a vision and calls his
name.  Hananyah  replies,  "Behold,  here  I  am  Lord".  We  don't  find  the  word  "behold"  in  the
CJB, but it ought to be there because the Greek says "idou", which is a Greek translation of
the Hebrew word hineni. Hineni is a word that characterizes obedience, attentiveness and a
readiness  to  act  with  zeal  upon  whatever  comes  next.  It  is  often  associated  with  God's
prophets. God tells Hananyah to go to a certain house and ask about a man from Tarsus and
that  this  man  will  be  praying  (this  ties  in  with  Sha'ul  fasting).  And  while  praying  God  has
readied Paul for this encounter by means of a vision of Hananyah coming to him, laying hands
on him, and restoring his sight.
But Hananyah was skeptical of Yeshua's instruction to go to Paul because Paul's mission to
harm the Believers was well known. Yeshua doesn't chastise Hananyah because He knows
things  that  Hananyah  doesn't.  So  He  patiently  explains  that  Paul  has  been  chosen  for  a
special mission, and that will be to carry the Good News to the gentiles, to gentile kings, and
even to the sons of Israel. This reference to the sons of Israel means the Diaspora Jews who
live among the gentiles but no doubt is also meant to include the scattered 10 tribes of Israel
most of whom had forgotten their Hebrew heritage. But more, Yeshua tells Hananyah that Paul
is also going to find out that this mission is going to require great suffering. And indeed it did
as, for example, Paul says in 2Corinthians 11:
2Corinthians 11:24-28 CJB
24 Five times I received "forty lashes less one" from the Jews.
25  Three  times  I  was  beaten  with  rods.  Once  I  was  stoned.  Three  times  I  was
shipwrecked. I spent a night and a day in the open sea.
26 In my many travels I have been exposed to danger from rivers, danger from robbers,
danger  from  my  own  people,  danger  from  Gentiles,  danger  in  the  city,  danger  in  the
desert, danger at sea, danger from false brothers.
27  I  have  toiled  and  endured  hardship,  often  not  had  enough  sleep,  been  hungry  and
thirsty, frequently gone without food, been cold and naked.
28 And besides these external matters, there is the daily pressure of my anxious concern
for all the congregations.
One can only imagine what was going through Hananyah's mind as he contemplated Christ's
words that Paul would take the Jewish Gospel to gentiles. This had to be perhaps the most
incomprehensible (probably the most upsetting) part of what he heard in his vision. Why would
the gentiles want a Jewish Messiah and why would the Jews want to share their Messiah with
their  oppressors?  Nonetheless  Hananyah  obeyed,  went  in  and  laid  his  hands  on  Paul  and
Paul's  sight  returned.  His  blessing  upon  Sha'ul  was  in  the  name  of  Yeshua,  the  same  one
who took Paul's sight away from him a few days earlier.
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
But  now  comes  an  issue  we  discussed  a  couple  of  lessons  ago;  Hananyah's  laying  on  of
hands also resulted in Paul receiving the Holy Spirit. So we are left to assume that Paul had
already come to believe in Yeshua (although we are not directly told so), probably during his
prayer and fasting.  So sometime after coming to faith, but before immersion, the Holy Spirit
comes to indwell Paul but only with the laying on of hands. And along with the indwelling of the
Spirit comes healing. My conviction is that the end of his physical blindness was a real and
living  witness  to  the  end  of  his  spiritual  blindness;  otherwise  the  physical  blindness  doesn't
seem to have had a discernable purpose.
We discussed the issue of the connection between faith, baptism and the Holy Spirit at length
in earlier lessons but the point I want to draw today is that while Christian denominations will
often insist upon a certain authorized sequence of how and when baptism and the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit MUST happen and does happen, in fact what we have seen up to now in the
Book of Acts, and will see more of in coming chapters, is that there is no consistent divine
formula  or  sequence;  it  can  happen  in  any  number  of  ways.  Sometimes  long  intervals  can
happen  between  steps;  sometimes  it  all  happens  immediately.  Sometimes  it  involves  the
intervention of another; sometimes it all happens in private. The Lord is sovereign and He will
deal with us as individuals and on His own terms.
The healing Paul experiences is as though scales fell from his eyes. There is no reason to take
this as an expression; some kind of flaky substance literally covered over his eyes for several
days and then all at once fell off. The healed, saved, prepared Paul is now ready for God to
begin to mold him and shape him. Paul ends his fast, and begins eating and drinking again to
regain his strength.
Let's read a little more of Acts chapter 9.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 9:19 – 22
We're told that Paul spent time with the disciples in Damascus no doubt mostly meaning he
lodged with them while there. And immediately he went to the Synagogues to preach Yeshua
as  the  Son  of  God.  Immediately  is  eutheos  in  Greek,  and  we  should  be  careful  as  to  the
intensity  that  the  word  "immediately"  has  to  our  minds  in  modern  English.  "Immediately"  in
typical modern day use has the sense of something being hurried, or urgent, or nearly instant.
Rather the word eutheos more has the correct sense of forthwith or directly simply meaning
that  there  was  nothing  of  any  note  that  occurred  in  between  two  events,  and  that  not  very
much time passed. So the first thing Paul did after hanging out with the disciples for a few days
was to go speak in the Synagogues. No doubt during that time he and the disciples discussed
theology and Halakhah and this gave Paul time to digest all that had happened in the last few
days.
But note where it is that Paul went; to the Synagogues. Why? Because that's where the Jews
would be. So even though the bulk of Paul's mission will be to the gentiles, first he goes to the
Jews. And we're told that Sha'ul taught that Yeshua was the Son of God, which is interesting
because we might think that we would find that words that Paul taught are that Yeshua is the
Mashiach; the Messiah. Let's not just glide right by what it is that Paul taught.
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 21 - Chapter 9
 
Son of God was not just a term that Yeshua seemed to favor to describe Himself (along with
Son of Man), it had a definite meaning in the world of Judaism and especially if one was a
Pharisee  (which,  of  course,  Paul  was).  Son  of  God  was  a  term  that  we  find  in  the  Old
Testament that refers to the entire line of kings coming from King David; however some of the
Psalms, such as 110, nuance this term to give it a Messianic tone. Thus in early Biblical usage
Son of God did not have any sense that a Davidic king was deity. Rather it is that since God
was supposed to be Israel's king, but long ago Israel had demanded a human king to rule over
them, then the human king was supposed to be God's agent or under-shepherd on earth so to
speak. The human king of Israel was to operate in a Torah based, godly manner behaving
more as servant to his people than a superior self-serving ruler so typical of gentile kings. But
God was to rule over the king and the king was to accept that. And King David is said to have
exemplified this as God's servant/shepherd king.
Thus when Paul preached Yeshua as Son of God, it would have been little different had he
preached  King  David  as  Son  of  God.  By  Paul's  day  the  Pharisees  were  teaching  that  a
Messiah in the mold of King David was coming. They were not at all expecting this new King
David to be anything other than a normal flesh and blood human being. So since King David
was himself called a son of God by the Lord, then the strongest part of the reference is the
"King"  part.  The  "God"  part  meant  that  this  king  was  God  authorized  and  under  the  rule  of
God. So when Paul preached Yeshua as Son of God it mostly meant that Yeshua was God's
anointed king who comes from King David's line. And since the Halakhah of the Pharisees
said  that  Israel's  next  anointed  king  would  be  from  King  David's  line,  and  would  be  their
deliverer from the oppression of Rome, then this king was of course the Messiah (the anointed
one). Again; no thought of deity was involved in that concept.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm in no way saying that Paul was preaching that Yeshua was just
a man and not God. It's only that we're told that the first thing Paul taught about Yeshua was
that  he  was  the  Davidic  king  that  had  been  prophesied.  And  the  Pharisees  said  that  the
Davidic king was the Messiah. Even though the Jews in the Synagogues of Damascus would
not have counted themselves as Pharisees, all the Oral Torah (Halakhah) they were taught in
the Synagogues came from the teaching of the Pharisees, because all Rabbis were Pharisees.
Paul had an audience that would readily understand what he was preaching. The issue was
whether or not they would accept it.
We'll continue with Acts chapter 9 next time.  
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
 THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 22, chapter 9 continued
Acts chapter 9 began with the fierce heretic hunter, Paul, determined to help eradicate this new
sect  of  Judaism  that  called  itself  The  Way,  but  whom  the  other  Jewish  factions  called  the
Notzrim. But by halfway through the chapter Sha'ul has had a life-changing encounter with
Yeshua calling out to him from Heaven, and has himself come to accept that Yeshua is the
long awaited Messiah; Paul finds himself joining the very group he set out to destroy. Because
the   concept   of   Judaism   as   the   organizational   birthplace   of   Christ-worship   can   be   so
challenging for gentile Christians (and Jews as well) to get a handle on, I'll restate something
we've  talked  about  before.  What  is  it  about  The  Way  insisting  that  Yeshua  is  the  Messiah,
which has caused other factions of Judaism to feel such anger towards them to the point of
murder?  After  all,  their  founder  and  leader,  Yeshua,  was  dead;  so  obviously  he  was  of  no
further  threat  to  Judaism's  leadership  structure.  While  it  is  always  a  little  dangerous  to
oversimplify  a  complex  issue,  in  the  end  it  was  that  the  Traditions  taught  by  Yeshua  didn't
agree with the Traditions taught by these other factions of Judaism; or in Church-speak, it was
a violent disagreement over religious doctrines and religious authority.
Even  in  Israel  today  the  disagreements  over  Halakhah  (Jewish  law)  and  religious  authority
among Jewish factions can be extremely heated, regularly resulting in assaults and property
damage;  and  especially  when  it  involves  Jewish  followers  of  Yeshua.  A  few  years  ago  an
Israeli Messianic Jewish family that I personally know was viciously attacked by an Orthodox
religious  Jew  over  obvious  differences  in  doctrines.  This  family's  teenage  boy  received  an
explosive device disguised as a Purim gift. He brought it to his kitchen table, opened it and it
exploded in his face destroying the room and injuring and burning him terribly. Miraculously,
but with numerous operations, he survived. Like for the Believers that Paul was pursuing the
issue  that  caused  this  attempted  murder  was  not  personal  per  se;  it  was  about  Halakhah:
Jewish  law  and  Traditions.  It  was  about  one  faction  of  Judaism  (Messianic  Judaism)  being
picked on by another faction of Judaism.
By way of example, I pointed out in an earlier lesson that shortly before the destruction of the
Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., several disciples of the Jewish faction from the Rabbinic
Academy of Hillel murdered a number of disciples of the Rabbinic Academy of Shammai over
a proposed list of Oral Traditions that Shammai wanted the Sanhedrin to enact and enforce.
So  issues  about  who  was  Messiah  weren't  the  only  reasons  for  violence  among  Jewish
factions.  While  it  might  seem  so  to  modern  Christians,  the  persecution  that  the  Jewish
Believers in the Book of Acts were experiencing from other Jews was nothing new, and in fact
has continued sporadically and for varying reasons for centuries.
 Let's also remember that at the point we're at in the Book of Acts there was as yet no gentile
membership in The Way, and no Roman involvement in the persecution; this was purely an
issue  of  infighting  among  Jews.  However  not  all  factions  of  Judaism  were  determined  to
eradicate The Way; only a few of the most zealous. Some merely tried to harass and thwart
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
their efforts; others had a more live and let live attitude. And to be fair, as regards the Purim
bombing  incident,  Israeli  news  media  raged  against  this  attack  and  a  few  leaders  of
mainstream   Judaism   personally   apologized   to   this   teenage   boy's   family   and   openly
denounced the actions of the Purim bomber. So we can no more indict all Judaism as violent
persecutors of Peter and The Way in the New Testament era, than we can indict all Judaism
as persecutors of the modern day Messianic Jews. We need to keep this perspective in mind
as we continue our study of Acts.
When we left Paul he was still in Damascus, having only recently been healed from his spiritual
and  physical  blindness  by  Hananyah,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Christ  that  had  fled  from
Jerusalem, and   who reluctantly laid hands on Paul at God's instruction. Hananyah knew full
well  who  Sha'ul  was,  and  he  greatly  feared  him.  He  wasn't  so  easily  buying  that  Paul  had
suddenly become a dedicated Believer between the time he left Jerusalem with warrants in
hand to arrest Yeshua followers and his arriving in Damascus a few days later, supposedly a
changed man. But the Lord reassured Hananyah that Paul was now in the fold and in fact had
already been assigned the duty of taking the Good News to the gentiles; something else that
Hananyah couldn't have been too thrilled about. But the ever obedient disciple obeyed God,
and Paul received the Holy Spirit.
Paul ended his fast that began on the day Yeshua confronted him; he ate and regained his
strength and straightaway went to the local Synagogues in Damascus to preach what he had
just learned; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Let's pick up with verse 22.
RE-READ ACTS 9:22 – end
Paul apparently had always been a zealot in everything he did. As we assemble his life history
we see that he came to Jerusalem at a young age to seek the best religious training at the
most  elite  school;  that  he  was  (as  he  once  described  himself)  a  Pharisee  of  Pharisees
(meaning that he adopted the strictest code of Judaism for himself); that he was present at
Stephen's stoning, cheering it on; and then that he was one of the hunters that the Sanhedrin
employed to find and arrest those Jewish Believers who fled Jerusalem to Damascus. So it is
not surprising that after his Salvation he remained every bit as zealous and uncompromising
for Christ; it is simply how Paul was wired. Thus we find him in the Synagogues preaching the
Good News, getting into fiery debates with these Damascus congregations, and upsetting the
Jewish population in general. It seems that Paul was at first the proverbial bull-in-a-china-shop.
He had the intelligence, the desire, the drive and the ability to preach the Good News. Yet we
don't hear of one single person in Damascus that Paul convinced to follow Yeshua. No doubt
it  is  because  he  had  not  yet  learned  to  temper  his  enthusiasm  with  humility  and  the  Godly
wisdom that must accompany true evangelism.
Verse 23 begins with the words "Quite some time later". This could be weeks later, it could be
years, that we read of Paul finally upsetting some of the Jews of Damascus sufficiently that
they decided to kill him. Let me again interject: what had Paul done to warrant death threats?
The standard Halakhah (the Traditions that mainstream Judaism followed) didn't agree with
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
Paul's new Halakhah, which had become that of the Jewish Believers. Nothing more. But the
issues involved (mainly that Yeshua was the Messiah and He was deity) were so sensitive that
it led to a desire of this movements' most outspoken opponents to kill.
I want to pause here and shift gears because we find in our passage that after Paul had to be
stealthily smuggled out of Damascus in a basket, he would go back to Jerusalem. However the
timeline  of  this  sequence  of  events  is  problematic  when  we  compare  this  to  Paul's  own
writings. In Galatians Paul says this:
Galatians 1:15-19 CJB
15  But  when  God,  who  picked  me  out  before  I  was  born  and  called  me  by  his  grace,
chose
16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might announce him to the Gentiles, I did not consult
anyone;
17 and I did not go up to Yerushalayim to see those who were emissaries before me.
Instead, I immediately went off to Arabia and afterwards returned to Dammesek.
18 Not until three years later did I go up to Yerushalayim to make Kefa's acquaintance,
and I stayed with him for two weeks,
19 but I did not see any of the other emissaries except Ya'akov the Lord's brother.
So the issue is this: here in Acts chapter 9 it seems that during the time that Paul first came to
believe, he stayed in Damascus for an extended time. Then when a plot was discovered to
murder  him,  some  local  disciples  helped  him  to  escape  the  walled  City  of  Damascus  by
lowering him down in a basket. And then the next thing we're told (in verse 26) is that he went
to Jerusalem. So the story in Acts 9 seems to say that this all happened in a direct sequence:
he arrived in Damascus as a new Believer, escaped Damascus and then went to Jerusalem.
However Galatians appears to tell a different story. In Galatians Paul says that after he left
Damascus, he first went to Arabia and afterwards went back to Damascus. So only after his 2nd
visit to Damascus did he finally go back to Jerusalem. There are other issues of discrepancy
as well but we'll just focus on the timeline for the moment. In Galatians it seems that between
the time Paul first fled from Damascus and before he finally went to Jerusalem is 3 years. It is
common  for  Bible  commentators  to  say  that  he  was  in  Arabia  for  3  years  but  that  is  an
assumption; it is not what the Scripture passage says. We only know that the amount of time
he spent in Arabia plus the amount of time he spent on his return trip to Damascus totaled 3
years. We don't know how he divided his time between Arabia and Damascus.
As Acts 9:23 says, it was "Quite some time later" when he left Damascus for Jerusalem. We
have here an indefinite period of time from when Paul was led into Damascus, blind, and in a
few days began preaching the Gospel in Synagogues; to when he fled Damascus for Arabia,
and then eventually went back to Damascus, caused another ruckus, and had to escape over
the wall at night. Now admittedly, because the Acts 9 and Galatians 1 passages leave out so
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
much  detail  and  it  is  unclear  exactly  how  much  time  he  spent  where,  there  are  various
interpretations by scholars and commentators. But without trying to define the exact amount of
time,  the  sequence  seems  pretty  obvious  when  we  blend  the  information  of  Acts  9  with
Galatians 1. Paul was on his way to Damascus when he met Christ. He arrived in Damascus,
received the Holy Spirit and regained his sight, and then began preaching the good news in
Synagogues all in only a few days.
At  some  undefined  point  Sha'ul  left  Damascus  for  Arabia.  After  living  in  Arabia  for  some
unknown amount of time he returned to stay in Damascus (also for some unknown amount of
time).  However  we  do  know  that  between  the  time  he  left  Damascus  for  Arabia,  and  then
returned to Damascus and then left Damascus again, this time for Jerusalem, was 3 years. So
essentially everything we see happening in Acts 9 from verse 1 to verse 26 occurred over a
period of 3 years; that's about the best we can do without involving considerable speculation.
What did Paul do while he was in Arabia? We don't know. Some say he preached the Gospel
there  but  nothing  says  that  is  why  he  went  or  what  he  did.  Might  some  of  the  Jerusalem
Believers have fled to Arabia and so he went there to stay with them, or minister to them, safe
from  those  in  Damascus  who  wanted  to  kill  him,  perhaps  even  learning  from  them  or
instructing  them?  It  is  unknowable.    However  any  notion  that  during  the  3  years  away
that  Sha'ul  was  given  some  special  kind  of  education  by  Believers  to  prepare  him  for  his
mission doesn't fly. Nor is there any hint that Paul was like Moses in that God Himself gave
one on one instruction to Paul. Nor while away from his Pharisee associates did he transition
from  Judaism  and  become  a  "Christian"  (we'll  see  the  truth  of  that  play  out  in  coming
chapters of Acts). I can say this without reservation because there is no evidence or implication
that  there  were  any  disciples  at  all  in  Arabia  (although  for  certain  there  were  Jewish
communities in Arabia), and whatever disciples lived in Damascus were ordinary disciples and
not the leadership who tasked themselves as the teachers of the finer points of the Gospel
(we're specifically told that in Acts 6:2 and in Acts 8:1).
But more importantly it is because Paul was already a Torah scholar. He knew more about the
Torah of Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, and the Oral Traditions of the Pharisees than any
of those he was among. We must remember: what Paul learned upon coming to faith in Christ
was some new Oral Traditions (new Bible interpretations) that confirmed that Yeshua was the
Messiah; not that everything he knew was wrong and he had to start over from scratch. Even
what  he  had  to  relearn  concerned  primarily  the  very  narrow  issues  of  the  identification  and
nature of the Messiah and how salvation occurred.  Paul didn't need 3 months, let alone 3
years,  of  training  to  be  an  effective  preacher  of  the  Gospel.  And  it  is  not  as  though  some
extensive blueprint for a new religion, complete with new doctrines, had been created by the
Jerusalem Believers in the few short years since Messiah's death and ascent into Heaven; a
blueprint that Paul needed to be taught. Paul was already a noted Bible expert and trained in
teaching. That is why his letters dominate the New Testament and he is considered in authority
over  the  Believing  congregations  in  the  Diaspora;  he  deals  with  Scripture  passages  and
doctrine  in  organized,  articulate  and  deeply  spiritual  and  practical  ways  that  could  be  very
difficult for Jews of his day, as well as for modern and even early Christians, to understand
because of his high-level academic background and his thorough knowledge of the Tanakh
(the Old Testament).
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
And by the way; I hope by now Seed of Abraham Torah Class listeners understand that there
was  no  New  Testament  in  existence  during  Paul's  era.  Nor  did  Paul  think  he  was  part  of
writing one. It would be around 100 years after Paul before a New Testament was proposed
(and at the time that proposal was considered heresy), and 150 years after Paul before one
was actually formulated and declared by the gentile Bishops. They chose some of Paul's and
Peter's  letters  that  had  been  written  to  various  congregations,  along  with  some  Gospel
accounts and a few other documents that they felt were the most reliable (out of the many that
were  floating  around),  to  form  this  New  Testament.  Thus  everything  Paul  quoted  and
interpreted in his writings as regards Yeshua's advent and all that it means were based on the
ancient Hebrew Tanakh; not some new writings. And yet, when he explained his interpretations
he naturally used the terms and thought processes of his culture and his years of training in the
Pharisee discipline, and these revolved around Halakhah.
So it is about 3 years after Paul came to faith in Christ that we find him back in Jerusalem and
he wants to meet with the disciples (meaning the leadership) in Jerusalem. Paul is a natural
leader and so is most comfortable dealing with leadership as we see he used to deal with the
leadership  of  the  Sanhedrin;  naturally  that's  who  he  seeks  out.  However  just  as  it  was  in
Damascus, even 3 years later, the Believers in Jerusalem don't trust him. They didn't believe
that he had really become one of them. And although it isn't mentioned, his old associates
among  the  Priesthood,  and  the  ruling  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  no  doubt  would  have
considered him a traitor; so Paul finds himself in a bind.
There was one Believer, though, that was willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt: Bar-
Nabba.  He takes Paul to the emissaries (meaning the leadership). This brings us to another
issue that some Bible commentators see as a discrepancy. In Galatians 1:18, 19 Paul says
that  when  he  went  to  Yerushalayim  he  met  ONLY  with  Peter  and  with  James,  Yeshua's
brother. Yet here in Acts 9 the inference is that he was taken to meet with most or all of the 12
disciples. I want to point out that in the case of Acts 9 we likely have Luke using second hand
information (he was not an eye witness) and telling the story in broad and general terms; while
in Galatians 1 we have Paul giving his own account of the same story and being more specific.
It would be like me saying that on such and such a day my wife went to the Supermarket to do
grocery shopping. But when she recounts the story she says that she went to the Supermarket
and bought milk and eggs. I told the story in a general way; she added specific detail. My story
could be construed by others to mean that she bought many different things; but in reality she
only bought a couple of items. Either way she went to the Supermarket. In fact it may be that
Luke didn't even know exactly who among the Believers' leadership that Paul met with; but
later Paul in his own letter to the Galatians says it was only with 2 leaders, Kefa and Ya'acov.
And at this time Peter and James are the top 2 leaders of The Way.
Paul did in Jerusalem as he had done in Damascus; after meeting with Kefa and Ya'acov he
went around preaching about Yeshua (no doubt with their permission). Although it doesn't say
so  specifically  Paul  would  have  taught  in  some  of  the  400  or  so  Synagogues  that  crowded
Jerusalem at this time. Most of the Synagogues were Hellenist, so that explains why it was
specifically the Hellenist Jews that started to make attempts to kill him. I'm wondering if it is
occurring to anyone other than me that somehow the Judaism of Paul's era seems to have
forgotten all about the Torah Commandment that "Thou shalt not kill"? Somewhere along the
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
way since the Babylonian exile, because the teachings of Rabbis and Sages had superseded
the  actual  teachings  of  God  in  His  Word,  matters  became  confused  and  it  was  deemed
justifiable to take the life of someone whose doctrine didn't match your own if the issue was
deemed fundamental enough. It is interesting that never will we encounter the accusation that
Jewish Believers had left Judaism, so that is why they could be murdered. Not once will we
hear of a Jew being told that he cannot both be a Jew and worship Yeshua as the Messiah. So
how much their doctrines disagreed didn't disqualify Believers as being Jewish. I'm sorry to
say that we have similar problems among Christians and Messianics today and the reason for
it now is the same as it was in the New Testament era: the identity of Messiah. But today Jews
do  indeed  accuse  Jewish  Believers  of  giving  up  their  Jewishness,  and  gentile  Believers
demand that Jews minimize or abandon their Jewishness to worship Christ. 
The teaching of God's Word then, as now, had become almost passé. I'm not sure whether
the disinterest of the congregations in the Holy Scriptures has led to Pastors and Rabbis not
bothering to learn and teach the Scriptures; or if it is Pastors and Rabbis who find it easier and
more efficient to preach manmade doctrines and social issues than the Bible so the people
assume  that  they  are  one  in  the  same.  But  today  we  find  all  sorts  of  new  traditions  and
doctrines   among   Believing   congregations   that   turns   God's   actual   Word   on   its   head.
God demands that we execute convicted murderers; most of Christianity and Judaism says
that mercy and compassion demands that we not. The Lord says marriage is one man to one
woman; large and growing segments of Christianity and Judaism say that as long as love is
involved marriage is however we choose to define it; and this list goes on.
So while we can look on with alarm and disgust at the Believers in Paul's day being singled
out for death by other Jews over doctrines of Judaism, and wonder how worshippers of the
God of Israel could do such a thing, we first need to look in the mirror and ask how Believers in
Yeshua, the God of Israel, could adopt the ideas and behaviors that many of us have that are
so contradictory to God's written instructions. In both cases the answer is the same: manmade
doctrines and traditions eventually overturned God's Word.
In verse 30 the Believers in Jerusalem somehow learn about the plot against Paul and get him
out of town before it can be carried out. Paul is sent first to Caesarea and then to Tarsus, the
town  of  his  birth  where  his  parents  and/or  family  lived.  Caesarea  is  referring  to  Caesarea
Maritima  a  bustling  port  city  located  around  60  miles  northwest  of  Jerusalem.  I've  taken
hundreds of people there on tours to Israel, and it is truly breath taking. It was a crown jewel in
many  of  Herod's  building  projects,  2nd  only  to  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem.  The  city  was
thoroughly Roman in design, architecture, engineering technology, and purpose. It contained a
pagan Temple, a hippodrome, a large amphitheater, and the most modern of ports. It served
as  the  provincial  seat  of  Roman  governance  of  Judea.  But  it  also  had  a  large  and  wealthy
Jewish population. It is clear from Paul's final destination, Tarsus, that the reason he went to
Caesarea was to get ship passage to Tarsus.
Tarsus would give Paul a good base from which to launch his mission to the gentiles. He would
have easy access to all points of the compass from there, and he would have had a friendly
environ to host him in the meantime. As a native of Tarsus and as a Roman citizen, he had
every advantage and would make good use of it. And no doubt by now Paul was learning to be
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
a little more measured in how he approached the issue of the Gospel as he brought it to both
Diaspora Jews and gentiles. Another wonderful lesson for us is just under the surface here.
Paul was given his marching orders directly from God: take the Good News of Yeshua to the
gentiles. So far as we know, up to now, there was nothing more specific than that. So when
God gives us an assignment it is up to us to get up and get moving. Pray as preparation, but
don't  expect  the  assignment  to  be  accomplished  supernaturally.  Think.  Assess.  Learn.
Organize. Do. God gave each of us a brain, and certain abilities. Sometimes the Lord will give
us  unusual  backgrounds  and  circumstances  that  give  us  a  unique  opportunity  to  reach  a
certain  segment  of  society,  or  to  accomplish  a  task  that  perhaps  others  couldn't.    Don't  be
afraid to be who you are, to draw on your life experiences, and to use your abilities and assets
in service to the Lord.
Verse 31 says that after Paul's departure, throughout the Holy Land the Messianic community
enjoyed peace. The intent is not to say that it was because of Paul leaving that Messianics
enjoyed peace; but rather that on a timeline it was after Paul departed that things also calmed
down. But it also means that those zealots who were so determined to harass and destroy the
Yeshua followers had calmed down and this period of quiet gave the Believers a chance to
spread the message without fear. 
Notice in this same verse that it speaks of the Believers "living in the fear of the Lord". A better
more literal translation of the Greek is not "living" but rather "going" in the fear of the Lord. I
point this out because at this point in Jewish history the Biblical phrase "walking in the fear of
the Lord" or "going in the fear of the Lord" had become a standard expression in Jewish life
that meant to denote faithful observance to the Halakhah; Jewish law. Remember what I told
you that the word Halakhah means? It means "the path that one walks".   So the idea is that
"walking in the fear of the Lord" is "the path that one walks". See how that fits together? And
in that era, Halakhah consisted of a combination of Torah Law, Oral Law and customs that
Judaism said establishes the path that one ought to walk.
Among  scholars  a  phrase  of  this  type  is  call  a  Hebraism.  That  is,  just  like  we  might  call  a
phrase like "don't let the cat out of the bag" an Americanism because it is used nowhere else
but in America, it has a meaning among Americans that goes beyond what the words mean in
their   literal   sense;   but   only   Americans   know   what   it   means.   After   all,   this   particular
Americanism has nothing to do with cats or bags; it merely means to keep something secret. A
Hebraism does the same; there are sayings that have a certain meaning only within Hebrew
society, and the saying doesn't necessarily mean exactly what the individual words seem to
say. I bring this up because the New Testament is chocked full of Hebraisms that can be hard
to spot because they are first expressed in Greek and then further translated to English. Thus
we can look at the literal meaning of those words and get the wrong impression unless we
recognize it as a uniquely Hebrew expression. So in the NT whenever we see the expression
of going, or walking, or living in the fear of the Lord, it is actually a Hebraism that is referring to
being faithful to the total body of Halakhah.  And of course, this was considered as the most
pious, God-fearing thing that a Jew could do.
Verse 32 now transitions away from Paul and back to Peter, the unquestioned leader of The
Way at this time. He was traveling around, ministering to the Believers who were scattered in
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
groups around the Holy Land. He came to the town of Lud; Lud is also known as Lydda. This
was  a  large  Jewish  city  in  the  Roman  province  of  Samaria,  about  25  miles  northwest  of
Jerusalem. Here Peter would perform another healing miracle.
The subject was a man named Aeneas who, we are told, had been paralyzed for 8 years. The
most common reason for sudden paralysis in an adult in this era was a Stroke. Aeneas was a
Believer. Peter went into his room, and prayed over him in the name of Yeshua the Messiah. In
fact the form of the prayer is a command for Aeneas to be healed of his paralysis. Clearly since
Aeneas  was  a  Believer  living  amongst  other  Believers  many  prayers  for  his  healing  would
already have been sent Heavenward. But Peter had been given special authority by Christ to
do miracles. Since the man had been bed ridden for 8 years, Peter's command to "get up, and
make your bed" is actually a bit light hearted if not humorous. Many non-Believers in the area
heard of this, and saw Aeneas healed, and this brought them to faith in Yeshua. The added
significance  is  that  this  occurred  in  Samaria  so  many  Samaritans  lived  there.  And  we've
discussed before the animosity between Jews and Samaritans. No doubt those who came to
faith involved both Samaritans and Jews.
From there Peter was called to Yafo, also called Jaffa and Joppa. In Yafo lived a young lady
named  Tavita.  Tavita  is  Hebrew  for  gazelle.  The  Greek  word  for  gazelle  is  Dorcas  and  so
occasionally we'll see the name Dorcas in our Bibles. English Bibles usually call her Tabitha.
She was known as a good woman who helped others; however she suddenly took ill and died.
Because in Hebrew society burial must be accomplished by sundown of the day the person
passes away, they quickly washed the body, wrapped her in linen cloth, and laid her on her
bed. So take notice that in the case of the paralyzed man in Lydda and now with the deceased
woman in Yafo, both are Believers. Thus in both cases the local community fully knew that if
He wanted to the Lord could heal not only paralysis but even bring the dead back to life. Who
better to be summoned then, than Peter?
Upper rooms were common on houses as a rather easy way to add on more living space since
all roofs were flat roofs. Often the upper rooms were guest quarters. It was customary for a
Hebrew to be laid out in their own bed in their own room should they die. That it was an upper
room changes none of that.
Verse 39 explains that Peter immediately went to Tavita's bedside, and next to her bed were
sobbing widows. The likely significance that there were several widows present is that often
widows were hired to come and be part of the customary mourning rites. They were usually
available, and many needed money, so a small fee would be paid. So it had become rather
customary to employ widows as professional mourners. These widows were no strangers to
Tavita as they each displayed the clothes Tavita had made and given to them; this tells us that
these widows were indeed poor.
Peter  wasted  no  time;  he  sent  the  widows  away  and  prayed  over  Tavita.  Just  as  Kefa  had
ordered the disabled Aeneas to get up out of his bed, so he orders the deceased Tavita to get
up out of her bed. Immediately she opened her eyes and sat up. Folks, our God has the power
over life and death! Death is no obstacle for Him and this is a hope that we have that is more
than only a wish; it is a promise. As Believers we will still die; but it won't be permanent. We
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 22 - Chapter 9 cont.
 
will live again and our God has but to think it to make it so.
Peter actually follows a Biblical pattern here. This is not the first time in the Bible that a Prophet
of God has been used to bring the dead back to life. Elijah did it. Elisha did it. And of course
Yeshua did it. And each time the pattern was that the corpse was lying on their bed, and the
Prophet ordered everyone to leave the room. The Lord was beseeched through prayer by the
Prophet, and in His sovereign will God acted by raising that person from the dead (just as we
see here with Tavita).
One can only imagine the joy as Peter took her hand and led her to her many friends who
anxiously awaited. No doubt many harbored hope that Tavita would be returned to them; but
how many actually thought it would happen? Was it for Tavita's sake that the Lord reanimated
her lifeless body? No. Tavita's eternal future was secure. The reason for this miracle is stated
in the next verse. 
   CJB Acts 9:42 This became known all over Yafo, and many people put their trust in the
Lord. 
God's purpose for the miracles of Aeneas and Tavita was to demonstrate His power, His love,
His authority over everything seen and unseen. Many who saw these things happen with their
own eyes could not resist and they too accepted Yeshua into their hearts.
This chapter ends with the notice that Kefa stayed in Yafo for an undetermined amount of time,
being hosted by Shimon, a leather tanner. We'll learn more about Shimon next time, but for
now just know that a leather tanner was pretty much the lowliest craft a person could practice.
The tanning fluid used in those days was so putrid in odor that they usually set up shop by the
sea in hopes the wind would help some. But it also meant that the tanner wore a permanent
stench that no amount of bathing or incense would solve.
Peter,  then,  the  head  of  the  rapidly  growing  Yeshua  movement,  and  so  loved  by  God  and
given such awesome authority by Christ, didn't stay in a lovely home with a wealthy person of
status  in  the  community.  Instead  he  chose  the  hospitality  of  the  lowliest,  least  respected
craftsman in Jewish society, who usually wasn't even permitted near other folks.
We'll begin Acts chapter 10 next time. 
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 23, Chapter 10
Acts chapter 10 is one I have been looking forward to teaching for some time. It gets into an
important  subject  that  causes  significant  tension  between  Christians  and  Jews,  and  within
Christianity  and  Messianic  Judaism;  it  is  the  issue  of  whether  the  Torah  food  laws  are  still
binding. Yet, on the other hand, today I will show you that while Acts 10 is used in mainstream
Christianity  to  teach  that  the  Levitical  food  laws  have  been  abolished,  in  fact  this  is  a  red
herring. That is, this chapter actually has nothing to do with kosher eating whatsoever. And the
reason for this misconstruing of the meaning of this chapter is that Christian commentators (all
gentile)  usually  don't  have  an  inkling  of  what  Judaism  was  about,  nor  what  an  important
role Halakhah continued to play in the lives of New Testament Jews as it had for at least the 2
centuries leading up to the birth of Christ.
We've  been  discussing  the  term  Halakhah  for  several  weeks  and  I  hope  by  now  you  all
understand what Halakhah means and what Halakhah is: it is the overall body of Jewish laws
that controlled every aspect of Jewish life and behavior. It consisted then, and continues to
consist to this day of a fusion of 3 sources: the Torah of Moses, ancient Jewish customs, and
most  importantly  it  was  dominated  by  rabbinic  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Bible
interpretations within the institutional Church go by the name of doctrines. But within Judaism
they are known as Oral Torah or as Traditions.
Just as Christian doctrines form the subject and apology for virtually every sermon given in a
Church  each  week,  so  does  Halakhah  form  the  subject  and  apology  for  everything  that  is
taught and practiced within the Synagogue. And in the New Testament era nearly every Jew,
whether  living  in  the  Holy  Land  or  out  in  the  Diaspora  (except  for  Sadducees  and  the
priesthood),  was  connected  to  the  Synagogue  system  in  the  same  way  that  nearly  every
Christian in modern times is connected (whether loosely or firmly) to the Church. I draw this
Church and Synagogue parallel for the express purpose of creating a familiar mental image for
you to give you a meaningful idea of how the Jews, Believers or otherwise, practiced their faith
and formed their theology in the time of the Apostles.
While Acts chapter 9 was mostly about the making of the new Believer Sha'ul (Paul), about
two-thirds of the way through the chapter we saw a transition to Kefa (Peter); Acts chapter 10
remains with Peter. When last we saw Peter he was staying in the home of Shimon a leather
tanner,  following  two  recorded  miracles  he  performed.  The  first  miracle  involved  a  Believer
named Aeneas who had been paralyzed for 8 years, and thus was a bedridden invalid; likely
due to Stroke. The second involved a much beloved female Believer named Tavita who had
caught  ill  and  died  suddenly.  Let's  be  clear  that  what  we  have  in  the  Book  of  Acts  is  Luke
weaving together a history of the disciples of Christ following His resurrection. But the history is
not exhaustive and it is not meant to record every act of every disciple; nor is it a daily journal
of their lives. It is a Reader's Digest style summary using certain highlights that Luke chose to
present an early history of Christian origins that particularly pointed out the powerful workings
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
of the Holy Spirit within the Believing Community. The point being that many more miracles
would have occurred than the few that Luke speaks about; and Peter no doubt healed more
people  than  what  we  find  only  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  So  Luke,  being  a  scholar  and  an
accomplished writer and story teller, and under the spiritual control of the Lord, has selected
certain events for us to know about and there is a purpose behind them.
Therefore it should not go unnoticed that of the two miracles recorded in Acts chapter 9, one
was  a  male,  the  other  a  female.  And  as  big  a  miracle  as  it  was  for  the  Lord  to  restore
movement for the paralyzed man, I think we can all agree that it is (at least from the human
standpoint) an even more startling miracle to bring a dead woman back to life! And in a culture
and era of male domination, God has made it a point in the Bible since the Book of Genesis to
show us that he values men and women equally, even if He assigns different roles to each.
It is also interesting that in both miracles the action took place with the subjects lying in their
beds. In fact we noticed that earlier prophets who brought the dead back to life used a similar
pattern whereby the subject was laid on their bed.  And in both cases in Acts 9 the healer
insisted  that  the  room  was  emptied  of  bystanders.  This  was  not  to  be  a  spectacular  public
display that put the focus on the human agent of healing; this was to be a quiet private moment
that rightfully gave the true Heavenly healer the glory.
These 2 miracles took place in Yafo, also known as Joppa, and Peter was still there as Acts
chapter 10 opens.
Let's read Acts chapter 10 together.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 10 all
Peter has been reacting to God's direction by travelling around the countryside of Judea and
apparently by plan arrived in Lud. But unexpectedly he had been called from Lud to Yafo. Now,
equally unexpectedly, he is about to be called from Yafo to Caesarea Maritima, in earlier times
known as Strato's Tower.
Here  we  witness  a  sea  change  occur  in  the  history  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  history  of
redemption, as gentiles are suddenly no longer only pictured as the antithesis and opponents
of  the  Hebrews,  but  suddenly  gentiles  are  the  targets  of  God's  mercy.  He  wants  them  fully
included in His Kingdom that will be ruled by a Jewish Messiah and King, Yeshua. Although in
chapter 8 we saw the disciple Philip bring Christ to the Ethiopian gentile, here we have a most
unlikely candidate who has opened his heart to the God of Israel; Cornelius a Roman army
officer. What is so fascinating is that a Roman soldier was emblematic of the oppression the
Jews were suffering under. It was Roman soldiers that the Roman government counted on to
bring the Roman ways to the many foreign nations that formed the Roman Empire. Thus every
Roman controlled nation had garrisons of Roman soldiers stationed there, especially if there
was resistance to Roman occupation (as there was by the Jews). So if you were a Jew hearing
about what Peter did in going to Cornelius you would have been even more astounded and
angrier  than  when  these  same  Jews  learned  of  the  Believers'  outreach  to  those  filthy  half-
breed Samaritans.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
Can you imagine what the other Jews would think if a Jew in the * death camps went to a
* guard, showing him kindness and sharing with him that righteousness could be his, and
he could become part of the community of God, if he trusted the God of the Jews? That is a
reasonable  analogy  of  what  is  happening  here  with  Peter  and  Cornelius  and  why  it  was
controversial.
Cornelius was a Centurion; a commander of a hundred. Centurions were the glue that held the
Roman military together. Six of these units of a hundred formed what was called a cohort. And
10 cohorts typically formed a legion of 6000 fighting men. Luke in fact tells us of the specific
cohort that Cornelius belonged: the Italian Regiment. A Centurion usually received 10 times
the  pay  of  a  common  soldier.  But  even  more  Centurions  had  a  seniority  system  so  they
weren't  all  of  equal  rank  even  though  they  held  the  same  title.  When  we  see  here  that
Cornelius  had  a  couple  of  slaves  it  meant  that  he  was  probably  one  of  the  more  senior
Centurions and so had more wealth.
It  is  logical  that  this  military  unit  was  stationed  in  Caesarea  Maritima  as  it  was  the  Roman
center  of  government  for  ruling  the  province  of  Judea.  At  this  time  Caesarea  was  majority
gentile  Roman,  although  it  had  a  sizeable  Jewish  population  as  well.  Cornelius  is  given  a
glowing portrayal using 4 descriptive characteristics. First, he was devout. This means that he
was faithful to God and he led his household in the same way. Second he feared God; this is
an  expression  that  most  scholars  today  have  turned  into  the  familiar  label  "God-fearer"  to
indicate a gentile who followed the God of Israel. However there is no evidence that God-fearer
was any kind of a formal or technical term or title in that era, or a named group that someone
belonged to. It is just an informal description. Third he is described as a giver of alms; charity.
Cornelius  was  a  generous  giver  and  charity  was  seen  as  one  of  the  highest  principles  of
Godliness by Judaism. That it is specifically stated that his alms were given to Jewish people
endeared Cornelius to the local Jews. And fourth he is said to have prayed to God continually.
That a person prays often was, especially in that era, an indication of great personal piety.
One  of  the  things  for  us  to  notice  here  is  that  Cornelius  was  not  hiding  his  devotion  to  the
Jewish God. He was open because he was not in any danger for his beliefs. Rome was quite
tolerant of all the religions in the empire, and Roman soldiers were permitted to adopt the local
religion if they so chose. Naturally the element of Caesar worship had to be retained, and of
course full loyalty to the Roman government was expected. But outside of that Roman soldiers
could worship any gods they chose to including the Jewish God. 
Verse 3 says it was the 9th hour, meaning 3 in the afternoon, that Cornelius had a vision. This
was a standard Jewish prayer hour because this was a standard time for afternoon sacrifices
at the Temple in Jerusalem. The vision was of an angel who spoke to him. Cornelius is said to
have stared at the angel and said, "What is it Lord"? Most Bibles will use the word Lord with a
capital "L" here, which is reserved for a theophany; that is an appearance of God. Thus some
claim that this is Yeshua speaking to Cornelius. I don't think that is correct, since this being is
referred to as an angel. Thus I don't believe that the term lord was referring to God.  Little "L"
lord, used commonly, is just another way of saying "sir". It is sign of respect; not an indication
that it is God. And that is what we have here. So the CJB has it right.
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
It is clear that this vision occurred while Cornelius was praying because the angel says that
God has heard his prayers. The statement that "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a
memorial before God" is telling, especially when we think back to Leviticus and we hear of the
smoke of the burnt offerings wafting up to the heavens as a sweet aroma to Yehoveh. The
thought behind what the angel told Cornelius is probably best expressed by a passage from
the Book of Hebrews.
CJB Hebrews 13:15 Through him(Christ), therefore, let us offer God a sacrifice of praise
continually. For this is the natural product of lips that acknowledge his name.  So the
concept  is  that  while  this  gentile  God-fearer  Cornelius  is  not  permitted  to  offer  sacrifices  of
atonement at the Temple altar, his prayers and his deeds of kindness have ascended to the
God  of  Israel  much  like  the  smoke  of  the  burnt  offerings.  Even  more  it  is  a  fulfillment  of  a
profound statement that the great Prophet Samuel had made 1000 years earlier as regards the
Lord's attitude about sacrifices.
CJB   1  Samuel  15:22  Sh'mu'el  said,  "Does  ADONAI  take  as  much  pleasure  in  burnt
offerings and sacrifices as in obeying what ADONAI says? Surely obeying is better than
sacrifice, and heeding orders than the fat of rams.
While  it  might  not  be  entirely  accurate  to  portray  Samuel's  statement  as  prophetic,  we
certainly see with Cornelius, and in the angel's message to him, a fulfillment of the principle
that the only purpose for sacrifice was to atone due to a human failure to be obedient to God in
the first place. Obedience negates the need for a sacrifice. The Essenes at Qumran in their
Dead Sea Scrolls Community Document said essentially the same thing:
1QS  9:4-5  ".....the  offering  of  the  lips  in  compliance  with  the  (Law)  will  be  like  the
pleasant  aroma  of  justice;  and  the  perfectness  of  behavior  will  be  acceptable  as  a
freewill sacrifice....."
The  Essenes  were  looking  through  the  Law  and  seeing  the  spirit  of  the  Law.  They  were
forced  to  contemplate  the  sacrificial  system  deeply,  at  least  in  their  eyes,  because  they
considered the Temple and its Priesthood so corrupt and worthless (which indeed it was at this
time)  that  they  abandoned  it  and  so  believed  something  had  to  exist  beyond  the  sheer
mechanics of sacrificial ritual. Thus Cornelius's pious attitude of constant prayer and his action
of generous charity to God's people was, in God's eyes, better than the animal sacrifices that
he was prohibited from making because he was a gentile.  So what is happening is that before
the Apostle Peter gets the divine message that barriers between Hebrews and gentiles are
falling, Cornelius is given the hint that a relationship with Yehoveh that had been reserved only
for Hebrews is now being offered to gentiles. Peter would be the bearer of the Good News to
Cornelius of the conditions that had to be met in order for that relationship to happen.
So in verse 5 the divine messenger to Cornelius told him to send some of his men to Yafo to
fetch Peter.  He orders two of his slaves and one of his military soldiers to go and ask Peter to
come, and to safely escort him to Cornelius.
Peter now has a corresponding vision to Cornelius's; and it is very unsettling to Peter. And it
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
has  been  unsettling  to  much  of  the  Church  ever  since  this  vision  was  written  down  and
recorded for us. It was about noontime the next day when Peter goes up on the roof of Shimon
the Tanner's house for his regular prayer time. Almost all houses in this era were built with flat
roofs and they served as another floor of the house. Going up there gave Kefa some privacy.
Now verse 10 is actually one of the most overlooked, but key, passages in this chapter. It says
that while Peter was up there, he began to feel hungry. In fact we are told that he hoped to eat;
and further, that downstairs a meal was being prepared. So where was Peter's mind when he
went up to the roof to pray? It was on food! This is the natural context to the vision Peter is
going to receive.
While  he  was  on  the  roof,  hungry,  fixated  on  food,  he  goes  into  what  the  Greek  says
is ekstasis. It is where we get the English word ecstasy or ecstatic from. Most English Bibles
translate  the  word  to  trance;  that  is,  Peter  went  into  a  trance.  Webster's  Dictionary  says  a
trance  is  a  daze,  or  a  stupor,  or  a  hypnotic  state.  Probably  this  is  an  acceptable  meaning
provided we understand that this is a God-induced condition in which a person is transported
beyond his normal physical state and consciousness to a place that he can perceive things
that are of another dimension, but it seems to him as though he is perceiving them in the real
world  using  his  normal  senses  of  sight,  hearing,  touch,  etc.    Peter  sees  Heaven  open  and
descending from Heaven is something like a rectangular piece of fabric with 4 corners. It is
important that we understand that what Peter says in his ecstatic state is greatly influenced by
God. That is, Peter's words aren't necessarily his own; God is intervening in both sides of the
dialogue. Peter is in a spiritual trance; he is not having a dream.
Peter's  ecstatic  vision  is  symbolic;  but  as  Peter  says,  it  was  also  a  puzzlement  to  him.  It
wasn't at all straightforward in its meaning. The Heavens opening up is a Biblical expression
that means to reveal God's glory from on high. That we are told that the cloth had 4 corners is
also important. In Hebrew thought the number 4 is indicative of the world and its 4 compass
directions. So the 4-cornered cloth represented something concerning the entire world and its
inhabitants. Now it is common in Hebrew Roots and in Messianic Judaism to say that the 4
corner cloth that came down was a Tallit, a prayer shawl. Perhaps. But it would have been
awfully easy to just say so if that was the case. Further, while today we tend to see prayer
shawls  as  external  garments  that  are  used  for  religious  purposes  and  then  put  away,  in
Peter's  day  it  was  worn  as  a  sort  of  cloak  between  a  man's  underwear  and  his  outer
garment.    That  is,  they  were  part  of  everyday  dress.  So  where  I'm  going  is  that  it  seems
terribly unlikely that it was visually a Tallit as we know them today that Peter saw; thus it is
described as "something like" a large sheet or piece of cloth.
In this cloth were an assortment of 4 legged animals, crawling creatures and wild birds. All
crawling  creatures  and  almost  all  wild  birds  are  not  permissible  for  food.  Some  4  legged
animals are permitted, others are not. Beyond that brief description we know no more about
what the animals were that were riding on that sheet. Peter is instructed to kill the animals and
to eat them. Let me pause for a second: what is the context for Peter's vision? He was hungry,
yearning for food, and in fact a meal was being prepared downstairs so he would have smelled
the odor of the food being cooked as he prays upstairs. So is it surprising that this ecstatic
vision involves eating? Hardly.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
But Peter recoiled from the instruction to kill and eat because he says that he has never eaten
food that was of this kind. And what was this kind? The passage says in Greek that it was
koinos and akathartos.  Our CJB says it means it was unclean and treif. Treif is Hebrew that
literally means torn, in the sense of an animal that was torn to death by a wild beast. And such
meat, even if it was a type of animal that was normally permissible for food, is not to be eaten
according to the Law of Moses if it was attacked and killed by a wild beast. However the CJB
translation is a poor one. Koinos means common, and akathartos means unclean. Common
means something that is not holy. Unclean means something that is not ritually pure. Common
and unclean are entirely separate issues and are treated differently by God's laws. However in
reality what we see here is Peter making a response that likely is a combination of citing God's
Torah law and citing Tradition; but also as we'll shortly see, there is a disconnect between the
terms Peter uses and the kosher status of the animals offered as food. To begin with there is
nothing  in  God's  law  against  eating  something  common  (in  fact  the  term  "common"  is  not
used in reference to food; that is, "common" is not a food classification). Yet, we find that word
used here in this conversation.  On the other hand there is indeed a prohibition against eating
something unclean. In a few verses (next week actually) when we see what the conversation
between  Yehoveh  and  Peter  meant,  if  we  understand  both  the  Greek  terms  koinos  and
akathartos and we understand Halakhah, it becomes much clearer.
So let me say it another way: the issue facing Peter is primarily about Halakhah. But since
Halakhah consists of the actual Torah of God, plus Traditions, plus customs then we have to
untangle  something  that  to  Peter's  mind  was  supposed  to  be  tangled.  That  is  Peter  and
Judaism  made  little  practical  differentiation  between  the  Torah  of  Moses,  Traditions  and
customs. They were seen as essentially one in the same. And to help us grasp that, I'll point
out  that  Christianity  generally  sees  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  Church  doctrines  as  one  in  the
same, even if Christians don't always consciously consider the effect of such an attitude.
Stay with me; this is important. The Torah of Moses shows us that all objects, including people,
are in God's eyes in one of three states: holy, common, or unclean. Holy means set apart for
God. Common means things that are not set-apart for God; but that doesn't in any way mean
that common things are evil or wrong. It just means that these common things aren't given the
special status of holy. Unclean speaks of things that would otherwise be acceptable to God,
but for any number of reasons are in a state of ritual impurity and in this state of unclean they
cannot be used for service to God. Thus where the CJB will say unholy instead of using the
word common, that is not entirely wrong, but a) that is an incorrect translation of the Greek and
b)  it  gives  us  the  wrong  impression.  For  a  gentile  Christian  especially,  unholy  presents  a
mental  picture  of  something  being  wicked  or  bad;  something  that  is  opposed  to  God.  But
common  doesn't  mean  wicked,  and  so  as  we  think  of  the  term  common  in  our  day  it  also
doesn't mean unholy.
In Biblical terms gentiles are common, while Hebrews are holy. Hebrews are imputed with a
status  of  holy  because  beginning  with  Abraham  the  Lord  set  Hebrews  apart  from  all  other
people on this earth (gentiles) for Himself. Being set apart for service to God is the definition of
holy. Gentiles having a status of common does not mean that gentiles are bad; and it certainly
does not mean that they also automatically have the status of unclean. Rather, gentiles are just
not sanctified, not holy (not set apart) for God. Of course Christ provided a means for gentiles
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
to cross over that status barrier and that is what Peter was soon to find out.
But  Peter's  response  to  God's  instruction  to  kill  and  eat  is  also  somewhat  mysterious
assuming Luke has chosen the proper words to record this event. And I assume he did since
this is God inspired. That is, when it comes to describing whether edible items (food) are God-
authorized  food  for  Hebrews  (kosher)  then  the  issue  is  whether  that  food  is  categorized  as
permissible or prohibited. If it is prohibited, then it is simply not food. Ever. If it is permissible,
then it is food. However there is no category called "common" as regards food EXCEPT in a
kind of off-handed way and in one instance. And this reality is central to the meaning of our
story. I don't want to complicate matters too much but if I don't say something about it I'll get
some bad email.
According to the Torah Law, some of the meat and produce brought by Hebrews for sacrifice
was to be set apart and given to the Priests as payment for their services. This all depended
on what kind of sacrifice it was, and it depended on the occasion. This particular portion had to
be  eaten  only  by  priests  and  it  usually  had  to  be  eaten  at  the  holy  precinct,  meaning  the
Temple  grounds.  Thus  this  food  portion  for  the  priests  was  considered  especially  holy  (set
apart). Now if, for instance, the sacrifice was a lamb and some of it went to the priests then it
was considered holy food. But if a lamb was NOT used for sacrifice, and a regular Hebrew
killed it, cooked it and ate it for a meal, then it was NOT holy food (because it hadn't been
dedicated to God). It was perfectly kosher food, it just wasn't holy. However because it was
not  holy  doesn't  then  make  it  common,  except  in  an  off-handed  sense  that  it  wasn't  made
holy. So the important point is this: common was not a food category; common isn't a term
applied to food. It is only that regular Hebrews could NOT ever eat holy food; that would have
been sin. Holy food was reserved exclusively for the priests. And the only holy food was food
that had been offered for sacrifice at the Temple.
So  when  Peter  says  he  has  never  eaten  common  (koinos)  food,  then  it  doesn't  make  any
sense, since common isn't a food word in the first place; and besides all Hebrews (except for
priests) ONLY ever ate food that wasn't holy. So if common is just semantics indicating food
that had not been set apart as holy for the priests, then it is further confusing because the
ONLY food Peter would have ever eaten was common (not holy) food. Yet, Peter insists he
has never eaten common food. So then what did he eat?!
 As for eating unclean food? Of course; no Hebrew would knowingly eat unclean food. But
understand; unclean is not the term that defines the list of what edible items Hebrews cannot
eat or can eat. That list is the list of permissible foods and prohibited foods. For instance a cow
is permitted, but a horse is prohibited for food. But that is not the same as clean and unclean.
The Biblical Torah food rules works like this: food on the permitted list can be eaten but it must
be  dealt  with  properly.  It  must  be  raised  properly;  if  an  animal  it  must  be  slaughtered  and
butchered properly; its blood drained properly and it must be handled and stored properly. If
the permitted food item is not dealt with properly it can become defiled and thus it becomes
unclean. So clean and unclean doesn't define which things are allowed for food; it only deals
with the handling of permissible food. Handle food wrong, and it becomes unclean.
What has made this so difficult for gentiles (and many Jews as well) to understand is that in the
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 23 - Chapter 10 
 
usual way of speaking the terms unclean and prohibited have become interchangeable; and
this can get very confusing. I won't go on with this, because I don't want to get bogged down.
But it matters greatly in this story.
So for certain when we look at the original Greek, Peter says he has never eaten common or
unclean food (two different things); and because it was animals and not produce in the lowered
sheet obviously Peter means he's never eaten common or unclean meat. Yet, that presents a
problem  since  because  Peter  isn't  a  priest  the  only  meat  he  has  ever  eaten  was  common
(meaning not holy). What gives? I sure hope you're focusing and paying attention, because
now it gets a bit more complicated.
God responds to Peter's refusal to kill and eat what is in the sheet from Heaven by saying that
Peter should not call common (koinos) that which God has made clean (kathartos). Our CJB
has it wrong when it says: "Stop treating as unclean what God has made clean". That is, the
CJB makes it sound that something was formerly unclean, but now God has cleansed it. That
is not what the passage literally says, and that is not what the passage means. Rather the Lord
is  literally  telling  Peter  not  to  call  common  things  unclean.  And  this  is  actually  just  a  basic
Torah  principle;  common  things  are  merely  common.  From  the  Torah  perspective  common
things  in  their  natural  state  are  clean.  Common  things  were  not  created  unclean;  common
things are not considered unclean by God and can only become unclean if they are improperly
used or are ritually defiled. Once again; the term common also doesn't actually apply to the
issue of kosher animals (animals that are fit for food for God's people).
Thus on the surface, we have a conundrum; the words don't seem to be coherent. The visual
imagery and the conversation sure seems to be about food animals; but after Peter refuses to
kill and eat, some of the terms used by God and by Peter aren't terms that apply to kosher
food; the term koinos, common, in particular doesn't apply.
God  told  Peter  not  to  call  common  things  unclean  for  a  second  time.  Saying  or  doing
something twice in the Bible means that it has great significance. That this entire sequence
was repeated 3 times validates that it was divine.
Confused about what just went on? Don't worry; so was Peter. The verse says that Peter was
puzzling over the meaning of the vision he had seen when suddenly Cornelius's men show up.
It is usually said about this verse that Peter was puzzled because he couldn't imagine why
God would tell him to kill and eat unclean animals. I'm here to tell you that this is not what
puzzled Peter. His confusion was that while food at first seemed to be the topic, suddenly the
terminology of the conversation switched mid-stream and terms not used for food started to be
used; both by God and by Peter. Recall; Peter was in a God-induced trance so what came out
of his mouth was not his own. Peter was essentially observing a conversation between himself
and God.
In a few more verses, Peter is finally going to understand what this bewildering ecstatic vision
was all about. And that is what we'll discuss next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 24, Chapter 10 continued
It is said that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So I suppose for me as a Hebrew Roots
Bible  teacher,  Acts  chapter  10  looks  like  one  of  those  places  in  the  Bible  that  needs  to  be
attacked with great vigor. Therefore as we enter our 2nd week studying Acts chapter 10, we'll
continue  to  move  deliberately  and  carefully  dissect  this  chapter  as  it  plays  a  crucial  role  in
Christian and Messianic doctrine.
I suspect that what we discussed last week concerning especially the 2nd paragraph of chapter
10 (about the sheet with the animals coming down from Heaven) was challenging to absorb
due  to  the  many  nuances  that  are  present  there  and  the  difficulties  of  using  terms  that
Christians  aren't  used  to  hearing.  If  it  was  challenging  or  confusing  for  you  don't  feel  bad
about it; it is indeed complex. That said, it is critical that we understand the intended meaning
behind the 4 legged beasts and the other creatures in the sheet that descends from Heaven as
thoroughly as we can because frankly it has been poorly interpreted and taught for centuries
by some of our greatest and most recognized Bible scholars. This is due to two factors: 1) a
built-in denominational and doctrinal bias that ignores the plain meaning of passages, and 2) a
lack of knowledge about Judaism, the Synagogue, Halakhah, and ancient Jewish culture in
general  that  prevents  an  otherwise  superior  Bible  scholar  from  seeing  what  is  actually
occurring in its historical context.  The result has been some Christian doctrine that is not only
incorrect,  but  it  fosters  anti-Semitism  and  the  powerless,  casual  Christianity  that  we  see
present in our day.
I  want  to  review  with  you  a  bit  from  last  time  and  to  add  some  additional  information  and
explanation in hopes of helping you to grasp this as best you can before we continue with the
next several verses of Acts chapter 10. It is a little like the importance of first being comfortable
with basic math (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) before moving on to Algebra.
I'll begin by giving you an example of the nature of the problem that Bible students wrestle
with in trying to discover the truth of Acts chapter 10 by quoting to you from perhaps the most
authoritative modern commentary on the Book of Acts in publication today, as authored by the
venerable F. F. Bruce. I ask you to listen carefully to what he says about the nature and plain
meaning of this passage; but then notice how despite admitting the truth he does an about face
and reverts to his doctrinal stance as an obvious self-contradiction. In his Commentary on the
Book of Acts in reference to Acts 10:9-19 F. F. Bruce says this:
"The divine cleansing of food in the vision is a parable of the divine cleansing of human
beings  in  the  incident  to  which  the  vision  leads  up.  It  did  not  take  Peter  long  to
understand this: 'God has taught me', he says later in the present narrative, 'to call no
human being profane or unclean".
So Bruce fully acknowledges that the vision Peter witnesses is a parable; that is, it is not literal
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
but  rather  it  is  a  simple  story  using  commonly  known  objects  and  items  symbolically  to  get
across a point. The sheet full of animals is meant to represent something else entirely. Let me
give you an example of how a parable works using one that we're all familiar with, the parable
that Yeshua told about the 10 virgins.
CJB Matthew 25:1 "The Kingdom of Heaven at that time will be like ten bridesmaids who
took their lamps and went out to meet the groom.
2 Five of them were foolish and five were sensible.
3 The foolish ones took lamps with them but no oil,
4 whereas the others took flasks of oil with their lamps.
5 Now the bridegroom was late, so they all went to sleep.
6 It was the middle of the night when the cry rang out, 'The bridegroom is here! Go out
to meet him!'
7 The girls all woke up and prepared their lamps for lighting.
8 The foolish ones said to the sensible ones, 'Give us some of your oil, because our
lamps are going out.'
9 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both you and us. Go to the oil dealers
and buy some for yourselves.'
10 But as they were going off to buy, the bridegroom came. Those who were ready went
with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut.
11 Later, the other bridesmaids came. 'Sir! Sir!' they cried, 'Let us in!'
12 But he answered, 'Indeed! I tell you, I don't know you!'
13 So stay alert, because you know neither the day nor the hour.
If we don't notice that this is a parable, and if we don't recognize that Yeshua is employing
commonly understood terms and characters and objects used within Jewish culture to concoct
a fanciful and memorable story to make His point, then we leave this passage deciding that He
is instructing His followers about literal grooms, virgins, lamps and olive oil. So if this wasn't a
parable then what other conclusion can we arrive at but that if you are not a Jewish virgin, this
simply doesn't apply to you? And if you are a Jewish virgin, you urgently need to acquire a
couple  of  lamps  and  stock  up  on  a  ready  supply  of  olive  oil  to  fuel  them  if  you  expect  to
succeed in getting married. But of course it is a parable and so the people and objects (the
virgins and the lamps) are symbolic of something else.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
Now let's apply this to Acts chapter 10.  F. F. Bruce agrees and unequivocally states that the
vision of the sheet with the animals and the instruction to kill and eat is a story (in this case a
vision) told as a parable. That is, the scene uses objects and circumstances familiar to Jews to
make  a  point.  But  like  with  the  parable  of  the  10  virgins  that  doesn't  actually  mean  for  the
hearer to think that this is all about virgins and lamps, so Peter's vision doesn't actually mean
for the hearer to think that this is all about a sheet and some unclean animals, nor is it about
killing and eating them.  Rather it is about something else entirely; which is how all parables
work.
A  couple  of  sentences  later  after  Professor  Bruce  acknowledges  that  Peter's  vision  is  a
parable (which of course it is), and the meaning has to do with the acceptance of gentiles, he
then turns right around and says this:
"Yet the cleansing of the food is not wholly parabolic; there is a connection between
abrogation of the Levitical food laws and the removal of the barrier between Jews and
gentiles."
I'm not intending to single out F.F. Bruce; however his comment is representative of so many
others. He (as do most Christian commentators) approaches the entire New Testament with
the viewpoint that the Levitical food laws (as well as all other Torah laws) have been abolished,
and so everything that happens in the New Testament must fit within that understanding no
matter  if  the  text  says  something  entirely  different.    Yes,  Bruce  agrees,  Peter's  vision  is  a
parable.  Yes,  Bruce  agrees,  the  animals  are  symbolic.  Yes,  he  agrees,  Peter  himself
acknowledges that this has nothing to do with animals or food but rather this is about admitting
gentiles into the fold. However, in the opinion of Bruce and of many other gentile Bible scholars
this is equally about God abolishing the kosher food laws. So I suppose if that is the case then
the parable of the virgins must be equally and literally about virgins and lamps. The parable of
Jesus using the seeds falling onto rocky soil to characterize Believers must be equally and
literally about seeds, rocks and soil, and so on. I hope you can see this odd conclusion makes
this  one  parable  (Peter's  vision),  out  of  all  other  parables  in  the  Bible,  to  operate  entirely
differently whereby the fanciful objects that are symbolic suddenly become real and literal. Why
would Bruce and others claim such a thing? Because it is his and their foundational Christian
doctrine  (regardless  of  what  the  Bible  actually  says)  that  gentile  Christians  have  no  duty  to
follow God's food laws, because Christ abolished the Law (something which Christ explicitly
said He did NOT do!) Let's never miss an opportunity to revisit this foundational teaching of
Messiah Yeshua.
Matthew 5:17-19 CJB
17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to
abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or
a stroke will pass from the Torah- not until everything that must happen has happened.
19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will
be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
This statement made by Yeshua couldn't be more definitive. He bluntly says He didn't abolish
the  Torah  (the  Law),  and  then  He  expands  upon  it,  and  then  He  warns  against  teaching
against  what  He  just  said.  So  admittedly  this  statement  forms  the  nucleus  of  my  worldview
about  Yeshua  and  the  relation  of  the  Law  of  Moses  to  Believers,  and  from  it  I  have  full
confidence to challenge Church doctrines that are not in compliance with this commandment
from  Christ.  Outside  of  Salvation  there  is  no  other  issue  of  this  magnitude  than  our
understanding the place of the Law of Moses in the life of a Believer. And while I don't have all
the answers about HOW to do it, without doubt the Law of Moses remains and we are to obey
it. And when we don't obey, we sin.
Now let's revisit the complex issue of the conversation between Peter and God (when Peter
was in a trance and essentially having what we might call an out-of-body experience). This is
important because it explains his vision on Jewish terms, which of course is how it is told. After
the heavenly voice tells Peter to kill and eat the unclean animals in the sheet, Peter responds
with  "no"  because  he's  never  eaten  such  things  (no  doubt  Peter  thought  it  was  a  test
otherwise he wouldn't have emphatically refused God's order). In Acts 10:14 Peter adds the
statement that he's never eaten anything common or unclean. The CJB along with most other
English Bible versions replaces the word "common" with either "unholy" or "unclean". Some
Bibles  will  replace  the  word  "common"  with  "profane".  Unholy,  unclean  and  profane  are  all
incorrect  translations.  The  Greek  word  is  koinos  and  it  means  "common"  and  that  is  the
proper  translation.  It  is  the  same  word  from  which  we  get  the  type  of  Greek  that  the  New
Testament  is  written  in:  Koine  Greek,  meaning  common  Greek.  The  Greek  of  everyday
language and conversation.
In  Biblical  terms,  however,  "common"  is  not  an  adjective  that  means  something  that  is
regularly done or is ordinary; rather "common" is a spiritual status assigned to certain objects
and people. The 3 possible states of spiritual status for humans and objects (as spelled out to
us  in  the  Torah)  are:  holy,  common,  or  unclean.  Holy  means  sanctified,  set  apart  for  God.
Common  means  something  that  has  not  been  set  apart  for  God  (but  it  doesn't  mean  evil,
wicked, bad, or unclean). Common is kind of a neutral and natural state that exists in between
holy and unclean. And then the 3rd possible spiritual status is unclean. Unclean is a condition
of defilement that means an object or a person is not suitable for use by God; and to try to use
an object or person it in its unclean state for such a purpose is indeed wicked. Unclean is a
condition that is caused by something; nothing in its naturally created state is unclean.  
Unclean food is food that has in someway been contaminated or mishandled. Unclean food is
otherwise  kosher  food,  but  something  has  ritually  defiled  it;  thus  unclean  food  must  not  be
consumed.  What  is  important  for  us  to  understand  is  that  there  is  no  such  designation  as
"common" food. Common is not a food category, nor is it a God-ordained condition of edible
items. Common doesn't apply to food. Holy food is a food category, and it is kosher food that
has been used for altar sacrifices. Only priests are allowed to eat certain portions of holy food
that has been brought as a sacrificial offering. So regular Jews (like Peter) can NOT eat holy
food; ever.
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
Rabbi  Joseph  Shulam  points  out  that  there  is  a  food  category  called  chullin  that  refers  to
kosher food that has NOT been used for sacrifices and thus regular Jews can eat it. It is the
category name for every day food that regular Jews eat. So the rule is that regular Jews eat
chullin food, while only priests can eat holy food. In fact according to God's laws the ONLY
food regular Jews can eat is chullin food. So Shulam says perhaps the word "common" is
being used in place of "chullin". However if that is true, then Peter's statement becomes all
the  more  strange  because  Peter  claims  that  he  has  NEVER  eaten  food  from  the  very  food
category (chullin) that is the ONLY food category a regular Jew is allowed to eat (Peter was
not a priest). I hope you're beginning to see the dilemma of this verse.
But there is an obvious solution to the dilemma. I told you last week that in the end, what is
happening here is that this vision is a parable, and so the food isn't the subject but rather it is
merely the symbol of something else (soon we learn that "something else" is gentiles). This
understanding then explains why a term (common) that doesn't apply to food but does apply
to human beings, is being used in the vision of the animals. And this is also why Peter was so
perplexed over the meaning of this vision because taken literally it makes no sense. The image
doesn't match the narrative.
Let's re-read a portion of Acts 10.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 10:17 – 29
Typically Bible commentators say that the reason for Peter being bewildered about the vision is
because God told him it was OK now to just forget the food laws and from here on he can eat
anything he wants to; but Peter simply couldn't accept that. But as I just demonstrated, that
wasn't the case at all. For one thing Peter had heard directly from Yeshua's mouth that the
Torah wasn't changed in the least, let alone abolished. Rather Peter was bewildered because
the terms applied to the food in his vision weren't food terms; they were terms reserved for
describing the spiritual status of humans and objects. As he was no longer in his trance and
was now pondering this strange vision, the men that the Centurion Cornelius sent to fetch him
arrived at Shimon the Tanner's house and asked about Peter. The Holy Spirit tells Peter that
these 3 men are looking for him, and that God has pre-planned this meeting so Peter doesn't
need to be alarmed but he does need to go with them. So at this point Kefa doesn't know what
is  going  on  or  what  is  supposed  to  happen.  Under  the  circumstances  if  it  was  me  I  would
assume this was somehow connected to the vision and I imagine Kefa assumes that as well.
As Peter goes down from the roof to meet these men he asks their purpose. They reply that
they are here on behalf of the Roman Centurion Cornelius and that he is an upright man and a
God-fearer. This means to Peter that Cornelius is a gentile who worships the God of Israel, but
he has not been circumcised. That is, Cornelius has not gone so far in his beliefs that he has
converted and become a Jew. These men go on to explain that an angel appeared to their
master and told him to send for Peter, and that they were assigned to go to Yafo and escort
Peter back to Caesarea. There was no demand involved; it was all just matter of fact. No doubt
if Peter had not had his vision, and if the Spirit (in some unnamed way) hadn't told Peter to go,
he would have been too fearful to go voluntarily.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
It needs to be stated that at this moment Peter had no idea what God was up to. He had no
inkling  that  gentiles  could  be  admitted  to  Christ's  Kingdom  and  could  attain  the  same  holy
spiritual status as the Hebrews. Why is that? Because the teachings of the Synagogue were
that gentiles were unclean; this was not disputed among Jews. It wasn't that the Jews hated
their Roman oppressors so they simply didn't want to associate with them and so called them
unclean as kind of a nasty epithet. Rather it was a given among Jews that God saw gentiles as
ritually unclean. But the truth is that according to the Torah gentiles were not created unclean;
they were created and classified by Yehoveh as just not holy; instead gentiles were created
spiritually  common.  And  if  we  go  back  to  our  discussion  of  the  vision  of  the  animals  in  the
sheet then we understand what God was telling Peter. God wasn't telling Peter that at one
time gentiles were unclean, but now He has made them clean. Rather He was telling Peter that
He made (He created) gentiles spiritually common, and thus Peter (and by extension, all of
Judaism)  had  no  authorization  to  change  the  classification  of  gentiles  to  unclean.  God  was
straightening out Peter's theology. This was not new theology or changed theology. This was
how it had always been since God declared Abraham as holy and set apart, and thus at that
moment  divided  and  separated  the  human  race  into  2  parts:  holy  Hebrews  and  common
gentiles.  But  the  Synagogue  authorities  had  created  a  doctrine  that  overturned  God's
commands, and now God was dealing with it beginning with Peter and Cornelius.
Peter left with the men, but some of the other brothers (referring to Believers) tagged along.
This was an unusual situation and it showed wisdom for Peter to not go it alone. We find out in
the next chapter that 6 Believers went along with him. While Peter was traveling (about a 2 day
journey)  Cornelius  was  gathering  his  relatives  and  close  friends  to  his  house  to  hear  what
Peter  had  to  say  to  them.  He  understood  that  whatever  it  was  it  would  be  highly  important
since God Himself had arranged all this.
As  Peter  arrives  he  sees  the  throng  awaiting  him.  I  imagine  it  embarrassed  him  to  have  a
Roman Centurion fall on his face before him; and this was in front of all those people. So Peter
quickly says to get up; he's only a man and not to be worshipped. Entering this gentile's home
was unfamiliar territory; such an act was unthinkable to a Jew. And yet here he was, and at
God's instruction to boot. Peter feels he needs to explain the situation to Cornelius and his
family and friends before things get underway. And it is important that we hear what he says in
the way he meant it.
Verse 28 in the CJB has Peter saying this:
CJB Acts 10:28 He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have
close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit
him, is something that just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person
common or unclean;
However that is a very loose translation of what was said. Here is one that sticks more to the
actual meaning of the Greek:
RSV Acts 10:28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to
associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
not call any man common or unclean.
So Peter says it is unlawful to be doing what he is doing, which is to associate with, or go into
the dwelling place of, a gentile. The Greek word being translated as unlawful is athemitos. It is
a word that means to do something that is illicit, or breaks a law code, or is criminal. Peter is
not  referring  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  he's  referring  to  Halakhah;  Jewish  Law.  Tradition.  So
immediately Peter deals with the issue of the purity laws as it pertains to gentiles; a touchy
subject to say the least. Peter understood and believed that Cornelius was a God-fearer; a
gentile that worshipped the God of Israel. So idolatry was of no issue. Nonetheless it didn't
change Cornelius's status from being a gentile so ritual purity issues remained as far as Jews
were  concerned.  Food  was  an  especially  big  issue,  of  course,  as  it  was  the  central  part  of
hospitality. But food wasn't the only show stopper from the Jews' perspective. As I mentioned
idolatry was another major issue as it was standard for gentiles to have god images in their
homes.  Blasphemy  also  was  an  issue  as  were  the  loose  sexual  morals  of  gentiles  as
compared to those of the Jews.
But  then  Peter  says  that  God  has  shown  him  that  he  should  not  call  any  man  common  or
unclean.  Again,  the  Greek  word  koinos  is  used  meaning  common;  and  the  Greek  word
akathartos is also used meaning unclean. So in the intervening 72 hours since Peter's vision
and his arrival at Cornelius's home, the meaning of the vision-parable has become clearer to
Peter; this is all about gentiles and their spiritual status before God.
Yet, while it is rather easy for us to understand why Peter would say that God showed him not
to  call  any  man  unclean,  it  is  less  easy  to  understand  why  he  would  also  say  that  no  man
should be called common. Recall that there are only 3 possible spiritual statuses for a human:
holy,  common,  or  unclean.  So  on  the  surface  it  seems  as  if  Peter  is  saying  that  God  has
eliminated 2 of the 3 possible spiritual status conditions for humans (common and unclean),
which only leaves holy. So are we to take from this that Peter, and God, now see all human
beings  on  this  planet  as  holy?  No,  of  course  not.  So  what  exactly  does  this  mean  to
communicate? First of all, we have here humans talking in the usual way; neither Peter nor
Cornelius are theologians or scholars. So saying "any man" is not meant to be precise as in
"every single human being in existence". What Peter and God are saying is that a) a gentile is
not unclean and shouldn't be called as such. And b) that while common has been considered
as the natural spiritual status for gentiles, that indeed being elevated into the holy status (like
Hebrews are) is possible for gentiles. So gentiles aren't permanently relegated as holding the
"common"  status  without  hope  of  ever  being  upgraded  to  holy.  But  no  doubt  Peter  didn't
understand the breadth and depth of this new revelation. In fact it would be mostly Paul that
would try to articulate what this meant for gentiles, and then of course the relationship between
Jews and gentiles, in light of Christ's advent.
I  do  want  to  repeat:  this  was  NOT  new  theology.  This  was  NOT  that  Christ's  death  had
changed the spiritual status of gentiles from unclean (because gentiles weren't unclean).  It
was  only  new  Halakhah  for  Peter  and  for  virtually  all  Jews.  God  was  only  reinforcing  and
instructing about what had always been. He was not changing the status of gentiles; they were
still common. Rather the Jewish Synagogue leaders had overturned God's law on the subject
of gentiles, and now God was overriding the wrong doctrine of those Synagogue leaders; and
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 24 - Chapter 10 cont.
 
oh my, the trouble that was going to lead to!
But (and it is not clear to Peter yet that this is the case) gentiles who accepted Christ could be
elevated from their status as common to holy, and they could remain as gentiles. Was this the
first time, then, that gentiles could leave behind their common status and attain a holy status
(like the Hebrews enjoyed)? No! Gentiles had always had the option of leaving behind home,
family and nation and becoming a Hebrew. Such an offer was open to both male and female
gentiles  (Ruth  being  one  of  the  most  famous  cases  of  an  unmarried  woman  making  the
decision on her own to become a Hebrew, as she was a foreign widow). But the only means
for  a  gentile  to  gain  holy  status  before  the  coming  of  Christ  was  to  become  a  Hebrew.
Yeshua's death and resurrection indeed changed that. Now through faith and trust in Him as
the Messiah and as God's Son, gentiles could attain the spiritual status of holy. They did not
have to first become Hebrews; but it took time before this understanding took hold among the
Believing Jews.
This raised another sensitive and contentious issue because to become a Hebrew a male had
to be circumcised. And from the Jewish Believers' viewpoint, why would a gentile want to have
a Jewish Messiah if he didn't also want to be Jewish? Since for Jews circumcision was the
primary outward symbol that separated Hebrews from gentiles, then it still made no sense to
most  members  of  The  Way  how  a  gentile  could  hope  to  accept  Yeshua  if  he  wouldn't  also
accept circumcision. And in a few more verses we see that issue arise in force as we'll hear of
the Circumcision faction intervening. And this faction was embedded within the body of Jewish
Believers. So already we see that the Body of Believers was divided; at first it was divided into
Hebrew  speaking  Believers  and  Greek  speaking  Believers.  Now  we  see  that  of  those  two
groups  some  formed  the  Circumcision  faction  that  believed  that  while  gentiles  could  accept
Yeshua,  it  didn't  change  the  requirement  for  them  to  be  circumcised  and  therefore  to
essentially  become  Jews.  In  other  words,  in  their  minds  Christ  enabled  gentiles  to  have
Messiah Yeshua for Salvation but they had to stop being gentiles in order to do it. It is not at all
unlike the bulk of Christianity that has for 1800 years determined that Christ is for gentiles and
while  a  Jew  can  accept  Jesus,  first  he  has  to  renounce  His  Jewishness  and  essentially
become a gentile. One of the core missions of Seed of Abraham Ministries Torah Class is to
put  the  truth  to  this  wrong-minded,  manmade  doctrine.  Jews  do  NOT  have  to  leave  their
Jewishness behind to accept Messiah; Yeshua came as the Jewish Messiah.
We will finish up Acts chapter 10 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 25, Chapter 10 conclusion
We are still in Acts chapter 10. And while we'll finish it today, the issues that surface from its
God-inspired words are most challenging and profoundly important to our faith; so we'll keep
on  hacking  away  at  it  to  try  to  extract  from  these  passages  both  the  spiritual  truth  and  the
practical applications.
Jews well understand the primary issue underlying this chapter; it was the resolution of it that
befuddled  them.  But  gentile  Christians  have  a  hard  time  even  discerning  the  nature  of  the
actual  issue;  and  if  we  don't  properly  understand  the  issue  then  we  will  misunderstand  the
outcome.
We finished up at verse 28 last time and to refresh our memories it says this:
CJB Acts 10:28 He said to them, "You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have
close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit
him, is something that just isn't done. But God has shown me not to call any person
common or unclean;
The underlying issue that is being dealt with in Acts 10 is ritual purity especially as concerns
Jewish  relations  with  gentiles.  At  this  point  in  history  Traditions  (Oral  Torah)  had,  by  now,
substantially distorted what the Lord had ordained in the Torah about the ritual purity status of
gentiles.  Thus  Acts  chapter  10  is  God  in  the  process  of  straightening  that  out,  much  as
Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Matthew was also God straightening out wrong
minded Traditions on a wide array of subjects.
Commentators like to say that the main issue in Acts 10 was about Peter (and other Jews)
eating with gentiles; that's only true to a point. Food was, indeed, seen as perhaps the most
serious,  and  preventable,  opportunity  for  a  Jew  to  become  ritually  defiled.  Knowing  which
animals could and could not be eaten for food was easy and every Jewish child knew it by
heart.  It  was  the  intricate  rules  about  the  handling  of  the  food  that  was  problematic  and
Tradition complicated the matter. There was any number of ways that perfectly kosher food
could become unclean and therefore inedible through improper handling. It could happen from
the animal being raised incorrectly; or by it being slaughtered incorrectly; or by not properly
draining and disposing of the blood; or allowing it to come into contact with something else that
was  ritually  unclean  (including,  especially,  a  ritually  unclean  person)  because  ritual  impurity
could be transmitted from object to object.
Middle Eastern hospitality always demanded that a guest was presented with food. So should
a Jew venture into the home of a gentile, for them it would be like going into the contagious
disease ward at a hospital. It was a big risk because even if the food they were offered was of
a kind that a Jew could normally eat, there was no assurance about how it had been handled.
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
Even more, Jews considered gentiles as naturally unclean. So whatever a gentile touched be it
food,  furniture,  clothing,  bedding,  the  floors  and  walls  of  their  homes,  anything,  the  Jews
believed those gentiles had transmitted their uncleanness to it and so it was nearly impossible
that  a  Jew  would  not  be  infected  with  ritual  impurity.  Not  only  was  the  mere  thought  of  it
disgusting, there would then be a cumbersome and at times expensive process to return to a
state of ritual purity using the remedies set down by the Law of Moses.  
Why were gentiles considered by Jews as automatically unclean? Academic Jews would say it
was primarily because gentiles were idolaters; they worshipped some other god than the God
of Israel. It was also because gentile females didn't follow the proper procedures at the end of
their  periods,  and  that  males  didn't  follow  the  proper  procedures  after  intimacy  with  their
wives, which could have cured the ritually impure conditions that resulted. But to the average
everyday Jew, gentiles are unclean because Tradition says they are; that's just how gentiles
were  created.  Yet,  what  about  the  God-fearer  gentiles  who  were  not  idolaters,  and  instead
worshipped  only  the  God  of  Israel?  That  presented  a  particularly  difficult  conundrum  about
which  there  wasn't  universal  agreement  within  Judaism.  Could  they  attend  Synagogues?
Could they dine with Jews? Could they go to the Temple? In the end it turns out that for Jews
of this era the conundrum was mostly about the perceived need for circumcision for God-fearer
gentiles. We'll get into that shortly after we re-read the final verses of Acts chapter 10.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 10:28 – end
The final few words of verse 28 have Peter saying that God showed him not to call any man
common  or  unclean.  How  did  God  show  him  this?  By  means  of  the  vision  of  the  creatures
inside a sheet being lowered down from Heaven. I'd like to put the final nail into the coffin of
the incorrect doctrinal teaching that the vision had to do with food; that is, I'm saying that this
vision  was  not  at  all  about  God  abrogating  the  Levitical  food  laws  as  is  standard  Christian
doctrine.  Rather  the  vision  of  the  unclean  animals  was  merely  symbolic  of  something  else
since  the  vision  was  essentially  a  parable.  I've  made  my  case  on  this  sufficiently  that  all  I
could do is to repeat myself at this point, so I'd like instead to quote to you from a revered
early Church Father, the Venerable Bede, an English Monk who lived and wrote about 700
A.D. This excerpt is taken from his commentary on the Book of Acts.
"I am amazed at how some people interpret this as having to do with certain foods that
were prohibited by the old law but that are now to be consumed, since neither serpents
nor  reptiles  can  be  eaten.  Nor  did  Peter  himself  understand  it  in  this  way.  Rather  he
understood it as meaning that all PEOPLE are equally called to the gospel of Christ and
that  nothing  is  naturally  defiled.  For  when  he  was  reproached,  he  explained  the
SYMBOLISM  of  this  vision,  not  as  giving  the  reason  why  he  ate  beasts  but  why  he
associated with gentiles".
Quite correct; while food was used for symbolism the vision was not about food. So while some
might say that when I teach you that the Levitical food laws were not abolished, and that this
vision-parable given to Peter certainly didn't do so (because this had nothing to do with food in
the first place), it is only because I have a Hebrew Roots or Messianic theology; but here we
have  a  gentile  English  Christian  monk  of  great  repute  saying  exactly  the  same  thing  1300
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
years ago and flabbergasted that some of his fellow Christians couldn't see that.
So  the  bottom  line  is  that  Peter  is  being  taught  that  God  does  not  create  anything  that  is
naturally  unclean;  that  is  nothing  is  unclean  in  its  naturally  created  state.  Rather  all  things
begin as ritually clean. So for something to become unclean, something has to happen to it.
Now before someone says, 'wait a minute, I thought a vulture for instance was an unclean
bird?'  No it is not. It is merely a bird that the Lord says is not permitted for food, and thus also
for religious purposes such as sacrificing. A vulture is not, of itself, unclean because clean and
unclean, versus permitted and prohibited are two entirely different matters that the Torah deals
with separately. A vulture is not permitted for food; but it is not inherently unclean.
Further, the God principle is that every created thing is created spiritually common. Common
objects and people can remain  in the spiritual state of common and clean, or they can be
elevated  to  holy  by  God's  decision.  Conversely  objects  and  people  that  are  common  and
clean can be degraded to unclean (usually by an act of man). But never can a man elevate the
common to the holy; that lies purely within the authority of God. What I just told you is perhaps
one of the most important God principles there is, and it is clearly stated in the Biblical Torah;
that is, this is not Tradition or custom nor is it speculation or allegory.
Paul said the essentially same thing in his own way, and in a slightly different context, in the
Book of Romans.
CJB  Romans  14:14  I  know-  that  is,  I  have  been  persuaded  by  the  Lord  Yeshua  the
Messiah- that nothing is unclean in itself. But if a person considers something unclean,
then for him it is unclean;
Here Paul admits that (like Peter) he had to be persuaded by the Lord that nothing is unclean
of itself (that is whether it is a person or an object God doesn't create anything unclean). He
had to be convinced (have his mind changed) because as a highly trained Pharisee Paul had
been taught otherwise. Pharisees (and all of Judaism for that matter) believed that gentiles
were, essentially, born as naturally unclean people. Thus another important God principle is at
play  in  our  story;  it  is  not  important  just  for  Jews  but  for  Believing  gentiles  as  well.  When
something is unclean, it cannot be made holy. First the unclean thing has to be restored to a
spiritual status of clean and common. And then from clean and common God can elevate it to
holy.
So  notice  in  this  passage  of  Romans  that  Paul  is  talking  about  a  person  believing  that
something is unclean. And if that person believes something is unclean then to him or her it is
unclean. But (and here is the kicker) this principle doesn't work the other way around. Paul
never says, "Oh yes, and vice versa". He never says that if you believe something is ritually
clean, but it is unclean, then for you it is clean. Yet that is usually read into this passage and
taught as though that is what he said. I hope you see that. This passage is only dealing with
unclean things, not clean.
You see, while there is no danger to us in considering something unclean and therefore we
avoid it (even if that object is in reality ritually clean), there is danger in assuming something is
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
clean (when God says the object is actually unclean) and we partake of it anyway. And that is
precisely what worried the Jews about coming into contact with gentiles. So the attitude was
developed: better safe than sorry. Better to err on the side of considering gentiles and all they
contact unclean (and thus avoiding them), than to consider them clean and be wrong, and thus
become ritually defiled.
I know this is so hard for us to wrap our minds around, but that is because this thought process
has never held a place in gentile Christian life or discussion. For some reason, centuries ago,
the  spiritual  states  of  clean  and  unclean  have  been  removed  from  Christian  thought  and
ideology. But it is Biblical and it is historical and it remains in effect. Gentiles have simply been
ignorant  of  it  because  it  is  explained  only  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  this  ignorance  has  at
times led to gross misunderstanding of some New Testament Scripture passages.
And  by  the  way,  Paul  is  not  talking  about  people,  here,  as  he  speaks  about  considering
something as unclean. He is talking about objects, mainly food. How do I know this? Because
in the next verse of Romans he says:
CJB Romans 14:15 and if your brother is being upset by the food you eat, your life is no
longer  one  of  love.  Do  not,  by  your  eating  habits,  destroy  someone  for  whom  the
Messiah died!
Please follow what I'm about to tell you. If you don't think the Biblical food laws matter, then
you probably won't be thrilled by what I have to show you (sometimes the truth is not easy to
swallow....forgive the pun). Notice (because this is usually taught backwards) Paul doesn't say
"if your brother is upset at the food you avoid". That is, this is not about if your fellow Believer
is upset because he sees you avoiding foods you think to be unclean. Rather Paul says, 'if
your brother is upset by the food you eat' (and remember, in the previous verse the context is
about considering something unclean). Think about it: would a brother ever become upset by
the food you eat if he thinks it is clean? Obviously not; so clean food isn't the context. Rather if
a  fellow  Believer  sees  you  eating  food  that  is  unclean  to  him,  even  though  you  don't  care
about following the Biblically kosher food laws, then it is selfish for you to eat food in front of
him that to him is unclean (Paul says it is not loving because it is upsetting to him). And yet this
verse is typically taught exactly the opposite; instead it is usually taught as Paul saying that if a
person considers the food to be clean, then it is the one who considers the food to be unclean
that is doing wrong and upsetting his brother. Let me put a finer point on it by giving you an
example of how this verse applies. If you come to my house at my invitation for dinner, and I
know you observe the Biblical food laws, but I still serve things that I know are unclean to you
yet I eat them anyway (even if I don't insist that you do the same), Paul says that is not a
loving thing for me to do. It is not you doing wrong because you won't eat the things that I
serve  you  that  you  consider  as  unclean;  it  is  me  that  is  wrong  for  putting  you  in  this
uncomfortable position. Romans 14:15 is not about what is avoided; it is about what is eaten.
This  passage  is  not  about  clean  food,  it  is  about  unclean  food.  This  principle  is  a  one  way
street and it is always presented in the Bible as a one way street. 
In our day and age, what we choose to eat has taken on greater significance not because of
scarcity (at least not in the Western world), but because of the issue of maintaining good health
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
and achieving longer life spans. People, including Believers, care greatly about their diet being
organic and healthy, but don't care about whether God says any particular food item should be
eaten at all. I can understand this for the secular world; but for Believers? My brethren, God
has specifically listed in His Word what is edible as food for us and what is not. The prohibited
list is small, and not at all hard to avoid. Your bodily health is of course important and you
should endeavor to eat healthy; but your spiritual health is more important and that begins by
being obedient to the Lord's commands. No matter, Acts chapter 10 isn't directly about food
any  way;  it  is  about  ritual  purity  as  regards  gentiles.  Thus  in  verse  29,  after  Peter  now
understands that salvation in Christ is for gentiles, too, and that God does not view gentiles as
inherently ritually unclean (and He ought to know), Peter asks Cornelius why he has bid him to
come. Cornelius's answer starts in verse 30.
Cornelius recounts about how he too had a vision and it occurred at the hour of the traditional
afternoon  prayers  (traditional  for  Judaism).  And  the  man  in  his  vision  (earlier  this  man  was
referred to as an angel) told him to send for Peter, and also told him where Peter was located.
So Cornelius was obedient, sent for him, and has gathered friends and family for surely God
has something important to say through Peter.
Peter now speaks. And in verse 34 he begins with a humble (and game changing) admission
by saying that NOW he fully understands that God is not partial only to Jews, but rather any
man from any nation or people who bows down to Him and does what is right (meaning right in
God's eyes) is welcome to Him. Peter didn't understand this except within the last 72 hours
as a result of the vision-parable God showed him. Up to NOW he did not think it possible that
gentiles could be saved in Yeshua's name. Just to be clear: God had not changed anything. It
is  only  that  Peter  had  had  it  wrong  all  his  life.  Gentiles  had  always  had  a  way  to  become
welcome to God. Christ's atoning death wasn't aimed only at getting Jews into the Kingdom; it
was aimed at all people on earth without exception. Christ's death and resurrection explained
how the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant that all the peoples of the earth would be blessed
through Abraham and his Hebrew descendants finally came about.
At verse 36 Peter makes the assumption that Cornelius is well aware of the ritual purity issues
between  Jews  and  gentiles,  and  also  is  somewhat  familiar  with  the  story  of  Yeshua's  life,
death and resurrection. Then Peter goes on to summarize the important events of Messiah's
life and mission. But let's not miss the underlying tone; Peter is making it clear that salvation
first came to the Jews, and now gentiles would hear of this salvation the Jews have as a result
of   their   Jewish   Messiah   from   Jewish   witnesses   to   Christ's   life   and   teachings.   Peter
emphasizes that point in verse 41 when he says:
CJB Acts 10:41 not by all the people, but by witnesses God had previously chosen, that
is, by us, who ate and drank with him after he had risen again from the dead.
It was Jews who were the chosen witnesses; in fact it was a select group of Jews among which
Peter  was  one.  Thus  while  Cornelius  and  other  gentile  God-fearers  are  acceptable  to  God,
gentiles should keep in mind that God's Word was given to the Jews 1400 years earlier; the
Savior is a Jew; those who know God's Word, and who protect it and tell others about it are
Jews; and salvation was first given to the Jews. Thus the Jews hold a place of preeminence
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
and leadership in the faith, and it is the Jews who were tasked with preaching and testifying
about Yeshua; not the gentiles. Paul would say essentially the same thing to begin Romans
chapter 3.
Romans 3:1-4 CJB
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? What is the value of being circumcised?
2 Much in every way! In the first place, the Jews were entrusted with the very words of
God.
3  If  some  of  them  were  unfaithful,  so  what?  Does  their  faithlessness  cancel  God's
faithfulness?
4 Heaven forbid! God would be true even if everyone were a liar!- as the Tanakh says,
"so that you, God, may be proved right in your words and win the verdict when you are
put on trial."
But perhaps the most important statement in Peter's talk to Cornelius and his household that
shows that Peter really gets what God showed him in his vision, is a statement in verse 43 that
forms the foundation for the congregational Body of Christ.
Acts 10:43 CJB  43 All the prophets bear witness to him, that everyone who puts his trust
in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
There is the Gospel of Messiah Yeshua in a nutshell. It is inclusive, it requires trust in Yeshua,
and through this will ones' sins be forgiven. I want to say it one more time; while this was a
revolutionary concept to Peter, he readily admits that he had had it all wrong up to now and in
fact all the OT prophets bore witness to Christ and what His coming would mean for everyone,
not just for the Jewish people.
While Peter was still speaking these words, says verse 44, the Ruach HaKodesh interrupted
him and fell on everyone who was listening. What this means is simple; Cornelius's gentile
household believed Peter's message, and they believed that Yeshua was Messiah, and they
accepted that the Messiah of the Jews was also the Messiah for the gentiles.
But now in verse 45 comes the issue that would prove to be one of the most contentious (and
most  misunderstood)  as  regards  salvation;  the  issue  of  circumcision  for  gentile  males  who
turned to Messiah Yeshua. We'll talk more about that in a moment, but first notice that the
circumcised who were present were amazed because the gift of the Holy Spirit fell upon this
group  of  gentiles.  That  one  of  those  gentiles  was  a  Roman  army  officer  was  even  more
astounding  since  this  man  was  the  most  visible  symbol  of  Rome's  oppression  upon  God's
people. Further these gentiles began speaking in tongues and praising God in ways that no
one who didn't know Him intimately could possibly do.
The CJB and others will add the word "faction" or "believers" to the word circumcision; those
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
words are not there in the original Greek. However in order for this phrase to make sense,
something  does  need  to  be  added  to  the  word  circumcision.  So  who  is  the  Circumcision
"faction" referring to? Since this is referring to Jews, naturally they were circumcised, Believer
or non-Believer. However we will be told in Acts chapter 11 that it was exactly 6 Jews who
went with Peter from Yafo to meet Cornelius. And that these 6 Jews were brethren, meaning
they  were  Believers.  So  among  these  6  Believers  who  accompanied  Peter  some  of  them
belonged  to  a  sub-group  of  Jewish  Believers  who  thought  that  God-fearers  needed  to  be
circumcised if they wanted to worship the God of Israel. And, what was behind this requirement
for circumcision was the issue of  ritual purity.
However we have to also understand what circumcision meant in that era; it meant that one
became an official Jew. A person literally converted from being a gentile to being a Jew. That
said, it would be a mischaracterization to say that those who insisted on the circumcision of
gentile God-fearers were a separate group (in the same way that Pharisees were a separate
group from the Sadducees). Rather they were members of the The Way but they held to a
personal  conviction  that  gentile  God-fearers  should  be  converted  to  Jews.  Further,  this  had
little to do with a gentile becoming a Believer and follower of Yeshua. That is, the circumcision
faction  did  not  come  into  existence  as  a  result  of  Christ's  advent,  and  then  demand  that
gentiles  convert  to  Jews  in  order  to  be  saved.  This  demand  for  circumcision  was  scattered
among adherents who belonged to various segments of Judaism, and The Way was (rightfully
so) considered as but one of these various segments of Judaism. This circumcision faction had
existed long before the time of Christ, because historically Judaism had become rather popular
in the Roman Empire and a fair number of gentiles wanted to worship Israel's God.
Thus to these Believers in Yeshua who followed Peter to meet Cornelius, the advent of Christ
didn't change anything as far as their perceived need for a gentile God-fearer to convert to
Judaism (by means of being circumcised). For them, belief in Christ was the natural path of
Judaism; not something different or separate. That is because the same thought process still
prevailed: why would a non-Jew worship a Jewish God and adopt a Jewish Savior? For Jews
of that day (and up to now, for Peter) the logic was impeccable. By a male gentile God-fearer
being circumcised, and thus becoming a Jew, that generally solved the concern about ritual
purity. It was going to be a very hard sell, especially for Paul, to get Jewish Believers of the
Circumcision faction to relent on the matter of circumcision for gentile Believers; and there has
never been much success in that regard to this day.
What we have here with the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius and his household is no less than a
second Pentecost event. The first Pentecost event was of course obedient to what Christ said:
"First to the Jew, then to the Greek". Thus it was only upon Jews that the Holy Spirit fell in
Jerusalem on that very special Biblical Feast day of Shavuot; and they spoke in tongues. Here
we have the same thing happen to a group of Greeks (gentiles). To all those present, including
those Jews of the circumcision faction, there was simply no denying it because they saw it with
their  own  eyes.  Whether  they  liked  it  or  not,  whether  they  understood  it  or  not,  these
uncircumcised gentiles had been received by God and the spectacular descending of the Holy
Spirit upon them presented undeniable proof.
Peter's  response  was  to  immediately  ask:  is  there  anything  to  prohibit  these  from  being
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
immersed? It reminds one of the Ethiopian eunuch who, upon accepting Yeshua as Savior,
asked Philip if there was anything that should prevent him from being baptized. So it is not that
Cornelius was the first gentile to be baptized or to receive the Holy Spirit. It is that Peter, the
head of the Body of Believers at this time, now realizes that this handful of isolated cases of
gentiles coming to belief, receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized, would not be unique but
rather it would become the norm.
Interestingly we hear of no protest from the Circumcision faction. And we hear of no demand or
expectation that Cornelius and his household would be circumcised. But as with so many long
held traditions and beliefs, no matter how misguided, they don't easily change or die. Thus
circumcision of gentile Believers is going to become, and remain, a stubborn issue within The
Way for the remainder of the New Testament.
It seems to have been left to Paul to do more than merely declare that circumcision of gentiles
was not needed to be accepted Christ worshippers; he would be the one to have to explain the
theology  behind  it.  And  once  again  let  me  point  out  that  for  Jews  of  this  era,  circumcision
wasn't   merely   an   issue   of   following   a   traditional   ritual   or   a   cultural   custom.   Rather,
circumcision meant one thing and one thing only: that one was, or was becoming, a Jew. And
with  circumcision,  one  didn't  just  become  a  Jew  symbolically,  nor  was  it  a  means  to  show
sympathy or solidarity with the Jewish people. One literally became a national Jewish citizen,
and would no longer identify as a gentile.
Paul  dealt  with  the  matter  of  circumcision  of  gentiles  from  the  most  important  aspect,  the
spiritual aspect, in Romans chapter 2. Let's close with what he said about it.
Romans 2:13-29 CJB
13 For it is not merely the hearers of Torah whom God considers righteous; rather, it is
the doers of what Torah says who will be made righteous in God's sight.
14 For whenever Gentiles, who have no Torah, do naturally what the Torah requires, then
these, even though they don't have Torah, for themselves are Torah!
15 For their lives show that the conduct the Torah dictates is written in their hearts. Their
consciences also bear witness to this, for their conflicting thoughts sometimes accuse
them and sometimes defend them
16 on a day when God passes judgment on people's inmost secrets. (According to the
Good News as I proclaim it, he does this through the Messiah Yeshua.)
17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rest on Torah and boast about God
18 and know his will and give your approval to what is right, because you have been
instructed from the Torah;
19 and if you have persuaded yourself that you are a guide to the blind, a light in the
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 25 - Chapter 10 conclusion
 
darkness,
20 an instructor for the spiritually unaware and a teacher of children, since in the Torah
you have the embodiment of knowledge and truth;
21  then,  you  who  teach  others,  don't  you  teach  yourself?  Preaching,  "Thou  shalt  not
steal," do you steal?
22 Saying, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? Detesting idols,
do you commit idolatrous acts?
23 You who take such pride in Torah, do you, by disobeying the Torah, dishonor God?-
24 as it says in the Tanakh, "For it is because of you that God's name is blasphemed by
the Goyim."
25  For  circumcision  is  indeed  of  value  if  you  do  what  Torah  says.  But  if  you  are  a
transgressor of Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision!
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah,
won't his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 Indeed, the man who is physically uncircumcised but obeys the Torah will stand as a
judgment on you who have had a b'rit-milah and have Torah written out but violate it!
28 For the real Jew is not merely Jewish outwardly: true circumcision is not only external
and physical.
29 On the contrary, the real Jew is one inwardly; and true circumcision is of the heart,
spiritual not literal; so that his praise comes not from other people but from God.
What  did  we  just  hear  Paul  say?  He  says  true  circumcision  is  of  the  heart;  spiritually  not
literally. So fleshly circumcision was always meant as an outward symbol of something that
happened  internally  and  invisibly.  He  also  said  that  the  man  who  obeys  the  Torah  but  is
physically not circumcised (he is a gentile, not a Jew) will stand as a judgment against a Jew (a
circumcised  person)  who  disobeys  God's  Torah.  Circumcision  was  a  physical  symbol  that
anyone could wear whether they trusted and obeyed the God of Israel or not. But a man who
didn't  wear  that  physical  symbol  of  circumcision  (a  gentile),  but  did  trust  God  and  did  obey
God's Torah, God would declare as righteous and acceptable.
We'll begin Acts chapter 11 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 26, Chapter 11
Before we begin Acts 11, I want to take a breather to summarize the high points of our study
up to now so that we don't get too swamped in facts and new terms and lose our way. But
before I do that I feel it necessary to speak to you from my heart for a few moments. We have
spent 25 weeks, about 6 months, just getting through the first 10 of the 28 chapters of the Book
of Acts. And I have probably spent more time on Bible history, and the history of the Jewish
people, and delving into their culture, customs, and mindset and then trying to connect it all
together than any book I have ever taught. Most who are listening to me are gentiles; and thus
you have little idea what modern Jews, let alone the ancient Jews of the Bible are all about,
and you may also be thinking why should you even care to know? How does this help us to
understand God's Word and apply it to our lives?  I forewarned you of this approach at the
outset of our study because outside of teaching the Book of Acts in this way, I don't know how
else to extract its intended meaning.
Thus the reason for my long-winded and broad approach in teaching you about these matters
is that Acts is the structural bridge that spans two eras: the Old and the New Testament. It is
the  binding  link  between  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the  advent  of  Messiah.  However  most
important for our proper understanding is that Acts is a 100% Jewish bridge. It is a bridge built
entirely  upon  the  bedrock  of  Jewish  society,  the  steel  of  Jewish  thought  processes,  the
connecting rivets of the Jewish religion of that era, and the labor of the historical traditions that
had  been  developed  and  nurtured  over  the  centuries  that  drove  Jewish  behavior  and
decisions. All the writers of the Old Testament were Jews (or more correctly, Hebrews), and all
the writers of the New Testament were Jews except for the God-fearer Luke who seems to
have  remained  a  Christ-believing  gentile  yet  threw  in  his  lot  with  the  Jewish  disciples  and
apostles of Christ, even becoming a traveling companion of Paul, and all that might have been
missing from him being a Jewish convert was circumcision.
I have often been asked what caused my wife and me to venture away from the mainstream
Christian  institutions  and  to  start  this  ministry  of  Bible  teaching  from  a  Hebrew  Roots
perspective.  A  way  of  teaching  that  challenges  things  we've  all  believed  in  at  one  time  or
another.  A friend of mine, Dr. Robert McGee, once said to me that sometimes we need to
pause and seriously examine why we believe what we believe. I've stated to close friends for
a very long time now that in my estimation most Christian institutions have backed away from
leading their flocks in a search for the truth and instead have encouraged their members to
uphold  and  defend  their  particular  doctrinal  status  quo.  That  is,  depending  on  how  long  a
certain denomination has been in existence, some time at their earliest inception a group of
leaders  decided  on  what  was  truth,  what  they  believed  in,  listed  them  and  called  them
doctrines, and set out to teach these doctrines as immutable. Except in the rarest cases, these
doctrines cannot be challenged; rather they must be accepted without question and adhered to
in perpetuity, or the dissenter is typically asked to go elsewhere. For these denominations, the
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
search for the truth ended the day their doctrines were posted because from their perspective
all the truth that existed had been found.  
Perhaps the main issue I have with that mindset is that it doesn't allow for the playing out of
the mysteries of Biblical prophecy, nor does it allow for ongoing progressive revelation and the
inevitable twists and turns it brings with it. Thus new information and new circumstances are
often  covered  over  or  willfully  ignored  because  they  may  contradict  long  held  doctrine.  The
unexpected return of Israel as a Jewish nation in 1948 is one such example.
Today the Bible is not usually taught in verse by verse, chronological fashion, nor is it taught in
its historical context. For one reason, in this era of hectic lives and short attention spans the
congregational audience usually has no patience for it (so I applaud you for hanging in there).
Rather  the  Bible  is  taught  according  to  what  scholars  call  apologetics.  Apologetics  are
arguments or reasoned justifications of something; usually a justification of certain established
religious  doctrines.  Therefore  if  a  Bible  passage  seems  to  say  something  different  than  the
denominational doctrine demands, then the Bible passage is either declared irrelevant for our
times, or it is allegorized in a well thought out way to make it conform to the unchangeable
doctrine. So once again; for many centuries, now, the issue has been less about searching for
God's  truth  or  embracing  a  new  revelation  with  an  open  mind  and  a  thirsty  soul;  but  more
about  defending  cherished,  familiar  beliefs  and  traditions  that  are  securely  locked  behind  a
door  of  denominational  creeds  and  doctrines.  If  Yeshua's  first  disciples  had  thought  and
behaved in that way, instead of being open to the new revelation of His coming and all that it
entailed, the faith we hold dear and count on would have been stillborn.
Rather, I want to be personally prepared and to help prepare you, for whatever comes next in
God's redemptive plan for mankind (and much has been promised and is yet to come). I don't
want to miss it, and I don't want you to miss it, because of closed minds and rigid manmade
doctrines.  Thus  here  at  Seed  of  Abraham  Torah  Class,  we  are  doing  our  best  (admittedly
imperfectly) to try to crack open, if just a wee bit, what has in many cases been a locked and
guarded door. And the key to this door is to understand these ancient people of the Bible, their
times and mindset, the intent of their words, and the context and circumstances in which they
uttered them, as found in the Holy Scriptures. I realize that this is often uncomfortable for you
because it is much easier to just settle on some basic matters and never have to address them
again. Most people come to Church to casually fellowship with other like-minded Believers and
to be emotionally uplifted; to feel better when they leave than when they arrived. They want
validation for what they have always believed. However, just as maturing from a child to an
adult forces us (hopefully) to reconsider things in life that at one time seemed simple and easy
to understand as children, but involve multiple shades of gray and conflicting principles as we
reach adult hood, so it is that as we learn of Christ and His sacrificial love that drove Him to the
cross, if we endeavor to mature in Him we will necessarily find out that certain God principles
and patterns aren't so straightforward or as easy to apply to our lives as we first thought.
And  sometimes  to  our  greatest  discomfort  we  will  also  find  out  that  certain  doctrines  were
originally  formed  due  to  human  agendas  in  the  past  that  are  not  so  apparent  to  the
congregation today, and once unearthed can be troubling. However our goal in learning God's
Word,  and  in  response  being  obedient  to  it,  should  not  be  about  our  search  for  comfort;  it
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
should be about our search for truth. And I can tell you from experience, the truth is not always
comfortable. God's Word is so wide and so deep that no man, no teacher, no Pastor, no Rabbi
has a corner on the truth, or knows all the truth, because God's way is to reveal more and
more of the truth in His good time; and so our search should be ongoing. Yet, there are things
we can reasonably test, and we can conclude and know with a certainty if we work at it, and at
times  this  leads  us  to  things  we've  assumed  were  truth  but  new  information  that  better
conforms with God's Word demands that we must now unlearn them. That takes courage and
persistence,  it  takes  faith,  and  it  takes  humbling  ourselves  before  the  Holy  Spirit  such  that
we're not so allergic to finding out that we may have been wrong about some important things
concerning our faith that we close our eyes and ears.
But as no other book ever written, the Bible tells us that if we will seek diligently for the truth
within its God inspired passages, we are guaranteed to find it. We are also told that the truth
will set us free. Free from what? From bondage to sin that began with a lie in the Garden of
Eden;  not  free  to  do  anything  we  feel  like.  Truth  sets  us  free;  freedom  is  not  gained  from
stubbornly (perhaps fearfully) holding on to humanly imposed doctrines and customs that have
been so warm and customary to us over the years that we have not had to think about them
twice. We've not been terribly motivated to ask ourselves why we believe what we believe.
That is, however, indeed what I'm asking you to do.
So what we've learned thus far in the Book of Acts are things that, for some, can be unsettling;
for others, informing and enlightening. For instance: that belief in Jesus Christ arose from the
religion of the Jews, just as Yeshua Himself was a hereditary, genealogical and cultural Jew.
The  religion  of  the  Jews  since  sometime  after  the  Babylonian  exile  is  what  we  today  call
Judaism, even though there is no evidence that during New Testament times, or before, that
the term Judaism was used to label the Jewish religion.
We also discovered that the religion of the Jews in New Testament times was practiced much
like  Christianity  is  practiced  in  modern  times.  That  is,  Judaism  consisted  of  a  number  of
factions that shared a few commonly held and fundamental beliefs among them, but also many
more beliefs that were at opposite ends of the spectrum (such as if bodily resurrection was
possible). Further, because of the Babylonian exile some 600 years prior to New Testament
times, and because the vast majority of exiled Jews had voluntarily decided to remain in the
various foreign lands to which they were sent, there was a distinct split in how Judaism was
practiced  between  the  Jews  who  lived  in  the  Holy  Land  versus  those  who  lived  out  in  the
Diaspora (that is, the Jews who lived in foreign lands). The Jews living in the Holy Land were
outnumbered 20 to 1 by the Diaspora Jews. However, the Diaspora Jews in general looked to
Jerusalem  for  spiritual  direction  because  that's  where  the  Temple,  the  Priesthood,  and  the
Sanhedrin were located.
We learned that there were other factional splits in Judaism as well, and these factional splits
play significant roles in our New Testament stories and their outcomes. The most familiar one
to Christians is the split between the Sadducees and the Pharisees; the two most predominant
social/ religious/political parties of the Jews. But the cause of this split is not apparent without
understanding  basics  of  Judaism  and  Jewish  society  in  that  era.  It  was  the  aristocratic
Sadducees  who  operated  the  Temple,  controlled  the  Priesthood  and  ran  the  Jewish  High
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
Court:  the  Sanhedrin.  But  it  was  the  learned  Pharisees  who  were  the  overseers  of  the
Synagogues. Thus the Synagogue and the Temple were rivals and held little in common. The
Synagogue  looked  much  like  a  typical  Church  looks  with  its  building,  seating,  speaking
platform,  and  authority  structure.  The  Synagogue  is  where  Rabbis  and  others  taught  their
doctrines and Bible interpretations and the Synagogue was the center of daily Jewish religious
life. There was only one Temple but there were hundreds and hundreds of Synagogues. And
there was a Synagogue present generally wherever a Jewish community of sustainable size
would spring up.
Especially for the Diaspora Jews who lived hundreds, and in some cases a thousand miles or
more, away from Jerusalem it wasn't usual that they would ever in their lifetimes come to visit
the Temple for a Biblical festival or to sacrifice there; it was simply too expensive, too time
consuming, too dangerous and too impractical. So their attachment to their Jewish religion was
to their local Synagogue. When people went regularly to worship and have fellowship, even in
Jerusalem, it was usually not to the Temple but to their Synagogue. So we must necessarily
understand that for Yeshua and for all His followers, as well as all regular Jews, theirs' was
the world of the Synagogue, and only on certain ceremonial occasions did they venture to the
Temple and interact with the priests.
The  central  doctrinal  tenets  of  the  Synagogue  can  be  summed  up  in  one  Hebrew  word:
Halakhah. Halakhah was a merging and mingling of the Biblical Torah, Traditions, and ancient
customs. It was their manual not just for their religion, but for their everyday behavior. It was
not  a  written  manual  yet  (that  wouldn't  come  for  another  couple  of  centuries),  rather  it  was
taught orally and enforced by various Jewish religious authorities who didn't agree on many
important  matters;  this  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  several  factions  of  Judaism  that
developed and the never ending infighting that usually only amounted to passionate debate but
at times spilled over into violence. All the disciples and followers of Yeshua belonged to one
faction or another of Judaism, and to one Synagogue or another, so they didn't have a single
unified  mindset  even  after  coming  to  belief.  And  we  see  this  play  out  early  on  among  the
disciples as we hear of Hellenist Believers (Greek speakers) versus Hebrew Believers (Hebrew
speakers) who don't trust one another to impartially dole out money and food to the widows
among their group.
Despite their various levels of devotion to Judaism, for the Jewish people there was no getting
around the realty that in New Testament times the world was a gentile Roman world; the Holy
Lands  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Romans  and  the  Diaspora  Jews  lived  in  one  province  or
another of the Roman Empire. It had been this way for going on 2 centuries by the time of
Christ's execution. The Jews of the Diaspora by necessity dealt every day with the majority
gentile  world  and  its  many  complexities.  Like  the  proverbial  frog  in  the  kettle,  slowly  and
imperceptibly the Diaspora Jews found themselves looking and thinking more and more like
their  gentile  neighbors.  But  the  more  pious  and  zealous  Jews  of  the  Holy  Land  who  lived
nearer to the greatest symbol of their heritage, the Temple, and nearer to the power center of
Jewish religious authority, Jerusalem, tended to keep as much distance between themselves
and the gentiles as possible. It was in this context that a new faction of Judaism, one born in
the  world  of  the  Synagogue,  arose.  This  faction  believed  that  Yeshua  of  Nazareth  was  the
Messiah they had been waiting for. But, progressive revelation visibly demonstrated that He
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
was a different kind of Messiah than the long-held Jewish customs and traditions had said they
were to expect; He would not lead the Jews in a revolt against Rome, which was expectation
#1. Further, He was not a mere man; He was indeed a descendant of King David, but also He
claimed to be God. Even more perplexing, if not disappointing, He would achieve the goal of
bringing in the Kingdom of God, a Jewish Kingdom, through His death and resurrection; not
through his personal charisma and a series of stunning military victories that would liberate
Judah. More this would be a spiritual kingdom as opposed to a typical physical kingdom. Most
Jews  then  were  like  most  Christians  today:  this  simply  was  not  what  their  trusted  religious
leaders had told them a Messiah would be and do, so even the vivid reality of Yeshua and of
His miracles that so many of them personally witnessed didn't sway them. Maintaining their
familiar doctrinal status quo was what mattered, and it was also what was demanded by the
Jewish religious leadership; not accepting the newly revealed truth.  
Thus we find upon Yeshua's death that a small group of 12 disciples took up the cause as its
leadership,  and  their  particular  faction  of  Judaism  became  known  as  The  Way.  They  didn't
stop  going  to  Synagogue;  they  didn't  stop  going  to  the  Temple.  They  didn't  stop  practicing
their Judaism or stop obeying the Law of Moses. In fact on one particular occasion, the first
Shavuot  (Pentecost)  after  Yeshua's  crucifixion,  the  12  disciples  (all  Galileans)  were  in
Jerusalem  in  obedience  to  the  Law,  and  along  with  thousands  of  Diaspora  Jews  who  were
there  for  the  same  purpose,  saw  and  experienced  something  that  shocked  them.  The  Holy
Spirit  visibly  descended  upon  Yeshua's  followers  and  they  all  began  speaking  in  foreign
languages  that  they  didn't  know.  Peter  and  others  of  the  disciples  used  this  event  as  a
springboard to teach other Jews about Yeshua and what the coming of the Spirit meant, but
they were arrested by the High Priest and told to stop speaking about this Yeshua.
Not long afterward, a Greek speaking Jewish Believer from Samaria named Stephen went to
one of the 400 or so synagogues in Jerusalem to preach the Gospel to them, and they became
so incensed by what he had to say that they took him to the Sanhedrin. In a hasty kangaroo
court  trial,  he  was  convicted  and  promptly  stoned  to  death.  Immediately  following  this,  a
number of Jews in Jerusalem set out to destroy this new radical faction of Judaism and so the
terrified Believers fled Jerusalem to safer parts of the Holy Land and to nearby countries.
In response the Sanhedrin sent Paul, a strict Pharisee, after one particular group of Believers
who had fled to safety in Damascus, Syria. On the journey to arrest these Jesus sympathizers
Christ confronted Paul in spirit form, from Heaven, and Paul, although blinded, became the
newest Believer. The same zeal he had for rounding up and punishing Believers he would now
use to spread the Gospel message.
Back in the Holy Land Peter and James, Yeshua's brother, were the unquestioned leaders of
The Way. Peter was roving around, making new disciples of the Holy Land Jews and checking
in on the welfare of some of the scattered Believers, when he had a vision that would forever
change yet another fundamental mistake in his Halakhah-based Jewish theology. But before
he had his vision, a gentile Roman army officer named Cornelius had a visitation from an angel
telling  him  to  go  and  fetch  Peter  because  there  was  something  Peter  needed  to  tell  him.
Peter's vision happened shortly afterward. The vision was a parable; it involved a cloth sheet
being  lowered  down  from  Heaven  with  all  kinds  of  animals  in  it,  some  (if  not  all)  being
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
prohibited as food for Jews according to the Law of Moses. God told Peter to kill and eat. This
vision greatly confused Peter not only because of the instruction, but because the words used
didn't pertain to food; they pertained to people and to objects.
As  the  men  arrived  to  escort  Peter  to  visit  Cornelius,  Peter  suddenly  realized  what  this
vision/parable was telling him; first, it had nothing to do with food at all. Rather it was that Peter
(and all Jews) were to stop regarding gentiles as unclean. Why? Had God recently cleansed
gentiles and made them clean? No. God had created gentiles clean (as He does all things). If
fact gentiles represented a spiritual status the Torah calls common. Common was a perfectly
fine  status,  and  was  not  evil  or  wrong  and  certainly  not  unclean.  It  was  Judaism  that  had
developed  traditions  that  declared  that  gentiles  were  unclean  and  so  Jews  couldn't  have
anything to do with them or they would risk becoming ritually defiled.  Thus since God had
entrusted Jews with the Good News, then this faulty theology about gentiles would have to be
straightened out so that Believing Jews would go to the gentiles, and gentiles could be saved
as well.
While Peter is talking to Cornelius and his household, in a second Pentecost event, the Holy
Spirit visibly fell on these gentiles, indicating that they believed the Gospel message and that
God had accepted them. This stunned Peter and 6 other Jewish Believers who had come with
him. They never imagined it possible that gentiles could accept the Jewish Messiah, and that
God would accept them, without them first becoming Jews. But now that they had accepted
Christ, and the Ruach HaKodesh had fallen on them, ought they to be circumcised and so to
become official Jews? A number of Jewish Believers thought so, and our Bibles usually call
them the Circumcision faction. This would remain a contentious issue within The Way, and it
appears that Peter was as ambivalent about it as Paul was outspoken against it.
This pretty well sums up the road we've thus far traveled in the Book of Acts. With that, open
your Bibles to Acts chapter 11 and we'll continue our journey.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 11 all
This  chapter  opens  in  the  immediate  aftermath  of  Peter's  dealings  with  the  God-fearing
gentile, and new Believer, Cornelius and his household. And the tone of this passage is that
the  Jewish  Believers  really  didn't  know  how  to  handle  this  revelation  about  the  Holy  Spirit
falling  upon  gentiles.  And  the  Circumcision  faction  among  the  Believers  felt  that  although
salvation  in  Christ  had  without  question  come  to  the  gentiles  (as  evidenced  by  the  visible
nature of the Holy Spirit coming down upon Cornelius), they felt that the next logical step was
to become a Jew; and that was accomplished by circumcision. In fact the belief was that while
one could be saved as a gentile, one could not continue as a gentile.
It  is  not  surprising  that  it  was  in  Jerusalem  that  Peter  encountered  this  opposition  since
Jerusalem was the center of the original community of Believers, and it was still where the
leadership  of  The  Way  operated  from.  But  just  as  importantly  it  was  where  Judaism  was
practiced in its most fundamentalist extremes, and so the thought of gentiles having anything
to do with the God of Israel was not accepted. Peter may have understood from God that the
standard Halakhah of the Jews that said that gentiles were naturally unclean was wrong, but
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
that  isn't  something  that  is  easily  dismissed  by  other  Jewish  Believers  just  because  one
person says so. Old Traditions and ways of thinking die much harder than that.
Notice the complaint of verse 3 that is directed towards Peter: "You went into the homes of
uncircumcised  men  and  ate  with  them."  This  is  not  an  accusation  that  Peter  essentially
consorted with the enemy. Rather this is an issue of ritual purity and thus the leader of the
Messianic movement (Peter) has voluntarily subjected himself to becoming defiled and thinking
it alright. This did not settle well with the Jewish Believers in Jerusalem; after all shouldn't their
leader be the most pious and careful of them all (as an example to the others)? And please
keep  in  mind  in  all  of  our  lessons  throughout  Acts  (and  anywhere  you  read  in  the  New
Testament) that the term "the uncircumcised" is simply a Jewish colloquial term that means
gentile. So we see that the issue of circumcision is directly tied to ritual purity.
What about a male gentile getting circumcised solves that issue? It is because it is assumed
that the only reason for circumcision is to disavow one's gentile identity and to convert to a
Jew. Once someone is a Jew, then that person (male or female) can go into a Mikveh and be
ritually  cleansed  of  all  their  gentile  impurity  (something  that  they  could  not  do  before
circumcision).  Naturally  as  a  Jew  one  would  of  course  also  follow  the  Jewish  Halakhah  as
regards the purity provisions. Bottom line: God-fearer or not; Believer in Christ or not; the issue
of ritual purity that surrounds gentiles remains unchanged in the eyes of circumcision faction.
And in fact when we get to Acts chapter 15 and the famous Jerusalem Council whereby certain
rules  were  to  be  implemented  upon  the  growing  number  of  gentile  Believers  it  was  entirely
about purity provisions because these new Believing gentiles expected to worship with, dine
with, and have open fellowship with Jewish Believers. So the question was how the leadership
of  The  Way  could  assure  their  Jewish  brethren  that  they  wouldn't  become  defiled  by  being
around these gentile Believers. 
Starting in verse 4, Peter's defense for going into the home of a gentile and eating with him is
to tell the story of the vision/parable that he had when he was in Yafo at Shimon the tanner's
house. And so he tells it nearly word for word as we read it back in chapter 10. And when in
verse 8 Peter gets to the part about telling God "no" that he will not eat such things as were in
the sheet lowered down from Heaven, it is to make clear to Kefa's hearers (which was mainly
the circumcision faction) that he is no less strictly Torah observant than they are. So he was
just as horrified to hear this instruction from God as the circumcision faction is taken aback by
Peter telling them about the instruction. I need to comment here, as I did in chapter 10, that
Acts 11:9 is poorly translated in the CJB. Where it says:  "Stop treating as unclean what God
has made clean" it is incorrect. What it actually says is: "Stop treating as koinos what God has
made kathartos". "Stop treating as common what God has made clean".
I'm  not  going  to  go  back  through  our  last  3  weeks  of  study  whereby  we  talked  extensively
about the spiritual state called common; I'll leave that up to you to review it for yourselves. But
what  I  do  want  to  add  is  this:  I  can  tell  you  right  now  that  many  of  you  are  reading  this
statement as though God (through Peter) is saying that He has recently cleansed the gentiles
when  He  says  He  "had  made  (them)  clean".  And  you'd  be  wrong.  And  the  reason  you
automatically perceive it that way is because you still see it through the lens that pervades
Christianity,  which  say  a)  gentiles  were  unclean  and  so  God  had  to  cleanse  them,  and  b)
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
because you still want to relate this to the kosher food laws, which most Christian leaders say
is what Peter's vision was about (it wasn't), and c) because it is taught that the Levitical food
laws were abolished for Believers (but that is decidedly not so). Rather when God says that He
made  gentiles  clean,  He  means  that  indeed  He  created  them  (he  made  them)  as  clean
creatures. It was only Judaism, not God, who ever at any time declared gentiles as universally
and naturally unclean creatures. So God was rebuking Peter; not informing him of a change.
God was saying, 'Peter, I made gentiles clean, so don't you say otherwise or treat them in
such a way". Further, if a gentile (who naturally carries the "common" spiritual status) accepts
Christ,  he  or  she  is  elevated  to  the  same  "holy"  status  that  Jews  naturally  carry.  So  Peter
should  stop  thinking  of  Believing  gentiles  as  being  forever  stuck  in  their  "common"  spiritual
status; they are no longer common they are now holy as a result of their faith in Yeshua. And it
is not by means of a physical circumcision and thus converting to become a Jew that elevates
them to a holy status; it is God Himself who declares their elevation to holy.....nothing more.
Verse 15 is a telling statement. There Peter relates to his listeners that the Holy Spirit fell on
these gentiles "just as it fell on us at the beginning". That is, it was another Pentecost event.
Christ told the Jewish Believers to wait on something amazing that was going to happen before
they  began  their  ministry;  and  Peter  realizes  that  amazing  event  was  Pentecost.  It  was  the
starter's gun at the beginning of a race for the Jewish Believers. But in Caesarea Maritima that
same  starter's  gun  had  been  raised  and  fired  signaling  the  beginning  of  the  inclusion  of
gentiles. Always the motto had been, first to the Jews then to the Greeks. It seems that the
Jews' head start was over. Little did they know that soon the Jews would find themselves the
minority party of Christianity.
The  most  important  statement  about  Peter's  self-defense  to  the  circumcision  faction  for  his
associating with gentiles is in verse 17:
CJB  Acts 11:17 Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as he gave us after we had
come  to  put  our  trust  in  the  Lord  Yeshua  the  Messiah,  who  was  I  to  stand  in  God's
way?"
Peter basically says, it's not my fault. Peter doesn't second guess whom God deems worthy
of salvation. Peter doesn't choose who the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon; the Lord does. It also
kind of harkens back to Gamaliel's wise statement to fellow members of the Sanhedrin about
what they ought to do about Peter and this growing faction of Judaism that they did not start or
sanction. A group that followed and worshipped a deceased carpenter from Nazareth.
In Acts chapter 5, we heard this:
Acts 5:38-39 CJB
38 So in the present case, my advice to you is not to interfere with these people, but to
leave them alone. For if this idea or this movement has a human origin, it will collapse.
39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them; you might even find yourselves
fighting God!" They heeded his advice.
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 26 - Chapter 11
 
When the circumcision faction heard those wise words of Peter that of course were the truth,
they relented. How indeed can we call ourselves followers of God and then turn around and
question  who  God  chooses  as  His  own?  They  instead  began  to  praise  God,  and  a  chilling
reality settled in over them. In verse 18 we read:
Acts 11:18 CJB "This means that God has enabled the Goyim as well to do t'shuvah and
have life!"
That is: "This means that God has enabled the gentiles as well to repent and have life!"
We'll finish chapter 11 next week.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 27, Chapters 11 and 12
Acts chapter 11 explains that after the incident with Cornelius and his household (when the
Holy Spirit fell in a Pentecost-like event upon this group of gentiles), that Peter went back to
Jerusalem  where  he  faced  a  barrage  of  questioning  and  skepticism  by  the  Believers.  They
were indignant that Peter, as their leader, would actually not only consort with a Roman army
officer, but even have the bad judgment to go into the home of this gentile. The issue for them
was that first of all, gentiles were the oppressors of the Jews. Second, everybody knew that
gentiles were ritually unclean and thus by going into the home of this Roman Centurion, Peter
(the leader of The Way) had knowingly defiled himself. But third, why would Peter think to want
to deliver salvation and the fruit of the Holy Spirit to non-Jews? So far as they were concerned
or knew, salvation was more than merely a uniquely Jewish concept; it was only available to
Jews.
We've spent several weeks now discussing perhaps the most universal and central tenet of
Jewish  society:  ritual  purity.  It  crossed  all  the  lines  of  Jewish  factionalism.  It  didn't  matter
whether  you  were  a  Hellenist  Jew  or  Hebrew  Jew;  a  Believer  or  a  Pharisee,  Essene  or
Sadducee. It didn't matter whether you lived at the religious center of the world, Jerusalem, or
in a small community far away in the Diaspora where Jews were a minority. Ritual purity was
the goal, symbol and cause for how Jews lived, and gentiles represented the antithesis of it. 
Peter's only possible defense was to relate to his fellow Believers the astounding events that
led him to make this equally astounding decision. So the first half of Acts 11 is dedicated to
essentially re-telling the story of Peter's vision of the sheet full of animals, and his relating of
the strange instruction from God to kill and eat. And then of his realization that the vision was a
parable and it had not to do with the ritual purity of food, but rather the ritual purity (or impurity)
of gentiles. And that he was telling these gentiles the Gospel of Yeshua when his speech was
interrupted by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon these same gentiles who even did exactly as
all the Jewish Believers in Jerusalem had done on that first Shavuot after Yeshua's death and
resurrection:  they  began  praising  God  and  speaking  ecstatically  in  languages  they  didn't
know!  And  thus  what,  exactly,  was  Peter  supposed  to  think  and  do,  especially  when  he
remembered that their Master Yeshua had told them that while Yochanon (John the Baptizer)
used to immerse people in water, that we will be immersed in the Holy Spirit?
At this point the Believers saw that Peter had indeed made his case; he had no choice in what
he did because the Lord had instigated it. So, in the best spirit they could muster, they quit
questioning Peter and his motives and instead began to praise God agreeing that while it might
make  no  sense  to  them,  the  Lord  has  chosen  to  allow  gentiles  into  the  fold.  However  as  I
mentioned last week, that in no way meant to them that the issue of ritual purity between Jews
and gentiles was now resolved. Thus we see in this chapter our author, Luke, informing us of a
sub-group  within  The  Way  that  on  the  one  hand  grudgingly  accepted  that  gentiles  could
receive salvation, but on the other that merely meant to them that the next step was for these
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
new gentile Believers to be circumcised and thus officially become Jews. It seemed completely
logical.  After  all,  many  gentiles  had  become  God-fearers;  that  is,  they  gave  up  their  Greek
gods and started worshipping the God of Israel. However, they remained gentiles. Therefore
obviously it was that Yehoveh had seen fit to take these God-fearers to another level by means
of  salvation  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  make  them  Jews!  All  that  remained,  then,  was  for  the
circumcision ceremony to formalize their conversion.
Let's re-read that last few verses of Acts 11.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 11:19 – end
For  the  moment,  then,  the  believing  Jews  of  Jerusalem  have  accepted  Peter's  explanation
and although not entirely settled about the matter of gentiles becoming Believers, they have
put it to bed for the time being. So Luke transitions to a different issue; that of those many
Jewish Believers who had fled Jerusalem on account of the persecutions that arose against
them after Stephen had been stoned to death. However as we look back in history, what is
really happening is that we are learning how the Good News was spread to foreign lands. And,
unfortunately, the God-pattern seems to be that the Gospel spreads best when the Believing
community  is  undergoing  tribulation.  I  see  nothing  in  modern  times  that  indicates  that  this
pattern has changed.
Verse  19  says  that  these  Jewish  Believers  from  Jerusalem  had  traveled  as  far  away  as
Phoenicia,  Cyprus,  and  Antioch  to  escape  persecution.  Phoenicia  was  a  sea-faring  people
whose main source of income was shipping. They were located on a thin strip of land to the
north  of  the  Holy  Land.  There  had  been  for  centuries  generally  good  relations  between
Phoenicia and Israel.
Others  went  to  Cyprus,  an  island  in  the  Mediterranean.  There  were  a  number  of  Jewish
colonies  in  Cyprus  as  it  provided  a  key  harbor  in  the  shipping  lanes.  In  fact  the  Barnabas
whose  name  is  mentioned  often  in  the  Book  of  Acts  originally  came  from  one  the  several
Jewish colonies of Cyprus.
Antioch also goes by the name of Antioch on the Orontes. Antioch was named after the hated
Syrian Governor Antiochus Epiphanies.  It was another place where sizable colonies of Jews
had settled for centuries. So the fleeing Believers of course went to places where they had
relatives,  or  perhaps  close  friends,  who  would  offer  them  shelter.    In  fact  Antioch  and
Jerusalem were bound quite closely together and there was frequent travel between the two
cities  such  that  the  Jewish  residents  of  each  city  had  an  unusual  comfort  level  with  one
another. It ought to be no surprise, then, that we are explicitly told that these Jewish Believers
from Jerusalem took the Gospel message only to fellow Jews living in these foreign Jewish
enclaves. 
Verse  20  tells  us  that  certain  men  from  the  Island  of  Cyprus  and  from  the  North  African
province  of  Cyrenaica  (modern  day  Libya)  also  traveled  to  Antioch  to  teach  about  Yeshua.
They  were,  of  course,  Jewish  Believers  but  they  weren't  among  those  who  had  fled  from
Jerusalem. So there was a great deal of evangelism directed at Antioch, because there was a
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
great  deal  of  Jews  living  there.  But  we're  told,  interestingly,  that  these  Believing  Jews  also
took the Good News to the Greeks; that is to gentiles. Had they heard about Peter's adventure
with Cornelius already? Unlikely. They apparently figured out for themselves that if gentiles in
substantial  numbers  were  accepting  the  God  of  Israel  that  they  just  might  also  be  open  to
accepting the Messiah of Israel. So while Paul is God's designated point man for taking the
Gospel to the gentiles, by no means was he in charge of the "mission to the gentiles" nor was
he the only Believer whom the Holy Spirit had moved to present gentiles with the Good News. 
Let me also point out something that is good for Bible students to know about the choice of
words used in verse 20. Here it says that the Believers from Cyprus and Cyrene spoke about
Yeshua   to   the   "Greeks".   We've   talked   on   numerous   occasions   about   the   Hellenists.
Hellenists are first and foremost Greek speakers, but second they have to one level or another
taken on Greek culture as their way of life. However in the New Testament, when we hear
about Hellenists, it is only speaking about Hellenist Jews. Jews, who have taken on the Greek
lifestyle, speak Greek as their first language, and in some cases they have accepted Yeshua.
So  the  terms  Hellenist  Jews,  Hellenist  Believers,  and  Hellenists  all  mean  the  same  thing:
Greek speaking Jews, some of whom became followers of Yeshua. But when the intention is to
refer to gentiles of the Roman Empire who speak Greek and live the regular Roman-Greek
lifestyle, then the term that the New Testament uses is "Greeks" rather than "Hellenists".  
The leadership of The Way in Jerusalem heard about a great number of Greeks accepting the
Lord  and  they  decided  to  send  Barnabas  (Bar-Nabba)  to  Antioch  to  investigate.  The  news
would have caught them completely unaware. It is likely that most if not all of these gentile
success stories were already God-fearers, so that made the task a bit easier since these God-
fearers  already  had  a  basis  for  understanding  what  the  Believers  would  tell  them  about
Messiah Yeshua. And, equally likely, the gentile God-Fearers of Antioch were already being
allowed some sort of limited access to the Synagogues, even though the ultra-pious Jews of
Jerusalem would have been quite against such a thing. What we're seeing here in Antioch is a
scale of evangelism to both gentiles and Jews that was without precedent.   
Barnabas  lent  a  needed  credibility  to  the  movement  in  Antioch  as  he  was  an  official
representative of the Apostles....the leadership. And true to his name, Bar-Nabba encouraged
the  new  Believers  to  stay  the  course  to  give  their  entire  selves  to  their  newfound  faith  in
Yeshua.  Let's  be  clear:  by  God's  grace  Barnabas  was  the  perfect  man  for  the  job.  Being
originally a Diaspora Jew from Cyprus, but now having lived in Jerusalem for some number of
years, he could more easily relate to the Diaspora Jews of Antioch and he was not so allergic
to  gentiles  as  were  his  Jerusalem  born  and  raised  counterparts.  Jerusalem  Jews  were  the
politically correct, ultra Orthodox Jews of that era, and so they had little tolerance for anything
outside of whatever Halakhah they had grown up under. They were more rigid, whereas the
Diaspora Jews were more flexible. And since The Way was still a movement in its infancy at
this point; so the complicated matter of also beginning to include gentiles into what had always
been thought was simply a recent and alternative sect within Judaism was going to require an
open mindedness not typical of Jerusalem Jews.
I am so grateful for Luke's characterization of Barnabas as a good man, full of the Holy Spirit
and trust. Because only with these attributes was he (and are we) able to recognize God's
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
grace in action such that it can shape our decisions and even change our minds over doctrines
and traditions that we at one time held on to so dearly but now need to be rethought. Rabbi
Shulam  unearthed  a  most  wonderful  passage  found  in  the  Dead  Sea  Scrolls  at  Qumran,  a
place I've taken many of you to. This passage is taken from scroll 1QS. The "1" indicates in
which  of  the  several  caves  it  was  found,  the  Q  indicates  Qumran,  and  the  S  indicates  the
document type and name. In this case it is the document of Community Rules; a document that
has  given  us  much  insight  into  the  philosophy,  behavior,  and  lifestyle  of  the  Essenes,  the
writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Please listen carefully to these beautiful and inspiring words
that I pray we would all regularly recall and keep near to our hearts.
"As for me, to God belongs my judgment; in his hand is the perfection of my behavior
with the uprightness of my heart; and with his just acts he cancels my iniquities.....if I
stumble, the mercies of God shall be my salvation always; and if I fall in the sin of the
flesh,  in  the  justice  of  God,  which  endures  eternally,  shall  my  judgment  be;  if  my
distress commences, he will free my soul from the pit and make my steps ready on the
path;  he  will  draw  me  near  in  his  mercies  and  by  his  kindness  set  in  motion  my
judgment;  he  will  judge  me  in  the  justice  of  his  truth,  and  in  his  plentiful  goodness
always atone for my sins; in his justice he will cleanse me from all the uncleanness of
the human being and from the sin of the sons of man, so that I can give God thanks for
his justice and The Highest for his mercy". 
There is no better description of the purpose and essence of Yeshua our Messiah and how we
are to respond to Him than what we just heard. It is no wonder that as we examine some of
Yeshua's  New  Testament  statements  and  terms  that  we  find  them  expressed  at  times
similarly, and at other times nearly identically, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such that the evidence
mounts  that  Yeshua  assuredly  spent  much  time  with  the  Essenes  who  saw  each  other  as
kindred spirits.
Verse 25 has Bar-Nabba, for some unstated reason, heading off to Tarsus in search of Paul.
Tarsus  was  around  100  miles  north  of  Antioch  so  this  was  no  small  journey.  For  whatever
reason he brought Paul back with him to Antioch. The passage says that Paul and Barnabas
(not  just  Paul)  met  with  the  congregation  (meaning  the  Believers)  and  taught  a  sizeable
number  of  them  and  did  so  for  about  a  year.  Probably  Barnabas  understood  that  God  had
ordained Paul as His special emissary to the gentiles and so it seemed appropriate that Paul
would be included in the evangelizing and maturing of the congregation in Antioch. But then in
verse 26 we are told this:
Acts 11:26 CJB Also it was in Antioch that the talmidim for the first time were called
"Messianic."
Or, more familiar to our ears:
Acts  11:26  RSV      ..........and  in  Antioch  the  disciples  were  for  the  first  time  called
Christians.
This is a very famous statement that we'll take a few minutes to examine. It tells us that it was
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
in Antioch that The Way was first given a different label by the Greek speaking Diaspora Jews
and gentiles than what they were known as in the Holy Land. And the CJB says that new name
was  Messianics;  but  virtually  all  other  English  translations  will  say  Christians.  This  is  a
complicated but important matter and explanation is needed to put this in the proper context
and to help reunite a centuries old divide.
The reason I want to address this is this: it is either said or implied in institutional Christianity
that it was in Antioch where gentile Christianity was born. The idea being that it was in Antioch
where Messianic Jews went one way, and gentile Christians went another way. While indeed
that eventually did happen, it didn't happen during the New Testament era, and it certainly did
not occur in Act 11:26 at Antioch. But the reason that it appears so is mostly one of language
translation issues, but also of semantics. So please give me your best focus for a few minutes
so I can explain this to you; it is important because what we see here in verse 26 has had an
enormously negative impact on Jewish/Christian relations.
The question is this: does the word "Christians" actually appear here? And if the word is not
Christians, what is it and why do all English Bibles insert the word Christians in verse 26?   Let
me  begin  by  explaining  that  as  more  and  more  people  are  beginning  to  understand,  our
Messiah was not called Jesus at the time of His birth because Jesus is an English word, and
English wasn't even invented until centuries and centuries later. Because He was Hebrew, he
naturally was given a Hebrew name at birth and that name was Yeshua. However in Greek His
name translates to Iesous. That is, in Greek it is a 3 syllable word just as His Hebrew name
Yeshua is a 3 syllable word. It is simply the normal way of language and language translation
that a name in one language can sound quite different in another language. That English says
Jesus (a 2 syllable word) is a great example of that.
Now; the words Messiah and Messianic are English sound-alike renditions of the Hebrew word
mashiach,   but   they   aren't   actual   translations   because   the   actual   English   translation
of mashiach is anointed one. The word Christian is really just an English sound-alike rendition
of  the  Greek  word  christianoi,  but  not  an  actual  translation  of  the  word.  Since  the  New
Testament was written in Greek, then we must understand that christianoi is but the Greek
translation  variation  of  the  Hebrew  root  word  mashiach.  This  fact  creates  some  serious
theological, doctrinal and historical difficulties for us because to the ears of non-Jews it seems
as  though  when  we  read  Acts  11:26  a  new  religion  (Christianity)  was  in  process  of  being
formed in Antioch and its members were called Christians because they were named after their
Master, Christ, and they were separate from The Way that was being led by Jews. So it is then
assumed or taught outright that beginning at Antioch gentile Christians separated themselves
and began attending Churches while Messianic Jews attended Synagogues. And then when
this  happened,  some  Jewish  Believers  labeled  as  Judaizers  tried  to  stop  this  separation  of
gentile Believers and instead draw them back to Judaism. None of this is accurate and much of
it is due to translation errors and cultural misunderstandings.
Here is the reality. When a Greek speaking Jewish Believer talked to other Greek speakers (be
they  Jew  or  gentile)  then  of  course  he  used  his  own  Greek  language;  and  so  he  used  the
Greek word christos when talking about Messiah Yeshua. Why did he say christos? Because
christos  was  the  Greek  word  for  the  Hebrew  word  mashiach.  Thus  christos  does  NOT
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
properly translate to the English word Christ (as it is normally taken today). In recognition of
this  fact,  some  newer  English  Bible  versions  (such  as  the  ESV)  are  trying  to  rectify  this  by
inserting  the  word  "the"  before  the  word  Christ.  That  is,  instead  of  saying  Jesus  Christ,  the
verse reads Jesus THE Christ. Why do that? Because christos is not a proper name, rather it
translates  literally  into  English  as  "anointed  one".  Jesus  Christ  is  not  Jesus'  first  and  last
name like Tom Bradford. Let me say this in another way to try and help. If I take the English
word Christ and want to say it in Greek, there is technically no Greek word for it. If I want to
translate the word Christ into Hebrew, there is technically no Hebrew word for it. But if I want to
translate the English words "anointed one" into Greek, there is a Greek word for it: christos.
And there is also a Hebrew word for it: mashiach. Thus: anointed one = mashiach = christos.
Not Christ. All Greek Bible manuscripts use the word christos when speaking about Yeshua;
not as his name, but rather as indicative of the position he holds. And His position is as the
anointed one.
What  has  happened  is  that,  unfortunately,  when  the  Greek  christos  was  given  an  English
rendition as christ, rather than christ simply meaning "anointed one", at some undefined point
in the history of the gentile church the term christ turned from being an office that Yeshua held
(the office of the anointed one), and it became a proper name. It is fascinating that even the
secular Wikipedia fully acknowledges this. By way of example we've done the same thing with
the word God. We've mistakenly made God to be God's name. God's name is not God. God
is actually an office or a title; God's name is Yehoveh or Yahweh depending on how you wish
to pronounce it. Somehow along the way Christ became Jesus's new, or alternate, name. It
would be as though President Obama's name suddenly just became President. And 100 years
from now whenever anyone said "President" it was taken to mean only Mr. Obama's personal
name. Or it would be as though Pastor Billy Graham's name suddenly became merely Pastor.
So 100 years from now when anyone talked about being a fan of Pastor, who is being talked
about  is  Billy  Graham  and  no  one  would  ask  "which  Pastor?"  Once  again:  Christ  is  NOT
Yeshua's  name.  The  word  Christ  has  become  a  misnomer  and  this  has  led  to  all  sorts  of
religious aberrations, including misunderstanding Acts 11:26.
As hard as this is to wrap our heads around, virtually everywhere in the New Testament that
we  find  the  word  Christ  (an  English  word),  it  is  technically  incorrect  or  at  the  least  quite
misleading. Rather it should say "anointed one". So if we were to go through our Bibles and
cross  out  the  word  Christ  and  replace  it  with  "anointed  one",  then  we'd  have  the  truer
meaning.  As  I  mentioned,  some  newer  Bibles  have  added  the  word  "the"  before  the  word
Christ to help the reader understand that christ is meant to be an office, not a name.  Thus
gentile Christianity has substituted a proper name (Christ), for an office (anointed one). And
since anointed one is a purely Hebrew Biblical concept, by avoiding saying anointed one it has
served to sever Yeshua away from his historical culture and identification and skew the New
Testament  to  seem  to  be  a  document  and  a  religion  made  for  gentiles,  while  the  Old
Testament is a document and a religion made for Jews.
Further it has caused us to have to separate the use of, and give different definitions to,  two
terms that really mean the same thing (just using different languages). But in fact, these terms,
Christian  and  Messianic,  are  perceived  and  used  as  very  different  from  one  another.  Each
group is a bit suspicious of the other, and not entirely sure that they believe in the same things.
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
In fact, because of the language issue, Messianic is a label that Jewish Believers in Yeshua
tend to call themselves, and Christian is a label that gentile Believers in Yeshua tend to call
themselves. To maintain the illusion of separation each group has given their religious leaders
different titles (Rabbi versus Pastor), and call their Messiah different names (Yeshua versus
Jesus). This needless division and misunderstanding all came about mostly due to language
barriers and human agendas. But it has also created a disastrous wall of separation between
Jews  and  Christians  for  centuries  and  it  is  going  to  take  a  lot  of  explanation  (like  what  I'm
giving to you now) to try to walk this back and create a different mental image when those
terms are used.
So as it pertains to our lesson today the bottom line is this: at the time we are reading about in
Acts when a Greek term was coined to indicate a follower of Yeshua, christianoi, that term
was NOT Christians as we find it written in most Bibles (especially in the sense we think of it
today). Christianoi was simply a Greek term that meant followers of the anointed one. This is
a term that the Jews of that era would have had no issue with since they of course understood
that Greek speakers wouldn't use Hebrew words to speak about Yeshua.....they'd use Greek
words.  And  that  this  Greek  term  christos  didn't  effectively  rename  Yeshua  to  Christ.
Remember the Greek name for Yeshua was Iesous. This renaming and misuse of the Greek
word christos occurred perhaps a century or more later, when gentiles finally wrested control
of the Yeshua movement away from Jews, and an agenda arose of making belief in Yeshua a
gentiles-only  religion.  Greek  christos  became  Latin  christus,  and  christus  seems  to  have
been mischaracterized as a proper name. And then from Latin to English the word became
Christ  and  thus  Christ-ians  became  a  label  for  the  gentile  followers  of  this  supposedly  new
religion that was created by a man name Christ.
Thus  we  have  the  reason  that  Jews  scoff  at  the  notion  of  becoming  Christians.  And  it  also
mischaracterizes  what  is  going  on  here  in  chapter  11  of  Acts.  Acts  11  is  not  the  birth  of
Christianity;  rather  what  we're  seeing  is  that  when  enough  gentiles  AND  Jews  (all  Greek
speakers)  in  Antioch  came  to  trust  in  Yeshua  that  they  coined  a  label  in  their  own  Greek
language  for  their  group:  christianoi.  And  the  closest  English  words  we  could  use,  most
literally,  to  accurately  translate  the  Greek  word  and  bring  to  us  the  intended  sense  of  Acts
11:26 would be something like "anointed one-ites". So perhaps the prime reason for Jewish
Believers   and   gentile   Believers   eventually   separating   into   distinctly   different   religious
organizations was essentially a mirage caused by language barriers.
Let's move on. Verse 27 might be more important to what comes next in Acts chapter 12 than
meets  the  eye,  because  it  tells  of  a  prophet  who  prophesied  that  a  famine  was  coming
throughout the Roman Empire. It is possible (although not certain) that this famine explains
some of the actions of Herod in chapter 12.
This prophet was named Agav that in Hebrew means grasshopper. The implication is that this
prophet was a member of The Way. That is why when he brought his prophetic message of the
coming famine to the disciples they believed him; and as a result the disciples determined to
provide  relief  (provide  charity)  to  their  believing  brethren  in  Judah.  They  would  collect  the
donations and send them with Barnabas and Paul to the Holy Land for distribution.
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
We are told that this famine actually did come about during the time of Claudius, as predicted.
Claudius was made Emperor of Rome in 41 A.D. at around the same time Herod Agrippa was
made King of Judah. In fact these two were friends and companions early in life, when Agrippa
as a young child was sent to Rome by his father to be educated in the ways of the Greeks.
This  further  explains  how  Herod  Agrippa  was  made  a  king  and  given  Judah  to  reign  over.
We'll discuss this more thoroughly in our study of Acts 12. Let's go there now.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 12 all
This chapter revolves around the activities of King Herod Agrippa. He was the grandson of
Herod the Great who ruled in the years leading up to the birth of Yeshua. There was no king
over  Judah  after  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great  in  1  B.C.  until  King  Herod  Agrippa  was
coronated by Emperor Claudius in 41 A.D. So for 40 years after the death of Herod the Great,
it was a series of Roman Procurators that ruled over Judah and the Holy Lands.
Agrippa was considered to be a Jew although genealogically he was just as his grandfather
Herod the Great was; he was of Idumean and Nabatean roots. Idumea was formerly Edom,
and the people there were descended from the line of Esau. Herod the Great's mother was
Nabatean; they came from Ishmael. So while Herod the Great was a Semite, there was no
Hebrew  (and  therefore  no  Jewish)  blood  in  him.  The  same  went  for  his  grandson  Herod
Agrippa.  However  this  fiction  of  his  Jewishness  was  useful  because  the  Jewish  people
convinced themselves that they now had a Jewish king.
Perhaps the main reason that the Jews were willing to be happily blind to the truth is because
Agrippa followed Judaism. He was known to celebrate every Biblical Feast, and to sacrifice on
the altar at all the appropriate times, and to respect the Priesthood and sanctity of the Temple.
Agrippa  was  quite  popular  with  the  Jewish  people  and  all  in  all  thought  to  be  a  good  and
decent King. Josephus described him as a devout Jew, known for his generosity to his Jewish
subjects. He resided in Jerusalem, at least part time, and his behavior was generally regarded
as mild as opposed to rash.
So here's the conundrum: why did Agrippa go after the Jewish Believers so violently that he
beheaded James (Jacob, Ya'acov actually) the brother of John? And more, why did the Jews,
or  better  Judeans,  express  glee  over  him  doing  this?  We're  not  told.  However  Bible
commentators usually say that it was because of The Way's belief in Yeshua as Messiah that
he did it and the Jews liked it. Yet there is no evidence that Agrippa was so religious that this
was any issue at all, or that there was mass persecutions by mainstream Jews against the
Believers.
All  along  it  had  been  only  certain  religious  zealots  that  wanted  to  decimate  this  new  rival
Jewish sect of Yeshua followers; not Jews in general. There is little doubt in my mind that King
Herod Agrippa didn't go after all the Jewish Believers, but only targeted the leadership (thus
we hear of James's execution and the arrest of Peter). Even more, I have little doubt that this
consummate politician saw the leadership of The Way from political eyes, not religious. These
leaders seemed to represent some kind of a threat to him.
                               8 / 9
Acts Lesson 27 - Chapter 11 and 12
 
The movement of Yeshua followers had grown large enough that it contained Jews of many
ilks' including zealots; that is, very reactionary Jews who were militant and used every cause
as a platform to fight against whatever they perceived as injustice. Peter was known as an
outspoken  leader  of  The  Way,  which  made  him  a  natural  target.  Kings  didn't  tolerate  civil
disturbances from their subjects. But the timing of this also suggests that the disturbances may
well have been in reaction to the predicted famine, since indeed Claudius was now in power as
the Roman Emperor and this is when the famine was to strike. This would also explain the
issue of Tzor and Tzidon when something caused them to get on the wrong side of Agrippa.
Historically they bought much of their food from the Holy Land and the issue of food was even
more critical to them at this time of famine.
Notice in verse 3 that it says that it was during the season of unleavened bread (that is the
Festival of Matza) that Agrippa arrested Peter. And then in verse 4 we're told that the King
planned on dealing with Peter after Passover. This is a great place to make a point that I've
made in our Festival lectures but haven't said too much about in our regular lessons.
By   this   time   in   history   the   terms   Unleavened   Bread   and   Passover   had   become
interchangeable. A Jew could say that it was during the Passover season, or during the season
of Unleavened Bread and it meant the same thing. The Jews were well aware that Passover
and Unleavened Bread (Pesach and Matza) were two entirely different God-ordained Biblical
Feasts. However, since Passover was a one day feast, and the week-long festival of Matza
began the day after Passover, then in common everyday speech they were spoken of as one
combined event. So some would call the entire festival period Passover, others would call it
Unleavened Bread and even switch back and forth within the same conversation. And we find
our New Testaments doing the same thing.
In Biblical reality, Jews were not required to come to the Temple for Passover. Rather it was
the Feast of Matza at which a pilgrimage to the Temple was required. However, if one was
going to be in Jerusalem for Matza, and since the first day of Matza was a Sabbath day that
prohibited travel, then the only solution was to arrive early. Since the day before the 1st day of
Matza  was  Passover,  then  any  traveling  had  to  be  completed  before  the  start  of  Passover.
Thus if Jews were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Matza, they automatically would be there also
for Passover. Agrippa didn't want to make a fuss and have an execution during these 8 days
of holy festivities, so he arrested Peter prior to the start of Passover, and when both feasts
were completed, he planned on dealing with him.
We'll continue with chapter 12 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               9 / 9
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 28, Chapter 12
We just barely got into Acts chapter 12 last week, and the first thing we see mentioned in the
chapter is that Herod Agrippa is now the King of Judah. The chapter will end with his death.
His grandfather Herod the Great was the first Herod to rule, but his death just after Christ was
born ended the rule of kings over Judah for 40 years until Agrippa was put into power by the
newly coronated Roman Emperor Claudius. In between Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa,
Roman procurators governed the Holy Land.
This is a good time to also recall that the so-called Jewish Kings Herod the Great and Agrippa
were not Jews, even though they called themselves such. They were of Idumean (Edomite)
stock  on  Herod's  father's  side,  and  Nabatean  stock  (that  is,  descendants  of  Ishmael)  on
Herod's  mother's  side.  The  Jews  mocked  Herod  the  Great  for  his  claim  of  Jewishness,  yet
they  accepted  Agrippa's  probably  because  he  seemed  to  genuinely  follow  Judaism.  It  is
interesting  that  to  this  day,  adhering  to  the  religion  of  Judaism  is  the  primary  test  for
determining whether a person is a Jew or not.  Ethnicity is often secondary.
Let's re-read this chapter in its entirety since we only made it to verse 3 last time.
RE-READ ACTS CHAPTER 12 all
Verse 3 identifies the group who was pleased that James had been executed and Peter had
been arrested by Agrippa as Ioudaious. This Greek Word can mean two different, but related,
things.  It  can  mean  Jews,  as  Jews  in  general;  or  it  can  indicate  Judeans  more  specifically.
Judeans  are  Jews  who  reside  in  the  Holy  Land  province  of  Roman  controlled  Judea.
Sometimes the setting and the issue tells us which of these meanings is intended; other times
it is nearly impossible to know. The scene in verse 3 takes place in Jerusalem of Judea, and so
most likely the intent is to say that the Jews of Judea were the ones happy to see what King
Herod Agrippa did to James and Peter. There were more politically sensitive and religiously
motivated people in Judea than in the rest of the Holy Land because Jerusalem was the power
center of Judaism and so these Judean Jews paid more attention to all the latest intrigues and
issues, since the leadership was there to stir up trouble. But those Jews who lived outside of
Judea, in the countryside and in the Diaspora, were more interested in daily life and family.
Essentially, the Judeans were the inside-the-beltway Jews of the Holy Land (NOTE: inside-the-
beltway refers to the political class that resides and/or works in Washington D.C.).
Peter's arrest occurred during the springtime feast period of Passover, Unleavened Bread and
Firstfruits. Exactly at what point during this series of feasts we don't know. This means that
Jerusalem  would  have  been  crowded  beyond  measure  with  thousands  and  thousands  of
Jewish  pilgrims  coming  from  all  over  the  Holy  Land  and  the  Diaspora.  So  we're  told  that
Agrippa decided it would be best (politically) to wait until after Passover to deal with Peter; that
is, after all the crowds had left for home. I pointed out last week that by now it had become
                               1 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
common practice for Jews in usual everyday speech to refer to the entire sequence of the 3
spring feasts as either Passover or Unleavened Bread (Pesach or Matza). And just like we see
here in verses 3 and 4, the two terms aren't meant to be precise, but rather as general and
interchangeable,  even  in  the  same  conversation.  Once  the  crowds  left,  the  only  remaining
Jews would be the Jews of Judea, the ones that had more interest in seeing the members of
The Way being punished, and if possible, disbanded due to them not being politically correct
according to the religious doctrines of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.  
So Peter is under arrest and in a Roman prison. However the point is made in verse 5 that
intense prayer was being made on his behalf. David Stern makes a wonderful and salient point
about prayer. He says that in the few words of this verse we are taught something invaluable
about the nature of true, meaningful prayer, and the one who prays. He says that 5 points are
made:  1)  Prayer  should  be  intense,  not  casual.  That  is,  you  need  to  be  still,  focused,  and
purposeful rather than repeating mantras and form prayers that often are said without actually
contemplating what it is you're saying. I am one whose mind will sometimes wander when I
pray silently; so long ago I learned to pray out loud even in private in order to stay focused. 2)
When the verse says prayers were being made, it means prayer was ongoing. Prayer for Peter
wasn't  a  one-and-done  outburst.  I've  often  asked  myself  if  after  approaching  God  with  a
specific request, whether it is even right for me to keep repeating that same prayer need as
though  God  is  forgetful.  But  I  think  that  occasional  thought  really  just  reflects  my  worldly
thinking creeping in because, Old or New Testament, praying continually to God over a specific
matter is not portrayed as needlessly pestering Him; rather it is obeying and submitting to Him.
We are commanded to do so and it is entirely to our benefit. 3) Our prayers are to be directed
to  God;  not  through  an  intermediary.  Otherwise  our  relationship  is  not  with  Him,  it  is  with
another. And He has stretched out His hand to all who trust Him and offered us to come and
stand before the throne of Grace and speak directly to Him, and hear directly from Him. 4)
Prayer was made to God on Peter's behalf. That is, the prayer was not general; it was specific
concerning  Peter's  precise  difficulties.  I  have  often  said  that  I  really  don't  want  to  see  the
words "unspoken prayer" on our Prayer List. An unspoken prayer will be an unheard prayer,
and  thus  an  unanswered  prayer.  It  goes  against  every  Biblical  principle  to  essentially  pray
nothing. If it is too intimate to share, then don't; keep it between yourself and the Lord. But
often it is simply an issue of pride or fear of embarrassment that keeps us from being specific,
as we ask others to join us in prayer. Read the Psalms as David is open and honest (even
highly emotional) about his predicaments (sometimes self induced), and how he feels about it
all. It is a good model for us. 5) The community of Believers prayed for Peter. If we are truly
going to be a community of Believers then we need to share our joys as well as our concerns.
We  are  to  rally  around  one  another  especially  in  the  hour  of  need.  We  are  not  called  to
isolation. And we aren't called to be only concerned about our own needs. This is why I both
ask you to put your needs and the needs of others on our Prayer List and to be as specific as
possible. But also that when you receive the Prayer List that you take the time to pray for each
request individually.
CJB  James 5:16 Therefore, openly acknowledge your sins to one another, and pray for
each other, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and
effective.
                               2 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
What follows in the next few verses is the result of the intense prayer made to God on Peter's
behalf. The Passover week of festivals was over, Jerusalem now more or less back to normal,
and this is when Agrippa planned to deal with Peter, no doubt intending to kill him. We don't
know exactly in which of the several prisons in Jerusalem Peter was being detained, so I'll not
speculate. What we are directly told, however, is that Peter was guarded so closely that two
Roman  soldiers  were  literally  chained  to  Peter  even  inside  his  cell.  And  there  were  more
soldiers stationed at the entrance to the prison. Peter was asleep, between the two sleeping
Roman soldiers he was chained to, when suddenly an angel appeared before him. It says that
a light shown in his cell; angels are almost always accompanied with light.
We are told that the angel literally tapped Peter's side to awaken him. It's not unusual for an
angel to make physical contact with a human being as when Jacob wrestled with an angel who
tapped  Jacob's  hip  and  dislocated  it  to  end  the  struggle.  The  angel  issued  instructions  for
Peter to hurry up, get dressed, throw on his robe and to follow him. It is clear that Peter, still
foggy from sleeping, wasn't at all sure what was happening or who was breaking him out of
prison, or even if it was actually happening. But somehow the chains fell off of his wrists and in
all the commotion the guards that lay next to him remained soundly asleep. Peter thought he
was dreaming. But as the minutes passed, and as Peter led by the angel walked right by the 2
guards stationed at the prison entrance, he began to suspect that this was for real.
We're  told  that  they  finally  arrived  at  the  Iron  Gate  leading  to  the  city.  Which  gate  is  often
asked, but since we don't know the location of the prison, we can't ascertain which city gate is
being described. Yet Luke's description likely means that in Peter's day both the location of
the prison and of the specific iron gate were so well known that there was no need to say any
more.  Let  me  pause  just  a  moment  to  remind  us  all  that  when  the  writers  of  the  New
Testament wrote, they weren't thinking in terms of speaking to readers far into the future, and
especially not thinking about communicating to gentiles (the exceptions being, in some cases,
John  and  his  Book  of  Revelation  and  Paul  in  some  passages  in  his  letters).  These  current
events  were  generally  being  recorded  for  the  use  of  people  in  the  Jewish  culture  in
contemporary  times.  While  the  Torah  was  written  specifically  for  the  purpose  of  future
generations having God's instructions at hand (as is stated in the Torah itself), no such claim
is  made  by  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  So  sometimes  places  and
locations that are mentioned are difficult if not impossible to pin down, and descriptions that
we'd love to have can be very sparse.   
The Iron Gate opened by itself, no doubt meaning that it was locked. It was customary that city
gates were locked once the sun went down to help keep the city residents safe from robbers
and marauders during the night. The angel continued to lead Peter down one street, and out of
danger, when suddenly he disappeared. That is when Peter knew for sure that this was God in
action.
Sort of buried in this narrative is a conundrum: why did God save Peter but let James die at the
hand of Herod Agrippa? This is the sort of thing that, if we've lived long enough, something of
this  nature  has  happened  in  our  lives  and  we've  wrestled  with  such  a  question.  My  father
fought in WWII, and when I could get him to even speak about it (which was rare and mostly
towards  the  end  of  his  life),  it  was  usually  about  some  dire  situation  in  which  for  some
                               3 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
inexplicable reason he survived, but many others around him did not. There seemed to be no
pattern, no rhyme nor reason for who was saved and who wasn't.  It was clear that he was
troubled by this, no doubt feeling guilty to be alive as others were dying around him. This is
mostly  the  reason  he  didn't  want  to  talk  about  it.  Why,  he  asked?  Why  did  he  make  it  and
others perished? They were no less valuable than he; and he was no better than them. Was it
pure serendipity? Wrong place, wrong time? One foot to left, you live. One foot to the right, you
die. Or was God in control and choosing this one to live and that one to die? I think it is easier
for us to sit in the safety of our sanctuary or our home and say confidently to ourselves that
"God is in control". But when it is happening to you, and as you look back, I suspect that the
experience alters how one thinks about it. For my father, a devout Christian man, he had no
answers; only gratitude and at times deep sadness, which would well up in him even 50 years
after the horrific events. He told me that as the war ended he became determined to be a good
man, and to live a good life, because that was his duty now that for whatever reason, the Lord
spared  him.  So  I  have  no  good  answers  for  you  as  to  why  God  chose  to  rescue  Peter  by
means of an audacious, supernatural rescue mission, but stood by and allowed James to be
wrongly convicted and executed. And this is where faith plays the biggest role in our lives as
worshippers  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  It  is  when  something  happens  and  nothing  seems
obvious, or even logical, as to the how and why; and there is nothing left but to believe that
either  God  oversees  everything  and  has  reasons  beyond  our  ability  to  comprehend,  or
everything is mostly just due to the luck of the draw. One way allows for realization of hope in
the mercy of our Creator; the other way leads only to despair and fear at the unpredictable
turns of fate.   
Peter made his way to Miriam's house; she was the mother of John called Mark. John Mark
was  a  cousin  of  the  disciple  Barnabas.  At  this  time,  especially  in  Jerusalem,  the  Believers
seemed to meet in homes, at other times in public places, and yet at other times in secret
hideouts  depending  on  the  current  social  and  political  circumstances.  Obviously  Miriam's
house was a known and regular meeting place for the core group of Jerusalem Believers, and
when Peter arrived the group was in the midst of prayer for Peter. No doubt Miriam's house
was larger than typical in order to be a suitable meeting place.  Peter goes up to the house and
knocks on the door and what comes next is almost comical.
Miriam's house servant, Rhoda, went to the door. Peter was calling to those inside and when
she heard him she instantly recognized his voice. But Rhoda got so excited that she ran from
the door and forgot to let Peter in because she was in such a hurry to tell the others that Peter
was here. They told her she was crazy, but she kept insisting; it seems to never have occurred
to her that all she had to do was go back to the door and open it to prove she was right. Finally
someone said, it's not Peter it's his angel. This remark gives me a good opportunity to talk
about how Jews thought about Angels in this era, but also to reveal another pet peeve of mine.
The  reality  is  that  as  much  as  Heaven  and  Angels  seem  to  be  hot  topics  in  every  age  of
Christianity, our present time included, it was also that way among the ancient Jews. And since
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  our  sole  divine  source  of  reliable  information  about  Heaven  and
Angels, it is disappointing to find that so little is said about either in the Bible. I can sum up
Heaven by saying it is a spiritual place that resides in another dimension; it is God's dwelling
place, it is eternal, it is beautiful, sin is not present there, Angels live in Heaven (when they're
                               4 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
not someplace else), and when a Believer dies, we go there. Outside of that, there's not much
else divulged. It is the same for Angels. We know they exist, they can appear in human form,
there  are  different  kinds,  light  is  usually  involved,  and  they  are  sent  by  God.  There  are
Archangels who seem to be at the top of a hierarchy of Angel ranks. That is not all, but it is
most of what we'll learn in the Scriptures about Angels.
Today, it is popular to think that when humans die, we "get our wings" and become angels. Or
that each of us has a guardian angel (or in the case of my wife, she says she has several very
tired  ones).    But  how  were  angels  created?  When?  How  many  are  there?  Are  more  being
made?  Do  they  exist  forever?  Are  there  really  different  kinds  or  do  they  just  have  different
jobs? What do they do? Are all Angels good Angels? What is a fallen Angel? These questions
and  more  are  common  within  Christianity  and,  again,  were  also  of  great  interest  to  ancient
Judaism.
The bottom line is that Angelology (the study of Angels), and the resultant doctrines that have
been  formed  about  Angels,  are  almost  entirely  the  product  of  the  imaginings  of  the  human
mind. And they haven't evolved that much over the centuries. In fact, I can say that generally
speaking  the  doctrines  of  Angels  as  found  in  Christian  tradition  came  almost  entirely  from
ancient  Judaism,  and  much  of  what  Judaism  believed  came  from  Persian  Angelology.  So  I
caution you to be careful in just what you believe about Angels, or read about Angels (and
Heaven for that matter) in the many books written on the subject because they consist almost
entirely of doctrines and personal opinions and outright fantasy usually presented as Biblical
fact. But how can a few sentences of Scripture about Heaven or Angels result in 400 page
books? Much is added and leaps of assumption are made and I highly question its real value
other than to distract us from spending time to learn what God has actually revealed to us in
His Word.
Thus when we read of some Believer in the crowd at Miriam's house comment that it can't
possibly be Peter at the door, but rather it is his angel, this is not to be taken as new Biblical
information  about  angels,  but  rather  as  what  Jews  in  that  era  believed  as  part  of  their
Halakhah.  And  the  Talmud  indicates  a  belief  in  Judaism  (at  least  by  some  Rabbis)  of  the
existence of personal, guardian angels for each and every Jew. The response of this Believer
about the person knocking at the door who sounds like Peter indicates another tradition that
guardian angels can take on certain characteristics of the human person they are assigned to.
But most of these thoughts about Angels amount to cultural superstition; becoming a Believer
didn't erase those thoughts.
Finally the startled crowd at Miriam's house thought to open the door and to their shock there
stood  Peter!  He  raised  his  hand  to  quiet  them,  and  then  went  about  telling  them  what  had
happened. He urgently wanted to get this information about his escape and well-being to his co-
leader of The Way, Ya'acov: or as he is called in our English Bibles, James the brother of
Jesus. And because it's an important piece of information and not trivia, just remember that
the Hebrew name Ya'acov translates in English to Jacob, not to James. So why do we find the
name James in our New Testaments? It happened upon the creation of the King James Bible.
In the New Testament, in honor of King James, the Bible editors substituted James for Jacob.
And it has remained so ever since.
                               5 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
Now let me make a comment that I will say upfront is at least partly my speculation, but I think
it is well founded and will interest you. Here in Acts 12 we see how King Agrippa and the Jews
of Judea (not all of course, just the most politically correct and zealous) went on a murderous
rage against The Way, or better, against the leadership of The Way. We really don't have any
firm reason as to why this began. In any case, we do know from certain passages in the New
Testament and from extra-Biblical writings that the earliest Believers in Christ at times had to
meet in secret locations. This really occurred primarily in Jerusalem because elsewhere the
persecutions  against  the  Believers  weren't  so  intense,  or  didn't  exist  at  all,  so  as  to  make
hiding necessary.
We have seen already in the Book of Acts how the persecutions would come and go. And of
course, when the persecutions became intense the Believers would keep a much lower profile
than when the persecutions lost steam. Thus it is believed that the secret sign of the Icthys (the
fish symbol) came to use about now. Some years ago my wife and I made a discovery in a
garbage dump in Jerusalem that has had quite an impact on us. It was the result of a map
taken from an old back issue of Biblical Archeology Review, and a small book I read that told
about the discovery of the 3 part symbol that has become a major symbol of Hebrew Roots
and Messianic organizations: the fish, to the menorah, to the Star of David.
I have taken a few of you to this spot we discovered and God willing on our next tour we'll take
a few more of you there. It is off the beaten track and you won't find guides or tourists milling
around. It is an underground cavern with its secret entrance hidden at the bottom of a large
Mikveh that in recent times has been fenced off, with a concrete bunker built around it to keep
people out. It was there in that cavern that about a half-century ago an elderly Greek Monk
found pottery shards with the 3 part symbol scratched on them, and the same symbol etched
into the cave walls. The pottery has been scientifically dated and it goes back to the time of
James, Peter, and Paul. The cavern is substantial in size and its location is such that there is
little doubt that at times of persecution the earliest Jewish Believers (probably the leadership)
met underground here. I'll add a little anecdote that when I told Rabbi Baruch about it, he was
skeptical. I took him there, and it at least peaked his interest sufficiently that he went to the
Archeology department at Hebrew University where he was an adjunct professor at that time.
He told them my claims, and they verified that they were well aware of it, and that it was true
and accurate.
So as it concerns today's lesson, I speculate this: James (a different James) had just been
executed. Peter was going to be executed as well but God miraculously saved him. Upon his
escape Peter goes in the dead of the night to Miriam's house where Believers were stealthily
meeting  in  prayer  for  Peter.  He  gestures  for  them  to  be  quiet;  no  doubt  because  in  their
excitement  from  seeing  he  was  alive  they  were  making  too  much  noise  and  he  didn't  want
them to be discovered. Then in verse 17, he tells someone who is at the meeting to go and tell
James (Yeshua's brother) and other brothers about what happened. Then Peter left quickly
and escaped from Jerusalem. Why? Peter was an escaped prisoner and in danger; and in fact
all the Believers were in danger. Why didn't Peter go to James himself? James was in hiding.
The  brothers  spoken  of  were  the  leadership,  part  of  the  12  disciples.  Only  a  few  of  the
Believers in Jerusalem even knew where to find James. Peter likely didn't know how to find
James. I have every reason to believe that when the events of Acts chapter 12  were occurring
                               6 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
James was hiding in that cavern that we found in a garbage dump on top of Mt. Zion.  The
pieces fit together quite adequately to come to this conclusion.
In verse 18 we find the soldiers who had been guarding Peter were deeply disturbed to find
him missing; this was not going to end well for them. This is because it was Roman law that
the guards who allowed prisoners to escape could be held liable to suffer the punishment that
had been intended for that prisoner. Peter's fate was going to be death.
But in addition to worrying for their lives, they were confused and perplexed because they were
still wearing the chains that had been attached to Peter. How does a man lying between two
soldiers slip out of his chains, making no noise at all, get dressed, leave the cell, go through
another set of doors with other guards who see nothing, and escape? Sure enough, Herod
doesn't buy the guards' outrageous story. He has Jerusalem searched, no trace of Peter is
found, and so after interrogating the Roman soldiers they are executed for what Agrippa no
doubt thinks is their complicity in Peter's escape.
After this Herod Agrippa went to Caesarea Maritima for a time. Likely the trip had nothing to do
with Peter escaping because while he spent time in Jerusalem, he spent as much time if not
more  in  Caesarea,  the  seat  of  the  Roman  government  over  Judea.  He  was  likely  only  in
Jerusalem to participate in the festival days, now concluded. Caesarea carried the nickname of
"Little Rome", and he preferred being with the Roman aristocracy, which he had been since he
was a small child.
Next comes the lead-up to an interesting explanation of Agrippa's sudden death. Starting in
verse 20 we are told that Agrippa was quite upset with the people of Tyre and Sidon. These 2
cities were on the southern Phoenician coast, and had long friendly relations with Israel going
back to the time of David and Solomon. Israel was perhaps the primary food supplier for these
two major cities. We are given no hint as to what this grave offense was that caused Herod's
anger against these 2 cities. But it was so serious that a delegation of high officials came to
meet with Blastus, Agrippa's chief negotiator.
What made this all the more critical is that very likely this was when the prophesied famine that
the Believing prophet Agav predicted would occur during the reign of Claudius happened: the
timing lines up quite well for it. It's not that Israel was the only source of food for Tyre and
Sidon;   but   with   an   Empire-wide   famine,   food   was   scarce   and   expensive.   Kings   and
government  officials  set  the  food  prices  and  determined  where  the  supplies  would  go.  So
basically Agrippa used what was very likely a trumped up grievance against Tyre and Sidon at
the time of a food crisis in order to extract some special political concessions that would give
him more power over them or make him a wealthier man, or both. 
Blastus obtains what Herod Agrippa wanted from the delegation. And once accomplished it
was time to put on a big show. So Agrippa gets decked out in spectacular royal attire, sits on
his  throne,  and  certain  dignitaries  come  to  hear  Agrippa  make  a  speech  to  them.  They  of
course  respond  with  over-the-top  flattery  (something  he  fully  expected  and  demanded),  but
they even went so far as to say to him: "This is the voice of a god, not of a man!"  Then Herod
Agrippa made a fatal mistake; rather than deflecting such ludicrous honor as being as a god
                               7 / 8
Acts Lesson 28 - Chapter 12
 
(and  remember,  Agrippa  had  made  himself  as  a  representative  of  the  Jewish  religion),  he
accepted it. God struck him down and we're told that he was eaten up by worms.
That the punishment of his blasphemy was immediate made it clear to all that his was divine
judgment. This was no folktale that we see here in the Bible or is it an exaggeration. Josephus
writes about Agrippa's death and confirms what happened, the reason for it, and what he died
of. But let's also be clear that these words about worms don't necessarily mean that his death
was a result of having been eaten from the inside out by worms (but there is a hint that indeed
it could have). It is a standard understanding that when a corpse is put into the grave, that the
flesh is eaten up by worms. It is the natural result of death; decomposition. However it is also a
term that is used to describe especially the demise of the unrighteous, even though people
understood the same thing happened to anyone who died.
It  is  hard  to  know  what  the  disease  was  that  killed  Herod.  Josephus  tells  us  that  it  was
something  gastrointestinal.  There  actually  are  recorded  incidents  of  parasites  entering  into
humans and consuming people from the inside out. In any case whatever it was, it was painful
and gruesome.
As we near the end of the chapter we're informed that the Word of the Lord continued to grow
and  multiply.  No  doubt  now  that  Agrippa  was  dead,  the  persecutions  against  the  Believers
once again calmed down since once again a Roman procurator ruled and this meant that the
Sanhedrin  could  no  longer  run  around  and  incite  the  crowds  or  legally  execute  people  like
James and Peter. So essentially a contrast is drawn between this wicked man, Agrippa, who
tried to eliminate The Way, and the great success that God achieved through The Way despite
all the persecution.
The final verse of this chapter marks a turn from the focus being on Jerusalem and Jews, to
the Diaspora and gentiles. The disciples that had gone to Antioch, but returned to Jerusalem,
would take John Mark with them back to Antioch. Recall that their purpose for coming back to
Jerusalem was to bring famine relief funds from generous Believers in Antioch. How long they
would  stay  in  Jerusalem  before  returning  to  Antioch  (that  we  will  read  about  in  Acts  13)  is
unknown.
For the next several chapters the focus will shift to Paul and his missionary travels.
We'll begin chapter 13 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
                               8 / 8
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Lesson 29, Chapter 13
As we concluded Acts chapter 12 last week, the focus that had been mainly on Peter and the
goings-on in the Holy Land now shift to Paul and to the foreign lands that were home to the
majority of Jews. We have passed a new milestone in that the Lord has specifically instructed
the members of The Way, consisting almost 100% of Jews up to now, to take the Gospel to the
gentiles. In no way, of course, did this mean that evangelizing Jews was to diminish or come to
an  end.  It  is  only  that  a  second  front  has  been  opened  to  bring  the  promise  of  blessings
contained  in  Abraham's  Covenant  to  the  whole  world,  regardless  of  race,  ethnicity,  or
nationality.
When we closed Acts 12 we found Paul and Barnabas back in Jerusalem, bringing with them
money to help the Believers in Jerusalem get through a famine that had broken out throughout
the Roman Empire. This money was the result of charitable generosity from the Believing Jews
and gentiles in Antioch, Syria.
Let's read Acts chapter 13.
READ ACTS CHAPTER 13 all
Now back in Antioch, we are told that the Believing community there was served by prophets
and teachers and among these were Barnabas, Paul, a fellow called Shi'mon Niger, Lucius of
Cyrene and Manaen who had some undefined kind of relationship with Herod Agrippa (Herod
Agrippa had just recently died).
A  name  not  mentioned  is  John  Mark  among  these  teachers  and  prophets  even  though  the
ending verse of chapter 12 says he accompanied Paul and Barnabas. This is because John
Mark is really just a bit player; he is considered as a servant or attendant and so wouldn't be
mentioned as among the teachers or prophets. We know what teachers do, but in this context
what would be the purpose of a prophet? It seems that in this era prophets and teachers were
nearly the same thing. It is probable that a prophet was merely a more qualified teacher. In the
New  Testament,  most  references  to  prophesying  are  really  about  speaking  God's  written
Word (quoting the Hebrew Bible). About the only discernable difference between the two terms
seems to be that teachers were usually part of the local community and taught regularly; while
prophets tended to be itinerant and would wander from Synagogue to Synagogue offering their
insights. Both were held in high regard.
Among these teachers and prophets in Antioch we recognize Paul and Barnabas' names, but
the   others   we've   not   been   introduced   to   before.   Since   niger   is   Latin   for   black,
apparently Shi'mon was a black skinned man, but we don't know where he is from. Lucius is
from Cyrene, today known as Libya. We don't know whether Manaen is originally from Antioch
or he too has come from elsewhere. Just know that Manaean is the Greek form of the Hebrew
                               1 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
name Menachem.  All of these men were Jewish Believers.
Verse 2 explains that as they were worshipping and fasting together, the Holy Spirit told them
that  it  was  time  to  anoint  Paul  and  Barnabas  for  the  specific  ministry  that  the  Lord  had
previously  decided  for  them:  taking  the  Gospel  to  the  gentiles.  In  other  words,  there  was
nothing new that happened here. While I can't be sure, I believe that what is being described
as the "Holy Spirit telling them" is not a vision or a visitation or something audible but rather it
is  the  same  thing  that  modern  Believers  receive  especially  during  prayer  as  something  just
comes into our minds that we instinctively know is from God. Today it is common to say "The
Lord told me" thus and so. But in Acts, where the Holy Spirit is emphasized, the more common
way of saying the same thing was to attribute the thought or unction to the Holy Spirit.
It is also interesting that we often see worship or prayer accompanied with fasting as we do in
this passage. Just what form the fasting took is not clear. Some scholars believe that the word
"fast" meant it just as we think of it today: we refrain from eating food for some predetermined
amount  of  time.  Other  scholars  think  that  while  it  can  mean  that,  it  also  can  mean  denying
oneself other things for a brief time. That is, fasting didn't always have to do with food. In any
case fasting as part of worship or prayer was usual and customary in that era, and it seems to
have made the worshippers more able to hear and respond to the Holy Spirit. I have talked
with many Believers who tell me that indeed fasting with prayer does seem to heighten their
sensitivity  towards  God;  I  have  generally  found  this  to  be  personally  true  as  well.  Hilary  Le
Cornu points out that in the anonymous Jewish work titled the Apocalypse of Elijah we get a
good  insight  as  to  how  folks  of  that  era  viewed  the  expected  effects  of  fasting,  for  there  it
states:
"A pure fast.....releases sin. It heals diseases. It casts out demons. It is effective up to
the throne of God for an ointment and for a release of sin by means of pure prayer". 
Extreme fasting (again meaning denial of food and perhaps other things as well for extended
periods of time) was seen by especially pious people as a means to obtain a divine vision that
they sought. I don't recommend such an approach for both health and spiritual reasons. But
fasting was always to be accompanied with intense prayer or it served no spiritual purpose;
and with that I agree wholeheartedly.
It is also instructive that up to now we've mostly seen prophets  and teachers and Yeshua's
disciples  receiving  their  divine  marching  orders  by  means  of  an  oracle  from  an  angel,  or
sometimes  from  God  Himself,  and  at  other  times  from  Yeshua.  But  now  it  is  the  Ruach
HaKodesh that is credited.
I've often stated that there is much evidence to heavily imply that Yeshua, John, and perhaps
some  others  of  the  earliest  disciples  of  Yeshua  had  much  interaction  with  the  Essenes  of
Qumran. Many of the terms and thoughts expressed in some of the Essenes' documents (the
Dead Sea Scrolls) are mirrored in the words of Christ and other New Testament writers. And if
not  said  precisely  in  their  terms,  often  the  Essenes'  unique  theological  concepts  are
something that we'll find similarly explained in the New Testament. Here is one such example
concerning Essene theology about the Holy Spirit as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls document
                               2 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
that is labeled 1QH20.
"And I, the Instructor, have known you, my God, through the Spirit which you gave in
me, and I have listened loyally to your wonderful secrets through your Holy Spirit. You
have opened within me knowledge of the mystery of your wisdom, and the source of
your power....."
This was written several years prior to the birth of Messiah Yeshua; so what we have here is
strong  evidence  that  these  devout  men  living  in  the  desert  outpost  of  Qumran,  away  from
institutional Judaism, separated from the corrupt Temple and Priesthood, had already begun to
realize the critical importance of the work of God's Holy Spirit. What is also fascinating is the
concept  of  the  working  of  the  Spirit  within  a  man,  as  opposed  to  only  being  upon  a  man,
which up to now had been the way the Holy Spirit operated. Yet I'm also sure they had no idea
just  how  critical  the  presence  and  role  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would  soon  be  in  God's  plan  of
redemption once the Messiah appeared and then left.
Starting  in  verse  4  (and  going  through  Acts  14:26)  we  are  told  about  Paul's  first  four
missionary journeys. But he and Barnabas did not go until the Believing leadership in Antioch
anointed  them  in  prayer  and  laid  hands  on  them.  This  served  to  essentially  officially
commission   them   and   to   signify   agreement   with,   and   recognition   of,   the   Antioch
congregation's  leadership  to  Paul's  and  Barnabas'  mission  to  the  gentiles.  Thus  we  see
something  we  need  to  keep  in  mind:  Paul's  missionary  journeys  were  sanctioned  and
supported by the congregation of Believers in Antioch; not by the leadership and congregation
of Believers in Jerusalem of which Peter and James were the leaders.
So Sha'ul and Bar-Nabba went to the local sea port of Antioch, called Seleucia Peiria, and
from there sailed to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Cyprus was only about 60 miles by
sea from Seleucia, so it wouldn't have taken long. However, since the progress of these ships
was  dictated  by  wind  and  weather,  each  time  a  journey  was  undertaken  the  time  of  travel
varied.  This  would  be  a  good  time  to  mention  that  whether  by  sea  or  by  land,  there  was  a
season for travel and a season to avoid travel if possible. Generally speaking it was desirable
to travel and to ship goods between the end of May and the middle of September (in modern
calendar terms). But from mid-September to mid November, and then from mid-March to the
end of May the weather could be severe and quickly changeable; so while travel and shipping
didn't  entirely  cease,  it  was  best  to  avoid  these  periods  if  at  all  possible  because  the  risks
greatly increased. We should keep this in mind as we hear of Paul's journeys and it may give
us a clue as to the times of year he was traveling.
Further, there were no such things as ships that were purely commercial passenger vessels.
Rather all ships were cargo carriers, and so when a person booked passage on a ship, they
didn't   have   a   nice   cabin   or   have   hot   meals   served   to   them.   So   depending   on   the
circumstances, one could find themselves sleeping on the deck, or laying on top of the cargo in
the  hold.  If  there  were  any  kind  of  creature  comforts,  those  belonged  to  the  ship's  crew.
Usually  a  passenger  had  to  bring  their  own  food  and  provisions  if  they  expected  to  eat.
Flexibility in travel plans was important because the route could change in a moment's notice
if there was a business opportunity to take advantage of, or wind or weather forced a change.
                               3 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
However  as  uncomfortable  and  risky  as  sea  travel  was  for  passengers,  it  was  also  an
inexpensive mode of transportation. Thus Paul and Barnabas didn't need too much in the way
of funds from the Antioch congregation to pay for their sea travel on their mission trips.
Verse 5 explains a basic format for where it is that Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the Good
News; they went to the local Synagogues. Naturally. There were no such things as "churches"
(in the standard way we think of them), just as there were no such people as "Christians" in
the sense of a movement of gentile Jesus worshippers that were separate and apart from Jews
and  The  Way.  The  first  place  they  went  upon  reaching  Cyprus  was  Salamis.  No  doubt
Barnabas was leading the way because Cyprus was his home. Here we have mention of John
Mark and his role as a "helper". John Mark was a cousin of Barnabas.
It  is  often  said  by  Bible  Commentators  that  the  reason  that  Paul  always  first  went  to
Synagogues was to fulfill Yeshua's instruction to His disciples of "First to the Jews....then to
the Greeks".  While I can't entirely discount this, I doubt this was really on Paul's mind. After
all, Yeshua had told him that he was to be the emissary of the Good News to the gentiles, and
then  he  (and  Barnabas)  were  commissioned  in  Antioch  and  sent  off  to  fulfill  that  particular
mission. He went to the Synagogues because the first gentiles he approached were already
God-fearers (they were halfway there, so to speak), and out in the Diaspora there was overall
less  resistance  to  the  idea  of  gentiles  coming  into  Synagogues  to  worship  with  Jews.  A
traditional day of communal gathering and worship on Shabbat had been established and it
was well known; and it was common that visitors and itinerant prophets would come to the
Synagogues  to  teach  or  speak.  In  other  words,  there  was  a  ready-made  organization  and
system  that  Paul  could  tap  in  to.  And  remember:  The  Way  was  merely  another  sect  of
Judaism, and there was no stated goal (not even by Paul) of someday setting up non-Jewish
houses of worship for gentiles, nor especially was there a goal of severing worship of Yeshua
away from Judaism as a distinct new religion. But more, the Diaspora Jews were generally
Hellenists. That is, they were Greek speakers who lived a Greek lifestyle. Greek society loved
to hear and debate new ideas, so they weren't shy about allowing various speakers into their
Synagogues. This is why Paul and Barnabas were usually welcomed, even if at times after
being heard they were chased out of town.
And by the way; it is interesting to note that Synagogues were more at home in foreign lands
than they were in the Holy Land. The oldest Synagogues unearthed have been found in places
like Macedonia and Italy. And the reason for this is obvious: the Synagogue was invented and
created by Diaspora Jews for use by Diaspora Jews in their foreign nations. They had existed
in a very similar form to what Paul was visiting for more than 3 centuries. So Synagogues were
merely a familiar and accepted part of the landscape to gentiles even if most had never set foot
in one of them.
After spending some unstated amount of time in Salamis, they then journeyed a little over 50
miles to the southwest coast (still on Cyprus) and the city of Paphos. Here they had a run-in
with a sorcerer named Elymas. This is the Greek name for Bar-Yeshua (which means son of
Yeshua). This is in no way referring to the Messiah nor is it mocking Him. Yeshua was among
the  most  common  names  for  Jewish  males  at  this  time.  Paphos  was  no  doubt  selected
because it was the administrative governing center for Cyprus. Thus we hear that this Jewish
                               4 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
sorcerer Bar-Yeshua was associated with the Roman proconsul Sergio Paulus who is said to
be an intelligent man. It was common for government leaders to have seers and diviners in
their employ as Romans were a very superstitious people. What is also notable is this Elymas
is a Jewish magician; something that is staunchly prohibited in the Torah of Moses, with the
punishment for practicing magic being death.
The  gentile  Roman  proconsul  was  interested  in  hearing  Paul's  message  about  the  God  of
Israel;  but  the  Jewish  magician  opposed  it.  So  the  zealous  and  outspoken  Paul  lit  into  the
magician telling him that he was the son of the devil and that since he was opposing the Lord a
curse of God would laid upon him. Paul's tirade was specifically because this magician was a
Jew  and  should  have  known  better  than  to  practice  this  forbidden  trade.    Immediately  the
sorcerer lost his eyesight and had to be led around by his hand. Notice how similar this is to
what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. The early Church Father Venerable Bede
says  of  this  that  "Paul,  remembering  his  own  case,  knew  that  by  the  darkening  of  the
eyes, the mind's darkness might be restored to light". 
It  seems  as  though  Paul  calling  Bar-Yeshua  "son  of  the  devil"  is  very  likely  one  of  those
hidden Hebraisms in the New Testament that we have talked about. That is, this is a Hebrew
expression that is masked because of its translation into Greek (and from there into English).
Remember who Paul is addressing: a JEWISH magician. So Paul probably is calling him a
known and familiar Hebrew epithet: Ben Belial. Even in Hebrew Belial carries an ambiguous
meaning;  however  it  revolves  around  the  concept  of  being  worthless  and  wicked.  So
sometimes Ben Belial is translated in English as son of worthlessness. It is easy to see then
how  in  Greek  it  would  be  translated  as  huios  diabolos.  Most  literally  this  Greek  phrase
translates to "son of slandering" or "son of siding with evil". It is common in translation that
one language has no direct equivalent in another language, so you have choose something
that is pretty close but likely does not express the precise meaning.
The Roman governor was impressed by what Paul seemed to have done to Elymas and he
was  now  all  ears.  He  listened  intently  to  Paul's  message  and  we're  told  that  he  believed
because the message was perhaps the most profound thing he had ever heard. Yet what he
believed  in  and  exactly  the  level  at  which  he  accepted  it  is  ambiguous.  That  is,  was  it  the
Gospel that he heard, or was it more about the God of Israel in general? And while he believed
what he heard, did this amount to believing that Paul was saying the truth, or was it a saving
belief?  We  don't  know.  We  don't  hear  anything  about  the  Holy  Spirit  coming  upon  the
governor nor an instruction to be baptized. So I doubt that this meant that the Roman governor
accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior.
After some indeterminate amount of time that the three remained on Cyprus, at some point
they found a ship to take them to the Asia Minor coast of Pamphylia and the city of Perga.
Perga was the major metropolitan city of the region. It was there that John Mark left Paul and
Barnabas and returned to Jerusalem. No reason is given for his leaving. But later in Acts we
hear  that  Paul  was  pretty  unhappy  with  John  Mark  for  leaving  them  and  regarded  it  as
abandonment.  So  there  were  some  underlying  problems  that  had  developed  between  John
and Paul (remember, John and Barnabas were family, so no doubt this dust-up also caused
friction between Barnabas and Paul).
                               5 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
Verse 14 explains that from Perga Paul and Barnabas went to Pisidian Antioch. And, as usual,
they waited for Shabbat and then went to the local Synagogue. This is a different Antioch than
the one in Syria. In fact, there are 15 or 16 known places called Antioch, because they were all
named in honor of Antiochus Epiphanies. We are told that they had to cross over a mountain
range  to  get  there,  so  no  doubt  they  timed  their  trip  to  avoid  the  winter  snows  and  spring
downpours. The distance between Perga and Antioch of Pisidia was over 125 miles, so the
travel time would be about a week in decent weather.
As with everywhere they've gone thus far, there is a Jewish community in Antioch of Pisidia. It
isn't that nearly every town in the Roman Empire had a Jewish community; it is that Paul and
Barnabas intentionally targeted those cities and towns with a sufficient number of Jews in them
that  could  support  a  Synagogue.  It  was  typical  procedure  on  Shabbat  that  the  Torah  Scroll
would be removed from its Ark, and then rolled out and read. Notice how verse 15 says that
"after the reading of the Law and the Prophets...." The Law is synonymous with the term The
Torah.  So  after  reading  the  weekly  Torah  Portion  (that  is,  a  section  of  Genesis  through
Deuteronomy), then next is the reading of the Haftarah, which is a series of Scripture readings
from the Prophets. The word Haftarah may sound like it is connected to the word Torah, but it
isn't. The word means something like "parting" or "taking leave". No one knows exactly when
this Tradition of meeting on Sabbath in Synagogues began, nor when the customary service of
reading a portion of the Torah followed by a reading from the Prophets originated. But what we
do know is that it happened before New Testament times because we're reading about it right
here in Acts 13 verses 14 & 15.
It was also customary that following the two readings of Scripture, a short comment would be
made by either the Synagogue President or later in Synagogue development, the Rabbi. Often
the floor was opened to the congregation to see if someone had something they wanted to say.
The  readings  would  have  been  in  Greek,  taken  from  the  Greek  Septuagint  (the  Greek
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible).  During  Paul's  era,  most  Synagogues  didn't  have  assigned
teachers per se. There might be a few different men who were regularly called on to teach. But
even then the teachings following the readings weren't exegetical Scripture study; rather they
more  resembled  a  moral  teaching  on  some  aspect  of  Jewish  life.  Remember:  Judaism
revolved then, as it does now, around Halakhah; Jewish Law. And Jewish Law is a fusion of
the  Torah  of  Moses,  Traditions,  and  customs.  So  Scripture  study  as  we  know  it  in  Seed  of
Abraham Torah Class wasn't the usual mode at Synagogue. When it did occur it took place at
a Beit Midrash, which was a house of study.
So those who presided over this Synagogue in Antioch then offered for Paul and/or Barnabas
to offer a word of encouragement to the congregation. Paul responded by going to the raised
platform, the Bema, and he began to speak. His opening words are revealing: he addresses
his audience as 1) men of Israel (Israelim) and 2) God-fearers. Men of Israel mean Hebrews;
Jews. God-fearers mean gentiles who worship the God of Israel, but they have not converted
to becoming a Jew. So here is proof that at this particular Synagogue, gentiles were allowed to
join the Jews and apparently there were no serious issues of ritual purity that concerned the
Jewish congregation. This was not so in all the Synagogues of the Roman Empire, and it was
the opposite case in the Holy Land and especially in Jerusalem. This reality will play a major
role in what happens at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Paul now goes into a speech that
                               6 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
brings back memories of the speech that the martyr Stephen gave in his defense before the
Sanhedrin. It is essentially a historical survey of Israel's past to make a point.
Paul  begins  with  the  first  of  Israel's  Patriarchs,  Abraham,  because  upon  God's  election  of
Abraham we have the birth of the Hebrew people. A series of important theological points is
made that truly ought to be labeled Christianity 101. These are the basics for understanding
the history of our faith; and so when one realizes that Abraham was the root and that he was
also the first Hebrew, then we have every justification we need to defend the definition of our
faith as truly and accurately a "Hebrew Roots" faith.
When Paul says that God made the people "great" when living in Egypt, he means "great" in
the sense of "many", not of merit. I want to pause for a moment and have you hear what the
editor of the Complete Jewish Bible, David Stern, says about the concept of God choosing the
Hebrew people out of all the other people on this planet, to be set apart for Himself. Because
God "choosing" one over the other is often taken as a matter of pride, when it should be the
opposite.
"While it is possible that some Jews like some Christians, become proud to be chosen, I
think many find it embarrassing and wish like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" that God
"would  choose  somebody  else  for  a  change".  But  only  if  I  take  chosenness  to  imply
superiority do I become either embarrassed or proud. The right attitude, the one taken
by  Sha'ul  and  by  the  writers  of  the  Tanakh,  is  that  Israel's  election  by  God  is  not
predicated on any special quality in Israel but entirely on God's grace, rightly defined
as God's undeserved favor. Being aware of this favor as undeserved should make us
humble without embarrassing us". 
In verse 17 when we see Paul speak of God leading Israel out of the land (of Egypt) "with an
out-stretched arm", it means that God rescued Israel with judgment against those who were
hindering His people. And then after delivering His people from bondage God cared for them
out in the desert for 40 years, after which He destroyed 7 nations in Canaan to pave the way
for Israel to inherit the land the 7 nations had inhabited (the list of these nations can be found
in Deuteronomy 7). The land of Canaan was not a gift of conquest from God to the Israelites; it
was  a  gift  of  inheritance.  Why  an  inheritance?  Why  not  as  a  spoil  of  war?  Because  God
already owned the land; He had hundreds of years earlier promised to give it to Abraham; it
became  Abraham's  land  the  instant  God  promised  it.  All  that  remained  was  for  Abraham's
descendants to possess it. So the Lord merely evicted the unlawful squatters, and then turned
over to the rightful inheritors (Israel) that which He had long ago bequeathed to them. For God
is a Father to His children, Israel and that's what fathers do.
Verse 20 says that the process of Israel living in Egypt and then God rescuing them and taking
them  through  the  desert  and  dispossessing  the  Canaanite  squatters  took  450  years.  This
number is given in round terms; it is not to be taken as precise. After that the Lord gave Israel
Judges (shofetim) to rule over them. The age of the Judges lasted through Samuel who was
part Judge, part prophet. But the people of Israel wanted a king like their gentile neighbors, so
God  gave  them  Saul,  a  member  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  Let's  take  another  brief  pause  to
make an interesting connection. In Genesis 45, which is part of the story about Joseph and his
                               7 / 9
Acts Lesson 29 - Chapter 13
 
brothers  coming  to  Egypt  to  buy  grain  from  him,  we  read  about  how  Joseph  gave  his  little
brother Benjamin 5 times as much food, clothing and silver as he gave to his other brothers. In
Egypt 5 times the regular portion was the royal portion. But why would Joseph give the royal
portion to Benjamin? Is it because they had the same mother? Is it because Benjamin is the
only  brother  not  guilty  of  selling  Joseph  in  to  slavery?  It  is  certainly  not  because  Benjamin
would become the inheritor of the nation of Israel; that would turn out to be an older brother,
Judah.  Whatever  was  Joseph's  true  motive  at  the  time,  in  the  end  it  is  because  this  was
prophetic of Saul of the tribe of Benjamin becoming the first king (the first royalty) of Israel.
But then comes an important turning point: after 40 years God removes Saul and turns the
throne  over  to  David  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  This  now  sets  the  stage  for  David's  messianic
descendant who would deliver Israel all over again. King David was chosen because he will do
what  God  wants  him  to  do,  and  this  is  because  David  was  a  man  after  God's  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