Matt Christiansen Bible Study

Scripture Reading: Acts of the Apostles OutlineWhat Happened After Two YearsMartyrdom?Release?Why not narrate Paul's future travels (if there were any)?Paul was later rearrested?Church traditionThe PastoralsHistorical PlausibilityRobert's TakeawaysActs grounds the whole Christian story in historyA corollary: the supernatural is historicalThe Christian story involves people—normal peopleSome people become ministers, but most do notPeter and Paul attempt to communicate cleverly and effectivelyThe Holy Spirit is at workChurches are not perfect, and they experience conflictLocal believers gather regularly

Scripture Reading: Acts 28:16–31 16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. 17 After three days Paul called the local Jewish leaders together. When they had assembled, he said to them, “Brothers, although I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, from Jerusalem I was handed over as a prisoner to the Romans. 18 When they had heard my case, they wanted to release me, because there was no basis for a death sentence against me.19 But when the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar—not that I had some charge to bring against my own people. 20 So for this reason I have asked to see you and speak with you, for I am bound with this chain because of the hope of Israel.” 21 They replied, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor have any of the brothers come from there and reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we would like to hear from you what you think, for regarding this sect we know that people everywhere speak against it.” 23 They set a day to meet with him, and they came to him where he was staying in even greater numbers. From morning until evening he explained things to them, testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others refused to believe. 25 So they began to leave, unable to agree among themselves, after Paul made one last statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah 26 when he said, ‘Go to this people and say, “You will keep on hearing, but will never understand, and you will keep on looking, but will never perceive. 27 For the heart of this people has become dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.” ' 28 “Therefore be advised that this salvation from God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!” 30 Paul lived there two whole years in his own rented quarters and welcomed all who came to him, 31 proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with complete boldness and without restriction.OutlinePaul in RomeIntroduction to the end of the bookRome, the eternal cityPaul is permitted to stay in his rented apartmentTo the Jew firstThe schism between Jews and Christians in RomePaul's reassures Jewish leaders: he doesn't mean troubleThe Jewish leaders have heard nothing negative of PaulPaul testifies about the Kingdom of God and Jesus using the law and the prophetsThe Jews are dividedThen to the GentilesPaul's ministry while under house arrestThe Sudden EndingA sudden ending?But what if it is a sudden ending?A hopeful ending?What happened after two years?Paul was released and later rearrested?

Scripture Reading: Acts 28:1–22 28 After we had safely reached shore, we learned that the island was called Malta. 2 The local inhabitants showed us extraordinary kindness, for they built a fire and welcomed us all because it had started to rain and was cold. 3 When Paul had gathered a bundle of brushwood and was putting it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the local people saw the creature hanging from Paul's hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer! Although he has escaped from the sea, Justice herself has not allowed him to live!” 5 However, Paul shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly drop dead. So after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. 7 Now in the region around that place were fields belonging to the chief official of the island, named Publius, who welcomed us and entertained us hospitably as guests for three days. 8 The father of Publius lay sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and after praying, placed his hands on him and healed him. 9 After this had happened, many of the people on the island who were sick also came and were healed. 10 They also bestowed many honors, and when we were preparing to sail, they gave us all the supplies we needed. 11 After three months we put out to sea in an Alexandrian ship that had wintered at the island and had the “Heavenly Twins” as its figurehead. 12 We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days. 13 From there we cast off and arrived at Rhegium, and after one day a south wind sprang up and on the second day we came to Puteoli. 14 There we found some brothers and were invited to stay with them seven days. And in this way we came to Rome. 15 The brothers from there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. When he saw them, Paul thanked God and took courage. 16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. 17 After three days Paul called the local Jewish leaders together. When they had assembled, he said to them, “Brothers, although I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, from Jerusalem I was handed over as a prisoner to the Romans. 18 When they had heard my case, they wanted to release me, because there was no basis for a death sentence against me.19 But when the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar—not that I had some charge to bring against my own people. 20 So for this reason I have asked to see you and speak with you, for I am bound with this chain because of the hope of Israel.” 21 They replied, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor have any of the brothers come from there and reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we would like to hear from you what you think, for regarding this sect we know that people everywhere speak against it.” OutlinePaul's Adventures in MaltaBrief introduction: Paul is vindicated at sea and on landPaul is shipwrecked in MaltaThe shipwrecked voyagers are welcomed by the barbariansPaul is bitten by a snake!Publius hosts (some) of the voyagersThe father of Publius and many others are healedTo Rome!Three months in Malta, then back to sailing to ItalyPaul is welcome in PuteoliPuteoli to Rome, the last stretch!Brothers come to meet PaulPaul in RomeIntroduction to the end of the bookRome, the eternal cityPaul is permitted to stay in his rented apartmentTo the Jew firstThe schism between Jews and Christians in RomePaul's reassures Jewish leaders: he doesn't mean troubleThe Jewish leaders have heard nothing negative of Paul

Bible study for March 28, 2025, is cancelled.Scripture Reading: Acts 27:1–44 27 When it was decided we would sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan Cohort named Julius. 2 We went on board a ship from Adramyttium that was about to sail to various ports along the coast of the province of Asia and put out to sea, accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. 3 The next day we put in at Sidon, and Julius, treating Paul kindly, allowed him to go to his friends so they could provide him with what he needed. 4 From there we put out to sea and sailed under the lee of Cyprus because the winds were against us. 5 After we had sailed across the open sea off Cilicia and Pamphylia, we put in at Myra in Lycia. 6 There the centurion found a ship from Alexandria sailing for Italy, and he put us aboard it. 7 We sailed slowly for many days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus. Because the wind prevented us from going any farther, we sailed under the lee of Crete off Salmone. 8 With difficulty we sailed along the coast of Crete and came to a place called Fair Havens that was near the town of Lasea. 9 Since considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous because the fast was already over, Paul advised them, 10 “Men, I can see the voyage is going to end in disaster and great loss not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives.” 11 But the centurion was more convinced by the captain and the ship's owner than by what Paul said. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable to spend the winter in, the majority decided to put out to sea from there. They hoped that somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. 13 When a gentle south wind sprang up, they thought they could carry out their purpose, so they weighed anchor and sailed close along the coast of Crete. 14 Not long after this, a hurricane-force wind called the northeaster blew down from the island. 15 When the ship was caught in it and could not head into the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 As we ran under the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were able with difficulty to get the ship's boat under control. 17 After the crew had hoisted it aboard, they used supports to undergird the ship. Fearing they would run aground on the Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor, thus letting themselves be driven along. 18 The next day, because we were violently battered by the storm, they began throwing the cargo overboard, 19 and on the third day they threw the ship's gear overboard with their own hands. 20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and a violent storm continued to batter us, we finally abandoned all hope of being saved. 21 Since many of them had no desire to eat, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not put out to sea from Crete, thus avoiding this damage and loss. 22 And now I advise you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only the ship will be lost. 23 For last night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve came to me 24 and said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul! You must stand before Caesar, and God has graciously granted you the safety of all who are sailing with you.' 25 Therefore keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will be just as I have been told. 26 But we must run aground on some island.” 27 When the fourteenth night had come, while we were being driven across the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors suspected they were approaching some land. 28 They took soundings and found the water was twenty fathoms deep; when they had sailed a little farther they took soundings again and found it was fifteen fathoms deep. 29 Because they were afraid that we would run aground on the rocky coast, they threw out four anchors from the stern and wished for day to appear. 30 Then when the sailors tried to escape from the ship and were lowering the ship's boat into the sea, pretending that they were going to put out anchors from the bow, 31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved.” 32 Then the soldiers cut the ropes of the ship's boat and let it drift away. 33 As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day you have been in suspense and have gone without food; you have eaten nothing. 34 Therefore I urge you to take some food, for this is important for your survival. For not one of you will lose a hair from his head.” 35 After he said this, Paul took bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all, broke it, and began to eat. 36 So all of them were encouraged and took food themselves. 37 (We were in all 276 persons on the ship.) 38 When they had eaten enough to be satisfied, they lightened the ship by throwing the wheat into the sea. 39 When day came, they did not recognize the land, but they noticed a bay with a beach, where they decided to run the ship aground if they could. 40 So they slipped the anchors and left them in the sea, at the same time loosening the linkage that bound the steering oars together. Then they hoisted the foresail to the wind and steered toward the beach. 41 But they encountered a patch of crosscurrents and ran the ship aground; the bow stuck fast and could not be moved, but the stern was being broken up by the force of the waves. 42 Now the soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners so that none of them would escape by swimming away. 43 But the centurion, wanting to save Paul's life, prevented them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and get to land, 44 and the rest were to follow, some on planks and some on pieces of the ship. And in this way all were brought safely to land.OutlinePaul Sails to RomeLuke narrates the shipwreck with special detailGod wants Paul to go to Rome; Paul is innocentHow It StartedPaul and his companions are assigned to a centurionSailing from Caesarea to Asia MinorPut in at SidonTo Myra in LyciaTransfer at MyraWith difficulty they reached Fair HavensPaul's first warningWinter travel—a dangerous affairLet's winter in Phoenix!To PhoenixHow It's GoingThe weather suddenly changesFind shelter behind Cauda and haul the boat!Anything but the Syrtis!Preparing the ship for the worseAll hope is lostPaul Offers HopePaul rises as a leader and encourages themPaul has had a visionThe ship approaches some landSome sailors attempt to escapeEveryone on board shares a mealDiscarding more cargoLast ditch effort: run the ship agroundThe prisoners are sparedEveryone swims to shore; everyone is saved!

Scripture Reading: Acts 26:1–32 26 So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul held out his hand and began his defense: 2 “Regarding all the things I have been accused of by the Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am about to make my defense before you today, 3 because you are especially familiar with all the customs and controversial issues of the Jews. Therefore I ask you to listen to me patiently. 4 Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth, spending my life from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. 5 They know, because they have known me from time past, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, 7 a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve God night and day. Concerning this hope the Jews are accusing me, Your Majesty! 8 Why do you people think it is unbelievable that God raises the dead? 9 Of course, I myself was convinced that it was necessary to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus the Nazarene. 10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem: Not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons by the authority I received from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were sentenced to death. 11 I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged at them, I went to persecute them even in foreign cities. 12 “While doing this very thing, as I was going to Damascus with authority and complete power from the chief priests, 13 about noon along the road, Your Majesty, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining everywhere around me and those traveling with me. 14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? You are hurting yourself by kicking against the goads.' 15 So I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this reason, to designate you in advance as a servant and witness to the things you have seen and to the things in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' 19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds consistent with repentance. 21 For this reason the Jews, after they seized me while I was in the temple courts, were trying to kill me. 22 I have experienced help from God to this day, and so I stand testifying to both small and great, saying nothing except what the prophets and Moses said was going to happen: 23 that the Christ was to suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, to proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.” 24 As Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus exclaimed loudly, “You have lost your mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you insane!” 25 But Paul replied, “I have not lost my mind, most excellent Festus, but am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and I am speaking freely to him, because I cannot believe that any of these things has escaped his notice, for this was not done in a corner. 27 Do you believe the prophets, King Agrippa? I know that you believe.” 28 Agrippa said to Paul, “In such a short time are you persuading me to become a Christian?” 29 Paul replied, “I pray to God that whether in a short or a long time not only you but also all those who are listening to me today could become such as I am, except for these chains.” 30 So the king got up, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them, 31 and as they were leaving they said to one another, “This man is not doing anything deserving death or imprisonment.” 32 Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.”OutlinePaul's Last and Greatest Defense of the GospelNot a trial—Paul is innocentThe climactic speech of Paul's apologetic ministryPaul argues for the gospel, not his innocencePaul's Introduction, Character, Hope, and Former FollyPaul's respectful and honest introductionPaul narrates his life to establish ethos—he has always been a law-abiding JewPaul is on trial because of his hope in the promise—the resurrection!Paul himself used to be a haterPaul's ConversionFrom an agent of the aristocratic priests to an agent of JesusA revelation at middaySaul, why are you persecuting me?Paul is called to the GentilesOpened eyes; opened mindFrom Satan to God; from darkness to light; to forgiveness of sins and the inheritance of the saints!Obedience to the Holy CommissionPaul is obeying God's callIn Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earthRepent and turn to God!Paul has been targeted for his piety and believing the Old Testament, but God has delivered himTestifying to all about the ChristFestus, Agrippa, and PaulFestus says, “Paul, you are mad!”Paul responds, “I am of sober mind”Paul calls Agrippa as a witnessAgrippa reacts, “Do you really seek to convert me?!”Paul responds, “everyone should be a Christian!”Paul, a consummate sage and an innocent man

Scripture Reading: Acts 25:1–26:11 25 Now three days after Festus arrived in the province, he went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. 2 So the chief priests and the most prominent men of the Jews brought formal charges against Paul to him. 3 Requesting him to do them a favor against Paul, they urged Festus to summon him to Jerusalem, planning an ambush to kill him along the way. 4 Then Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea, and he himself intended to go there shortly. 5 “So,” he said, “let your leaders go down there with me, and if this man has done anything wrong, they may bring charges against him.” 6 After Festus had stayed not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day he sat on the judgment seat and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 When he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges that they were not able to prove. 8 Paul said in his defense, “I have committed no offense against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.” 9 But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, asked Paul, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be tried before me there on these charges?” 10 Paul replied, “I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat, where I should be tried. I have done nothing wrong to the Jews, as you also know very well. 11 If then I am in the wrong and have done anything that deserves death, I am not trying to escape dying, but if not one of their charges against me is true, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!” 12 Then, after conferring with his council, Festus replied, “You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you will go!” 13 After several days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. 14 While they were staying there many days, Festus explained Paul's case to the king to get his opinion, saying, “There is a man left here as a prisoner by Felix. 15 When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me about him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. 16 I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to hand over anyone before the accused had met his accusers face-to-face and had been given an opportunity to make a defense against the accusation. 17 So after they came back here with me, I did not postpone the case, but the next day I sat on the judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought. 18 When his accusers stood up, they did not charge him with any of the evil deeds I had suspected. 19 Rather they had several points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a man named Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive. 20 Because I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters, I asked if he were willing to go to Jerusalem and be tried there on these charges. 21 But when Paul appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Majesty the Emperor, I ordered him to be kept under guard until I could send him to Caesar.” 22 Agrippa said to Festus, “I would also like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” he replied, “you will hear him.” 23 So the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience hall, along with the senior military officers and the prominent men of the city. When Festus gave the order, Paul was brought in. 24 Then Festus said, “King Agrippa, and all you who are present here with us, you see this man about whom the entire Jewish populace petitioned me both in Jerusalem and here, shouting loudly that he ought not to live any longer. 25 But I found that he had done nothing that deserved death, and when he appealed to His Majesty the Emperor, I decided to send him. 26 But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after this preliminary hearing I may have something to write. 27 For it seems unreasonable to me to send a prisoner without clearly indicating the charges against him.” 26 So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul held out his hand and began his defense: 2 “Regarding all the things I have been accused of by the Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am about to make my defense before you today, 3 because you are especially familiar with all the customs and controversial issues of the Jews. Therefore I ask you to listen to me patiently. 4 Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth, spending my life from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. 5 They know, because they have known me from time past, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, 7 a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve God night and day. Concerning this hope the Jews are accusing me, Your Majesty! 8 Why do you people think it is unbelievable that God raises the dead? 9 Of course, I myself was convinced that it was necessary to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus the Nazarene. 10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem: Not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons by the authority I received from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were sentenced to death. 11 I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged at them, I went to persecute them even in foreign cities.OutlineFestus Arrives in the ProvinceNew governor, new chances for better Roman-Jewish relationsNew governor, new chances to get prosecutionsA change of venueFestus Judges PaulPaul's case is prioritizedThe judge takes his seat and the prosecution makes its accusationsPaul defends himselfFestus offers a change of venuePaul appeals to CaesarRome: the supreme courtDoes Paul choose Rome and reject Israel?King Agrippa and Bernice Arrives at CaesareaHistorical question: what is Luke's source?Festus request of King Agrippa and BerniceKing Agrippa and BernicePomp and fanfarePaul's DefenseNot a trial—Paul is innocentThe climactic speech of Paul's apologetic ministryPaul argues for the gospel, not his innocencePaul's respectful and honest introductionPaul narrates his life to establish ethos—he has always been a law-abiding JewPaul is on trial because of his hope in the promise—the resurrection!Paul himself used to be a hater

Scripture Reading: Acts 24:1–27 24 After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought formal charges against Paul to the governor. 2 When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, “We have experienced a lengthy time of peace through your rule, and reforms are being made in this nation through your foresight. 3 Most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this everywhere and in every way with all gratitude. 4 But so that I may not delay you any further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. 5 For we have found this man to be a troublemaker, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 He even tried to desecrate the temple, so we arrested him. 8 When you examine him yourself, you will be able to learn from him about all these things we are accusing him of doing.” 9 The Jews also joined in the verbal attack, claiming that these things were true. 10 When the governor gestured for him to speak, Paul replied, “Because I know that you have been a judge over this nation for many years, I confidently make my defense. 11 As you can verify for yourself, not more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 They did not find me arguing with anyone or stirring up a crowd in the temple courts or in the synagogues or throughout the city, 13 nor can they prove to you the things they are accusing me of doing. 14 But I confess this to you, that I worship the God of our ancestors according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets. 15 I have a hope in God (a hope that these men themselves accept too) that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. 16 This is the reason I do my best to always have a clear conscience toward God and toward people. 17 After several years I came to bring to my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings, 18 which I was doing when they found me in the temple, ritually purified, without a crowd or a disturbance. 19 But there are some Jews from the province of Asia who should be here before you and bring charges, if they have anything against me. 20 Or these men here should tell what crime they found me guilty of when I stood before the council, 21 other than this one thing I shouted out while I stood before them: ‘I am on trial before you today concerning the resurrection of the dead.' ” 22 Then Felix, who understood the facts concerning the Way more accurately, adjourned their hearing, saying, “When Lysias the commanding officer comes down, I will decide your case.” 23 He ordered the centurion to guard Paul, but to let him have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from meeting his needs. 24 Some days later, when Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 While Paul was discussing righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for now, and when I have an opportunity, I will send for you.” 26 At the same time he was also hoping that Paul would give him money, and for this reason he sent for Paul as often as possible and talked with him. 27 After two years had passed, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix, and because he wanted to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison.OutlineThe ProsecutionIt's a status measuring contestTertullus, a professional speakerPaul: a troublemaker throughout the whole wordThe prosecution's best shot: seditionPaul—the ringleader of those pesky NazarenesPaul “attempted” to profane the templeThe judge should investigate himselfThe audience joins the prosecutionThe DefenseSummary of the defensePaul appears pro sePaul's captatio benevolentiae (introduction)Paul's narratio (summary of the facts)The prosecution provided no evidence, particularly witnessesPaul's argument from ethos (character) and as a follower of the WayDid Jews really believe in the resurrection?Paul came to bring alms and sacrifice, not troublePaul subtly returns the charges to his accusersPaul's best legal argument: the true plaintiffs did not show up (and neither did any witnesses)Paul's conclusion: this trial is a religiously motivated sham!Felix's Judgment and Post-Trial BehaviorFelix adjournsPaul is kept captive for “two years”Felix continues to be entertained by Paul, until he isn'tPaul's message of righteousness, self-control, and coming judgmentFelix hopes for a bribeFestus, now it's your problem

Scripture Reading: Acts 23:11–24:9 11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Have courage, for just as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” 12 When morning came, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink anything until they had killed Paul. 13 There were more than forty of them who formed this conspiracy. 14 They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, “We have bound ourselves with a solemn oath not to partake of anything until we have killed Paul. 15 So now you and the council request the commanding officer to bring him down to you, as if you were going to determine his case by conducting a more thorough inquiry. We are ready to kill him before he comes near this place.” 16 But when the son of Paul's sister heard about the ambush, he came and entered the barracks and told Paul. 17 Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commanding officer, for he has something to report to him.” 18 So the centurion took him and brought him to the commanding officer and said, “The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.” 19 The commanding officer took him by the hand, withdrew privately, and asked, “What is it that you want to report to me?” 20 He replied, “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as if they were going to inquire more thoroughly about him. 21 So do not let them persuade you to do this, because more than forty of them are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink anything until they have killed him, and now they are ready, waiting for you to agree to their request.” 22 Then the commanding officer sent the young man away, directing him, “Tell no one that you have reported these things to me.” 23 Then he summoned two of the centurions and said, “Make ready 200 soldiers to go to Caesarea along with 70 horsemen and 200 spearmen by nine o'clock tonight, 24 and provide mounts for Paul to ride so that he may be brought safely to Felix the governor.” 25 He wrote a letter that went like this: 26 Claudius Lysias to His Excellency Governor Felix, greetings. 27 This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, when I came up with the detachment and rescued him, because I had learned that he was a Roman citizen. 28 Since I wanted to know what charge they were accusing him of, I brought him down to their council. 29 I found he was accused with reference to controversial questions about their law, but no charge against him deserved death or imprisonment. 30 When I was informed there would be a plot against this man, I sent him to you at once, also ordering his accusers to state their charges against him before you. 31 So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him to Antipatris during the night. 32 The next day they let the horsemen go on with him, and they returned to the barracks. 33 When the horsemen came to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him. 34 When the governor had read the letter, he asked what province he was from. When he learned that he was from Cilicia, 35 he said, “I will give you a hearing when your accusers arrive too.” Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod's palace. 24 After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought formal charges against Paul to the governor. 2 When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, “We have experienced a lengthy time of peace through your rule, and reforms are being made in this nation through your foresight. 3 Most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this everywhere and in every way with all gratitude. 4 But so that I may not delay you any further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. 5 For we have found this man to be a troublemaker, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 He even tried to desecrate the temple, so we arrested him. 8 When you examine him yourself, you will be able to learn from him about all these things we are accusing him of doing.” 9 The Jews also joined in the verbal attack, claiming that these things were true.OutlinePaul is Delivered from an Assassination PlotThe Lord assures PaulThe plot to kill PaulThey would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling kid!Lysias foils the assasins' planHow many soldiers?!Why send such a large force (at night)?To Caesarea, to FelixLysias' ReportPaul is Judged by FelixFelix receives PaulPaul's trial: a typical Roman trialThe prosecution

Scripture Reading: Acts 22:22–23:10 22 The crowd was listening to him until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Away with this man from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live!” 23 While they were screaming and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust in the air, 24 the commanding officer ordered Paul to be brought back into the barracks. He told them to interrogate Paul by beating him with a lash so that he could find out the reason the crowd was shouting at Paul in this way. 25 When they had stretched him out for the lash, Paul said to the centurion standing nearby, “Is it legal for you to lash a man who is a Roman citizen without a proper trial?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commanding officer and reported it, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the commanding officer came and asked Paul, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” He replied, “Yes.” 28 The commanding officer answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” “But I was even born a citizen,” Paul replied. 29 Then those who were about to interrogate him stayed away from him, and the commanding officer was frightened when he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had had him tied up. 30 The next day, because the commanding officer wanted to know the true reason Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and the whole council to assemble. He then brought Paul down and had him stand before them. 23 Paul looked directly at the council and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God to this day.” 2 At that the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” 4 Those standing near him said, “Do you dare insult God's high priest?” 5 Paul replied, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.' ”6 Then when Paul noticed that part of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, he shouted out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” 7 When he said this, an argument began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 9 There was a great commotion, and some experts in the law from the party of the Pharisees stood up and protested strongly, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10 When the argument became so great the commanding officer feared that they would tear Paul to pieces, he ordered the detachment to go down, take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks.OutlineThe Crowd RiotsThe crowd listened until he said this!The pattern of rejection is fulfilledThrowing off their cloaks and tossing dust in the airThe tribune decides to “investigate”Paul plays his trump card: Roman citizenshipThe SanhedrinThe Romans seek help from the local aristocracyOrdering the Sanhedrin to assemblePaul is placed before the Sanhedrin“I have lived my life with a clear conscience”Ananias orders a strikeThe true king shall strike backHigh priest who?Divide and conquer: Sadducees vs PhariseesThe hope of the resurrectionThe Pharisees' verdict: Paul is innocent

Scripture Reading: Acts 21:30–22:21 30 The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. 32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd. When they saw the commanding officer and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 33 Then the commanding officer came up and arrested him and ordered him to be tied up with two chains; he then asked who he was and what he had done. 34 But some in the crowd shouted one thing, and others something else, and when the commanding officer was unable to find out the truth because of the disturbance, he ordered Paul to be brought into the barracks. 35 When he came to the steps, Paul had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob, 36 for a crowd of people followed them, screaming, “Away with him!” 37 As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commanding officer, “May I say something to you?” The officer replied, “Do you know Greek? 38 Then you're not that Egyptian who started a rebellion and led the 4,000 men of the ‘Assassins' into the wilderness some time ago?” 39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city. Please allow me to speak to the people.” 40 When the commanding officer had given him permission, Paul stood on the steps and gestured to the people with his hand. When they had become silent, he addressed them in Aramaic, 22 “Brothers and fathers, listen to my defense that I now make to you.” 2 (When they heard that he was addressing them in Aramaic, they became even quieter.) Then Paul said, 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today. 4 I persecuted this Way even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison, 5 as both the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me. From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to make arrests there and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished. 6 As I was en route and near Damascus, about noon a very bright light from heaven suddenly flashed around me. 7 Then I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' 8 I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?' He said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' 9 Those who were with me saw the light, but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 So I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?' The Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told about everything that you have been designated to do.' 11 Since I could not see because of the brilliance of that light, I came to Damascus led by the hand of those who were with me. 12 A man named Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who live there, 13 came to me and stood beside me and said to me, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!' And at that very moment I looked up and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has already chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear a command from his mouth, 15 because you will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.' 17 When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord saying to me, ‘Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.' 19 I replied, ‘Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat those in the various synagogues who believed in you. 20 And when the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing nearby, approving, and guarding the cloaks of those who were killing him.' 21 Then he said to me, ‘Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles.' ”OutlinePolytheistic Romans Rescue Paul from His PeopleAll Jerusalem is in confusionThe Romans rescue PaulThe report goes up to the chiliarchPaul is arrested and falsely accusedPaul speaks Greek very wellThe Egyptian Jew and the SicariiPaul the citizen of Tarsus is no Egyptian, much less an assassinPaul Addresses His PeopleCould Paul have addressed the crowd?Brothers and fathersA Jew, brough up in Jerusalem, educated under Gamaliel, zealous for GodA persecutor of the WaySlight variations in Paul's retelling of his Damascus experienceThe second vision and the final twist: go to the Gentiles

Scripture Reading: Acts 21:15–32 15 After these days we got ready and started up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea came along with us too, and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple from the earliest times, with whom we were to stay. 17 When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were there. 19 When Paul had greeted them, he began to explain in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. 21 They have been informed about you—that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them. 27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from the province of Asia who had seen him in the temple area stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary! Furthermore he has brought Greeks into the inner courts of the temple and made this holy place ritually unclean!” 29 (For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him previously, and they assumed Paul had brought him into the inner temple courts.) 30 The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. 32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd.OutlinePaul Has Enemies JerusalemPaul heads to Jerusalem, stopping at Mnason'sThe church leaders welcome PaulPaul's problematic reputationThe 10,000-strong churchJames, the elders, and Paul view the law positivelyThe elders' plan to reintegrate PaulPaul is seized and accusedGentiles could not enter the templePaul's view of the templeThe riot and the Romans

Scripture Reading: Acts 20:28–21:14 28 Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 29 I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that night and day for three years I did not stop warning each one of you with tears. 32 And now I entrust you to God and to the message of his grace. This message is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I have desired no one's silver or gold or clothing. 34 You yourselves know that these hands of mine provided for my needs and the needs of those who were with me. 35 By all these things, I have shown you that by working in this way we must help the weak, and remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.' ” 36 When he had said these things, he knelt down with them all and prayed. 37 They all began to weep loudly, and hugged Paul and kissed him, 38 especially saddened by what he had said, that they were not going to see him again. Then they accompanied him to the ship. 21 After we tore ourselves away from them, we put out to sea, and sailing a straight course, we came to Cos, on the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. 2 We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went aboard, and put out to sea. 3 After we sighted Cyprus and left it behind on our port side, we sailed on to Syria and put in at Tyre, because the ship was to unload its cargo there. 4 After we located the disciples, we stayed there seven days. They repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. 5 When our time was over, we left and went on our way. All of them, with their wives and children, accompanied us outside of the city. After kneeling down on the beach and praying, 6 we said farewell to one another. Then we went aboard the ship, and they returned to their own homes. 7 We continued the voyage from Tyre and arrived at Ptolemais, and when we had greeted the brothers, we stayed with them for one day. 8 On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 (He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.) 10 While we remained there for a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 He came to us, took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, “The Holy Spirit says this: ‘This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.' ” 12 When we heard this, both we and the local people begged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 Because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, “The Lord's will be done.”OutlineThe Climax of Paul's SpeechTake heed!Bishops: overseersShepherdsThe assembly God purchased with bloodThe wolves are comingCommitting the elders to GodBy “these things” Paul has set an exampleThe disciples mourn Paul's departureMiletus, Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, and CaesareaTravel detailsA week in TyreMeeting an old enemy-turned friend in CaesareaVisited by a prophet in Caesarea

Scripture Reading: Acts 20:1–27 20 After the disturbance had ended, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them and saying farewell, he left to go to Macedonia. 2 After he had gone through those regions and spoken many words of encouragement to the believers there, he came to Greece, 3 where he stayed for three months. Because the Jews had made a plot against him as he was intending to sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Paul was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, and Timothy, as well as Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia. 5 These had gone on ahead and were waiting for us in Troas. 6 We sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and within five days we came to the others in Troas, where we stayed for seven days. 7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight. 8 (Now there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.) 9 A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, was sinking into a deep sleep while Paul continued to speak for a long time. Fast asleep, he fell down from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 But Paul went down, threw himself on the young man, put his arms around him, and said, “Do not be distressed, for he is still alive!” 11 Then Paul went back upstairs, and after he had broken bread and eaten, he talked with them a long time, until dawn. Then he left. 12 They took the boy home alive and were greatly comforted. 13 We went on ahead to the ship and put out to sea for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for he had arranged it this way. He himself was intending to go there by land. 14 When he met us in Assos, we took him aboard and went to Mitylene. 15 We set sail from there, and on the following day we arrived off Chios. The next day we approached Samos, and the day after that we arrived at Miletus. 16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so as not to spend time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to arrive in Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost. 17 From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, telling the elders of the church to come to him. 18 When they arrived, he said to them, “You yourselves know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I set foot in the province of Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears, and with the trials that happened to me because of the plots of the Jews. 20 You know that I did not hold back from proclaiming to you anything that would be helpful, and from teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus. 22 And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem without knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit warns me in town after town that imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me. 24 But I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my task and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God's grace. 25 “And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. 26 Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. 27 For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God.OutlinePaul's Journey to Jerusalem and RomePaul's final voluntary journey beginsPaul organizes a collection for the Jerusalem church (mostly omitted in Acts)Back to a “we” sectionStill celebrating Jewish festivalsThe Revivification in TroasSomething remarkable happened in TroasSpeaking all nightMeeting on the first day of the weekMeeting in the upper roomEutychus falls from a third-story windowPaul's Time in MiletusMiletus, faster than Ephesus?Paul's Speech: A FarewellPaul's Speech: A CommissioningPaul: A Suffering ServantPaul preached openly and privately, withholding nothingRepentance and faithPaul knows of his upcoming “passion”Paul wishes to finish wellPaul's diligent faithfulness keeps him innocent

Scripture Reading: Acts 19:10–41 11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by Paul's hands, 12 so that when even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his body were brought to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 But some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were possessed by evil spirits, saying, “I sternly warn you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 (Now seven sons of a man named Sceva, a Jewish high priest, were doing this.) 15 But the evil spirit replied to them, “I know about Jesus and I am acquainted with Paul, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who was possessed by the evil spirit jumped on them and beat them all into submission. He prevailed against them so that they fled from that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known to all who lived in Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; fear came over them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was praised. 18 Many of those who had believed came forward, confessing and making their deeds known. 19 Large numbers of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them up in the presence of everyone. When the value of the books was added up, it was found to total 50,000 silver coins. 20 In this way the word of the Lord continued to grow in power and to prevail. 21 Now after all these things had taken place, Paul resolved to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. He said, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22 So after sending two of his assistants, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, he himself stayed on for a while in the province of Asia. 23 At that time a great disturbance took place concerning the Way. 24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought a great deal of business to the craftsmen. 25 He gathered these together, along with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that our prosperity comes from this business. 26 And you see and hear that this Paul has persuaded and turned away a large crowd, not only in Ephesus but in practically all of the province of Asia, by saying that gods made by hands are not gods at all. 27 There is danger not only that this business of ours will come into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be regarded as nothing, and she whom all the province of Asia and the world worship will suffer the loss of her greatness.” 28 When they heard this they became enraged and began to shout, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 The city was filled with the uproar, and the crowd rushed to the theater together, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, the Macedonians who were Paul's traveling companions. 30 But when Paul wanted to enter the public assembly, the disciples would not let him. 31 Even some of the provincial authorities who were his friends sent a message to him, urging him not to venture into the theater. 32 So then some were shouting one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had met together. 33 Some of the crowd concluded it was about Alexander because the Jews had pushed him to the front. Alexander, gesturing with his hand, was wanting to make a defense before the public assembly. 34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” for about two hours. 35 After the city secretary quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, what person is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is the keeper of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image that fell from heaven? 36 So because these facts are indisputable, you must keep quiet and not do anything reckless. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If then Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a complaint against someone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls; let them bring charges against one another there. 39 But if you want anything in addition, it will have to be settled in a legal assembly. 40 For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause we can give to explain this disorderly gathering.” 41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.OutlineJesus is King not MagicAn anti-magic apologeticA brief primer on exorcismsSceva and his sonsThe reverse exorcismJesus and Paul are well known in the unseen realmPaul is recognized; Jesus is glorifiedMagic books are destroyedPaul's Focus Turns to RomeA Great Disturbance Concerning the WayNo reason to lie about itThe cult of ArtemisIdols of ArtemisDemetrius and the silversmithsThe Artemis templeThe accusation: challenging the goddess and the templeThe riot (or assembly?)Paul wishes to defend himselfThe Jews get blamedThe city clerk to the rescue

Scripture Reading: Acts 18:18–19:10 18 Paul, after staying many more days in Corinth, said farewell to the brothers and sailed away to Syria accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because he had made a vow. 19 When they reached Ephesus, Paul left Priscilla and Aquila behind there, but he himself went into the synagogue and addressed the Jews. 20 When they asked him to stay longer, he would not consent, 21 but said farewell to them and added, “I will come back to you again if God wills.” Then he set sail from Ephesus, 22 and when he arrived at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church at Jerusalem and then went down to Antioch. 23 After he spent some time there, Paul left and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples. 24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately. 27 When Apollos wanted to cross over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he assisted greatly those who had believed by grace, 28 for he refuted the Jews vigorously in public debate, demonstrating from the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. 19 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples there 2 and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John's baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 6 and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. 7 (Now there were about twelve men in all.)8 So Paul entered the synagogue and spoke out fearlessly for three months, addressing and convincing them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were stubborn and refused to believe, reviling the Way before the congregation, he left them and took the disciples with him, addressing them every day in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all who lived in the province of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord.OutlinePaul Returns to AntiochA geographic transition from Corinth to EphesusPaul makes a vowCenchrea to EphesusPaul leaves Priscilla and Aquila behindEphesus to Caesarea (maybe) to Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and PhrygiaApollosApollos, instructed in the way of the LordHow did Apollos have incomplete knowledge?Apollos is further instructed by Aquila and PriscillaThe Twelve-ish DisciplesApollo vs the disciplesWho were the disciples?The disciples receive the SpiritPaul the SageFirst to the Jew then to the GentilePaul opens a schoolPaul's success in “all” of Asia

Scripture Reading: Acts 18:1–17 18 After this Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to depart from Rome. Paul approached them, 3 and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade). 4 He addressed both Jews and Greeks in the synagogue every Sabbath, attempting to persuade them. 5 Now when Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul became wholly absorbed with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 When they opposed him and reviled him, he protested by shaking out his clothes and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am guiltless! From now on I will go to the Gentiles!” 7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went to the house of a person named Titius Justus, a Gentile who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized. 9 The Lord said to Paul by a vision in the night, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, 10 because I am with you, and no one will assault you to harm you, because I have many people in this city.” 11 So he stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. 12 Now while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews attacked Paul together and brought him before the judgment seat, 13 saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God in a way contrary to the law!” 14 But just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of some crime or serious piece of villainy, I would have been justified in accepting the complaint of you Jews, 15 but since it concerns points of disagreement about words and names and your own law, settle it yourselves. I will not be a judge of these things!” 16 Then he had them forced away from the judgment seat. 17 So they all seized Sosthenes, the president of the synagogue, and began to beat him in front of the judgment seat. Yet none of these things were of any concern to Gallio.OutlinePaul in CorinthPaul: itinerant on purpose?CorinthSin cityA cultural transition towards RomeJews are Expelled from RomeJews are expelledWhat does expulsion mean?The extent of the expulsionWhen were the Jews expelled?Expelled because of “Chrestus”Paul the TradesmanAquila and PriscillaBirds of a (trade) featherPaul accepts the “humiliation” of trade workTentmaker? Or Leatherworker?Paul and the SynagogueReasoning in the synagoguePaul devotes himself entirely to ministryPaul stays with Titius JustusCrispus, the synagogue ruler, accepts ChristPaul is Persecuted UnsuccessfullyPaul has a dreamHistoricity of Paul's appearance before GallioPaul is prosecuted once morePaul is innocent; the accusers are punished

Scripture Reading: Acts 17:16–34 16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was greatly upset because he saw the city was full of idols. 17 So he was addressing the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles in the synagogue, and in the marketplace every day those who happened to be there. 18 Also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him, and some were asking, “What does this foolish babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods.” (They said this because he was proclaiming the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19 So they took Paul and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are proclaiming? 20 For you are bringing some surprising things to our ears, so we want to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there used to spend their time in nothing else than telling or listening to something new.) 22 So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.' Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone. 26 From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.' 29 So since we are God's offspring, we should not think the deity is like gold or silver or stone, an image made by human skill and imagination. 30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard about the resurrection from the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul left the Areopagus. 34 But some people joined him and believed. Among them were Dionysius, who was a member of the Areopagus, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.OutlinePaul in AthensA reprieve from persecutionThe formerly great AthensPaul the philosopher?The setting—a city full of idolsFrom the Agora to the AreopagusPaul at the agoraEpicureansStoicsPaul, the new SocratesPaul and the AreopagusAreopagus: a place or a council?Paul the bold Jewish philosopherPaul's SpeechEmphasizing common groundThe exordium: winning over the audienceThe narratio: proving Paul does not preach “foreign gods”The propositio and probatio: the “unknown God” is the supreme author of existenceThe peroratio: repentance, judgment, and the resurrection

Scripture Reading: Acts 17:1–15 17 After they traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 Paul went to the Jews in the synagogue, as he customarily did, and on three Sabbath days he addressed them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and to rise from the dead, saying, “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large group of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women. 5 But the Jews became jealous, and gathering together some worthless men from the rabble in the marketplace, they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. They attacked Jason's house, trying to find Paul and Silas to bring them out to the assembly. 6 When they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city officials, screaming, “These people who have stirred up trouble throughout the world have come here too, 7 and Jason has welcomed them as guests! They are all acting against Caesar's decrees, saying there is another king named Jesus!” 8 They caused confusion among the crowd and the city officials who heard these things. 9 After the city officials had received bail from Jason and the others, they released them. 10 The brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea at once, during the night. When they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica heard that Paul had also proclaimed the word of God in Berea, they came there too, inciting and disturbing the crowds. 14 Then the brothers sent Paul away to the coast at once, but Silas and Timothy remained in Berea. 15 Those who accompanied Paul escorted him as far as Athens, and after receiving an order for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left.OutlineThessalonica and BeroeaA tale of two citiesLike Jesus, like PaulThessalonicaThe city's reputation precedes it (for the original audience)ThessalonicaA working missionaryReasoning at the synagogueSome are persuaded, some are threatened, a church formSevere persecutionJason pays the priceJesus and Christians are traitors?BeroeaGetting out of dodgeReceived the message, examined the scripturesFleeing yet again, but this time with company

Scripture Reading: Acts 16:13–40 13 On the Sabbath day we went outside the city gate to the side of the river, where we thought there would be a place of prayer, and we sat down and began to speak to the women who had assembled there. 14 A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, a God-fearing woman, listened to us. The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me to be a believer in the Lord, come and stay in my house.” And she persuaded us. 16 Now as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave girl met us who had a spirit that enabled her to foretell the future by supernatural means. She brought her owners a great profit by fortune-telling. 17 She followed behind Paul and us and kept crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18 She continued to do this for many days. But Paul became greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out of her at once. 19 But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the authorities. 20 When they had brought them before the magistrates, they said, “These men are throwing our city into confusion. They are Jews 21 and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us to accept or practice, since we are Romans.” 22 The crowd joined the attack against them, and the magistrates tore the clothes off Paul and Silas and ordered them to be beaten with rods. 23 After they had beaten them severely, they threw them into prison and commanded the jailer to guard them securely. 24 Receiving such orders, he threw them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks. 25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the rest of the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly a great earthquake occurred, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. Immediately all the doors flew open, and the bonds of all the prisoners came loose. 27 When the jailer woke up and saw the doors of the prison standing open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, because he assumed the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul called out loudly, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29 Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house. 33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God, together with his entire household. 35 At daybreak the magistrates sent their police officers, saying, “Release those men.” 36 The jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent orders to release you. So come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to the police officers, “They had us beaten in public without a proper trial—even though we are Roman citizens—and they threw us in prison. And now they want to send us away secretly? Absolutely not! They themselves must come and escort us out!” 38 The police officers reported these words to the magistrates. They were frightened when they heard Paul and Silas were Roman citizens 39 and came and apologized to them. After they brought them out, they asked them repeatedly to leave the city. 40 When they came out of the prison, they entered Lydia's house, and when they saw the brothers, they encouraged them and then departed.OutlinePaul's Encounter with LydiaLooking for Jews or God-fearersFinding women and a “place of prayer”Lydia the God-fearerLydia the (wealthy?) purple dye merchantFancy purple!Lydia's home and hospitalityThe Slave Girl with the Spirit of ProphecyA slave girlThe girl's (more properly, the spirit's) prophecyWhy did Paul wait to act?Paul and Silas Are ProsecutedThe slave-owners' hope of profit is “expelled”Paul and Silas are dragged into the marketplace and before the magistratesPaul and Silas are charged with disloyaltyPaul and Silas are beaten with rodsWhy did Paul and Silas not protest based on their citizenship?Jail, an Earthquake, and a JailerPaul and Silas are imprisonedPraise in sufferingA providential earthquake frees the prisoners, but they refuse to escapeThe jailer is saved by Paul, then is saved by JesusThe jailer takes the missionaries to his homeThe Authorities Are in TroubleThe authorities broke the lawThe irony clears the missionaries' shame

Scripture Reading: Acts 15:36–16:12 36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let's return and visit the brothers in every town where we proclaimed the word of the Lord to see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to bring John called Mark along with them too, 38 but Paul insisted that they should not take along this one who had left them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. 39 They had a sharp disagreement, so that they parted company. Barnabas took along Mark and sailed away to Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and set out, commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers and sisters. 41 He passed through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. 16 He also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2 The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 4 As they went through the towns, they passed on the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile believers to obey. 5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith and were increasing in number every day. 6 They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do this, 8 so they passed through Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 A vision appeared to Paul during the night: A Macedonian man was standing there urging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” 10 After Paul saw the vision, we attempted immediately to go over to Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them. 11 We put out to sea from Troas and sailed a straight course to Samothrace, the next day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of that district of Macedonia, a Roman colony.OutlinePaul Goes on Another JourneySecond half of Acts: carrying out the Gentile missionTimeline of Paul's missionary journeyPaul and Barnabas Part Over MarkAfter some daysThe Mark conflictSilas joins the teamTimothy Joins the TeamFrom Derbe to LystraTimothy, “the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek”Timothy, Jew or Gentile?Timothy is circumcisedPhrygia, Galatia, Mysia, and Down to TroasPhrygia and GalatiaNot Asia or BithyniaMysiaInvading Europe from Troas?Dreaming of Macedonia“We” PassagesThe narrator seems to be presentHow should “we” be interpretedMinistry in PhilippiPhilippi, a Roman colony

Scripture Reading: Acts 15:6–35 15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter. 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.” 15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 15:14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15:15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, 15:16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 15:17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,' says the Lord, who makes these things 15:18 known from long ago. 15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. 15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.” 15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. 15:23 They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! 15:24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, 15:25 we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: 15:29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell. 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and after gathering the entire group together, they delivered the letter. 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement. 15:32 Both Judas and Silas, who were prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a long speech. 15:33 After they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming (along with many others) the word of the Lord.OutlinePeter's SpeechThe church—the assemblyA leader speaksGod's actions prove the message—says PeterSo do not test GodSaved through graceBarnabas and Paul Recount Miraculous SignsGod's actions prove the message—says PaulBut scripture says otherwise?James' SpeechJames who?James speaksAs Simeon ExplainedQuoting AmosImposing no extra difficultyThe DecreeViews on the decreeThe prohibitions are purely moral, analogous to the three most basic Jewish moral prohibitions.The prohibitions concern activity in pagan temples.They echo prohibitions for strangers in the land in Lev 17–18.They echo traditions that became the Noahide laws. Did Paul agree with the decree? What can we conclude?How hard was following the decree?A circular was sent

Scripture Reading: Acts 14:21-15:35 14:21 After they had proclaimed the good news in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch. 14:22 They strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions.” 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in the various churches, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed. 14:24 Then they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia, 14:25 and when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 14:26 From there they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 14:27 When they arrived and gathered the church together, they reported all the things God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles. 14:28 So they spent considerable time with the disciples.15:1 Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 15:2 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement. 15:3 So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they were relating at length the conversion of the Gentiles and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 15:4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them. 15:5 But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.” 15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter. 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.” 15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 15:14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15:15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, 15:16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 15:17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,' says the Lord, who makes these things 15:18 known from long ago. 15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. 15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.” 15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. 15:23 They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! 15:24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, 15:25 we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: 15:29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell. 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and after gathering the entire group together, they delivered the letter. 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement. 15:32 Both Judas and Silas, who were prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a long speech. 15:33 After they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming (along with many others) the word of the Lord. Bonus Scripture Reading: Galatians 2:1–142:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. 2:2 I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running—or had not run—in vain. 2:3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 2:4 Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. 2:5 But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 2:6 But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people)—those influential leaders added nothing to my message. 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised 2:8 (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 2:10 They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do. 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 2:12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 2:13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” OutlineBack to AntiochReturning to prior locationsPersevere!Paul appoints “elders” for each “assembly”The Jerusalem CouncilIs Galatians 2 about Acts 15?Why does Paul omit the decrees?Did Luke invent consensus?Schism in AntiochIn Antioch yet againSchismatics in AntiochCircumcision for salvation?Paul and Barnabas are sent yet againThe Meeting in JerusalemWho were the elders?Backseat drivers?Received joyfully in other churches but not JerusalemThe sect of the PhariseesReports before the whole assembly, then (maybe) a private meetingPeter's SpeechThe church—the assemblyA leader speaksSaved through graceBarnabas and Paul Recount Miraculous SignsJames' SpeechJames who?James speaksQuoting AmosImposing no extra difficulty

Scripture Reading: Acts 14:21-15:35 14:21 After they had proclaimed the good news in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch. 14:22 They strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions.” 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in the various churches, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed. 14:24 Then they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia, 14:25 and when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 14:26 From there they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 14:27 When they arrived and gathered the church together, they reported all the things God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles. 14:28 So they spent considerable time with the disciples.15:1 Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 15:2 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement. 15:3 So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they were relating at length the conversion of the Gentiles and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 15:4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them. 15:5 But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.” 15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter. 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.” 15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 15:14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15:15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, 15:16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 15:17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,' says the Lord, who makes these things 15:18 known from long ago. 15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. 15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.” 15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. 15:23 They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! 15:24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, 15:25 we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: 15:29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell. 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and after gathering the entire group together, they delivered the letter. 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement. 15:32 Both Judas and Silas, who were prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a long speech. 15:33 After they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming (along with many others) the word of the Lord. Bonus Scripture Reading: Galatians 2:1–142:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. 2:2 I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running—or had not run—in vain. 2:3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 2:4 Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. 2:5 But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 2:6 But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people)—those influential leaders added nothing to my message. 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised 2:8 (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 2:10 They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do. 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 2:12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 2:13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” OutlineBack to AntiochReturning to prior locationsPersevere!Paul appoints “elders” for each “assembly”The Jerusalem CouncilIs Galatians 2 about Acts 15?Why does Paul omit the decrees?Did Luke invent consensus?Schism in AntiochIn Antioch yet againSchismatics in AntiochCircumcision for salvation?Paul and Barnabas are sent yet againThe Meeting in JerusalemWho were the elders?Backseat drivers?Received joyfully in other churches but not JerusalemThe sect of the PhariseesReports before the whole assembly, then (maybe) a private meetingPeter's SpeechThe church—the assemblyA leader speaksSaved through graceBarnabas and Paul Recount Miraculous SignsJames' SpeechJames who?James speaksQuoting AmosImposing no extra difficulty

Scripture Reading: Acts 14:1-28 14:1 The same thing happened in Iconium when Paul and Barnabas went into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a large group of both Jews and Greeks believed. 14:2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. 14:3 So they stayed there for a considerable time, speaking out courageously for the Lord, who testified to the message of his grace, granting miraculous signs and wonders to be performed through their hands. 14:4 But the population of the city was divided; some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles. 14:5 When both the Gentiles and the Jews (together with their rulers) made an attempt to mistreat them and stone them, 14:6 Paul and Barnabas learned about it and fled to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and the surrounding region. 14:7 There they continued to proclaim the good news. 14:8 In Lystra sat a man who could not use his feet, lame from birth, who had never walked. 14:9 This man was listening to Paul as he was speaking. When Paul stared intently at him and saw he had faith to be healed, 14:10 he said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And the man leaped up and began walking. 14:11 So when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 14:12 They began to call Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 14:13 The priest of the temple of Zeus, located just outside the city, brought bulls and garlands to the city gates; he and the crowds wanted to offer sacrifices to them. 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard about it, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting, 14:15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We too are men, with human natures just like you! We are proclaiming the good news to you, so that you should turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them. 14:16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to go their own ways, 14:17 yet he did not leave himself without a witness by doing good, by giving you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying you with food and your hearts with joy.” 14:18 Even by saying these things, they scarcely persuaded the crowds not to offer sacrifice to them. 14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and after winning the crowds over, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, presuming him to be dead. 14:20 But after the disciples had surrounded him, he got up and went back into the city. On the next day he left with Barnabas for Derbe. 14:21 After they had proclaimed the good news in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch. 14:22 They strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions.” 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in the various churches, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed. 14:24 Then they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia, 14:25 and when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 14:26 From there they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 14:27 When they arrived and gathered the church together, they reported all the things God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles. 14:28 So they spent considerable time with the disciples.OUTLINETwo Missionaries Causing TroubleIntroduction—conflict continues in towns of southern Asia minorThese towns were (probably) part of GalatiaA return of miraculous signsJews and GreeksIconiumGreek paganism and the Roman cultJewish influenceMiraculous signs of grace are performedPaul is threatened with stoningPaul escapesLystraPaul's first described healingThe people's response to Zeus and HermesLanguage barrierPaul and Barnabas try to set the record straightGod has always been partially revealed but now is fully revealedTrouble Comes Looking for the MissionariesJews from Antioch and Iconium come to stone PaulThe disciples help Paul back into the cityPaul seemed deadTo Derbe and BackDerbeReturning to prior locationsPersevere!Paul appoints “elders” for each “assembly”

Scripture Reading: Acts 13:13-52 13:13 Then Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia, but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 13:14 Moving on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 13:15 After the reading from the law and the prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent them a message, saying, “Brothers, if you have any message of exhortation for the people, speak it.” 13:16 So Paul stood up, gestured with his hand and said, “Men of Israel, and you Gentiles who fear God, listen: 13:17 The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors and made the people great during their stay as foreigners in the country of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. 13:18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. 13:19 After he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave his people their land as an inheritance. 13:20 All this took about four hundred fifty years. After this he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. 13:21 Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years. 13:22 After removing him, God raised up David their king. He testified about him: ‘I have found David the son of Jesse to be a man after my heart, who will accomplish everything I want him to do.' 13:23 From the descendants of this man God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, just as he promised. 13:24 Before Jesus arrived, John had proclaimed a baptism for repentance to all the people of Israel. 13:25 But while John was completing his mission, he said repeatedly, ‘What do you think I am? I am not he. But look, one is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the sandals on his feet!' 13:26 Brothers, descendants of Abraham's family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us. 13:27 For the people who live in Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him, and they fulfilled the sayings of the prophets that are read every Sabbath by condemning him. 13:28 Though they found no basis for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 13:29 When they had accomplished everything that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb. 13:30 But God raised him from the dead, 13:31 and for many days he appeared to those who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. These are now his witnesses to the people. 13:32 And we proclaim to you the good news about the promise to our ancestors, 13:33 that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.' 13:34 But regarding the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and trustworthy promises made to David.' 13:35 Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.' 13:36 For David, after he had served God's purpose in his own generation, died, was buried with his ancestors, and experienced decay, 13:37 but the one whom God raised up did not experience decay. 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 13:39 and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you. 13:40 Watch out, then, that what is spoken about by the prophets does not happen to you: 13:41 ‘Look, you scoffers; be amazed and perish! For I am doing a work in your days, a work you would never believe, even if someone tells you.' ” 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people were urging them to speak about these things on the next Sabbath. 13:43 When the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who were speaking with them and were persuading them to continue in the grace of God. 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city assembled together to hear the word of the Lord. 13:45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and they began to contradict what Paul was saying by reviling him. 13:46 Both Paul and Barnabas replied courageously, “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we are turning to the Gentiles. 13:47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have appointed you to be a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' ” 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed. 13:49 So the word of the Lord was spreading through the entire region. 13:50 But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high social standing and the prominent men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and threw them out of their region. 13:51 So after they shook the dust off their feet in protest against them, they went to Iconium. 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.OutlinePaul's Speech at the SynagogueA message of exhortation for the peopleHear me Men of Israel, and Gentile God FearersThe God of Israel chose our ancestorsGod made the people great in Egypt and led them outGod endured the people in the wildernessGod gave the people the landGod gave the people judgesGod gave the people a kingGod removed the bad king (Saul) and gave the people a good king (David)From the David came Jesus the SaviorJohn the Baptist announced repentance and JesusLike the prophets predicted, the people did not recognize Jesus and killed himJesus was crucified, buried, and then appeared to manySo, “we proclaim to you the good news about the promise to our ancestors,” the promise has been fulfilledThe Son shall never see decayThrough the Son there is forgiveness of sinsThrough the Son there is the justification the law of Moses could not bringSo, do not scoff and believeFrom the Law to the MessiahWith minor modifications, the explanations below come from Jason A. Staples' Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites.The law (Torah) was never going to work—it was never going to be followedDeuteronomy 31:16–1831:16 Then the LORD said to Moses, “You are about to die, and then these people will begin to prostitute themselves with the foreign gods of the land into which they are going. They will reject me and break my covenant that I have made with them. 31:17 At that time my anger will erupt against them and I will abandon them and hide my face from them until they are devoured. Many disasters and distresses will overcome them so that they will say at that time, ‘Have not these disasters overcome us because our God is not among us?' 31:18 But I will certainly hide myself at that time because of all the wickedness they will have done by turning to other gods.Deuteronomy 31:24–3031:24 When Moses finished writing on a scroll the words of this law in their entirety, 31:25 he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the LORD's covenant, 31:26 “Take this scroll of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. It will remain there as a witness against you, 31:27 for I know about your rebellion and stubbornness. Indeed, even while I have been living among you to this very day, you have rebelled against the LORD; you will be even more rebellious after my death! 31:28 Gather to me all your tribal elders and officials so I can speak to them directly about these things and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them. 31:29 For I know that after I die you will totally corrupt yourselves and turn away from the path I have commanded you to walk. Disaster will confront you in the days to come because you will act wickedly before the LORD, inciting him to anger because of your actions.” 31:30 Then Moses recited the words of this song from start to finish in the hearing of the whole assembly of Israel. Deuteronomy 30:1–630:1 “When you have experienced all these things, both the blessings and the curses I have set before you, you will reflect upon them in all the nations where the LORD your God has banished you. 30:2 Then if you and your descendants turn to the LORD your God and obey him with your whole mind and being just as I am commanding you today, 30:3 the LORD your God will reverse your captivity and have pity on you. He will turn and gather you from all the peoples among whom he has scattered you. 30:4 Even if your exiles are in the most distant land, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 30:5 Then he will bring you to the land your ancestors possessed and you also will possess it; he will do better for you and multiply you more than he did your ancestors. 30:6 The LORD your God will also cleanse your heart and the hearts of your descendants so that you may love him with all your mind and being and so that you may live.A new covenant is comingJeremiah 31:31–34.31:31 “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 31:32 It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD. 31:33 “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people. 31:34 “People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the LORD. “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done.”This passage presumes the following three premises:(1) Israel's covenantal infidelity: The passage explicitly states that the reason a new covenant is needed is that Israel has broken the covenant made at the exodus from Egypt through infidelity and injustice.(2) The curse of the covenant: Israel consequently no longer stands in a relationship of covenantal favor with YHWH. This is made explicit in Hosea.Hosea 1:9Then the LORD said: “Name him ‘Not My People' (Lo-Ammi), because you are not my people and I am not your God.”Like the other nations, Israel now stands under God's wrath rather than under covenantal favor until the covenant is renewed.(3) Future restoration: YHWH will nevertheless renew his covenant with Israel and Judah, reelecting and readopting Israel as his people and restoring them to covenantal relationship and favor: “I will be their God and they will be my people” (Jer 31:33).God promises not only to return and restore Israel but also to rectify the root cause of Israel's present plight: the infidelity and injustice that brought Israel under the covenantal curse in the first place. That is, whereas the broken covenant had been contingent on Israel's obedience to external written instructions (Torah), the new covenant will involve YHWH writing his Torah on the heart of Israel, who will then naturally fulfill the parameters of the covenant.Of course, while the specific language and imagery of the new covenant prophecy is unique, the idea that Israel's restoration will be accompanied by Israel's transformation into a just people is by no means unusual in the prophets. On the contrary, it is a biblical commonplace that since Israel's exile was the result of Israel's infidelity, Israel's restoration will necessarily involve renewed fidelity and righteousness. Restated in more familiar Pauline vernacular, Israel's restoration requires Israel's justification—that is, for Israel to be restored, Israel must become a righteous people who live according to YHWH's stipulations. This ethical transformation will then ensure that the restoration is permanent, a sentiment reflected in the prophetic declaration, “Your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the land forever” (Isa 60:21).The new covenant shall come about by divine transformation—new heartsEzekiel 11:17–2111:17 “Therefore say: ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: When I regather you from the peoples and assemble you from the lands where you have been dispersed, I will give you back the country of Israel.' 11:18 “When they return to it, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. 11:19 I will give them one heart and I will put a new spirit within them; I will remove the hearts of stone from their bodies and I will give them tender hearts, 11:20 so that they may follow my statutes and observe my regulations and carry them out. Then they will be my people, and I will be their God. 11:21 But those whose hearts are devoted to detestable things and abominations, I hereby repay them for what they have done, says the sovereign LORD.” Ezekiel 36:24–3136:24 “ ‘I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries; then I will bring you to your land. 36:25 I will sprinkle you with pure water and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. 36:26 I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 36:27 I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations. 36:28 Then you will live in the land I gave to your fathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 36:29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and multiply it; I will not bring a famine on you. 36:30 I will multiply the fruit of the trees and the produce of the fields, so that you will never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. 36:31 Then you will remember your evil behavior and your deeds which were not good; you will loathe yourselves on account of your sins and your abominable deeds.2 Corinthians 3:1–63:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? We don't need letters of recommendation to you or from you as some other people do, do we? 3:2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone, 3:3 revealing that you are a letter of Christ, delivered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts. 3:4 Now we have such confidence in God through Christ. 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as if it were coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 3:6 who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.Paul emphasizes divine transformative activity in 2 Corinthians 3, where he explains that Messiah has written on the Corinthians themselves, “not with ink but with the spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (3:3). They have thereby been incorporated in “a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit—for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (3:6). This passage is especially important not only because it explicitly invokes the new covenant and heart transformation of Jeremiah 31 but also because it reveals how Paul links that promise with Ezekiel's declaration that YHWH would “give you a new heart and a new spirit” (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26), connecting the new covenant with the spirit language that so permeates the Pauline epistles.Remarkably, the prevalence of these very concepts of spirit, heart transformation, justification by grace, and new creation in the Pauline epistles have frequently been understood as evidence that Paul has departed from a traditional Jewish covenantal framework.This is a puzzling claim in light of other early Jewish evidence that strongly associates the reception of the spirit with the new covenant. Based on that evidence and Paul's own conflation of “new covenant” and “spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:3–6, it is apparent that Paul's emphasis on receiving the spirit does not signal a departure from traditional Jewish covenantal theology but instead demonstrates exactly the opposite. In the Prophets, the promise of the spirit is all about Israel being empowered to obey, and Paul's references to the gift of the spirit, circumcision of the heart, and other related concepts are ways of saying that the new covenant has been initiated. This is why Paul writes to the Thessalonians of his confidence that “you yourselves are taught by God to love one another” because God has “given his sacred spirit to you”—that is, the new covenant promise of intrinsic divine instruction and ethical transformation has come to pass.The law (Torah) is a curse not because it is bad but because it is good but it was not (and will not be) followedRomans 3:19–233:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Deuteronomy 30:15–1830:15 “Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. 30:16 What I am commanding you today is to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to obey his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances. Then you will live and become numerous and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you are about to possess. 30:17 However, if you turn aside and do not obey, but are lured away to worship and serve other gods, 30:18 I declare to you this very day that you will certainly perish!This framework helps explain Paul's assertion that those “from works of Torah are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10) and his strident insistence on the inability of the “letter” or “works of Torah” to make God's people righteous. The Torah itself prospectively declares Israel's infidelity to be inevitable because even as the new generation prepared to enter the Promised Land, YHWH still had not given them “a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear to this day” (Deut 29:3). Consequently, when (not if) the covenant has been broken and the people have fallen under the curse, Israel's God will be vindicated for his dealings with his people (Deut 31:16–22). YHWH's justness is all the more demonstrated in that even after Israel's inevitable infidelity, he will yet redeem them, at which time he finally will circumcise their hearts, enabling them to keep the (renewed) covenant henceforth (Deuteronomy 30:1–14). The Book of the Torah is therefore given to Israel “as a witness against you” (Deuteronomy 31:26), in anticipation of Israel's covenant-breaking, thereby vindicating YHWH in light of what will come. That is, later hearers and readers will be able to recognize that Israel has been unfaithful despite YHWH's fidelity.The knowledge of sin is revealed through Torah precisely because sin had not been removed from the heart of Israel when the Torah was given. But without a command to transgress, that sin lay latent, present but hidden: “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). The command is therefore necessary to awaken and reveal sin in order that sin may be dealt with. This is what Paul means when he says “I would not have known sin except through the law” (7:7). Consequently, although “the Torah is sacred, and the command is sacred and just and good” (7:12), because of the presence of sin in the flesh, it is nevertheless an administration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), since “the command which was for life, the same was for death” (Romans 7:10).The problem is not with the command but with the inclination of the people, and the command reveals that problem precisely by “bringing about my death through what is good so that through the command sin would become utterly sinful” (Romans 7:13). That is, since the Torah is good, the fact that the command resulted in death reveals the true source of that death—sin dwelling in the “fleshly” inclination of those to whom the command was given, who are not only unable to keep the command but inclined to rebel against it (7:8–9, 14; 8:7).While the command reveals that sinful inclination, it cannot remove it. That removal, Paul argues, must take place pneumatically, on the same “spiritual” plane as the Torah itself, through the circumcision of the heart by the spirit.Does faith nullify the law? No!Romans 3:313:31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.It is in this respect that Paul can argue that his gospel in no way “discontinues Torah through fidelity” but rather “establishes Torah” (Rom 3:31). He is not arguing that the Torah has been eliminated, nor does he argue against “legalism” or “law-keeping.” Instead, he argues for a particular understanding of the written Torah's function. “The works of Torah,” he argues, are not a means through which the covenant can be kept or reestablished – the covenant has been broken and cannot be renewed in that manner. Instead, the written Torah, in its proper function, simultaneously serves as a witness to God's justness and fidelity over and against Israel's infidelity and injustice while also pointing forward to the ultimate pneumatic justification of God's people via the new covenant after passing through the curse for disobeying the command – that is, after the age of wrath.The Spirit of Christ is God's glory revealed2 Corinthians 3:7–183:7 But if the ministry that produced death—carved in letters on stone tablets—came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which was made ineffective), 3:8 how much more glorious will the ministry of the Spirit be? 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry that produced condemnation, how much more does the ministry that produces righteousness excel in glory! 3:10 For indeed, what had been glorious now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what replaced it. 3:11 For if what was made ineffective came with glory, how much more has what remains come in glory! 3:12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, 3:13 and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective. 3:14 But their minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. 3:15 But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, 3:16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, which is from the Lord, who is the Spirit.Paul presents the Torah revealed through Moses (the “letter”) as a mediated and attenuated version of the unmediated, heavenly, spiritual, eternal Torah revealed to Moses. It is the latter Torah—the “Torah of fidelity” (Rom 3:27)—that Paul understands as written on the hearts of new covenant members, who no longer must look to “Moses” to see the glory of God filtered through the veil because they now see what Moses himself saw.The Messiah has put an end to the age of wrath—he has atoned for the people and changed their heartsIn summary, when Paul speaks of deliverance “from this present evil age” (Galatians 1:4; cf. Romans 12:2) and proclaims that now is the “season of good favor” (2 Corinthians 6:2), he is operating from within the same framework as his contemporaries who referred to “the age of wrath.”Israel is under the ongoing reality of the Deuteronomic curses, of which death itself is the ultimate curse. For Israel to overcome death, God himself will have to provide the solution to Israel's chronic infidelity. This traditional connection between Israel's restoration and justification (that is, becoming a righteous and just people) explains why justification is so central to the gospel. The messiah died to put an end to the age of wrath characterized by sin and to inaugurate a new era of God's favor characterized by fidelity mediated through the spirit and resulting in the blessings promised to God's people of old. Whereas Israel's moral impairment and inclination to sin meant the Torah could never grant what it promised (Romans 8:3), God has acted to fulfill that promise, providing a new heart and new spirit capable of exceeding the justness that could be accomplished through the written Torah (Romans 8:2–4, 9–17; 2 Corinthians 3:4–18).But the end of the age of wrath does not mark a discontinuation of Torah (Romans 3:31). In the death of the messiah who fulfilled the Torah's requirements to end the wrath brought about by disobedience to Torah (cf. Romans 4:15; 3:19–31), the Torah has come to its telos (Rom 10:4): the curse of death followed by the renewed life promised by the Torah itself. Those who have received the spirit are therefore no longer “under Torah but under favor” (Rom 6:14–15), having moved beyond the age of wrath into the age of favor.

Scripture Reading: Acts 13:4 - 13:14 13:4 So Barnabas and Saul, sent out by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 13:5 When they arrived in Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. (Now they also had John as their assistant.) 13:6 When they had crossed over the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus, 13:7 who was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. The proconsul summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. 13:8 But the magician Elymas (for that is the way his name is translated) opposed them, trying to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 13:9 But Saul (also known as Paul), filled with the Holy Spirit, stared straight at him 13:10 and said, “You who are full of all deceit and all wrongdoing, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness—will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 13:11 Now look, the hand of the Lord is against you, and you will be blind, unable to see the sun for a time!” Immediately mistiness and darkness came over him, and he went around seeking people to lead him by the hand. 13:12 Then when the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, because he was greatly astounded at the teaching about the Lord. 13:13 Then Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia, but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 13:14 Moving on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. OutlinePaul and Barnabas Go to CyprusThe first deliberate mission to gentilesWhy CyprusWay to CyprusTo the Jew first, then to the GentileA pair of missionaries and a helperSergius Paulus and the “Power Encounter”PaphosSergius PaulusElymas Bar-JesusThe “power encounter”Such a short summary about such an important personMinistry in Pisidian AntiochWhy Pisidian AntiochWay to Pisidian AntiochMark leaves them

Scripture Reading: Acts 12:12 - 13:3 12 When Peter realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many people had gathered together and were praying. 13 When he knocked at the door of the outer gate, a slave girl named Rhoda answered. 14 When she recognized Peter's voice, she was so overjoyed she did not open the gate, but ran back in and told them that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 But they said to her, “You've lost your mind!” But she kept insisting that it was Peter, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 Now Peter continued knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were greatly astonished. 17 He motioned to them with his hand to be quiet and then related how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. He said, “Tell James and the brothers these things,” and then he left and went to another place.18 At daybreak there was great consternation among the soldiers over what had become of Peter. 19 When Herod had searched for him and did not find him, he questioned the guards and commanded that they be led away to execution. Then Herod went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there.20 Now Herod was having an angry quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they joined together and presented themselves before him. And after convincing Blastus, the king's personal assistant, to help them, they asked for peace because their country's food supply was provided by the king's country. 21 On a day determined in advance, Herod put on his royal robes, sat down on the judgment seat, and made a speech to them. 22 But the crowd began to shout, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” 23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck Herod down because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten by worms and died. 24 But the word of God kept on increasing and multiplying.25 So Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing along with them John Mark.1 Now there were these prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius the Cyrenian, Manaen (a close friend of Herod the tetrarch from childhood) and Saul. 2 While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, after they had fasted and prayed and placed their hands on them, they sent them off. OutlineFree and on the Run (Continued)Tell JamesPeter fleesAgrippa's DeathGod and rulersAgrippa's lost honor and punishing the guardsAgrippa moves to CaesareaTyre and SidonThe arrogant kingStruck dead and eaten by wormsThe Beginning of Paul's MissionThe narrative turns to PaulTravel in the ancient worldPaul & Barnabas are sentAntiochian leadershipPraying and fastingThe Holy Spirit “spoke”The sendoff

Scripture Reading: Acts 11:27 - 12:17 11:27 At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.) 11:29 So the disciples, each in accordance with his financial ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 11:30 They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders by Barnabas and Saul. 12:1 About that time King Herod laid hands on some from the church to harm them. 12:2 He had James, the brother of John, executed with a sword. 12:3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter too. (This took place during the feast of Unleavened Bread.) 12:4 When he had seized him, he put him in prison, handing him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him. Herod planned to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. 12:5 So Peter was kept in prison, but those in the church were earnestly praying to God for him. 12:6 On that very night before Herod was going to bring him out for trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, while guards in front of the door were keeping watch over the prison. 12:7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the prison cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up, saying, “Get up quickly!” And the chains fell off Peter's wrists. 12:8 The angel said to him, “Fasten your belt and put on your sandals.” Peter did so. Then the angel said to him, “Put on your cloak and follow me.” 12:9 Peter went out and followed him; he did not realize that what was happening through the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 12:10 After they had passed the first and second guards, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went outside and walked down one narrow street, when at once the angel left him. 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from everything the Jewish people were expecting to happen.” 12:12 When Peter realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many people had gathered together and were praying. 12:13 When he knocked at the door of the outer gate, a slave girl named Rhoda answered. 12:14 When she recognized Peter's voice, she was so overjoyed she did not open the gate, but ran back in and told them that Peter was standing at the gate. 12:15 But they said to her, “You've lost your mind!” But she kept insisting that it was Peter, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 12:16 Now Peter continued knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were greatly astonished. 12:17 He motioned to them with his hand to be quiet and then related how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. He said, “Tell James and the brothers these things,” and then he left and went to another place. OutlineThe Relief MissionContinuity in emphasis; unity in the churchIn those days came a prophetTraveling prophetsAgabus and the prophecy of famineAntioch, a benefactor to JerusalemElders in the churchPeter's DeliveranceIntroduction to Peter's last major narrativeAgrippa INot a martyr storyPeter is arrestedPeter is imprisonedPeter's deliveranceFree and on the RunTo the cityTo the house of Mary, the mother of John MarkHouse churchesRhoda answers the doorThe unbelief of those gatheredTell JamesPeter flees

Scripture Reading: Acts 11:1-30 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 11:3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, saying, 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!' 11:8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!' 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!' 11:10 This happened three times, and then everything was pulled up to heaven again. 11:11 At that very moment, three men sent to me from Caesarea approached the house where we were staying. 11:12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without hesitation. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man's house. 11:13 He informed us how he had seen an angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, 11:14 who will speak a message to you by which you and your entire household will be saved.' 11:15 Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning. 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 11:17 Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?” 11:18 When they heard this, they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.” 11:19 Now those who had been scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the message to no one but Jews. 11:20 But there were some men from Cyprus and Cyrene among them who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks too, proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus. 11:21 The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 11:22 A report about them came to the attention of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 11:23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with devoted hearts, 11:24 because he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, and a significant number of people were brought to the Lord. 11:25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. 11:27 At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.) 11:29 So the disciples, each in accordance with his financial ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 11:30 They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.OutlinePeter's “Trial”Early church government The church misses the pointA serious violation but Peter had no choiceFull members of the covenant peoplePeter's defenseGentiles are saved because of the SpiritIf saved then certainly baptism is alrightSurprised by God's generous plan Evangelizing AntiochA literary and cultural point of transitionThe action goes beyond the heroesRemembering those providentially scatteredAntioch“Began to speak to the Greeks”The mother church is skeptical once moreBarnabas and Paul's MissionBarnabas the encouragerNew believers need teachingA longtime mission“Christians” for the first timeThe Relief MissionContinuity in emphasis; unity in the churchIn those days came a prophetTraveling prophetsAgabus and the prophecy of famineAntioch, a benefactor to JerusalemElders in the church

Scripture Reading: Acts 10:9-10:48 10:9 About noon the next day, while they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10:10 He became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing the meal, a trance came over him. 10:11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners. 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds. 10:13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!” 10:14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!” 10:15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!” 10:16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into heaven. 10:17 Now while Peter was puzzling over what the vision he had seen could signify, the men sent by Cornelius had learned where Simon's house was and approached the gate. 10:18 They called out to ask if Simon, known as Peter, was staying there as a guest. 10:19 While Peter was still thinking seriously about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look! Three men are looking for you. 10:20 But get up, go down, and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them.” 10:21 So Peter went down to the men and said, “Here I am, the person you're looking for. Why have you come?” 10:22 They said, “Cornelius the centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man, well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear a message from you.” 10:23 So Peter invited them in and entertained them as guests. On the next day he got up and set out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him. 10:24 The following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting anxiously for them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 10:25 So when Peter came in, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him. 10:26 But Peter helped him up, saying, “Stand up. I too am a mere mortal.” 10:27 Peter continued talking with him as he went in, and he found many people gathered together. 10:28 He said to them, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, yet God has shown me that I should call no person defiled or ritually unclean. 10:29 Therefore when you sent for me, I came without any objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?” 10:30 Cornelius replied, “Four days ago at this very hour, at three o'clock in the afternoon, I was praying in my house, and suddenly a man in shining clothing stood before me 10:31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your acts of charity have been remembered before God. 10:32 Therefore send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter. This man is staying as a guest in the house of Simon the tanner, by the sea.' 10:33 Therefore I sent for you at once, and you were kind enough to come. So now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to say to us.” 10:34 Then Peter started speaking: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, 10:35 but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him. 10:36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)—10:37 you know what happened throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John announced: 10:38 with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him. 10:39 We are witnesses of all the things he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 10:40 but God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen, 10:41 not by all the people, but by us, the witnesses God had already chosen, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 10:42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to warn them that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. 10:43 About him all the prophets testify, that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message. 10:45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 10:46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 10:47 “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 10:48 So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days. OutlinePeter's VisionComplementary visions An Old Testament kind of callEating with GentilesPeter's visionPeter's resistanceThe main point: people not food Peter and the VisitorsPeter welcomes GentilesThe visitors' requestPeter travels with a delegationPeter and CorneliusCornelius receives Peter and his partyCornelius worships PeterThe Holy Spirit Fell on AllThe Spirit confirms the Gentiles' acceptanceThe gift for the covenant peopleSpeaking in tongues and praising GodSurely baptism is alright

Scripture Reading: Acts 9:32-10:8 9:32 Now as Peter was traveling around from place to place, he also came down to the saints who lived in Lydda. 9:33 He found there a man named Aeneas who had been confined to a mattress for eight years because he was paralyzed. 9:34 Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Get up and make your own bed!” And immediately he got up. 9:35 All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. 9:36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Dorcas). She was continually doing good deeds and acts of charity. 9:37 At that time she became sick and died. When they had washed her body, they placed it in an upstairs room. 9:38 Because Lydda was near Joppa, when the disciples heard that Peter was there, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Come to us without delay.” 9:39 So Peter got up and went with them, and when he arrived they brought him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him, crying and showing him the tunics and other clothing Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 9:40 But Peter sent them all outside, knelt down, and prayed. Turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” Then she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 9:41 He gave her his hand and helped her get up. Then he called the saints and widows and presented her alive. 9:42 This became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. 9:43 So Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a man named Simon, a tanner.10:1 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort. 10:2 He was a devout, God-fearing man, as was all his household; he did many acts of charity for the people and prayed to God regularly. 10:3 About three o'clock one afternoon he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God who came in and said to him, “Cornelius.” 10:4 Staring at him and becoming greatly afraid, Cornelius replied, “What is it, Lord?” The angel said to him, “Your prayers and your acts of charity have gone up as a memorial before God. 10:5 Now send men to Joppa and summon a man named Simon, who is called Peter. 10:6 This man is staying as a guest with a man named Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea.” 10:7 When the angel who had spoken to him departed, Cornelius called two of his personal servants and a devout soldier from among those who served him, 10:8 and when he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. OutlinePeter's MinistryAn expansion of Jesus' ministry Peter visit Jewish citiesThe healing at LyddaThe resuscitation at JoppaGetting comfortable with ritual impurity Introduction to the Roman Officer's ConversionSummary of this sectionThe importance of this sectionTable fellowship: a great barrierGod is the initiatorPaired visionsCaesarea, Roman presence, and CorneliusCaesareaMilitary presence in CaesareaCorneliusCornelius' householdA God-fearing GentileCornelius Receives a VisionAn angel visits CorneliusDirections to find the “oracle”Servants and a soldier are sent

Scripture Reading: Acts 9:23-43 For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 9:20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God.” 9:21 All who heard him were amazed and were saying, “Is this not the man who in Jerusalem was ravaging those who call on this name, and who had come here to bring them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 9:22 But Saul became more and more capable, and was causing consternation among the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. 9:23 Now after some days had passed, the Jews plotted together to kill him, 9:24 but Saul learned of their plot against him. They were also watching the city gates day and night so that they could kill him. 9:25 But his disciples took him at night and let him down through an opening in the wall by lowering him in a basket. 9:26 When he arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe that he was a disciple. 9:27 But Barnabas took Saul, brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 9:28 So he was staying with them, associating openly with them in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 9:29 He was speaking and debating with the Greek-speaking Jews, but they were trying to kill him. 9:30 When the brothers found out about this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus. 9:31 Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers. 9:32 Now as Peter was traveling around from place to place, he also came down to the saints who lived in Lydda. 9:33 He found there a man named Aeneas who had been confined to a mattress for eight years because he was paralyzed. 9:34 Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Get up and make your own bed!” And immediately he got up. 9:35 All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. 9:36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Dorcas). She was continually doing good deeds and acts of charity. 9:37 At that time she became sick and died. When they had washed her body, they placed it in an upstairs room. 9:38 Because Lydda was near Joppa, when the disciples heard that Peter was there, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Come to us without delay.” 9:39 So Peter got up and went with them, and when he arrived they brought him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him, crying and showing him the tunics and other clothing Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 9:40 But Peter sent them all outside, knelt down, and prayed. Turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” Then she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 9:41 He gave her his hand and helped her get up. Then he called the saints and widows and presented her alive. 9:42 This became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. 9:43 So Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a man named Simon, a tanner.OutlineFilling in the Details of Paul's early yearsLuke omits details irrelevant to his narrative Paul provides more information in Galatians 1:13-24 and 2 Corinthians 11:32The Timeline“For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus” (Acts 9:19b)Paul proclaims Jesus, “the Son of God,” in the synagogues (Acts 9:20)Time in Arabia—Nabataea (Galatians 1:17)Paul returns to Damascus (Acts 9:19b; Galatians 1:17b)Paul is persecuted but escapes in a basket (Acts 9:25; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33)Paul travels to JerusalemPaul in JerusalemAgain, Luke omits some detailsJerusalem believers fear Paul Paul is introduced by BarnabasHellenists try to kill PaulPaul's Jerusalem trip is briefPaul goes to Caesarea on his way to TarsusPeace and StrengthVerse 9:31 is a positive conclusionPeter's MinistryPeter's ministry is like Jesus' ministry but more expansivePeter travels to Jewish citiesThe healing at LyddaThe resuscitation at JoppaGetting comfortable with ritual impurity

Scripture Reading: Acts 9:1-22 9:1 Meanwhile Saul, still breathing out threats to murder the Lord's disciples, went to the high priest 9:2 and requested letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, either men or women, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 9:3 As he was going along, approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 9:5 So he said, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting! 9:6 But stand up and enter the city and you will be told what you must do.” 9:7 (Now the men who were traveling with him stood there speechless, because they heard the voice but saw no one.) 9:8 So Saul got up from the ground, but although his eyes were open, he could see nothing. Leading him by the hand, his companions brought him into Damascus. 9:9 For three days he could not see, and he neither ate nor drank anything. 9:10 Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias,” and he replied, “Here I am, Lord.” 9:11 Then the Lord told him, “Get up and go to the street called ‘Straight,' and at Judas' house look for a man from Tarsus named Saul. For he is praying, 9:12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again.” 9:13 But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many people about this man, how much harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem, 9:14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call on your name!” 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, because this man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel. 9:16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 9:18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 9:19 and after taking some food, his strength returned. For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 9:20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God.” 9:21 All who heard him were amazed and were saying, “Is this not the man who in Jerusalem was ravaging those who call on this name, and who had come here to bring them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 9:22 But Saul became more and more capable, and was causing consternation among the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. OutlineGod Using Foes and FriendsPrimer on PaulActs 7:58-8:3—The persecutor spreads (disperses) the messageActs 9—The persecutor spreads (preaches) the messageWords and Places“The Way”DamascusChronologyWe do not know exactly when (in the story or in history) Paul's conversion occurredMany years go went by afterwardKey Event; Discrepancies Between AccountsThis event is recounted three timesThe retelling of the event by Luke and Paul's comments raise questions of consistencyPaul's ConversionPsychology, hallucinations, or an encounter with GodLet's be clear: not simply a visionConversion or callingChange in theology The TheophanyLight and gloryWhy do you persecute me?Who are you, Lord? I am Jesus whom you are persecuting!But stand up and enter the city and you will be told what you must do.The AftermathBlindnessFastingEntering DamascusPaired Visions (Actually Three)Ananias visionPaul's vision about Ananias's visionAnaniasNeeding clarification about the “absurd” commandVision restoredSufferingPaul's pain is not punishmentBrotherKinship language was not exclusively Christian but is deeply meaningfulThe main point: a question of fact

Scripture Reading: Acts 8:26-40 26 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 So he got up and went. There he met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and was returning home, sitting in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked him, “Do you understand what you're reading?” 31 The man replied, “How in the world can I, unless someone guides me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of scripture the man was reading was this:“He was led like a sheep to slaughter,and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,so he did not open his mouth.33 In humiliation justice was taken from him.Who can describe his posterity?For his life was taken away from the earth.”34 Then the eunuch said to Philip, “Please tell me, who is the prophet saying this about—himself or someone else?” 35 So Philip started speaking, and beginning with this scripture proclaimed the good news about Jesus to him. 36 Now as they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water! What is to stop me from being baptized?” 38 So he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him any more, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip, however, found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through the area, he proclaimed the good news to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.OutlineBut you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth. Acts 1:8Philips reaches beyond Israel and Samaria.“Ethiopia” was one of the primary locations envisioned when people spoke of the “ends of the earth.”Old Testament BackgroundEunuchs were excluded from the covenant.The First Gentile ConvertThe Ethiopian official or the Roman official?Historical NotesWhy does the scene lack details?The Nubian Kingdom of Meroë.The Spirit at WorkThe “absurd” command.Linguistic NotesNoon or south?Official or eunuch?The African OfficialAn important official on a religious pilgrimage.Convert or Gentile?The reputation of eunuchs.Emphasizing respectable people.Connection with the Queen of Sheba.The ActionHow they traveled.The Spirit's guidance.Reading aloud. In Hebrew or Greek?Invited on the chariot.Interpreting Isaiah. The eunuch's question and Philip's response.BaptismWhat prevents me from being baptized?Isaiah 56:1-15.The baptism.Carried Away by the SpiritJewish background.Literal?

Scripture Reading: Acts 8:1-25 And Saul agreed completely with killing him.Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria. 2 Some devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul was trying to destroy the church; entering one house after another, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.4 Now those who had been forced to scatter went around proclaiming the good news of the word. 5 Philip went down to the main city of Samaria and began proclaiming the Christ to them. 6 The crowds were paying attention with one mind to what Philip said, as they heard and saw the miraculous signs he was performing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, were coming out of many who were possessed, and many paralyzed and lame people were healed. 8 So there was great joy in that city.9 Now in that city was a man named Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. 10 All the people, from the least to the greatest, paid close attention to him, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called ‘Great.'” 11 And they paid close attention to him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.18 Now Simon, when he saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power too, so that everyone I place my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you because you thought you could acquire God's gift with money! 21 You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! 22 Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. 23 For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” 24 But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”25 So after Peter and John had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many Samaritan villages as they went.Main ThemesSaul—An IntroductionLuke introduces Saul at the end of chapter 7. Spoiler alert: Saul is the man that becomes the Apostle Paul—one of the central figures of the New Testament. So, we should spend a few minutes thinking about him.Luke introduces Saul like he does Barnabas, initially as a minor character to acclimate the reader. Nevertheless, we should ask, why would Saul be present during Stephen's trial before the Sanhedrin?Although we cannot know for sure, the most likely explanation is that Saul of Tarsus was a member of the radical wing of the Hellenist synagogue mentioned in Acts 6:9. Perhaps Paul was even one of those Jews who unsuccessfully challenged Stephen (see Acts 6:10).We are also told that the witnesses who testified against Stephen “laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul.” This probably symbolizes recognition of Saul as a leader. This is surprising because Saul is described as young. We will discuss this more in a minute. First, let's see what more we can learn about Saul from Paul's letters.Paul claims to be a Pharisee (Philippians 3: 5). Pharisees existed exclusively or almost exclusively in Israel, especially in Jerusalem. At the same time, his letters reveal comfort with Greek and thorough familiarity with the Septuagint. For one who spent enough time in Israel to be a Pharisee, this Greek aptitude also suggests an educated and hence economically stable family in urban Jerusalem. He could either be from a Diaspora Jewish family that settled in Jerusalem, be an aristocratic Pharisee like Gamaliel (whose family taught Greek), or both.The portrait of Saul as zealous for the law to the point of persecuting the church perfectly fits Paul's frequent summary of his preconversion past. Paul also tells us he “was advancing in Judaism beyond many of [his] contemporaries” (Galatians 1:14). Partly, this was probably because he studied under the esteemed teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Nevertheless, the Acts narrative makes clear that Saul's strategy regarding competing sects is quite different to his teacher's. (This was not unusual in the ancient world. Wealthy families would send their children to study with renown teachers without expecting that the children would adopt all the teacher's beliefs.)As I mentioned above, Saul is “young.” What does this mean? Scholars differ on the precise sense of the term, and for good reason: various ancient sources employ it differently. Some sources define it as anyone from 24 to 40 years of age, others, ages twenty-one to twenty-eight; yet the term could also be applied to someone under twenty. Some Jewish pietists felt twenty was the age when a youth could discern morality on his own. For the rabbis and presumably most Jews, personal moral accountability began especially around age thirteen.Given Saul's role here, he is probably not a young adolescent merely beginning studies with Gamaliel or some other teacher. Instead, he has probably finished his studies. I think we can safely speculate Saul was somewhere in his mid-twenties to very early thirties.Achieving leadership at his age would be difficult, since those who were young might have trouble gaining respect (in Israel and elsewhere). Young men were expected to have some limitations, for example, Classical Athens considered those below thirty to be young and hence easily misled and ineligible to sit in the city council. Nevertheless, exceptions were sometimes appropriate, and some young men were allowed to lead. This could result in self-assurance on the part of the youth and envy and animosity on the part of other members of the community.That the most violent zeal would be associated with a young man would not surprise ancient hearers (or today's readers). This zeal could be used by the older leaders. Some elders might have allowed the younger hotheads to take care of details, while the elders maintained their own dignity.Chapter 8—IntroductionChapters 6 and 7 focus on Stephen, one of the seven so-called deacons. Chapter 8 focuses on another one of these leaders: Philip. Stephen lays the groundwork by teaching that God is not bound to the sacred land or the temple. Philip implements the vision by evangelizing Samaritans and the first fully Gentile convert, an African official.Recall the words of Jesus at the very beginning of Acts, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Philip reaches both Samaritans and a representative from the “ends of the earth.” (Geographically, Philip advances the gospel north to Samaria and south to Africans.)Persecution and ScatteringSaul persecutes the church harshly. The effect of the persecution, however, is the dispersing of the church, fulfilling Acts 1:8 more fully but in a manner undoubtedly not expected by the apostles. This outcome testifies to God's sovereign activity even through opposition. Let's consider these points further.Saul's persecution of the church is undoubtedly historical. Paul himself admits participation in violent persecution of Christians, mentioning it regularly in his letters (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6).The persecution has the effect of scattering “all” except the apostles. A major interpretive crux in this passage is what Luke means by “all.” Few scholars take “all” literally, and most assume that the object of the persecution was the Hellenists. This proposal is also unlikely. If only the Hellenists were scattered, saying “all the church” is an unusual way to specify this. Moreover, this view is based on an incorrect (and now outdated) assumption that Hebrews and Hellenists had large theological differences regarding the temple.So what does “all” mean? “All the church” is surely hyperbole, which is a typical use of the word “all” by Luke (e.g., Luke 1:6; 2:1; 5:17; Acts 1:1). Nevertheless, it clearly conveys the idea that a large number of Christians left Jerusalem. There is no indication that any particular group of Christians was more prone to flee. (We could speculate that more Hellenist Christians left Israel than other Christians. The story focuses on Hellenists moving to the Diaspora. Moreover, Hellenists may have had more connections outside Israel, making the move easier.)We should also ask, why are the apostles explicitly excepted from the scattering? Maybe Saul avoids persecuting the apostles because of his teacher Gamaliel's words in their favor (recall Acts 5). Maybe Saul respected them as miracle-working men. Both of these proposals seem unlikely because in the ancient world ringleaders would be persecuted first. The more likely explanation is the apostles remained and went “underground.” (Notice the text does not say the apostles escaped persecution. It only says the apostles remained in Jerusalem.)Sometimes we forget the sacrifice made even by the Christians who fled. Some of them would have abandoned property, probably permanently as it could have been deemed legally abandoned or been confiscated. Confiscation was often concomitant with other criminal sentences.Saul persecuted believers from house to house. Homes were viewed as private. Persecuting someone at home was more grievous than public arrest. Persecuting someone at home intruded upon the domestic sphere, associated with women. In the ancient world, women were less often punished than men, but exceptions were made, including times they were killed for their husbands' rebellion.The term used to describe Saul's persecuting activity was a strong term that could apply to torture, military devastation, or outrages.Mourning and Burying StephenWith all this in mind, we should notice the courage of those who bury Stephen. Helping a prisoner or otherwise identifying with a condemned person could be dangerous. The fact that Stephen's burial was allowed is not surprising. For Jew and Gentile alike, to be left unburied was a horrific fate that was rarely imposed upon anyone. Jews did not believe in withholding burial for any circumstances. It contradicted their law (Deuteronomy 21: 23). However, the fact that Stephen's death was allowed to be mourned is surprising. Jewish tradition, at least as we know it from later evidence, did not permit open mourning for those executed by approval of a Jewish court. If that later evidence is representative of Stephen's time, then the open mourning is evidence that the Sanhedrin did not intend to execute Stephen immediately. It was an unofficial lynching that ended his life.God's Use of PersecutionSaul's persecution of the church lead to Philip's ministry and that of untold scattered believers. Saul was a vessel of God before he was ever Paul, though an unwitting agent who merited destruction. (In the Old Testament, God used Assyria and Babylon as his “clubs” to punish the wicked, although Assyria and Babylon were also wicked and were eventually judged.)Scattering from Jerusalem as a result of Stephen's persecution proved a major factor in spreading the Jesus movement. Nevertheless, this was probably unexpected for the apostles and early church. As we have discussed throughout Acts, the Old Testament prophesied that through Israel all the nations would be blessed. But early Jewish Christians probably guessed that Gentile nations would be drawn to Israel's exalted glory after it accepted its Messiah. Instead, as we can see in retrospect, God's plan was accomplished through Israel's rejection of its Messiah.A Samaritan TownPhilips goes to a Samaritan town or, as our translation puts it, “the main city of Samaria.” As the NET translators acknowledge, the word “main” is not in the text—they provide it for clarity. Moreover, the authenticity of the definite article “the” is debated. So, the text either reads “the city of Samaria” or “a city of Samaria.” The NET translators think the city described is Sebaste.The main city of Samaria most likely refers to the principal city of Samaria, rebuilt by Herod the Great as Sebaste in honor of Augustus . . . . This is the best option if the article before “city” is taken as original. If the reading without the article is taken as autographic, then another city may be in view: Gitta, the hometown of Simon Magus according to Justin Martyr . . . .Most scholars reject the Sebaste proposition. Luke always uses “Samaria” for the region of the Samaritan people and Sebaste was a Gentile city.SamaritansThe significance of Philip's activity in Samaria this will be lost on us if we do not discuss who were the Samaritans. As one website explains:After King Solomon ruled over the Israelites—God's people—the unwise actions of his son Rehoboam in the tenth century BC led to a schism in which the kingdom was split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, each with its own king.Both kingdoms devolved into corruption and sin, despite repeated warnings from prophets sent by God. Thus, God warned, they would be overtaken by conquerors. The northern kingdom fared worse than the southern kingdom, with a long line of wicked rulers. It didn't help that the temple, where God's people were to worship, was located in the southern kingdom. In 721 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians. Many of the people of Israel were led off to Assyria as captives, but some remained in the land and intermarried with foreigners planted there by the Assyrians. These half-Jewish, half-Gentile people became known as the Samaritans.Because of their shared heritage, Samaritans worshipped the same God as Jews and shared roughly the same Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Also because of this shared heritage, Samaritans were not Jews but were not Gentiles either. For example, Josephus once refers to them as Jewish apostates. A major point of contention between Samaritans and Jews concerned their respective holy sites. Samaritans regarded Gerizim as the holiest of mountains, not Jerusalem. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed in 128 B.C.It is this proximity yet distinctiveness between the two groups that fueled competition and animosity. Jewish people did not think highly of Samaritans and did not trust them. Jewish tradition indicates that hostilities had begun immediately after some Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. A story goes that Samaritans convinced Romans to prevent Jews from rebuilding the temple in Hadrian's reign. The hostilities reached a boiling point when, according to a Jewish report, some Samaritans in the early first century defiled the Jerusalem temple one night with human bones. This provided the reason for Jews prohibiting Samaritans' attendance at the Jerusalem Passover.Samaritans' very insistence to be descendants of Israel rendered their temple all the more suspect to Jews. Some Jews extended more leeway to Gentiles, but if Samaritans were truly Jews, then they should worship nowhere else but the temple.Keep this in mind when you read that Philip proclaimed Christ to them. You mean, without serious catechism first? Without teaching them and requiring them to acknowledge the true temple? The true Judaism? The true people of God? To embrace Samaritans “as they were” was to agree not to make the temple or Jerusalem—the cornerstones of the Jewish faith—matters of division.To add further shock and scandal, Samaritans were baptized! Why is this surprising? Recall from our prior discussions of baptism, that despite the many water purification rituals practiced by Jews, full-immersion baptism was reserved for proselyte Gentiles. The early church, following the footsteps of John the Baptist, seems to have repurposed this ritual to signify full conversion and acceptance into the Christian faith—even when coming from Judaism. Because Samaritans were already circumcised (remember, they were not Gentiles), Jewish baptism would have been inappropriate for them. So, this is Christian baptism that is in view. What we have here is Philip welcoming Samaritans to the true faith by baptism without requiring Samaritans' confession of loyalty to the Jerusalem temple versus their heretical allegiance to Mount Gerizim. Philip successfully evangelized Samaritans with the good news of the kingdom and Jesus Christ.Samaritans Expected a MessiahWould the idea of a Christ-figure make sense to Samaritans?Samaritans may have heard Philip's preaching in terms of their own traditions of the Taheb—the Samaritan concept most equivalent to the Jewish Messiah. Yet, these two concepts were not the same. Samaritans did not speak of a Davidic Messiah or of an anointed, messianic agent but of the Taheb, the “Restorer.” He would be like Moses. He would rule. He would restore the era of divine favor that had ended after Moses.The text does not indicate that Philip corrected the Samaritan tradition. Perhaps the text is simply omitting those discussions for the sake of brevity. But, considering the vehement differences between Jews and Samaritans, one might conclude that Philip did not attempt to convince the Samaritans about the Jewish concept of Messiah. Instead, Philip may have repurposed their expectation of a Restorer to explain Christ. If so, this has missiological implications.Miracles and ExorcismsAs we have read in Acts about other bold proclaimers of the gospel, Philip performed miracles. We are told he healed many paralyzed and lame people. Philip probably healed other conditions too, but cases of paralysis were the most dramatic and noteworthy examples.Philip also performed exorcisms. Ancients accepted the possibility of exorcisms, as do many people today. The “loud shouts” of the unclean spirits fit Jesus' experience.As Jesus stepped ashore, a certain man from the town met him who was possessed by demons. For a long time this man had worn no clothes and had not lived in a house, but among the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before him, and shouted with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God! I beg you, do not torment me!” Luke 8:27-28Exorcisms feature in stories from the early church. For example, Irenaeus attests that many nonbelievers in his day became Christians after experiencing successful exorcisms. Exorcisms also feature prominently in modern day stories. For example, John Wesley (the co-founder of the Methodist movement) was reported to have cast out demons from those involuntarily possessed, yielding deliverance. Pentecostal and charismatic churches report this kind of activity constantly. Many missiologists do as well. Surely some of these exorcism reports are false, but almost as certainly some are true. The Bible undeniably speaks of spiritual realities.The Holy Spirit In a rather strange turn of events, the Samaritans “accept the word” (Acts 8:14) and are baptized (Acts 8:12), yet they do not receive the Holy Spirit. Particularly in the letters of Paul (but, truly, in all other New Testament author's letters), conversion and receiving the Spirit are simultaneous if not synonymous. Was the Samaritans' conversion defective? If so, the text does not even hint as much. At the same time, we must grapple with the fact that Peter and John travel together to Samaria to convey the Holy Spirit. Before we get deep into pneumatology, let's acknowledge what seems evident in the text.The apostles and church in Jerusalem seem compelled to certify that the propagation of the Jesus movement to Samaritans is genuine. This may have been for the benefit of Samaritans but also (and perhaps particularly) for the Jerusalem church. Is God acting outside of Israel? Only one way to find out.I think we can also say with confidence that the text makes clear that the Holy Spirit is of paramount importance to “complete the mission.” God's ratification of his kingdom and promises is the Holy Spirit.Now to the controversy. For whatever the reason, the Spirit is apparently received subsequent to conversion in the Samaritan story. This has occasioned considerable discussion. Historically, various groups have advocated a second experience of the Spirit, often citing this passage, including Anglo-Catholics and Catholics with their views of confirmation; Puritan and Reformed Sealers; Wesleyan and Holiness groups; and classical Pentecostals. Yet, most Christians would agree that the Holy Spirit is received, at least in some sense, at conversion or baptism.In Acts, we see both a reception of the Spirit at conversion and a later, empowering reception of the Spirit.I will not attempt to settle the debate. Instead, I will point out a few things that I think are worthy of consideration. Suggesting that the Samaritan conversion was incomplete until they were visited by apostles is a hard position to hold. One must claim that a person can embrace God's message joyfully, believe, and be baptized yet require the imposition of apostolic hands to produce genuine conversion. (I cannot think of a single Christian denomination that believes in laying of hands for conversion.) Moreover, the apostles accept the Samaritans' conversion instead of rebaptizing them. There is no hint in the text that the conversion is defective or incomplete. (Some argue that initially when Samaritans “believe,” it only means intellectual assent. But Luke does not normally use the word believe in that sense.) Finally, we should not assume that all spiritual realities must behave according to unbendable norms. For example, people who lie to the church today do not drop dead like Ananias and Sapphira. Modern preachers do not walk the streets healing the lame and paralyzed. Perhaps the granting of the Spirit to Samaritans was delayed for a specific an unusual purpose. The fact that Luke mentions that Samaritans did not receive the Spirit at baptism suggests that was the normal expectation. The most common and plausible explanation is that God waited for apostolic ratification to maintain the unity of the Jerusalem and Samaritan churches.As a side note, notice the exciting challenge presented by telling true stories. Other New Testament writers address the Spirit theologically, always connecting the Spirit to conversion. Luke recounts not simply the theological ideal but the experience of early Christians. He is the only New Testament writer to do so. Therefore we should weigh his narrative seriously. (I am not suggesting Luke's superiority to other New Testament writers or that there is contradiction between them. What I am saying is that when we address a topic in abstract terms, we might unintentionally convey a sense of simplicity and uniformity that is not consistent with experience.)As a closing note, modern theological discussion about timing can distract us from hearing Luke's own theological emphasis. Few expected the Spirit to be conferred widely in this age, still fewer through these human agents, and—worst of all—Jewish people had no expectation that this would happen among Samaritans!Simon the SorcererIn chapter 8, we read of a man named Simon. “Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claim[ed] to be someone great” (Acts 8:9). The narrative presents Simon as similar to Philip in many ways. Here is a chart provided in Craig Keener's commentary on Acts: Simon and Philip are similar yet very different, much like a hero and villain in a comic book. The key contrast between Simon and Philip is that Simon claims to be someone great, seeking his own status, while Philip acts only “in the name of Jesus.”Such contrast between true and false sign-workers evoke biblical portraits of Moses confronting Pharaoh's magicians and Elijah confronting the false prophets on Mount Carmel.When Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, they did so, just as the Lord had commanded them—Aaron threw down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a snake. Then Pharaoh also summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the magicians of Egypt by their secret arts did the same thing. Each man threw down his staff, and the staffs became snakes. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted. Exodus 7:10-13Elijah approached all the people and said, “How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision? If the Lord is the true God, then follow him, but if Baal is, follow him!” But the people did not say a word. Elijah said to them: “I am the only prophet of the Lord who is left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal. Let them bring us two bulls. Let them choose one of the bulls for themselves, cut it up into pieces, and place it on the wood. But they must not set it on fire. I will do the same to the other bull and place it on the wood. But I will not set it on fire. Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” 1 Kings 18:21-24Modern people (Christians included) may be surprised to find out that encounters like that of Philip and Simon are still very much reported today. In fact, Missiologists often cite the relevance of “power encounters” for reaching cultures that affirm superhuman powers.Magic vs MiraclesBy the way, how do we distinguish magic from miracles? I think we often read Simon's story and some similar tales in the Bible but do not stop to ask this question. The difference is not always clear, but we can point to some distinctions. Magic generally seeks to manipulate spirits or forces whereas religion and miracles do not. Magic is generally used for selfish purposes, although miracles (such as those of healing) could be accused of the same. Nevertheless, the broad distinction remains, i.e., whether people believed that the power was used for personal advantage or the common good. (This might evident as a practical matter: did the sorcerer or miracle-worker expect payment?) Ancient peoples often used another criterion: supernatural activity in alien groups was magic, while supernatural activity in their own group was not. This last subject standard to differentiate magic and miracles is not particularly useful.I think the first distinction is the most important: is the supernatural event the result of an “adept” who is able to manipulate the world, including its spiritual and divine realities. If it works like a science of the supernatural, in which specific requirements must be met to achieve a result, then it probably falls under the category of magic. The socioreligious context is helpful in determining whether a supernatural event is magic or not. Recall the miracles of Jesus. The sociocultural context was Jesus preaching about the one true God and his imminent kingdom. The context makes clear that the miracles are brought upon by God—neither nature nor God are being manipulated into bringing upon the supernatural events.We should also note that ancient peoples often recognized magicians as charlatans. Sadly, we often speaks of ancient peoples as naïve idiots who believed any superstition. This was not the case.One last point on magic: how did Jews view magic? In Acts 8:9 and 11, Luke seems to employ a pejorative word for magic, associated with Medo-Persian astrologers and diviners who were often considered quacks or viewed negatively. The word also ties to the story of Daniel 2, which portrays these magicians as fraudulent or powerless. Nevertheless, some Jews had embraced magic—even if magic was condemned in the Old Testament and by many rabbis. Jewish sources sometimes associated magic with fallen angels or Satan. Some rabbis embraced magic as the science of their era.Simon's WickednessI think a key fact to understand the interaction between Philip, the apostles, and Simon, is what exactly Simon claimed to be. Simon claimed to be someone “great” (Acts 8:9). This word by no means necessarily implies a divine title, but it is consistent with one. We gain more insight from the people calling him “the power of God that is called ‘Great'” (Acts 8:10). Potentially, this could be translated as “the Great Power of God.” So, many scholars believe that Simon was not simply claiming to be someone great in a generic sense but to be divine.One could retort: surely Samaritans were not calling Simon divine. They were monotheistic! Yes, Samaritans were monotheistic and intensely religious. However, they were also hellenized, a hallmark of which was religious syncretism. By this point in their history, Samaritans may have assimilated other deities and viewed Simon as one of them (or at least an avatar of one of them).Before we review Simon's falling from grace, figuratively speaking, let's remember his believing into grace.Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed. Acts 8:13Perhaps Simon was not converted to begin with. Nevertheless, we are told he “believed,” no different (at least in language) than the other Samaritans. How are we to make sense of this? We could consider a recurring theme in the gospels, particularly in John: faith in response to signs is only the most basic level of faith. Persevering faith is the kind of faith that really matters. We might also recall the parable of the sower.Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground where they did not have much soil. They sprang up quickly because the soil was not deep. But when the sun came up, they were scorched, and because they did not have sufficient root, they withered. Other seeds fell among the thorns, and they grew up and choked them. But other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty. The one who has ears had better listen! Matthew 13:3b-9“So listen to the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path. The seed sown on rocky ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he has no root in himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing. But as for the seed sown on good soil, this is the person who hears the word and understands. He bears fruit, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown.” Matthew 13:18-23Regardless of whether Simon was a true believer or not, upon the apostles visit to Samaria, Simon somehow “saw” that people received the Spirit, and this reception was dramatic enough to provoke his desire for the gift. Simon offered them money for the gift. I think everyone, at a gut level, recoils at the thought. Should the gift of communion with the one and only good and gracious God be something to buy and sell? Absolutely not. It is inconceivable.At a worldview level, Simon and the apostles are at odds. Simon seeks a power he can manipulate and that could lead to personal advantage. Philip and the apostles act only on behalf of (in the name of) God. The apostles will tolerate no syncretism and chastise Simon severely. They tell Simon that anyone who thinks he can purchase “God's gift” fundamentally misunderstands God. Simon is urged to repent—to truly convert. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, early church fathers, claimed to know Simon's fate. According to them, Simon did not convert.As the sin of Ananias could have marred the reputation and effectiveness of the early church if not confronted and terminated, Simon presented a similar threat. Simon responds with a request for prayer. There are similar scenes in the Old Testament in which those confronted with judgement asked a godly man to pray for them, the hope being that God would hear a holy man's prayer. At least once the prayer was effective:When the king heard the prophet's message that he had cried out against the altar in Bethel, Jeroboam took his hand from the altar and pointed it saying, “Seize him!” Then the hand that he had pointed at him stiffened up, and he could not pull it back. Meanwhile the altar split open, and the ashes poured from the altar in fulfillment of the sign the prophet had given with the Lord's message. The king responded to the prophet, “Seek the favor of the Lord your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored.” So the prophet sought the Lord's favor and the king's hand was restored as it was at first. 1 Kings 13:4-6We do not have Peter's response to Simon's request for prayer. However, Simon's issue does not seem like the type of problem that someone else's prayer could “fix.”In Acts 8:25, concluding Luke's section on the Samaritan mission, the apostles follow Philip's example. This makes clear that salvation has truly gone out to Samaria.

Scripture Reading: Acts 7:44-60 44 Our ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen. 45 Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. 46 He found favor with God and asked that he could find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands, as the prophet says,49 ‘Heaven is my throne,and earth is the footstool for my feet.What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,or what is my resting place?50 Did my hand not make all these things?'51 “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! 53 You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”54 When they heard these things, they became furious and ground their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently toward heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 57 But they covered their ears, shouting out with a loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent. 58 When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 They continued to stone Stephen while he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” 60 Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.Main ThemesWhere We Left OffLast week we covered most of Stephen's speech. Stephen recounts the lives of the heroes of the faith: Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. Several connections can be drawn between them and Jesus, with the most prominent connection being the idea of a deliverer that was rejected by his people (particularly evident in the stories of Joseph and Moses). This is evidence that the Jews' rejection of Jesus does not mean Jesus was an impostor nor that, if Jesus really was the Messiah, God's plan failed. Instead, it is the mark of a true deliverer. Christ's rejection is fulfilled scripture (see also, Isaiah 43:1-4). It is a greater, alas the greatest, fulfillment of that archetype in scripture.Stephen also reminds his hearers of their sins—their constant sins. Their idolatry merited exile, which climaxed with the Babylonian empire's conquest of Israel. But, their sinful hearts were present even during the exodus. This is evidence that the Jews' sinful behavior against Jesus was expected. As with the prior example, given Jesus' identity, the Jews' sinful behavior against God in the flesh is the greatest fulfillment of this archetype in scripture.Now that Stephen's words are fresh in our minds, let's continue to read his conclusion and the audience's reaction. David & God's HouseOur ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen. Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. He found favor with God and asked that he could find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. But Solomon built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands, as the prophet says,‘Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is my resting place? Did my hand not make all these things?'“You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.” Acts 7:44-53When David, Israel's greatest king, ruled the promised land, did God need a temple? Not only is the answer no, but God did not allow David to build a temple. Sure, Israel had a tabernacle, but that only furthers Stephen's point. God will dwell where he will dwell. Moreover, even when the people had the tabernacle they still practiced idolatry continuously. A temple would not change that.David's son was finally allowed to build a temple. Although we already know the answer, let's ask, Did God need a house to dwell among his people? Isaiah 66:1-2, quoted by Stephen, settles the matter.‘Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is my resting place? Did my hand not make all these things?'This is why Stephen can confidently say, “Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands . . . .” As the NET translators explain:The phrase made by human hands is negative in the NT . . . . It suggests “man-made” or “impermanent.” The rebuke is like parts of the Hebrew scripture where the rebuke is not of the temple, but for making too much of it . . . .The temple was an accommodation to human need, but God desired pure worship, not simply a place or institution.Notice that in verses 40 and 41 of chapter 7, idolaters make gods with their own hands and worship them. In utter opposition, verses 48 and 49 tell us that nothing made can contain God because God has made all things.Reversing the Charges, Circumcision of the HeartOpposing the Law and the TempleRecall from chapter 6 that Stephen faces two charges: he opposes the law and the temple. As we just discussed, Stephen argues against making too much of the temple. God was with his people before they had a temple; God refused Israel's greatest king's offer to build him a temple; God cannot be contained in anything created. Notice, this is not an anti-temple argument. Stephen is not advocating for the destruction or even the abandonment of the temple. Stephen is requesting that the temple be placed in proper perspective against the backdrop of God's infinitude.In verse 51, Stephen addresses the charge that he opposes the law. As we have discussed before, a common ancient rhetorical technique was to reverse a charge on the accuser. (This would have been terribly unwise in a trial context—at least if one wished to receive mercy. That is clearly not Stephen's goal.) Stephen, in no uncertain terms, answers the question: who is disobeying the law? His accusers. They are spiritually uncircumcised (7: 51), murderers of the prophets (7: 52), and general disobeyers of the law (7: 53). His hearers' resistance against the Holy Spirit places them in the same category as those who rejected the biblical prophets.Circumcision of the HeartGod's ideal was always that his people's hearts be circumcised. We see this throughout the Old Testament.Therefore, cleanse your hearts and stop being so stubborn! Deuteronomy 10:16In this verse, the text translated as “cleanse” literally reads, “circumcise the foreskin of.” As the NET translators explain, “Just as that act signified total covenant obedience, so spiritual circumcision (cleansing of the heart) signifies more internally a commitment to be pliable and obedient to the will of God . . . .”God makes clear that an external circumcision without a circumcision of heart was never any good.The Lord says, “Watch out! The time is soon coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. That is, I will punish the Egyptians, the Judeans, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and all the desert people who cut their hair short at the temples. I will do so because none of the people of those nations are really circumcised in the Lord's sight. Moreover, none of the people of Israel are circumcised when it comes to their hearts.” Jeremiah 9:25-26This is a fundamental Christian belief—and Stephen's speech makes it clear that it was fundamental to Judaism as well. We generally speak of Judaism as a religion based purely on strict adherence to laws. Notice, that is not entirely correct. As I have repeated before, Jesus' followers are not attempting to replace Judaism with a new religion but to “do” Judaism correctly.Sincere BeliefLet's explore this idea of sincere belief in one's heart. There are many New Testament passages to this effect.Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9, emphasis addedTherefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the fresh and living way that he inaugurated for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in the assurance that faith brings, because we have had our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. And let us hold unwaveringly to the hope that we confess, for the one who made the promise is trustworthy. Hebrews 10:19-23, emphasis addedBlessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Matthew 5:8, emphasis added“Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven—only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many powerful deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!' Matthew 7:15-23, emphasis addedBecause of verses such as these, Christians generally believe that outside behaviors will not save a man. Only Jesus saves. And Jesus will only save those who earnestly wish to be saved; those who wish to be righteous; those who wish to love and be loved the way that Love himself would have it; those who truly wish for true Heaven. Those people not only believe in God but believe God. God is not only real but the master and the prize.Stephen—The First MartyrMartyrs, in the ancient world and today, function as models. They are like brave soldiers who die upon the battlefield inspiring other soldiers. Stories of martyrs were not foreign to ancient Jews. The Maccabean martyrs would have been well-remembered examples at the time of Jesus. Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews) had their martyr stories too.Stephen is the first Christian martyr. As such, the church fathers regarded him as the “protomartyr,” offering an example for many to follow. Stephen's martyrdom is also special because of the parallels with Jesus' death. See below for a chart from Craig Keener's commentary on Acts that compares the deaths of Jesus and Stephen. The Sanhedrin's Power to ExecuteI discussed the Sanhedrin's inability to carry out capital punishment during our study of John. Here I will provide a brief reminder.Rome jealously guarded the power of capital punishment. Generally, only the Roman representative in the area (e.g., governor) could approve it. Local councils could pronounce capital punishment but, without ratification from Roman authorities, carrying it out would have been a serious affront against the empire. The Sanhedrin was no different. (To be fair, some scholars think that Rome allowed the Sanhedrin to execute capital sentences directly, but this is highly unlikely and not widely accepted. Moreover, that theory does not make sense of Pontius Pilate's involvement in Jesus' death.)The Roman authorities may have looked the other way in the case of lynchings—since they would not have been a deliberate and organized defiance of Rome. However, even deaths by lynching could generate complaints to Rome.For these reasons, scholars debate whether Acts 7 is narrating a formal trial of Stephen, a trial and a later lynching, or a trial quickly followed by a lynching. If Acts 7 describes a trial and a formally executed punishment, perhaps the Jewish authorities sought Roman ratification of Stephen's death penalty after the fact. Proponents of this theory suggest that otherwise (that is, without Roman approval), the Jewish persecution of Christians involving arrests and investigations reaching as far as Damascus, would have met Roman resistance.The second proposal is that Stephen's trial and Stephen's death were not immediately successive events. Some time passed and a mob did what the Sanhedrin could not. To take this view, one must believe that Luke collapsed and confused both events in his narrative. This view does not treat the text seriously and there are more plausible alternatives.What about a trial and an immediate lynching? Perhaps the Sanhedrin did not intend to execute Stephen on the spot, but things just got out of control. Oops. I am sure they were devastated. Mob violence was a common phenomenon of ancient life, particularly in Jewish court settings. Jewish trials often devolved into unruly shouting and could degenerate further than this. Surprisingly, throwing stones at one's legal adversaries was not unusual. So, the proposition that the action went from throwing stones to a stoning is not hard to believe.The Great ReversalI will argue that there is a running double entendre beginning on verse 7:54 and ending with verse 8:1. At every turn, what is happening on earth is the opposite of what is happening in heaven. The good guys are the bad guys, the condemned is innocent, human justice is God's injustice. Ultimately, the winners are the losers, and the losers are the winners. The effect of the juxtaposition is to give us hope than one day all will be set right.Furious, Grinding Their TeethThe Jewish accusers became “furious” with Stephen—a strong word used only once more in the New Testament, the prior trial of the apostles in chapter 5. Unlike chapter 5, no Gamaliel intervenes. In their anger, the accusers “grind their teeth.” The literal expression is “gnashed their teeth.” This could indicate anger or frustration (see, for example, Psalm 112:10), but it often conveyed anguish. The phrase appears in relation to judgment and hell. For example:Then Jesus traveled throughout towns and villages, teaching and making his way toward Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” So he said to them, “Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him, ‘Lord, let us in!' But he will answer you, ‘I don't know where you come from.' Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' But he will reply, ‘I don't know where you come from! Go away from me, all you evildoers!' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God. But indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” Luke 13:22-30, emphasis addedThe reversal—the irony— is that those who gnash their teeth in anger persecuting the righteous will gnash their teeth in anguish upon the final judgment.Looking to Heaven; Seeing God's GloryToday, we pray by bowing our heads and closing our eyes. There is nothing inherently spiritual about this. It is a cultural preference. In Jesus' day, looking to heaven was a common posture for prayer. Presumably, this was because God resided in heaven.Stephen does exactly as expected and looks intently towards heaven. Before his prayer, he has a vision. He sees the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Some other Jewish texts presented similar heavenly visions, although they were often ambiguous. The speaker may have been narrating events as if he were actually seeing them when both him and his audience understood that he was not. Stephen's case contains no such ambiguity. Both the narrator and Stephen tell us he is genuinely seeing something.Stephen claims that the heavens opened. We have heard these words before.Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And while he was praying, the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” Luke 3:21-22, emphasis addedFurther, notice that Stephen sees God's glory in heaven rather than in the temple. As Stephen has just declared, heaven is God's throne, rather than any earthly temple containing him.Most important, however, is that Stephen's vision of the Son of Man at God's right hand clearly parallels Jesus's announcement of the Son of Man at God's right hand.Now the men who were holding Jesus under guard began to mock him and beat him. They blindfolded him and asked him repeatedly, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” They also said many other things against him, reviling him. When day came, the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law. Then they led Jesus away to their council and said, “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” He answered them, “You say that I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need further testimony? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!” Luke 22:63-71, emphasis addedStephen's vision confirms to him and to us that his sacrifice is not in vain. The promises of Jesus are true. He reigns. Jesus lives so Stephen shall live again. We should also note that the title “Son of Man” is rare outside the Gospels and barely ever occurs on anyone's lips but Jesus'. Stephen is relying on the words of his lord.Right HandThat Jesus is at the Father's right hand emphasizes the claim of his exaltation as sovereign Messiah and Lord, the “Lord” of Ps 110.Here is the Lord's proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.” O Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger. Psalm 110:1b-5, emphasis addedEven if the Sanhedrin did not believe Stephen, they would have felt the political defiance embedded in his alleged vision. Stephen is claiming that the Jesus they crucified claims an alternate kingdom, a greater kingdom. Here is the second piece of the double entendre. The Sanhedrin believes itself to be sovereign. If they are sovereign at all it is of a small kingdom. The true sovereign is Jesus, sitting at the right hand of God almighty.The True Trial—StandingStephen sees Jesus standing at God's right hand. This is unusual. Generally, Jesus is depicted as sitting next to the Father (e.g., Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3; Ephesians 1:20-21).The Old Testament depicted witnesses as standing. (A vindicating witness would stand at the right hand of the accused.) Here, recall that Stephen is being accused by false witnesses, who presumably would also be standing to testify against Stephen. A standing Jesus conveys the contrasting image that as Stephen is accused by the earthly tribunal at the hands of deceitful men, he is vindicated in the heavenly tribunal by the testimony of Jesus.The motif of vindication is reinforced by the fact that although judges generally sat though cases, tradition is that they stood to render a verdict. So, a standing Jesus also conveys the idea that as Stephen is convicted by the earthly tribunal, Jesus acquits him.Hear No EvilUpon Stephen's description of his vision, the crowd rushes at him with “one intent.” Perhaps the crowd is outraged by what they interpret as further blasphemy. Perhaps the crowd is outraged because they understand Stephen's words as a political claim that defies the authority of the Sanhedrin. Perhaps both are true.When the crowd launches at Stephen, they cover their ears and shout (or “cry”) in a loud voice. Why would they do this? Covering one's ears to prevent hearing further blasphemy may have been considered a pious act. In a sense, they were keeping themselves clean from Stephen's blasphemy.Here is another, powerful ironic reversal. The crowd shuts its ears and cries to make sure the message will not reach it. Recall what Stephen said just a few verses before, “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did!” The Jews think they are closing their ears to lies when they are closing their ears to truth.The PunishmentCast OutStephen is “driven out” of the city, also translated as “cast out.” Standard Jewish custom was to cast someone out of the city before executing them. Jesus was also “cast out” in the parable of the vineyard.Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.' But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let's kill him so the inheritance will be ours!' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? Luke 20:9-15, emphasis addedStoningGreeks and other peoples, like Jews, executed people by stoning. Roman law limited these local forms of punishment, but even in this period Roman law could not prevent stoning from occurring altogether, since it was a common way for mobs to execute vengeance without regard for official laws. Stoning was often a mob action both in Israel and elsewhere.Stoning was simply the most ready-to-hand form of public violence available, including in Judea. Stoning was appropriate for blasphemy, among other offenses, and had to be done outside the city.Oftentimes God's people tried to stone God's prophets.God's Spirit energized Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood up before the people and said to them, “This is what God says: ‘Why are you violating the commands of the Lord? You will not be prosperous. Because you have rejected the Lord, he has rejected you!'” They plotted against him and by royal decree stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord's temple. 2 Chronicles 24:20-21Then Moses cried out to the Lord, “What will I do with this people?—a little more and they will stone me!” Exodus 17:4In a stoning, witnesses were the first to cast stones, perhaps as a deterrent to false witnesses.Laid Their CloaksThe hostile witnesses discard their “cloaks” (ἱμάτια). Most people wore a tunic or shirt composed of two pieces of cloth sewn together. The simplest form was sleeveless, but in cooler weather one could add a himation (a rectangular piece of cloth draped around the body). Thus the removal of the cloak does not involve complete nakedness.Why did the witnesses remove their cloaks? For a simple but morbid reason. Because they were about to engage in strenuous exercise to stone Stephen. Nevertheless, the self-stripping gives us our last “great reversal.” Prisoners were often stripped naked before they received their public punishment, such as lashings or stoning. Nakedness increased their shame. (Nakedness had been shameful for Jewish people throughout their history.) Luke portrays the Hellenist accusers as stripping themselves for a strenuous physical activity but, in so doing, portrays them ironically as the guilty party.The PrayerLike I mentioned above, today we pray in silence (except in some corporate settings), but ancient Jews prayed out loud. So, people generally heard the supplicant's prayer. Also, kneeling was a common posture for prayer, denoting submission. Stephen's prayer was:Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! Lord, do not hold this sin against them!This prayer recalls Jesus' prayer before his death.But Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34a*Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” Luke 23:46(*There is some textual controversy regarding the first part of verse Luke 23:34. The verse may not be original but still historically authentic.)The person addressed in Stephen's prayer is significant. He is “calling on the name of the Lord” fulfilling the words of Peter's speech (quoting the prophet Joel).And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21Moreover, notice that in the gospels Jesus addressed the Father. Stephen call out to “Lord Jesus.” This is highly significant. Stephen thought of Jesus as God.The climax of the scene of Stephen's martyrdom (before his death) is his prayer for his persecutors. Jesus taught prayer for one's oppressors.But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Luke 6:27-28You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor” and “hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don't they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don't they? Matthew 5:43-47Stephen's prayer for his accusers is particularly shocking if we understand their culture. Jewish people believed in confessing sins before God as a form of atonement. Normally death was considered sufficient suffering to atone for a Jewish person, if coupled with repentance. Thus one in danger might pray for safety and add, as a precaution, “May my death atone for all my sins.” People condemned to capital punishment were invited to make confession a few feet from the site of execution so that they could share in the coming world.So, imagine the shock when Stephen confesses not his own sins but those of his opponents. Also shocking is the fact that unlike most martyrs who prayed for vindication, Stephen's prayer was for mercy rather than justice. This is Christ's love. This is Christian love.

Scripture Reading: Acts 6:8-7:53 Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 9 But some men from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, as well as some from Cilicia and the province of Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. 10 Yet they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly instigated some men to say, “We have heard this man speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 They incited the people, the elders, and the experts in the law; then they approached Stephen, seized him, and brought him before the council. 13 They brought forward false witnesses who said, “This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law. 14 For we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.” 15 All who were sitting in the council looked intently at Stephen and saw his face was like the face of an angel.1 Then the high priest said, “Are these things true?” 2 So he replied, “Brothers and fathers, listen to me. The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your country and from your relatives, and come to the land I will show you.' 4 Then he went out from the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God made him move to this country where you now live. 5 He did not give any of it to him for an inheritance, not even a foot of ground, yet God promised to give it to him as his possession, and to his descendants after him, even though Abraham as yet had no child. 6 But God spoke as follows: ‘Your descendants will be foreigners in a foreign country, whose citizens will enslave them and mistreat them for 400 years. 7 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,' said God, ‘and after these things they will come out of there and worship me in this place.' 8 Then God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision, and so he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him when he was eight days old, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 patriarchs. 9 The patriarchs, because they were jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt. But God was with him, 10 and rescued him from all his troubles, and granted him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Then a famine occurred throughout Egypt and Canaan, causing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food. 12 So when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our ancestors there the first time. 13 On their second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers again, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. 14 So Joseph sent a message and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come, seventy-five people in all. 15 So Jacob went down to Egypt and died there, along with our ancestors, 16 and their bones were later moved to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a certain sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.17 “But as the time drew near for God to fulfill the promise he had declared to Abraham, the people increased greatly in number in Egypt, 18 until another king who did not know about Joseph ruled over Egypt. 19 This was the one who exploited our people and was cruel to our ancestors, forcing them to abandon their infants so they would die. 20 At that time Moses was born, and he was beautiful to God. For three months he was brought up in his father's house, 21 and when he had been abandoned, Pharaoh's daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. 22 So Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds. 23 But when he was about forty years old, it entered his mind to visit his fellow countrymen the Israelites. 24 When he saw one of them being hurt unfairly, Moses came to his defense and avenged the person who was mistreated by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He thought his own people would understand that God was delivering them through him, but they did not understand. 26 The next day Moses saw two men fighting and tried to make peace between them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why are you hurting one another?' 27 But the man who was unfairly hurting his neighbor pushed Moses aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge over us? 28 You don't want to kill me the way you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?' 29 When the man said this, Moses fled and became a foreigner in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and when he approached to investigate, there came the voice of the Lord, 32 ‘I am the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Moses began to tremble and did not dare to look more closely. 33 But the Lord said to him, ‘Take the sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have certainly seen the suffering of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them. Now come, I will send you to Egypt.' 35 This same Moses they had rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge?' God sent as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 This man led them out, performing wonders and miraculous signs in the land of Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. 37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.' 38 This is the man who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you. 39 Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him, but pushed him aside and turned back to Egypt in their hearts, 40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go in front of us, for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt —we do not know what has happened to him!' 41 At that time they made an idol in the form of a calf, brought a sacrifice to the idol, and began rejoicing in the works of their hands. 42 But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? 43 But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.' 44 Our ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen. 45 Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. 46 He found favor with God and asked that he could find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands, as the prophet says,49 ‘Heaven is my throne,and earth is the footstool for my feet.What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,or what is my resting place?50 Did my hand not make all these things?'51 “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! 53 You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”Main ThemesStephenThe second half of chapter 6 focuses on one of the new leaders: Stephen. “Stephen” was a very common Greek name, but it was rare in Israel. (We have no evidence of any non-Hellenist Jews with that name.) Therefore, we have good reason to suspect Stephen belongs to the immigrant Hellenists.We are told that Stephen “full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). For how long? That is unclear. The summary statements in the book of Acts (which were required to keep the length of the book short enough to fit in one scroll) can give a modern reader the impression that the action moves quicker than it really did.We have discussed the terms grace (meaning favor, empowerment, or both); power (empowerment through divine gift; in relation to proclamation, boldness); and the phrase “signs and wonders” (it evokes the miracles God performed in the exodus through Moses). So, I will not discuss those again. However, we should note that Stephen performing miraculous signs demonstrates that signs were not limited to the Twelve. Also, the language describing Stephen as performing signs among “the people,” conveys the idea of performing signs before Israel as a whole. The phrase “the people” was an expression referring to historic Israel. This is reminiscent of Old Testament prophets.Some Argued with StephenStephen faces resistance. From whom? His own people! Recall last week's discussion of Hebrews and Hellenists. The Hellenist widows complained that they were overlooked in the church's charity ministry—implying favoritism. In response, the church appointed seven leaders, including Stephen—all of them Hellenists. In this week's text, the resistance against Stephen comes from the Synagogue of the Freedmen, a synagogue of Hellenists. Perhaps the Hellenists felt responsible for disciplining members of their own community in Jerusalem. Perhaps the Hellenists felt threatened because many of their own were being converted.Quite possibly, Hellenists were a distinct community within Jerusalem, overseeing some of their own affairs. They may have lived in their own area of the city, seeking intervention from the general authorities only when escalating a matter.Synagogues and FreedmenSynagogues probably started outside Israel. We have records of synagogues in Egypt as early as the third century B.C. Synagogues were similar to, but in a sense much more than, modern churches. The term synagogue refers to local gatherings, formal or informal, that usually met in the same place. In the Diaspora the places of gathering were called “places of prayer.” Many synagogues were small and simple. Like a small country church, it was the activity that defined the synagogue and not the structure.Why do I say synagogues were more than churches? I do not mean this in a moral or spiritual sense but in a practical sense. Certainly they functioned religiously, but they also functioned as community courts, gathering sites for charity, collection points for funds for the temple, hostels, and banquet halls.The synagogue mentioned in Acts 6 is the Synagogue of the Freedmen. Freedmen were former slaves that had been manumitted (freed) and had become Roman citizens. The synagogue probably contained the children of freedmen as well. In Roman society, freedmen remained a distinct social group. They received lower seating in banquets, could not marry higher-class women, and could not serve in Roman legions. Many Jews brought to Rome as slaves under Pompey were soon freed, possibly through the financial help of other Jews.Stephen Punches BackThe members of the synagogue start the argument; Stephen ends it. We are told that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which [Stephen] spoke” (Acts 6:10).Presumably, that language means that Stephen was able to maintain the upper hand due to the miraculous signs that validated his message and due to his intellectually superior arguments as a result of his divinely given wisdom. (As I have discussed before, Judaism recognized God as the source of wisdom.)This scene is a fulfillment of Jesus' words.But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you must say. Luke 12:11-12But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. Therefore be resolved not to rehearse ahead of time how to make your defense. For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will have some of you put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of my name. Yet not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives. Luke 21:12-19False Witnesses and False ChargesWhen the church needed leaders (earlier in chapter 6), they sought men of good reputation. The enemies of the church sought (“instigated,” in fact) the exact opposite, “false witnesses.” The witnesses attempt not only to have Stephen convicted but also to turn the people against him and, by extension, the Jesus movement. Notice the accusations:“We have heard this man speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” Acts 6:11b“This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law. 14 For we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.” Acts 6:13b-14We will discuss the accusations at more length later, be we should note that they involve the temple. Stephen and the Jesus followers wished the temple destroyed—or so they were accused of. If true, this is a religiously shocking statement, but sometimes we forget more practical reasons why the masses may have been infuriated by such heresy. As Craig Keener writes:Much of Jerusalem's economy depended on the temple, in ways that sometimes would have applied to immigrant as well as native citizens. The temple establishment “required bakers, weavers, goldsmiths, washers, merchants of ointments and money changers.” Because it was still under construction, it required also stonemasons and carpenters; its completion (in 62– 64 C.E.) would create an estimated eighteen thousand unemployed workers (Jos. Ant. 20.219).To oppose the temple in first century Jerusalem was to preach against slavery in early 19th century Virginia; to preach against tobacco in 20th century North Carolina; or to preach against oil and gas in modern day Alaska. Nothing incites rage quite like advocating for a total economic collapse. Add the religious dimension to the mix and this is a lynching in the making. We should be aware that, sadly, the tale of Stephen and his accusers has similar precedent in the Old Testament. In the book of Kings we read of Jezebel and how she uses false witnesses against the pious man Ahab. The story is quoted below. I point this out to show that Stephen's accusers knew their behavior was wicked.She wrote out orders, signed Ahab's name to them, and sealed them with his seal. She then sent the orders to the leaders and to the nobles who lived in Naboth's city. This is what she wrote: “Observe a time of fasting and seat Naboth in front of the people. Also seat two villains opposite him and have them testify, ‘You cursed God and the king.' Then take him out and stone him to death.”The men of the city, the leaders, and the nobles who lived there followed the written orders Jezebel had sent them. They observed a time of fasting and put Naboth in front of the people. The two villains arrived and sat opposite him. Then the villains testified against Naboth right before the people, saying, “Naboth cursed God and the king.” So they dragged him outside the city and stoned him to death. Then they reported to Jezebel, “Naboth has been stoned to death.” 1 Kings 21:8-14The ChargesLet's focus on the charges brought against Stephen. Albeit with slightly different wording each time, Stephen is thrice charged with opposing Moses (phrased as either Moses, the law, or the customs, all referring to one idea). He is twice charged with opposing the temple. He is once charged with opposing God. Perhaps the charge of opposing God was a broader way of restating the first two charges (opposing God's law and His temple).Both the temple and the law were central to first-century Judaism. The law contained what was most fundamental to Jewish heritage and practice and hence to the Jews' identity as a people. A challenge to the law was thus a challenge to their very understanding of their existence as a people, as well as a challenge to God the lawgiver and to what God required. Violation of the law's main tenets was grounds for conviction and terrible punishment.Profaning or even denouncing the temple might be viewed as worthy of death, especially to the Sadducees who controlled the temple. For example, a generation later, one Jesus ben Ananias prophesied the temple's demise, and this led to his arrest by the authorities and being handed over to the governor for a brutal flogging. Moreover, like I mentioned above, the temple was central to the city's identity and livelihood. Destroying the temple could have left nearly 20,000 people without jobs—in a city with a population somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000. It would have been devastating.The final version of the temple charge specifies Jesus as the temple's destroyer. Did Jesus say he would destroy the temple? No! This was a false claim in Jesus' trial as well.Many gave false testimony against him, but their testimony did not agree. Some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.'” Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree. Mark 14:56-59Jesus said something similar yet entirely different.Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken. John 2:19-22As we will see in Stephen's response, Stephen does argue for a certain antilocalization of God—that is, God's presence is more far reaching than the temple. Yet, Stephen is never anti-temple per se, so he probably did not preach against the temple either. Similarly, Jesus was not anti-law, so there is no reason to think Stephen was. Face Like and AngelChapter 6 ends on a powerful note. As Stephen's adversaries close in, his face looks like that of an angel. This statement hardly makes sense without a bit of Old and New Testament context. Let's begin with Moses seeing and then reflecting the glory of God.The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the LORD by name. The LORD passed by before him and proclaimed: “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children's children, to the third and fourth generation.” Exodus 34:5-7Now when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand—when he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to approach him. But Moses called to them, so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and Moses spoke to them. After this all the Israelites approached, and he commanded them all that the LORD had spoken to him on Mount Sinai. When Moses finished speaking with them, he would put a veil on his face. But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he would remove the veil until he came out. Then he would come out and tell the Israelites what he had been commanded. When the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone, Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with the Lord. Exodus 34:29-35We must also recall the transfiguration of Jesus in the gospels.Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up the mountain to pray. As he was praying, the appearance of his face was transformed, and his clothes became very bright, a brilliant white. Then two men, Moses and Elijah, began talking with him. They appeared in glorious splendor and spoke about his departure that he was about to carry out at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those with him were quite sleepy, but as they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. Then as the men were starting to leave, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three shelters, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he was saying. As he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. Then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to him!” After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. So they kept silent and told no one at that time anything of what they had seen. Luke 9:28-36We should notice a few things. First, Moses' face really did shine. Exodus clearly means that description literally. In the case of Jesus' transfiguration, although the scene is more ethereal such that its description may be less literal, the witnessing apostles can still clearly see what is happening. The phenomenon described is real. So, in the case of Stephen's transfiguration (as is sometimes referred to by scholars), I think we should also take the event literally if perhaps ambiguously. I mention ambiguity because the text itself makes use of a figure of speech (face like an angel). This is entirely sensible; some events are hard to describe technically or precisely. Also notice the timing of Stephen's transfiguration. He becomes like Moses, reflecting the glory of God, as he is accused of opposing Moses. This seems like divine verification that Stephen is on God's side, and therefore on Moses' side as well.The TrialIntroductionThe narrative of the trial does not repeat the charges brought against Stephen. Nevertheless, as we read Stephen's response, we must keep the charges in mind. They are the proper framing of Stephen's long speech. In short, the two charges are that Stephen opposes the temple and the law.Stephen's death is a turning point in the narrative. The church passes from a phase of popularity in Jerusalem to one of persecution and scattering. Other Jewish sects kept their distance from the authorities, creating their own somewhat isolated communities. Jesus' followers, on the other hand, challenged the temple authorities claiming that Jesus was the true priest and his followers preached the true words of God. Conflict was inevitable.This is an important observation—that Christ's followers saw themselves as the truly pious Jews and not as a separate religion. Otherwise, we might be tempted to understand Stephen's speech anachronistically: as a Christian anti-Jewish message. Stephen does not oppose the temple; he argues that there is more to God's plan. Stephen does not even oppose the law. Much the opposite, he argues from the law! Jesus is the fulfillment of all the stories of old—the finale. Not a new and different story.In the ancient world, orators would often used quotations as proofs. In Stephen's case, his quotations are granted by all present as God's word. They carry significant weight in the argument. Almost the entire speech consists of retellings of sacred stories about the heroes of the faith.The Old Testament also used historical retrospectives to powerfully move God's people to repentance, sacrifice, and faithfulness. Consider, for example:When your children ask you later on, “What are the stipulations, statutes, and ordinances that the Lord our God commanded you?” you must say to them, “We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt in a powerful way. And he brought signs and great, devastating wonders on Egypt, on Pharaoh, and on his whole family before our very eyes. He delivered us from there so that he could give us the land he had promised our ancestors. The Lord commanded us to obey all these statutes and to revere him so that it may always go well for us and he may preserve us, as he has to this day. We will be innocent if we carefully keep all these commandments before the Lord our God, just as he demands.” Exodus 6:20-25There are two axioms that are essential to understanding Stephen's speech. First, if one believes that these biblical stories are true, then one believes that the present times are a continuation of those stories. So, one may apply the patterns and lessons from those stories to the present day. Second, if one reads Scripture as Scripture, one will seek to emulate the good examples in it. Scripture becomes a model for life and even an interpretive grid—one understands life in light of biblical lessons.So, we should consider both of those axioms in relation to the charges brought against Stephen. After each tale told by Stephen, let's ask question like:(1) What is the pattern of God's actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God's promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God's promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled? AbrahamThe God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, and said to him, ‘Go out from your country and from your relatives, and come to the land I will show you.' Then he went out from the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God made him move to this country where you now live. He did not give any of it to him for an inheritance, not even a foot of ground, yet God promised to give it to him as his possession, and to his descendants after him, even though Abraham as yet had no child. But God spoke as follows: ‘Your descendants will be foreigners in a foreign country, whose citizens will enslave them and mistreat them for 400 years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,' said God, ‘and after these things they will come out of there and worship me in this place.' Then God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision, and so he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him when he was eight days old, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 patriarchs. Acts 7:2b-8(1) What is the pattern of God's actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?Where did God appear to Abraham? In Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran. God did not act because Abraham was on or possessed the Holy Land. God can act anywhere. He is not restricted to the land. When did God appear to Abraham? Before the law was ever given. Neither possessing the Torah nor keeping it is what set Abraham apart.(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?At least in Stephen's summary of Abraham's life, Abraham is not persecuted by others. Of course, if we read his entire story in Genesis, Abraham did confront strong opposition and serious threats. However, Stephen makes clear that Abraham's story begins with him leaving his country. Leaving both kin and his land to follow God's plan. Following God may lead one to do such things.(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God's promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God's promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?God promised Abraham the land as his possession and to his descendants after him. One would expect Abraham to own all the promised land by the end of his life. Is this what happens? “[God] did not give any of it to him for an inheritance, not even a foot of ground.” And if that is not surprising enough, God does not give Abraham a child until long after Abraham and his wife could hope for one. But wait, there's more! Abraham's descendants will not inherit the land until after they have moved to a foreign nation and been slaves for 400 years! Only after all that will they worship God “in this place”—that is, the land of Israel and the holy temple. However, God's promise did not fail, and to remind Abraham of God's faithfulness—of the “deal” they made—God gave Abraham a covenant sign: circumcision.JosephThe patriarchs, because they were jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt. But God was with him, and rescued him from all his troubles, and granted him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. Then a famine occurred throughout Egypt and Canaan, causing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food. So when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our ancestors there the first time. On their second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers again, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. So Joseph sent a message and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come, seventy-five people in all. So Jacob went down to Egypt and died there, along with our ancestors, and their bones were later moved to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a certain sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. Acts 7:9-16(1) What is the pattern of God's actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?Joseph is taken to a foreign land, and God meant it for good!As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day. So now, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your little children.” Then he consoled them and spoke kindly to them. Genesis 50:20-21Not only does God take Joseph toa foreign land, then all of “their” ancestors (the ancestors of the Jewish people) must go to a foreign land seeking food. They would up remaining there for centuries. Joseph died there. Jacob died there. In fact all their ancestors (presumably referring to the 75 mentioned in the passage) died there. God's story is not restricted to the land of Israel.Nevertheless, the bones of the ancestors were taken to Shechem—to the land. Recall Joseph's words as he neared death.Then Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die. But God will surely come to you and lead you up from this land to the land he swore on oath to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath. He said, “God will surely come to you. Then you must carry my bones up from this place.” So Joseph died at the age of 110. After they embalmed him, his body was placed in a coffin in Egypt. Genesis 50:24-26Those are the last verses of the book of Genesis. Why would the bones of the Israelite ancestors be taken to the land? That's a key point of recounting Joseph's story. God is a god of promise. The fact that neither Joseph nor the other ancestors possessed the land does not mean that God's promises failed. Joseph certainly did not believe that. It meant that God's plan is larger in scope and history than a single generation can conceive.(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?In Stephen's retelling of Joseph's story, the action begins with Joseph leaving his kin and his land. Unlike Abraham who did so willingly, Joseph does so by force. He is sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. By whom? The patriarchs! Some of the most venerated figures in Jewish history cause the hero to be exiled. And, how is this hero regarded by the patriarchs? They are jealous of him and wish him harm. Again, exile from country and kin is a means used by God to accomplish his plans.(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God's promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God's promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?In the land of Canaan—that is, the promised land—the patriarchs could not find food. How did God preserve them in the land, the very land God promised to them? Did God reverse the famine? No, God had already put a plan into to motion,, and it involved foreign lands. The patriarchs would find food and shelter in Egypt, which would take them out of the land for hundreds of years. This is neither how nor when (in the sense of timing) one would expect God to deliver on his promise.MosesStephen's section is lengthy, and we may not have time to reread it. That is why I bolded certain statement to “hit the high points.”“But as the time drew near for God to fulfill the promise he had declared to Abraham, the people increased greatly in number in Egypt, until another king who did not know about Joseph ruled over Egypt. This was the one who exploited our people and was cruel to our ancestors, forcing them to abandon their infants so they would die. At that time Moses was born, and he was beautiful to God. For three months he was brought up in his father's house, and when he had been abandoned, Pharaoh's daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. So Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds. But when he was about forty years old, it entered his mind to visit his fellow countrymen the Israelites. When he saw one of them being hurt unfairly, Moses came to his defense and avenged the person who was mistreated by striking down the Egyptian. He thought his own people would understand that God was delivering them through him, but they did not understand. The next day Moses saw two men fighting and tried to make peace between them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why are you hurting one another?' But the man who was unfairly hurting his neighbor pushed Moses aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge over us? You don't want to kill me the way you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?' When the man said this, Moses fled and became a foreigner in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.“After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and when he approached to investigate, there came the voice of the Lord, ‘I am the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Moses began to tremble and did not dare to look more closely. But the Lord said to him, ‘Take the sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have certainly seen the suffering of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them. Now come, I will send you to Egypt.' This same Moses they had rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge?' God sent as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This man led them out, performing wonders and miraculous signs in the land of Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.' This is the man who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you. Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him, but pushed him aside and turned back to Egypt in their hearts, saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go in front of us, for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt —we do not know what has happened to him!' At that time they made an idol in the form of a calf, brought a sacrifice to the idol, and began rejoicing in the works of their hands. But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.' Acts 7:27-43(1) What is the pattern of God's actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?God chooses a man in a foreign land (Egypt), raised by foreigners (Pharaoh's daughter)! This is the man that was “beautiful to God.” Not only that, but Moses is doubly exiled. From Egypt he goes to Midian. Moses is selected and considered “beautiful” by God before God has given him the Torah or the law.(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?How is Moses treated by others? The Egyptians forced his mother to abandon him. The Israelites did not treat him much better. Moses defends the Israelites from the Egyptians. Do the Israelites see this as any kind of deliverance? Not at all. They “did not understand.” Moses tries to “make peace between” fellow Israelites, but they will not accept that either. Instead, they ask, “Who made you a ruler and judge over us?” In the story, Moses is their proper ruler and deliverer, but the people reject him.The story only gets worse. At the first opportunity, the Israelites abandon Moses and God. They claim they do not know what has happened to him and demand a calf to worship. Most shockingly, Stephen applies a prophecy from the book of Amos to imply that Israel continued in their idolatry permanently. Even in the wilderness, as they obeyed God, their hearts were directed at another.(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God's promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God's promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?God chooses an unlikely hero. As I said above, a man in a foreign land, raised by a foreign people, and rejected by the Israelites. Yet, he is favored by God before he enters the land, before he receives the law, and before he obeys the law.Perhaps more surprising than God delivering his people through Moses is the response of God's people. If one were simply guessing at the story of God and the deliverance of his people, one would think that when salvation finally arrives the people would be joyful, grateful, and ultimately obedient. Yet one would be mistaken. The people turn from both their human deliverer and their divine deliverer at every turn. After God's great miracles in Egypt, the people are ready to worship a calf. Even after the law is given, the people obey hypocritically and wish for other gods.And more surprising still, the great deliverance of God's people from Egypt is not the final fulfillment of God's promise to “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” No, this man “who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai” speaks of someone else. Another prophet like him will come. The surprises are not over.Preliminary ConclusionsWe will discuss the end of the chapter next week. I wish we had more time because everything we discussed today builds up to the mention of David—their greatest king—and the temple—the House of the Lord.But perhaps there is something good about pausing for a minute. We need to ask: what are the points that Stephen is trying to make by retelling the stories of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses?Truly, the main point goes beyond any particular parallel between Jesus and either Abraham, Joseph, or Moses (although those are important). The core of Stephen's argument is about God and his redemptive plan.Is God restricted to the land of Israel? No! God often acts outside of Israel. In His plans, God has disposed of any land as he saw fit.Is God restricted to the Torah and the law? No! God does not need to show exclusive favor to or act exclusively through those who have the Torah or follow his law. God has been acting in history and choosing people well before the Torah or the law had been delivered.Is God's plan of redemption narrow and mechanical? Is it about the Jews and the land of Israel? Is that where God resides in a special and exclusive way? As we will see in the last few verses of chapter 7: no! God was just as present in Egypt and Midian as he was in Israel. If it fits God's plan, God himself will take his people out of the promised land for centuries at a time.Put differently, Stephen's main point is that the Jews of his day place the wrong interpretive grid on the Old Testament. If perhaps simplistically, one could summarize the Jews' perspective as being that God's plan was to establish the Jews in Israel, given the the Torah, teach them to obey the law within it, and reside in the temple. Stephen, representative of Jesus' followers, is trying to show that the correct interpretive grid is quite different. God is a god of promise. He has been acting in history for thousands of years (if we start counting merely from the time of Abraham) towards a redemptive goal. Whenever his promises seemed to fail, they didn't. They were part of a grander plan. Whenever his promises seemed to be fulfilled, they weren't. The people of God still rejected him. But this too was part of a grander plan. Moses himself, this man who spoke with God, spoke of it. Another prophet would come. If the people of God misunderstood every other prophet, should we expect them to recognize that final prophet? No.Stephen's argument is neither against the law nor the temple. It is about whether those things are the fulfillment of God's promise or a step towards a greater fulfillment. It is in this sense that Christians today and Stephen in ancient Israel say that all the Old Testament is about Jesus.

Scripture Reading: Acts 6:1-7 1 Now in those days, when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the twelve called the whole group of the disciples together and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables. 3 But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 The proposal pleased the entire group, so they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a Gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch. 6 They stood these men before the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands on them. 7 The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.Major ThemesToday we read a short text, but I want to slow down for two reasons. First, this text introduces an important new group of people who serve as a bridge on the journey to sharing the gospel with all the world. Second, this text is often described as the appointment of the church's first seven deacons. I want to take that idea, whether accurate or not, as a springboard to discuss church government more broadly. I think this is an important topic as new or prospective Christians assess which church they would like to visit or join.Hebrews and HellenistsChapter 6 broadens the stage of the church's story. Up to this point, the narrative has centered exclusively on Israeli Jews—Jews who lived in Israel, spoke the Israeli language (which was no longer Hebrew but Aramaic), and followed the Israeli customs. These are the “native Hebraic Jews,” as the NET translation puts it, or, literally, “Hebrews.”In chapter 6, we meet a different kind of Jew—the “Greek-speaking Jew”—or, literally, the “Hellenist.” The NET translation avoids using that word not because it is inaccurate but because “this descriptive term is largely unknown to the modern English reader.”However, the phrase “Greek-speaking Jew” can be misleading. Taken too literally, one may conclude that the key difference, perhaps the only difference, between the two Jewish groups is their first language. The translators seem to share my concern since they add a few explanatory notes. First, they point out that, “The translation ‘Greek-speaking Jews' attempts to convey something of who these were, but it was more than a matter of language spoken; it involved a degree of adoption of Greek culture as well.” They add, “The Greek-speaking Jews were the Hellenists, Jews who to a greater or lesser extent had adopted Greek thought, customs, and lifestyle, as well as the Greek language. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was a focal point for them, but they were scattered throughout the Roman Empire.”Many earlier scholars focused on a supposed theological divide between Hebrews and Hellenists. The claim was that Hellenists had lesser regard for or perhaps even opposed the temple and temple worship. The trend today, as evidenced by the NET notes, is to view the groups as linguistically and to some extent culturally distinct. The Hebrews spoke primarily Aramaic and in varying measures Greek; the Hellenists were primarily Greek speakers. Hellenists were probably Diaspora immigrants or their descendants in Jerusalem. (The term Diaspora refers to the dispersion of the Jewish people beyond Israel.)Notice that the term Hellenist does not mean “Gentile.” For context, the verb “hellenize” was often used in contrast to “barbarize” and hence meant speaking correct Greek. Greeks spread their language and culture together. Consequently, the title Hellenist probably included a certain Greek disposition, education, and support for Greek culture.However, we must also recall that Jews in the Diaspora—that is, in the Greek and Roman world—did not abandon their Jewish customs. So, we should not conclude that Hellenists adopted all Greek customs and beliefs, particularly those opposed to Judaism. Moreover, Jews who cared enough to relocate to their homeland probably had high regard for Jewish customs. (Archaeological evidence suggests that many Diaspora Jews did settle in Jerusalem, perhaps to spend their final days there.)Racism?The interaction of two ethnic groups predictably leads to problems. I use the term ethnicity not to denote race—both groups were made up of Jews—but, as Oxford Dictionary puts it, to denote groups “made up of people who share a common cultural background.” The neglect of the Hellenist widows leads to charges of favoritism or, at worst, discrimination. This is the first reported internal schism in the church (as long as one does not count the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, which was more of an infiltration than an internal schism).In the ancient world—Israel included—widows were truly marginalized. They were often unable to inherit property, purchase land, or work outside the home. In other words, the system left them destitute, which also left them dependent on the resources of relatives and charity. Due to war, the number of widows was great (by one study, a third of all women in the Roman empire). Their need could overwhelm a community.Notice that the problem between Hebrews and Hellenists is prefaced with the good news that “the disciples were growing in numbers.” Growth presents challenges; the church is not an exception to the rule. And, if the last 20 years of multiculturalism in the West have taught us anything, cross-cultural growth is even more challenging. (This is only an observation, not an argument that the church should not expand cross-culturally.)The apostles were among the Hebrews and supervised the distribution of food (4:35). So, the widows' complaint was aimed not only at the church in general but, at least by implication, at the apostles in particular. Should we assume ill will on the part of the apostles? Not really. Given the rapid spread of their fame in the city and explosive rise in church membership, surely they were unable to offer detailed attention to the ministry of charity. Their very success pressed them beyond their abilities.But, how could the apostles overlook the Hellenist widows unintentionally? Although unlikely, food for the poor may have been distributed through a public dole. (In the Roman world, the grain dole was the system by which the government provided subsidized or free grain to the Roman population. Much like welfare today, eligible citizens would be entered into a registry. Then they would receive grain stored by the government.) Immigrants might have had less knowledge of and access to the dole. However, the more likely case is that charity was distributed through private means and synagogues. In that case, Hellenists may have had fewer connections to local families distributing the food. In either case, Hellenists may have had a disproportionate number of widows since many Hellenists moved to Israel once advanced in age. (So, perhaps there were more unprovided Hellenist widows simply because there were more Hellenist widows.) Finally, as I explained above, local widows may have had family to care for them, making them less dependent on charity.The SolutionFaced with the widows' charge, how do the apostles respond? They recognize their limitations and their explicit calling. They realize that they must prioritize the “word of God” and leave the distribution of food to someone else. This is a clear example of delegation of duties in the context of ministry. It is also an example of prioritizing the message over charity when the two are mutually exclusive. Jesus had already exemplified both of these points.After Jesus called the twelve together, he gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. Luke 9:1-2The next morning Jesus departed and went to a deserted place. Yet the crowds were seeking him, and they came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them. But Jesus said to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns too, for that is what I was sent to do.” So he continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:42-44Even if a solution is clear in principle, it is not always clear in practice. To whom should the apostles delegate the important duty of handling and distributing church property? We will discuss the character requirement of the new leaders in a minute, but we must notice that (probably) all of them belong to the offended minority. We can surmise their Hellenist ethnicity from their names and the bit of information provided about a couple of them. I know that the church's “affirmative action” in Acts 6 is sure to be viewed extremely negatively (or extremely positively, depending on one's political persuasion) in our modern-day culture; but, if we can leave that aside for a minute, consider the strategy's efficacy. To address the complaint that Hellenists are being subjected to discrimination in the distribution of food, Hellenist are put in charge of the food distribution. The claim of favoritism is resoundingly defeated. (Notice the apostles did not require the church to select Hellenists. Presumably, the church as a whole thought that this course of action was appropriate.)Nonetheless, the new leaders are not merely affirmative-action hires. The apostles define basic qualifications for service: good reputation; full of the Spirit and wisdom. They invite the church as a whole to choose representatives who meet these qualifications.In the ancient world, qualifications for leadership were common, including to hold civic offices. Being of good reputation, or as our passage puts it, “favorably attested,” was essential in Greco-Roman politics. The new leaders must also be “full of the Spirit.” This probably indicates a continuous state rather than a mere occasion of being “filled with the Spirit” (although the two senses of the phrase are not mutually exclusive).In the list of qualifications for leadership, the Spirit is linked to wisdom (“full of the Spirit and wisdom”). As we discussed during our study of John, Jewish literature often linked and sometimes equated the Spirit of God with wisdom. Consider, for example:You are to speak to all who are specially skilled, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, so that they may make Aaron's garments to set him apart to minister as my priest. Exodus 28:3For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:6For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, . . . Wisdom 7:24-26Part of the requisite wisdom would undoubtedly be knowledge of how to manage funds.12 and 7As we discussed at the beginning of our Acts study, the number of apostles is important. Twelve was the number of Jewish tribes; the twelve apostles represent the remnant of Israel carrying on the faith. What about the number seven? Is there a reason that seven people were selected as leaders of the Jerusalem church?Several ancient cultures, including the Jewish people, used the number seven symbolically, particularly for groups of leaders. The number 70 (or seventy-something) appears frequently as well. For example, in Luke 10:1, Jesus appoints 72 men to preach the good news from town to town. But most importantly, there is a particular Old Testament story that connects with Acts 6. The fact that seven leaders are appointed in response to a complaint by the people of God harkens back to Numbers 11.When the people complained, it displeased the Lord. When the Lord heard it, his anger burned, and so the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outer parts of the camp. When the people cried to Moses, he prayed to the Lord, and the fire died out. So he called the name of that place Taberah because there the fire of the Lord burned among them.Now the mixed multitude who were among them craved more desirable foods, and so the Israelites wept again and said, “If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now we are dried up, and there is nothing at all before us except this manna!” . . .Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, everyone at the door of his tent; and when the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, Moses was also displeased. And Moses said to the Lord, “Why have you afflicted your servant? Why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of this entire people on me? Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your arms, as a foster father bears a nursing child,' to the land that you swore to their fathers? From where shall I get meat to give to this entire people, for they cry to me, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat!' I am not able to bear this entire people alone, because it is too heavy for me! But if you are going to deal with me like this, then kill me immediately. If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”The Lord said to Moses, “Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know are elders of the people and officials over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting; let them take their position there with you. Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take part of the Spirit that is on you, and will put it on them, and they will bear some of the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it all by yourself. Numbers 11:1-16However, we should also consider the possibility that the apostles meant nothing by the number seven. Perhaps they were simply being practical. Consider the study note in the NET Bible:Seven. Jewish town councils often had seven members (Josephus, Ant. 4.18.14 [4.214])In other words, the apostles needed a ruling council and ruling councils generally had seven members. This would be like if we started a company today and appointed a president, a secretary, and a treasurer. Why three officers? Why call them president, secretary, and treasurer? Because that is “how it's done.” We would intend no deeper meaning. Deacons for Them, Deacons for Us? Wait, Deacons?A question churches have wrestled to answer for two thousand years is what constitutes proper church government—or, as is referred to in theological terms, church polity. Central to the discussion of church polity is determining which church “offices” (if any) are ordained by Scripture. Recall my example above in which I mentioned three corporate offices: president, secretary, and treasurer. One can hardly discuss which duties belong to the secretary and which belong to the treasurer until one determines that a company should have a secretary and a treasurer. In the church context, there are three potential offices: bishop, elder (or pastor, or presbyter), and deacon (or servant). (Sometimes a fourth office is considered, that of pastor or teacher from the Greek words poimen and didaskalos. Let's ignore that for now, but I will mention it again at the end of our discussion.) Each of these offices comes from a distinct Greek term. Here is a brief rundown of these terms that I adapted from this handy article.Episkopos. This word episkopos (from which we get Episcopal) is used a total of 5 times in the New Testament, always in reference to someone who has authority to lead in ministry. It is usually translated “overseer” or “bishop.”Presbuteros. The word presbuteros occurs 72 times in the New Testament, and it has a range of meanings. The majority of the time (57 times) it is translated "elder" and means a position of leadership in the church, like a pastor or other member of church leadership. It differs from episkopos in that it also assumes the quality of old age. In fact, the word presbuteros is also translated at times to mean “older man” (10 times) and even once as “older woman.”Diakonos. The word diakonos means “one who serves in ministry” or more generally, “servant.” The word appears 29 times in the New Testament. Of those 29 times, it is translated (by the NASB) as “deacon” three times, as “minister” seven times, and as “servant” 19 times.The most controversial of the three offices is the first: bishop. Bishops are generally understood to be overseers of several pastors (i.e., presbuteros). They are regional leaders. Yet, many Christian denominations believe that each congregation is governmentally independent so there can be no such thing as a leader of multiple congregations. An example of a denomination that recognizes bishops (episkopos) as distinct and superior in rank to elders (presbuteros) is the Catholic church. An example of a denomination that does not recognize bishops is Baptist churches. The main argument made by churches that do not recognize bishops is that the terms episkopos and presbuteros are synonyms—not distinct church offices.You might be wondering: how can Christian churches disagree about something like this? Surely the text of scripture is crystal clear. Alas, languages are tricky and Greek is no exception. Consider Acts 6. Is it a good biblical foundation for the church office of deacon (diakonos)?In Acts 6, the word diakonos does not appear. In verses 1 and 4, a related but different noun appears (diakonia), translated as “distribution” and “ministry” respectively. The verb cognate of diakonos appears in verse 2. It is translated as “to wait” (as in, “to wait on tables”). Yet, one cannot simply assume that the verb points to its noun cognate. In other words, the text may only be referring to the act of service and not to some special office. For example, consider the noun “server” and the verb “to serve” in English. The noun can refer to a particular office (e.g., a restaurant server) while the verb rarely points to such office. (If I say, “I served food at home,” I am not implying that I hold the office of “server” at home.) However, this has not stopped many Christian thinkers, including ancient thinkers such as Irenaeus, Pseudo-Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, from applying this passage to the diaconate.Of course, one could use Acts 6 to argue for a certain church office apart from linguistic evidence. Undoubtedly, the apostles gave the new seven leader some kind of authority in the church. But without the linguistic component to connects Acts 6 with other passages that mention the word diakonos, one has a harder time arguing for a universal church office. Moreover, even the noun form of diakonos most often refers not to a church leader but to servants in other ministry contexts (Christ as minister (Rom 15:8), Paul as minister (2 Cor 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), Paul and colleagues (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4), Paul's fellow ministers of the gospel (Rom 16:1; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7; 1 Tim 4:6)).Where am I headed with this extensive discussion? In regard to Acts 6 particularly, I think the text clearly shows that a church may find itself in need of people to assist with different matters, and the church is right to recognize and appoint such helpers. However, I do not think that Acts 6, at least on its own, can be used to argue for some special, universal church office. In regard to the broader discussion of church polity, I am trying to show that church polity is a difficult topic. Scriptural passages are sometimes used to argue beyond what the text truly conveys. Furthermore, even when arguing in good faith, churches may reasonably reach different conclusions.With that in mind, I would like to explore some of the different ways that churches organize and govern themselves. Before we do that, let's discuss the last two noteworthy points in today's text.Democracy?How are the seven leaders selected? We are not really told, but we are given two important details. The selection was made by the “group.” And, the group “chose” the leaders. The latter fact means that the group did not cast lots or employ another form of chance to identify the leaders. So, how did the “group” make the selection? As modern readers, we assume a democratic vote was taken. That could be the case, but it is by no means a necessary implication of the text. For example, perhaps the elders (i.e., older men) made the choice. As with the discussion of deacons above, Acts 6 allows for only modest conclusions. On one hand, the apostles did not lord their authority over the congregation and left the leadership decision up to the group. On the other hand, we are not told that the church should be organized democratically. In this passage, there is simply not enough data to surmise a non-hierarchical, democratic church government or, for that matter, its opposite. (Perhaps one could reach some of those conclusions by taking the whole counsel of scripture. I am obviously not denying that.)Laying HandsThe people chose the leaders, but the apostles commissioned them by praying and “lay[ing] hands on them.” This recalls the Old Testament scene in Numbers 27.Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go up this mountain of the Abarim range, and see the land I have given to the Israelites. When you have seen it, you will be gathered to your ancestors, as Aaron your brother was gathered to his ancestors. . . .Then Moses spoke to the Lord: “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all humankind, appoint a man over the community, who will go out before them, and who will come in before them, and who will lead them out, and who will bring them in, so that the community of the Lord may not be like sheep that have no shepherd.”The Lord replied to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him; set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community, and commission him publicly. Then you must delegate some of your authority to him, so that the whole community of the Israelites will be obedient. . . .So Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community. He laid his hands on him and commissioned him, just as the Lord commanded, by the authority of Moses. Numbers 27:12-22Laying of hands is a form of commissioning, but it also evokes patriarchal blessings and empowerment. After the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbis used laying of hands to ordain their pupils. Unsurprisingly, churches use it today to ordain pastors, priests, bishops, and sometimes deacons. The fullest examples of laying of hands in the New Testament are found in two letters written by Paul.Command and teach these things. Let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in your speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity. Until I come, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the spiritual gift you have, given to you and confirmed by prophetic words when the elders laid hands on you. 1 Timothy 4:11-14(As the NET notes explain, the last phrase in the verses quoted above can be translated more literally as, “with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery,” i.e., the council of elders.)Because of this I remind you to rekindle God's gift that you possess through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me, a prisoner for his sake, but by God's power accept your share of suffering for the gospel. 2 Timothy 1:6-8Notice that inducting members into a position of authority by laying of hands requires there to be someone already in leadership. Otherwise, there would be nobody to perform the laying of hands. This raises a no small question. Is church leadership only valid if it is conveyed by a prior church leader. Must there be a line of succession from Jesus, to the apostles, to whomever the apostles appointed to lead, all the way to your local pastor? As you might imagine, this idea is debated, but (rather surprisingly) most denominations agree that some kind of succession is necessary. I say “some kind” of succession because there is less agreement as to what succession really entails.Modern Denominations' PolityAs I mentioned at the beginning, I want to end today's session on a practical note. I imagine that some of this Bible study's participants may be considering which church to join. One of the questions that seems unfathomable from the outside is how churches are organized. Who is really in charge? How are churches connected, if at all? Below I include a summary of churches' polities adapted from a Gospel Coalition article. This summary is not great, but I will discuss more details during our live session.Eastern Orthodox: Bishops, following in the succession of the apostles, appoint male priests (also known as elders or presbyters) to pastor the people. Deacons serve the material needs of the congregation and play a key role in liturgical life. Synods (teams of bishops) lead the church, not a single bishop or pope.Catholic: Authority rests with the bishops who follow in the succession of the apostles. Bishops are helped by male priests (also known as elders or presbyters) to pastor the people. Deacons serve the material needs of the congregation. The pope, the bishop of Rome, is the key human authority over the church, who is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the full seat of authority on issues of faith or morals).Anglican: Anglicanism resembles Catholicism in organizational structure, with an archbishop presiding over other bishops, who preside over priests and deacons in local congregations. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and symbolic head, as a first among equals.Lutheranism: Lutheran Churches can vary between a more episcopal form of government and a more congregational form of government. Lutheran churches in America tend to be more congregational, though with some authority given to synods at different levels.Presbyterian: Local congregations are governed by teams of elders (teaching and ruling elders), who take part in a larger assembly of elders (presbyteries), which take part in an even larger assembly (synod or a general assembly).Methodism: The Methodist system follows the polity of connexionalism, which teaches the importance of connection among believers at various levels. Methodism uses conferences at different levels composed of both elected laypeople and ordained ministers to govern the needs and concerns of local churches up through the entire denomination.Baptist: Baptist churches believe that Christ is the head of the church and that Christ guides every local church through the Spirit living within the members of each church. While Baptists may voluntarily join associations, each individual church is autonomous. Most Baptist churches are congregation-ruled, but some are led by single pastors while others are led by a plurality of elders, selected by church members.Evangelical Free Church: Evangelical Free churches follow a congregational model of church governance.Church of Christ: Churches of Christ are independent congregations with elders, deacons, and ministers leading the congregation. Ministers are understood to serve under the oversight of the elders. While the presence of a long-term professional minister has sometimes created significant de facto ministerial authority"and led to conflict between the minister and the elders, the eldership has remained the ultimate locus of authority in the congregation.Pentecostal: Pentecostal churches are congregationalists. They may be independent congregations or local congregations that associate with other like-minded churches (“cooperative fellowships”). Generally, the congregation selects a minister and a board of deacons. Some Pentecostal churches are adopting an “eldership model” vesting some of the congregation's authority on a group of elders.Non-Denominational Churches: Non-denominational churches will be congregational since they have no commitment to any specific denomination.

Scripture Reading: Acts 5:17-42 17 Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. 18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, 20 “Go and stand in the temple courts and proclaim to the people all the words of this life.” 21 When they heard this, they entered the temple courts at daybreak and began teaching.Now when the high priest and those who were with him arrived, they summoned the Sanhedrin—that is, the whole high council of the Israelites—and sent to the jail to have the apostles brought before them. 22 But the officers who came for them did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, 23 “We found the jail locked securely and the guards standing at the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the commander of the temple guard and the chief priests heard this report, they were greatly puzzled concerning it, wondering what this could be. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “Look! The men you put in prison are standing in the temple courts and teaching the people!” 26 Then the commander of the temple guard went with the officers and brought the apostles without the use of force (for they were afraid of being stoned by the people).27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood on us!” 29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people. 30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these events, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”33 Now when they heard this, they became furious and wanted to execute them. 34 But a Pharisee whose name was Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was respected by all the people, stood up in the council and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35 Then he said to the council, “Men of Israel, pay close attention to what you are about to do to these men. 36 For sometime ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about 400 men joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and nothing came of it. 37 After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and incited people to follow him in revolt. He too was killed, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in this case I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, 39 but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God.” He convinced them, 40 and they summoned the apostles and had them beaten. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them. 41 So they left the council rejoicing because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. 42 And every day both in the temple courts and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ.Main ThemesIntroduction—Setting the SceneToday's text narrates the apostles' second arrest. The scene begins with the high priest “rising up.” Remember that this “high priest” was introduced in Acts 4:6 as Annas, although historically Caiaphas was high priest at this time. We have good reason to believes that Annas (Caiaphas' father-in-law) was the de facto head of the high-priestly family. Thus, Annas seems to lead the trial.The Sadducees are also mentioned. We have discussed them at length, so I will only remind you that this is the party that claims to believe in the Old Testament but that denies life after death and miraculous interventions by God.The high priest and Sadducees are described as being filled with “jealousy.” This is a strong word that in Judaism was generally reserved for religiously motivated rage. Ironically, it conveys a zeal motivated by a desire to maintain the purity of the faith.Moreover, envy is a strong, motivating emotion in an honor-shame society. Within a competitive limited honor culture the popularity of the apostles' ministry diminishes the honor (i.e., support) of the ruling elite. This is particularly the case given the apostles' claim that the leaders had unjustly crucified an innocent Jew who was anointed by God.The apostles' popularity and peaceful behavior had protected them from trouble with the authorities. But now (after the trial in chapter 4), they are defying a direct order from the authorities. Allowing the apostles to continue in their disobedience threatens the authority and power of the ruling council. They must act.I mentioned this before, but the arrests in chapter 4 and 5 work as a redemptive arc in Peter's story. When Jesus was arrested, Peter claimed that he was willing to face “both prison and death” for Jesus (Luke 22:33)—but he failed (22:34, 57-61). In Acts, Peter finally follows through.Miraculous Prison BreakThe apostles' miraculous release from prison works in two levels: on the literal level, it is a miraculous sign that validates their mission from God; on the literary level, it fulfills prophecy. Jesus's mission includes release of captives.The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me, because the Lord has chosen me. He has commissioned me to encourage the poor, to help the brokenhearted, to decree the release of captives and the freeing of prisoners, . . . Isaiah 61:1In chapter 12, we will read of another miraculous escape at the hands of the Angel of the Lord. Many scholars note that miraculous escapes are a frequent motif in ancient literature. Perhaps the best known story would have been that of Euripides. Some try to show narrative parallels between Euripides' Bacchae and Acts. You can review them here, but in my opinion it is a stretch at best. Moreover, one could grant that a popular story such as that of Euripides could impact how Luke told the story of Peter's escape without in any way affecting the substance of the story. For example, I could begin a story about my childhood with the phrase, “once upon a time,” and then tell a true and factual tale. I would be copying how classic children stories are told, not the events they narrate. We must also keep in mind that Luke generally employs Jewish stories as his models and background, not Greek or Roman mythology. The Old Testament lacks a tradition of angels aiding in prison escapes, but it does contain stories of the Angel of the Lord helping people while imprisoned (see, e.g., Dan 6: 22).Perhaps the most important question we should ask is: Why does God release the apostles from prison? For proclamation (Acts 5:20). More specifically, the command is to go speak at the temple. This makes sense for several reasons. The apostles could address large crowds there. It is also reminiscent of Old Testament prophets tasked with addressing all Israelites. Recall, for example, Jeremiah 7.The Lord said to Jeremiah: “Stand in the gate of the Lord's temple and proclaim this message: ‘Listen to the Lord's message, all you people of Judah who have passed through these gates to worship the Lord. The Lord of Heaven's Armies, the God of Israel, says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right. If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land. Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, “We are safe! The temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here!” You must change the way you have been living and do what is right. You must treat one another fairly. Stop oppressing resident foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands. Stop killing innocent people in this land. Stop paying allegiance to other gods. That will only bring about your ruin. If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land that I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession. Jeremiah 7:1-7The apostles are tasked with proclaiming the “words of this life” (Acts 5:20). This could refer to wisdom—the behavior that leads to a better life. Given Jesus' emphasis on eternal life (Luke 10:25; 18:18, 30), and Peter's earlier preaching about “the prince of life” (Acts 3:15), the more likely conclusion is that the words of life are about Jesus being the way to eternal life.Preaching at the TempleThe apostles are specifically tasked with preaching in the temple. By proclaiming the true message of the true God in the temple, this is a sort of reconsecration—a recurring theme in Jewish history.Notice that the angel's command puts God and the authorities in direct conflict. God says proclaim the message of Jesus in the temple. The authorities say do not speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:21, 29), which would certainly include doing so in the most religiously significant and very densely populated place—the temple. In the narrative, the apostles have made it clear already, and will do so again, that they must obey God over people.The apostles began teaching immediately at daybreak. This is the same time at which the Sanhedrin would have gathered. Public life in the ancient Mediterranean world began at daybreak. Moreover, Jewish people offered morning prayers before work at sunrise. The priests would have already been working on the customary daybreak sacrifice. So the apostles would find a ready-made crowd to teach at that time.We should note the subtle jab at the rulers when we are told the rulers had to be informed of the apostles' preaching. “Someone” came and informed them. None of them were at the temple for early morning prayers. An outsider to the group had to tell them. In contrast to the apostles, the mostly priestly city leaders are depicted as further removed from the liturgical life of the temple and the Jerusalemites who worshiped there.The DiscoveryWe are told that the guards were at the jail. This implies that the guards had not abandoned their post and presumably also had not participated in a conspiracy. The facts clearly point towards a miracle. The Sadducees, however, who denied miracles, are not amazed—they are puzzled. As I have highlighted in the past, they never stop to wonder whether they are wrong. As the meme goes, they do not ask, “Are we the baddies?” Acknowledging the possibility of a miracle would have only made things worse. The people may have held the apostles in even higher esteem.Instead, the leaders immediately call for the arrest of the apostles. Undoubtedly, the high priest and captain of the guard lost face before the other leaders—failing to control a handful of prisoners who then openly defied them for a second time. Preaching at the temple instead of escaping was nothing less than a public challenge to the authority of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, the guards must arrest the apostles nonviolently. Why? “For they were afraid of being stoned by the people.”Given the history of Israel—recall the Maccabean rebellion we discussed last time, for example—a violent uprising was not implausible. Not only was this immediately dangerous to the members of the Sanhedrin, but stirring the crowds could provoke Roman retribution. On a theological level, we should note that the leaders' actions are not motivated by what is right or wrong. They act based on what is advantageous and are only limited by power. The TrialYet again the apostles find themselves in the middle of an interrogation. Surprisingly, the interrogation does not open with, “How did you escape?” This matter was less pressing to the authorities than the apostles' disobedience to their previous warning. Besides, asking such a question could open the door for a bold speech about God helping the righteous—only a rookie lawyer asks open ended questions of a hostile witness.What is the authorities' problem with the apostles preaching? We have discussed this before, so I will keep this brief. The authorities claim the apostles are bringing Jesus' “blood on them” (Acts 5:28). This refers to the concept of bloodguilt: one who carried guilt for shedding innocent blood would need to be punished. Interestingly, later in Acts this is a standard that the apostles would apply to themselves. In chapter 20, Paul implies that he would have blood guilt if failed to preach the gospel.“And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God. Acts 20:25-27Peter's response to the authorities is also one we have discussed before. Peter claims that he must obey God over people (Acts 5:29). Although the background to Peter's claim is clearly the Old Testament prophets who often antagonized the nation of Israel for the sake of delivering God's message, Peter's response would have been intelligible to someone with a Hellenistic background as well. His words recall the story of Socrates' trial, and his obeying “the god” rather than his judges.Notice that Peter does not accuse the leaders of “crucifying” Jesus. Instead he speaks in a manner appropriate not to Romans but to Israel's leaders: they “hanged him on a tree.” The language alludes to a shameful mode of execution in Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which Jews by this period applied to crucifixion.Peter's response was surely unexpected to the council. Those on trial, much less the uneducated and politically weak, did not speak with such boldness and open defiance. In challenging the officials' behavior, Peter and the other apostles appear unafraid even of provoking their martyrdom. This fearlessness indicates their absolute convictionWhat was the divine commission the apostles were called to obey?But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” Acts 1:8The PunishmentThe apostles' refusal to be intimidated threatens the elite's socially accepted status of honor. This is a situation in which the message of the gospel collides against hardened hearts. The result is “fury” (Διαπρίω). The term indicates extreme rage. In its only other New Testament use, the council proceeds to kill the object of their anger.The elite wished to execute the apostles. Both an impromptu lynching or a formally carried out death sentence without Roman approval would have been against Roman law. (We discussed this during our study of John.) However, in antiquity like today, such restrictions could be finessed politically. Ancient reports suggest that the Sadducees sometimes abused their power violently. (But we should not exaggerate either. We do not have evidence of the Sanhedrin being involved in lynchings.) The Pharisees, to their credit, were probably much more stringent in evidential requirements for capital cases. So, perhaps if Gamaliel had not intervened, the Sadducees would have held the apostles until they could secure an execution by the Roman authorities.We will discuss Gamaliel in a minute, but let's conclude the discussion of the apostles' punishment. Having been calmed down, the council members decide against capital punishment. The apostles were too popular in Jerusalem to risk disposing of them the way Jesus was dealt with. However, the apostles do not escape with another warning. Not at all.A flogging was a severe punishment. Many scholars suspect that the flogging was the traditional Jewish thirty-nine lashes. (The Pharisees in the council would not have approved of more lashes in view of Deuteronomy 25:2-3.) We know that such a flogging punishment was somewhat common after an offender defied a warning. The person would be tied to a post or lie on the ground, receiving one-third of the blows on the front of the body and two-thirds on the back.GamalielLuke's portrayal of Jerusalem's aristocracy is not monolithic. Luke tells us of a fair member of the council named Gamaliel. Gamaliel, a minority Pharisee on the council, does not so much defend the apostles' views as the Pharisaic position of tolerance.Gamaliel is described as a “teacher of the law.” Gamaliel was a renown teacher, respected by all the people. This was both presupposed by Paul (see Acts 22:3) and attested in rabbinic comments on both him and his grandson. Gamaliel was also wealthy. We can learn something about his wealth from the comments made of his son. Josephus tells us that Gamaliel's son held much authority in the Jerusalem assembly; that he was a Pharisee from a prominent Jerusalem family; that he was very intelligent; and that he had influence with two high priests.Gamaliel ordered the apostles to be put outside, undoubtedly partly for privacy but perhaps also to prevent the apostles from making the court still angrier. Gamaliel's tolerance makes sense from a Pharisaic perspective. Whereas the Sadducees, who held most of the political power, were sensitive to political threats, the Pharisees would likely object to executing those who kept the law. The Pharisees are reported to have favored more leniency than the Sadducees.That Gamaliel, a renowned and respected Pharisee, was able to persuade the Sanhedrin is not surprising. The Pharisees seemed to have represented the views of the people, a status that often enabled them to sway the council's decisions. (Recall that the council was already concerned that the people might react violently and stone them.)The speech opens and closes with its main theme—a warning against hasty action. Gamaliel speaks eloquently, starting with the phrase “pay close attention to,” a familiar idiom in the context of exhortations. Gamaliel then compares the Jesus movement to armed resistance movements. Clearly, Gamaliel understands that is exactly the Sanhedrin's concern regarding Jesus followers. Gamaliel makes the point that the prior revolutionary movements came to nothing, and the same would happen to the Jesus movement if it lacked God's blessing.Gamaliel's argument is not a good one. First, the prior revolutionary movements came to nothing because they were violently stopped. So one could not draw the conclusion that because they failed then the Jesus movement would also fail without any need for violent opposition from the authorities. Moreover, the main premise of his argument invites a logical error. Gamaliel claims that a movement from God cannot be stopped. Fair enough. But we must keep in mind that simply because a movement from God cannot be stopped does not mean that a movement that cannot be stopped is from God. So, even if prior revolutions had succeeded, that would prove nothing. (Many ancients recognized the limits of Gamaliel's logic, realizing one cannot always judge what is praiseworthy on the basis of successes or failures.)Gamaliel's argument is a classic instance of the descriptive versus prescriptive question when interpreting the Bible (or any text). One cannot assume that all things the Bible narrates is teaching us lessons to follow. The Bible may simply be describing something that happened, as in this case it describes the argument Gamaliel makes. Sometimes, of course, it is teaching us how to live or what to believe. We must be careful not to get the two confused.Gamaliel's closing statement to the council does not mince words. He cautions the elite that they might be “fighting against God.” This expression appeared in a widely circulated Jewish text (2 Maccabees 7:19). In that text, “fighting against God” is what the pagan persecutors of the Maccabean martyrs did. Maccabean martyrs were national heroes.Although Gamaliel does not speak from a Christian perspective, perhaps Gamaliel entertained the possibility that God was acting though the apostles. The Sadducees were intellectually committed to the fact that no miracle had release the apostles from prison. Gamaliel, as a Pharisee, held no such commitment.A Historical Error?Gamaliel compares the Jesus movement to Judas the Galilean and Theudas. Judas led a revolt in the days of the census, that is, in 6 A.D. Judas' sons were later crucified for rebellion.Theudas was apparently an eschatological prophet (i.e., a wannabe Jesus) who tried, unsuccessfully, to part the Jordan. Theudas was quickly captured and his head was cut off.Here's the problem. Theudas' revolt was in 44 A.D. This is after Gamaliel's speech and long after Judas the Galilean's revolt in 6 A.D. (rather than before as the text in Acts 5:37 seems to imply).Various solutions to this dating issue are possible.The first solution is that our source dating Theudas' revolt was wrong. That source is Josephus. Josephus certainly makes mistakes in his writing, several times contradicting himself. Besides, Theudas' revolt, as dated by Josephus, happened when Josephus was only 7 years old. Maybe Josephus remembers incorrectly. Yet given Josephus' more detailed treatment of Theudas and Judas, explicit mention of the governors in authority during their revolts, and his apparent access to written sources, on the grounds normally used to ascertain historical probability Josephus seems likelier than Luke to have access to the correct chronology.Another solution sometimes offered is that there was an earlier Theudas before Jesus' birth. This would resolve the dating issue and the chronology in Acts 5 (i.e., first came Theudas, then came Judas). Undoubtedly, prophetic figures abounded, before and after Jesus. Theudas, however, was a rare name. But maybe “Theudas” was a nickname, short for such popular names as “Theodorus,” “Theodosius,” and “Theodotus.”Most scholars believe that the simplest solution is that Luke made a mistake, either unaware of the true date of Theudas or confusing him with some other rebel. If this is a mistake on Luke's part, it would not have been a “big deal” to him or his audience. Even the best of ancient historians made mistakes, and Luke still captures the essence of Gamaliel's speech.I wish to make two comments about this potential error. First, many Christians are committed to the inerrancy of scripture. Inerrancy is not always defined the same way. Its stronger form means that the Bible contains no errors whatsoever, of any kind, including in details such as weights and distances it describes. A more modest version of inerrancy is that the Bible contains no errors regarding anything it teaches. Without going into too much detail, this view allows for certain statements in the Bible to be false because the Bible itself is not committed to their truth. (An example would the mustard seed being the smallest seed in the garden.) Nevertheless, the Theudas mistake flies in the face of either view of inerrancy. So, I ask, if one could prove that there was in fact a mistake in Acts, such that biblical inerrancy fell apart, would that be the end of the Christian faith? No! I say this emphatically because many Christian seem to think so. As long as the Bible is reliable, we are justified in holding our faith in Jesus and in his recorded teachings. Reliability is a much more modest standard than inerrancy.My second comment is, do we know that Luke made a mistake? Luke's other significant historical assertions that can be tested most securely (Gallio, Felix and Festus, Drusilla, Agrippa and Berenice, the Egyptian prophet, local titles for officials, etc.) can all be corroborated. Over the centuries, there have been several instances in which scholars believed Luke made a mistake only to be proven wrong by later archaeological discoveries. Therefore, we have good reason to believe Luke did not make a mistake in the case of Theudas either.Joy in Persecution[I did not have time to finish this section, but here is a brief summary. The narrative concludes by reinforcing the characterization that the apostles, in contrast to Jerusalem's political elite, obey God rather than people. They rejoice when suffering for Jesus's name, as he commanded, while disobeying the Sanhedrin's injunction not to teach in Jesus's name. The apostles return with joy, as they did after Jesus's ascension. Luke often emphasizes joy over embracing the gospel.]

Scripture Reading: Acts 4:32-5:16 32 The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all. 34 For there was no one needy among them because those who were owners of land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds from the sales 35 and placing them at the apostles' feet. The proceeds were distributed to each, as anyone had need. 36 So Joseph, a Levite who was a native of Cyprus, called by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and placed it at the apostles' feet. 1 Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. 2 He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife's knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? 4 Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people but to God!” 5 When Ananias heard these words he collapsed and died, and great fear gripped all who heard about it. 6 So the young men came, wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. 7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, but she did not know what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, were the two of you paid this amount for the land?” Sapphira said, “Yes, that much.” 9 Peter then told her, “Why have you agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out!” 10 At once she collapsed at his feet and died. So when the young men came in, they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear gripped the whole church and all who heard about these things. 12 Now many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles. By common consent they were all meeting together in Solomon's Portico. 13 None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high honor. 14 More and more believers in the Lord were added to their number, crowds of both men and women. 15 Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and put them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow would fall on some of them. 16 A crowd of people from the towns around Jerusalem also came together, bringing the sick and those troubled by unclean spirits. They were all being healed. Main ThemesThe GoodOur reading begins immediately after we are told that all the believers were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:31). There seems to be a pattern that after such outpourings of the Spirit the community experiences power and unity.One Heart and MindWe are told first that the community is of “one heart and mind.” This expression is not exclusive to biblical writers. The exact same expression and also close variations of it were used by other writers to express unity, particularly in friendship relationships (although not exclusively). I think that this is an important clue. I have been in several situations where believers wonder what such unity means and how to achieve it. Perhaps the answer is familiar—too familiar—so we rather avoid it. We should be true friends of our brothers and sisters in Christ.Moreover, the expression “one heart and mind,” literally “one heart and soul,” seems to recall the Old Testament. The mention of heart and soul in the same phrase appeared in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). Undoubtedly the reference that would have been in every ancient Jew's mind would have been the Shema prayer in Deuteronomy 6:5-6. (The Shema prayer is one of the most famous prayers in the Bible. It was a daily prayer for ancient Israelites and is still recited by Jewish people today.)Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind [literally, heart], your whole being [literally, soul], and all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:5-6The Ideal CommunityWe have already discussed the “ideal community” that was the early church in chapter 2. At the end of chapter 4, we encounter that ideal community again. Everything was held in common. (The imperfect verbs suggest not a sale of all property upon conversion but believers selling their property when needs arose and contributing to a common fund supervised by the apostles.)Much like the idea of being of “one heart and mind,” the idea of holding everything in common was especially attributed to friends. Biblically speaking, it seems like the fulfillment to Deuteronomy 15:4-5:However, there should not be any poor among you, for the Lord will surely bless you in the land that he is giving you as an inheritance, if you carefully obey him by keeping all these commandments that I am giving you today. Deuteronomy 15:4-5That the goods were deposited at the apostles' feet means that the apostles were the managers who would supervise distribution among the needy. The location at their feet also indicates submission. The apostles were the leaders of the movement. That the apostles used all the funds for the needy contrasts them with members of the religious elite who exploited others economically. The contrast intensified by the fact that the goods were distributed according to need.The apostles gave testimony with great power, which probably implies miraculous works and bold speech. We are also told that “grace was on them all.” This phrase is difficult to interpret. Consider when the same words were used to speak about Jesus.And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor [literally, grace] of God was upon him. Luke 2:40, emphasis addedConsider also Paul's use of the word in Romans and Ephesians:And we have different gifts according to the grace given to us. If the gift is prophecy, that individual must use it in proportion to his faith. Romans 12:6But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he captured captives; he gave gifts to men.” Ephesians 4:7-8So, grace could mean God's favor, empowerment, or both.Barnabas—The Good ExampleMaybe Barnabas was singled out because his monetary contribution to the church was the largest. Although some scholars think so, one must wonder whether Luke—who seems critical of the wealthy and concerned for the poor—would have thought that to be reason enough. The more likely explanation is that this reference works as an introduction to Barnabas, who will play a larger role later in the story.Joseph was an incredibly common name at the time, so giving a “Joseph” a nickname was not unusual. (The same is true of the name Simon.) We could also make a connection with instances in the Old Testament in which a person was renamed—naming a person signified authority over them. So, perhaps this shows Barnabas submission to the apostles. His nickname, however, relates not to submission but to encouragement. Later passages in Acts confirm that the name was well placed. Barnabas is from Cyprus. Many Jews lived in Cyprus at the time. Perhaps Barnabas' associations with Cyprus help explain his wealth. Cyprus was a prosperous land both rich in minerals (especially copper but also gems) and agriculture. Presumably, this made the field Barnabas sold quite valuable.Notice that Barnabas does everything right. That's the point. He sold a field. He placed the money at the feet of the apostles. He showed generosity, charity, love, unity, and submission to the leadership. I point this out because we are about to read the “bad example.” In my opinion, the chapter division was placed incorrectly. The story of Barnabas is clearly meant to be contrasted with story of Ananias and Sapphira.The BadAnanias—What Did He Do Wrong?Immediately after the introduction of Barnabas, we read “Now a man named Ananias.” Like I said above, these two stories are clearly meant to be read together and contrasted. Let's review what Ananias did.Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife's knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles' feet. Acts 5:1-2We learn the key detail from the verses that follow: Ananias pretended like the money he placed at the apostles' feet was all the sale proceeds.What is so wrong about this? Think about it. After all, the guy donated a bunch of money to the church. Doesn't the good outweigh the bad (that is, the lie)? Was he required to give the whole amount? Did he keep back too much? Let's address these questions.Sanctity, Honor, and HypocrisyWe could say that the early chapters of Acts describing the “ideal community” emphasize sacrificial giving, and Ananias failed to give sacrificially. However, as we will discuss in a moment, Peter makes clear that Ananias had no obligation to give. Instead, the passage in chapter 5 emphasizes the community's sanctity.Ananias and Sapphira wanted to be honored in God's community. One does need to read much of the Bible, Old or New Testament, to encounter verses about the dangers of seeking honor for oneself.You are still exalting yourself against my people by not releasing them. Exodus 9:17How can you believe, if you accept praise from one another and don't seek the praise that comes from the only God? John 5:44As all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, “Beware of the experts in the law. They like walking around in long robes, and they love elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' property, and as a show make long prayers. They will receive a more severe punishment.” Luke 20:45-47Notice that even if sharing was voluntary, the incentive to engage in the practice for selfish reasons is still there. When voluntary practices become a dominant practice of a group, they exert considerable influence on other members to conform to the new standard. Moreover, benefactors in the ancient Mediterranean world expected public honor. Honoring oneself by pretending to engage in sacrificial behavior is also a blatant example of hypocrisy. If you participated in our study of John, then you know that this was a recurring (perhaps the main) issue that Jesus had with the religious leaders.He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'” Mark 7:6“Be careful not to display your righteousness merely to be seen by people. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in heaven. Thus whenever you do charitable giving, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in synagogues and on streets so that people will praise them. I tell you the truth, they have their reward! But when you do your giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your gift may be in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6:1-4Of course, I cannot mention hypocrisy without quoting the “7 woes.”“But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in.“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves!“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple is bound by nothing. But whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by the oath.' Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred? And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing. But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.' You are blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it.“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside may become clean too!“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' By saying this you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your ancestors! You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” Matthew 23:13-33Hypocrisy is obviously bad. But is it really that big of a deal? After all, we do not read of Jesus slashing through Pharisees and leaving them for dead. We also do hear of the apostles attempting to violently subjugate anyone, or performing destructive miracles that force the crowds to behave honestly. How is Ananias worse than the experts in the law and the Pharisees such that he should be struck dead on the spot? God judged impostors within the community much more severely than false prophets or leaders outside of it.The apostle Paul expresses a similar distinction in his first letter to the Corinthians.I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you. 1 Corinthians 9-13God sacrificed his one and only beloved son to create a path for salvation; He also protected the early church from the sins of hypocrisy and self-aggrandizing which would have prevented the good news from going forth to the world.Satan Filled His HeartAnanias's behavior seeking to deceive the community recalls the betrayal of Judas: both men had Satan in their hearts. Recall Luke's description of Judas:The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve. He went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers of the temple guard how he might betray Jesus, handing him over to them. They were delighted and arranged to give him money. So Judas agreed and began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus when no crowd was present. Luke 22:2-6We learn from Peter's question that Ananias' heart was “filled” by Satan.But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? Acts 5:3There are at least two important observations that should be noted. First, whether our modern sensibilities like it or not, scripture does seem to speak of supernatural evil entities. Satan is at work opposing God. In fact, Peter's question makes Satan and the Holy Spirit the main players in the conflict, not Ananias and Peter. Paul expresses a similar idea in his letter to the Ephesians.For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. Ephesians 6:12Among the more progressive Christians (not to mention nonbelievers), the idea of personal forces of evil (I mean evil creatures with agency, as opposed to simply the concept of evil) is often denied. To do so, one would have to interpret references to Satan as figures of speech meaning something like, “Why have you chosen evil?” This is both an implausible reading of the text and certainly not what the original writers meant to convey or original audience understood.The other observation we should make is that Ananias, working for the enemy, commits no small sin. In the story, he is an agent of Satan infiltrating the community of God. He seeks to embed the spirit of Satan with the Spirit of God. God does not allow it. Put another way, whereas some onlookers may have viewed Ananias' action as at worst merely selfish from a personal perspective, it was in fact Satan's activity to infiltrate the community with hypocrisy.Sapphira—A Quick DetourI want to discuss the rest of Peter's response to Ananias. Before we do that, let's briefly discuss Sapphira.The name “Sapphira,” in its various spellings, means “beautiful” and appears almost exclusively among wealthy Jerusalem families in this century. This lends credibility to Luke's account. Given the usual authority structure in ancient households, one should not be surprised that Ananias took the lead. Notice, however, that verse 5:1 attributes the sale of the property to both spouses. Although in the ancient Jewish world land sales would have generally involved exclusively men, we have record of contracts that included women as co-sellers.Legalities aside, the main point made by God's punishment of Sapphira is that even if she was of subordinate rank in a patriarchal society, she was not excused in disobeying God. God is the ultimate authority. If Sapphira did not have an opportunity to stop her husband from withholding funds or lying about it, she had an opportunity to be honest. She did not take that opportunity.Was It Not Yours?Now, let's return to Peter's response. At the risk of being misunderstood, I must admit that the story of Ananias and Sapphira is one of my favorites in the New Testament. No, not because I wish all sinners in the church to be struck dead. (I would surely be dead too.) It is because it conveys a couple of ideas that are central to Christian morality: Christian freedom and sins of conscience.Listen to Peter's words once more.Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? Acts 5:4aDid Ananias sin because he did not give enough to the church? Did he sin because he kept some money for himself? No! The story of Ananias and Sapphira is not about money. It is not about tithing.Ananias' field was his to do as he pleased. He could have kept it. He could have sold it and kept all the money. He could have donated 10% of the proceeds, 20%, 50%, or 100%. Ananias had what we often call the “Christian freedom” to do as he believed was right.Christian FreedomOne of the “go to” passages for Christian freedom is in Galatians 5. I will read it, although in my opinion, it is not the best passage to explain the concept.For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all! 3 And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace! For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight—the only thing that matters is faith working through love. Galatians 5:1-6That quotation from Galatians clearly teaches that we are no longer bound by or saved by obeying the law of the Old Testament. The reason I think it is not the best text to explain Christian freedom is because it does not explain the alternative. (This is not a critique of the passage, only of how it is used.) If we don't have to follow the Old Testament law, then what? What do we follow now?I would rather explain Christian freedom by focusing on any particular moral issue. Given that we are reading Acts 5, let's pick the topic of giving to the church. How does the New Testament address this topic? What are the “commands”?Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, persist in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, pursue hospitality. Romans 12:11-13Contribute to the needs of the saints. Got it. But how much? Practice hospitality. Got it. But when? To whom? Is there something like a safe-harbor rule to know when I have done enough?Surely when Paul addresses this topic at length in his letter to Timothy he answers all those questions and provides details.For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either. But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that. Those who long to be rich, however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.But you, as a person dedicated to God, keep away from all that. Instead pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness. Compete well for the faith and lay hold of that eternal life you were called for and made your good confession for in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you before God who gives life to all things and Christ Jesus who made his good confession before Pontius Pilate, to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ—whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.Command those who are rich in this world's goods not to be haughty or to set their hope on riches, which are uncertain, but on God who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, to be generous givers, sharing with others. In this way they will save up a treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the future and so lay hold of what is truly life. 1 Timothy 6:7-19Wait, I still didn't catch it. How much—exactly—do I have to give to the church? The uncomfortable answer is: Scripture does not say. Then what is a Christian to do?! Allow me to repeat Peter's words:Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? Acts 5:4aAs uncomfortable as this might be, Christians have freedom regarding how they “pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness.” This is not say that nothing is truly right or truly wrong, but it does mean that the application of moral principles may be different in different situations, and that people have a range of acceptable decisions from which to choose.Sins of ConscienceWhere was the sin of Ananias? Was it in his actions? He gave a bunch of money to the church. Surely that in itself does not deserve punishment but praise. He did lie. (This is implied in the text, but quite clearly so.) So that must be it. But what if he had lied for a different reason. Imagine Ananias had kept some of the money to help someone who was poor but who was embarrassed to receive help publicly from the church. That lie may or may not be justified, but one would hardly argue that God would have struck Ananias dead for that. So, where is the sin of Ananias? In his heart. Ananias' great sin is not the “what,” it is the “why” behind his actions.Why we do something is often more important than what we do. We find this idea discussed at length in chapter 14 of the letter to the Romans. I quote a redacted version below. Keep in mind that the context of this text is a question: Should Christians abstain from eating food sacrificed to pagan Gods? (In ancient markets, much of the meat being sold would have been sacrificed to the gods. So this was a very real, very practical problem for believers to navigate.) Some believers said yes, some said no. Paul wrote: Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. . . .But you who eat vegetables only—why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything—why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people.So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. . . . Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:1-23, emphasis addedPaul's statements are incredible. Take his statement about unclean foods, for example. On one hand, no food is unclean. (This means that there is no food we cannot eat or that would be sinful to eat.) On the other hand, food is unclean if one believes it to be unclean. Why? Because if one believes God commands not to eat something but he eats it anyways, in his heart he have disobeyed God. That is a great sin.Does this mean that morality is subjective? Not at all! Love, generosity, and kindness are objectively good. Cruelty, avarice, and covetousness are objectively wrong. What it means is that whether someone is being generous or greedy can generally not be determined without looking at their heart. And we (people) cannot see the heart of man, but God can.All a person's ways seem right in his own opinion, but the Lord evaluates his thoughts. Proverbs 21:2But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don't be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way people do. People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7I, the Lord, probe into people's minds. I examine people's hearts. I deal with each person according to how he has behaved. I give them what they deserve based on what they have done. Jeremiah 17:10For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account. Hebrews 4:12-13Allow me to conclude by reminding us of the day of judgment. In that day, all will be revealed. This is the fear of some and the hope of others.Meanwhile, when many thousands of the crowd had gathered so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. 3 So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops. Luke 12:1-2 [I left out many discussion points regarding some of the text we read today, particularly the section about miracles. If we have time we will discuss those, but the blog seems long enough for one week.]

Scripture Reading: Acts 4:1-31 While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 2 angry because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening). 4 But many of those who had listened to the message believed, and the number of the men came to about 5,000.5 On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest's family. 7 After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man—by what means this man was healed— 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14 And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this. 15 But when they had ordered them to go outside the council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, “What should we do with these men? For it is plain to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable miraculous sign has come about through them, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to keep this matter from spreading any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 And they called them in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, 20 for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” 21 After threatening them further, they released them, for they could not find how to punish them on account of the people, because they were all praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man, on whom this miraculous sign of healing had been performed, was over forty years old.23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather,‘Why do the nations rage,and the peoples plot foolish things?26 The kings of the earth stood together,and the rulers assembled together,against the Lord and against his Christ.'27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen. 29 And now, Lord, pay attention to their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage, 30 while you extend your hand to heal, and to bring about miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.Main ThemesIntroductionPersecution (But Not Immediately)Persecution is a major theme in Acts. More broadly, persecution seems inseparable with the spreading of the gospel. Christian persecution is recorded by Luke, Paul, non-Christian ancient historians, and early Christian writers. This remains a true fact today. According to data by Open Doors (which I have not corroborated but I have also not heard to be disputed), about 360 million Christians experience intense persecution today. That is about one out of every seven Christians.Nevertheless, despite the intense persecution endured by Christian in the Acts narrative, we might ask: why was the Jesus revolution not completely eliminated quickly and swiftly? Authorities did not move against Jesus' followers the way they did against the followers of other revolutionaries, such as Theudas, the Samaritan prophet, or the Egyptian prophet. Perhaps differences between the political leaders involved accounts for the slower response to early Christians. The more likely reason is that the authorities did not perceive early Jesus followers as a real threat. Neither Jesus nor his followers had taken up arms or spoken of overthrowing the government.The Parable of the VinyardThe above notwithstanding, in chapter 4, the disciples must confront the municipal aristocracy. As I am sure you remember from our study of John, the chief priests and scribes were particular targets of Jesus' criticisms and were his most critical enemies. The same is true in the Gospel of Luke. To understand the conflict in Acts 4, we should read the parable of the vineyard and the tenants found in Luke's first volume.Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.' But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let's kill him so the inheritance will be ours!' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:9-19The parable treats the religious elite as people who may have had legitimate power, but who now have exceeded their proper station rendering them illegitimate usurpers of Jesus the king's rightful position.Public Perception of the AuthoritiesJesus' criticisms of the elite were shared by many others. Most of the minority Jewish sects viewed the elite as little more than Roman political lackeys. Why? Because they were little more than Roman political lackeys.The Sanhedrin—Jerusalem's ruling council—became completely dominated by quasi-Roman appointments and Roman sympathizers. With Rome's support, Herod the Great had installed his own backers in the Sanhedrin, and Rome determined who filled the high-priestly office. By the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were the dominant (although not exclusive) voice in the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees would be unnervingly familiar to us. They claimed to believe in the Scriptures—in the Jewish constitution, so to speak—while denying the Scripture's heart and soul. They did not believe in an afterlife, or the promises and curses of the Bible. The were much like modern “progressive Christians.”This background information helps us to frame the conflict between the apostles and the Sanhedrin correctly. We might be tempted to think of it as Christians versus Jews. This is utterly anachronistic. Both the apostles and the Sadducees claim to lead the people. The apostles claim legitimacy through truth. The Sadducees claim legitimacy through power. The issue is one of political power versus truth.Inventing PersecutionWe should also ask one more introductory question. Would Luke lie about the persecution of Christians? What I mean is, would Luke make it up to make Christians seem courageous? Is Luke going for those highly coveted victimhood points? (Forgive me is my commentary today sounds overly political, but what we read in chapter 4 is quite similar to modern political conflicts. Using language more familiar to us can help us understand what is happening in Acts 4.) The likely answer to these questions is no.To invent political persecution would have been counterproductive to Luke's Christian apologetic. Portraying Christians as opponents of a Roman-friendly ruling council would only worsen Christianity's reputation in the rest of the empire. I say worsen because many in Rome already disliked Jews for their foreign ways and attempts (sometimes successful) to convert Romans. If Luke was inclined to fiction or exaggeration, the more useful narrative would have been to portray Jesus followers as endorsed by the establishment.Trouble with the FuzzPriests, Commander of the Temple Guard, and the SadduceesThe apostles are arrested by the priests, commander of the temple guard, and the Sadducees. “Priests” obviously refers to various priests in the temple. We should keep in mind that they would have been under or part of the leadership of the aristocratic priests—a large percentage of whom were Sadducees.The “commander of the temple guard” was a high officer who, according to some ancient reports, occasionally even rose to the office of high priest. His rank seemed to have been only second to the high priest, and his duties included preserving order in the temple. One individual who filled this office close to the time period of Acts 4 is Ananus, who we have reason to believe was the son of the high priest Ananias. If Ananus is the same temple officer as in Acts 4, he later became high priest himself and executed James the Lord's brother.The Sadducees are mentioned only once in the Gospel of Luke—those who deny the resurrection (Luke 20:27). As we read Acts, Luke also tells us that they are the circle around the high priests (Acts 5:17) and form a significant part of the ruling assembly (4:5, 15). From other historical sources, we know they were most likely a well-to-do priestly sect who returned to power after the Maccabean era due to Roman influence. Sadducees rejected Pharisaic tradition probably by claiming Scripture as their only authority. However, because of the people's support for the more Israel-friendly Pharisees, sometimes Sadducees had to play along. In other words, Sadducees had to accommodate populist sentiments.The ArrestChapter 3 ends with Peter calling Israel to repentance. Quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, Peter tells them, “Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.” This is the context of the arrest. If one believes Peter's words, then the Jewish authorities appear as the very people disobeying “the prophet.”Why are the authorities arresting the apostles? Is it because the Sadducees reject the doctrine of the resurrection? On its own, that is not the issue. Pharisees also preached an eschatological resurrection of dead people. This theological difference generated considerable conflict with the Sadducees. Yet, we do not have record of the Sadducees using force against the Pharisees. So what's the difference between the apostles and the Pharisees? The apostles preached the resurrection “in Jesus”—the man the Sadducees tortured and killed. This same Jesus was the man that claimed to be the true owner of the vineyard—or, put politically, an alternative and more legitimate priestly authority. By preaching Jesus, the apostles are publicly dishonoring the ruling class. Honor was a paramount value in this society.Night trials were extremely rare in the ancient world. So, the fact that the authorities jailed the apostles overnight and convened in the morning is in keeping with standard procedure.5,000 BelieversLuke clarifies that the political pressure on the Jesus movement does not dissuade the apostles or new converts. This is in keeping with Jesus' predictions.But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. Luke 21:12-13Luke reports that the number of believers “came to” five thousand. This could mean that 5,000 converted on that occasion or that the total number of believers came to 5,000 in total. Given the population of Jerusalem at the time, the latter is more likely.Rulers, Elders, Experts in the Law (“Scribes”), and the Sanhedrin“Rulers” could refer to temple administrators but more likely refers to the ruling priests, who appear alongside “scribes” and “elders” in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 9:22; 20:1). The term “elders” can apply to local synagogue leadership but can also be connected with chief priests. We should keep in mind that the apostles were young men. So, they would be much younger than these “elders” in a culture that valued age.Experts in the law, that is “scribes,” had knowledge of the law (obviously) and could draft legal documents. Some scribes may well have been Pharisees, given the Pharisees' popular reputation for skill in the law and their availability for training. However, not all scribes were Pharisees. Many of the scribes may have been priests, who may have been better equipped financially to pursue such training.The assembly described in Acts 4:5 consists of the same groups as Jerusalem's “council,” or Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin was a ruling council equivalent to a senate. Many cities in the ancient world had their own ruling senates composed of the leading citizens. Rome ruled through local aristocracies, and Judea was no different.According to rabbinic (and probably Pharisaic) ideals, judges who proved themselves locally could be promoted to the Sanhedrin, but in actuality the Sanhedrin in the apostles' day probably consisted mainly of members of the Jerusalem aristocracy and wealthy landowners in the vicinity.Jerusalem's Sanhedrin was the ruling council for Jerusalem, the major urban center that watched over Judea. Just as the Roman senate wielded power far beyond Rome because of Rome's power, Jerusalem's Sanhedrin wielded some influence in Jewish national affairs.At some point the Sanhedrin may have held seventy-one members, as tradition indicates. However, even if that were the case, not all members would have been present on all occasions, especially for an emergency meeting.Rulers could use sanhedrins to secure the end they wanted without taking full responsibility for their decision.The high priest presided over the ruling council and hence was Jerusalem's most powerful resident (with the exception of an appointed or visiting Roman ruler), to whom the Roman prefect would likely defer many decisions. Moreover, Luke assumes his audience's knowledge of Annas and Caiaphas, whom he introduced as high priests in his gospel. That Caiaphas held power as long as he did (nineteen years) reinforces the suspicion he was a skilled and ruthless politician.Some people suggest that Luke was incorrect about Annas being the high priest, since Caiaphas was officially high priest in this period. However, as we discussed during our study of John, Luke is aware (Luke 3:2) that there can be a difference between who technically holds the office and who truly wields the power. Annas reigned as paterfamilias. Besides, Luke clearly employs the term “high priests” in the plural for all the leading priests. One could argue that there was only one high priest, since that is what the Old Testament established. However, even Josephus, the Jewish historian, used the plural “high priests” (and more often than Luke). It was standard terminology at the time. This could reflect foreign influence. Perhaps the Jews began to treat the priestly aristocracy just like Greeks and Romans treated their aristocracies, removing some of the religious connotations.The TrialPeter and John stand in the “midst” of the rulers, elders, and scribes. This fits the tradition that the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle.The authorities begin the trial with the most important question: by what power or by what name did you do this? In this question, “name” signifies authority. Notice that this is the exact question that Peter sought to answer time and time again in chapter 3. He repeatedly made clear that the miracle and the message he preached came by the power and authority of Jesus.Before Peter responds to the question, he is described as “having been filled” with the Holy Spirit—using the aorist passive participle. This verb tense more naturally points back to an earlier infilling of the Spirit (probably Pentecost) but it could mean a new infilling—meaning that Peter received fresh power and inspiration for this particular instance. Grammar alone may not be sufficient to settle the question. Some point to other passages that seem to show multiple infillings of the Spirit.Informed readers might also make a connection between Peter's God-inspired, bold testimony, and that of prophets of old. In the Old Testament, sometimes prophets were empowered by God to confront Kings and other institutions.When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he summoned 180,000 skilled warriors from all Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to attack Israel and restore the kingdom to Rehoboam son of Solomon. But God told Shemaiah the prophet, “Say this to King Rehoboam son of Solomon of Judah, and to all Judah and Benjamin, as well as the rest of the people, ‘This is what the Lord has said: “Do not attack and make war with your brothers, the Israelites. Each of you go home. Indeed this thing has happened because of me.”'” So they obeyed the Lord's message. They went home in keeping with the Lord's message. 1 Kings 12:21-24He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet and I will speak with you.” As he spoke to me, a wind came into me and stood me on my feet, and I heard the one speaking to me. He said to me, “Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Israel, to rebellious nations who have rebelled against me; both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted, and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.'” Ezekiel 2:1-4Peter ends up responding “boldly,” but he begins with a respectful address, “rulers of the people and elders.” In rhetoric, this would have been the customary captatio benevolentiae.After the address, Peter's response drips with sarcasm. He asks whether the apostles are being detained for doing a good deed, literally an “act of kindness.” Or perhaps they were detained because a man was healed—literally “delivered.” (Keep in mind the semantic range of the word translated as “healed.” This will be important later.)Peter is both providing a defense and going on offense. The claim is that Peter and John did nothing wrong. In fact, they did something good. And, that the authorities are opposing a good act, which by implication makes them evil. This probably goes without saying, but the argument is predicated on the idea that benefaction is virtuous—an idea universally accepted in the ancient world. Moreover, in the ancient Mediterranean ideology of reciprocity, the proper response to benefaction was gratitude. The ungrateful person was viewed negatively, and to harm benefactors was grossly wicked.Peter then reloads with the phrase, “Let it be known to you.” This prepares the audience for a shocking statement. In rhetoric, a standard practice was charging one's accuser with something. However, to employ that tactic against one's judges was highly unusual. Appealing positively to them would be expected and probably more effective in obtaining a favorable ruling.And what is the shocking truth the authorities must know? “By the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy.” Rhetorically speaking, he stabs and then twists the knife.Peter then applies prophecy to bolster his case. “Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone.” This is a quotation from Psalm 118:22, but Peter inserts the word “you” to remove all doubt as to whom the prophecy is condemning.The irony in the use of Ps 118:22-23 here is that in the Old Testament, Israel was the one rejected (or perhaps her king) by the Gentiles, but in the New Testament it is Jesus who is rejected by Israel. Remember that this is exactly the prophecy that Jesus used to condemn the authorities.What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:15b-19.Jesus implied the identity of the “builders.” Peter outright stated it.The cornerstone or topstone (also called capstone) to which Psalm 118 refers is part of the architecture of the temple. Many scholars interpret the “cornerstone” as a “capstone,” the final stone fitted in place to hold the others in place. However, notice what the translators of the NET have to say:[The Greek word can be translated as] “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kephalē gōnias) refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.The TwistPeter finishes his argument by returning to the idea of being saved or delivered. Recall earlier I pointed out that the word used to convey the lame man was “healed” also means “delivered” or “saved.” In verse 12, Peter claims this deliverance can come only through Christ, alluding to a greater kind of deliverance.That no other name provides salvation “under heaven” means that no other name provides it “anywhere.” Notice that Peter leaves little question that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. There are many Christians and so-called Christians who deny that, but the text does not seem to allow for such theology. (However, exactly how exclusive is the group of people saved through Christ could be debated.) Moreover, early Jewish groups held a range of views, from universalism to the salvation only of a single sect. So, Peter's statement is probably not careless but an idea thoughtfully considered.Uneducated and Ordinary MenThe authorities did not expect the “boldness” of these “uneducated” and “ordinary” men.The authorities almost surely expected these commoners to fear them and seek their favor—as certainly most would have done. But Peter and John answer to a higher authority.The word translated as “uneducated” literally means “illiterate.” Many, if not most, Jewish boys would have had training at least in reciting Torah, and fishermen probably had more education than that. Instead, the term indicates lack of formal education (hence the translation “uneducated”). The term is particularly poignant in the presence of scribes—highlighting the difference between the elite authorities and the disciples.The word translated as “ordinary” formally designates an ignorant person or one who lacks training, such as in philosophy or rhetoric. However, it was used to refer to less educated “common” people.We should notice that the authorities recognized that these men had been with Jesus. Recall the last time people recognized that Peter had been with Jesus. Peter denied his lord three times and let him die alone. This scene in chapter 4 is, in a sense, the redemption in Peter's story arc. The fact that Peter lacked boldness before shows the impact of the Holy Spirit.Although the apostles are uneducated commoners, the authorities are silenced by the facts. The miracle is undeniable. A man lame from birth, a fact to which multitudes could attest since he was placed at the temple daily, was standing right in front of them (see verse 14). What to do?Saving Face—They Get Off with a WarningThe authorities need to save face. They simply cannot allow the apostles to have “the last word.” At the same time, they cannot antagonize the people, who have witnessed a miracle and an act of kindness for a member of the most disenfranchised class. Should they punish a benefaction by having the apostles flogged? This would be unwise. So the authorities release the apostles with a mere warning. The ability to issue the warning shows who is in power without having to actually punish the apostles.We should note that the leaders do not seem to question their own position. Although they cannot deny the miracle, they refuse to consider its implications. Luke may be implying political corruption and hardness of heart among the elite. This would be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, which explicitly addressed people so set in their wicked ways they would not see the truth. In Matthew 13, Jesus applied a text from Isaiah to them:You will listen carefully yet will never understand,you will look closely yet will never comprehend.For the heart of this people has become dull;they are hard of hearing,and they have shut their eyes,so that they would not see with their eyesand hear with their earsand understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:14b-15 quoting Isaiah 6:9-10No More Talking About JesusThe authorities order the apostles not to speak in Jesus' name. This means not to speak as his representatives or acting on his authority, thus drawing attention to a person who was executed by the authorities. The phrasing, however, creates a narrative contrast between the elite and the apostles. The name of Jesus is precisely the authority and power by which miracles are happening and, ultimately, deliverance.Peter and John openly refuse to abide by the order. There is a sad and almost mocking difference between the “inability” of the apostles and that of the authorities. The apostles are not able to deny or keep secret that which they have seen and heard. The authorities are also unable to deny the miracle (4:16) but they are also unable to acknowledge its implications.The Jewish tradition contained examples of justified civil disobedience, particularly when obedience to God and obedience to the government became unavoidably contradictory. Perhaps the most memorable example is in Daniel 3.Then Nebuchadnezzar in a fit of rage demanded that they bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego before him. So they brought them before the king. Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don't serve my gods and that you don't pay homage to the golden statue that I erected? Now if you are ready, when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, trigon, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music, you must bow down and pay homage to the statue that I had made. If you don't pay homage to it, you will immediately be thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire. Now, who is that god who can rescue you from my power?” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, “We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don't serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.” Daniel 3:13-18A more prescient example that was probably in the minds of apostles and the authorities was the Maccabean revolt. In the 2nd century BC, when Antiochus ruled over Israel, he encouraged the Semitic peoples of the Mediterranean coast to regard him as the ancient god Baal of the Canaanites. Consider how Britannica explains the lead up to revolution:This conception of revealed religion and of loyalty to the Word of God, rather than to a human king, Antiochus could not appreciate, particularly since he himself delighted in the name God Manifest. In order to extirpate the faith of Israel, therefore, he attacked Israel's religious practices. He thus forbade the observance of the Sabbath and of the traditional feasts, for these had been ordained by a “jealous,” or intolerant, God. All sacrifices were to come to an end. He forbade the reading of the Law of Moses and gave orders to search out and burn any copies that could be found. He forbade the practice of circumcision, for it was this that set the Jews off from other peoples as the one “people of God.” In place of these practices, Antiochus encouraged the development of cultural clubs called gymnasia, in which people gathered to study, to learn, and to enjoy each other's company. After competing in various forms of athletics, men and women used to soak themselves in hot baths. But because the pursuit of the “good” included a delight in the body beautiful, such activities were performed naked. A circumcised Jew taking part in the games in a gymnasium could not therefore hide where his loyalty lay. Finally, in 168 BCE, Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and desacralized the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This was the one place on earth about which Yahweh said “My name” (the expression of his Person) “shall be there” (I Kings).A number of Jews, under their leader Jason, the high priest, took the easy way of conformity with the new universal trends. But with Antiochus's impious act, a strong general reaction set in. Thus, when, later in the same year, Antiochus again entered Jerusalem, this time plundering and burning and setting up his citadel, the Acra, on the hill overlooking the Temple courts, he went too far, for his final act of spite, on December 25, 167 BCE, was to rededicate the Temple in Jerusalem to the Olympian god Zeus.I provide the long quotation above because the Maccabean Revolt was brutal and bloody. (It is from its success in rededicating the temple that the holiday of Hanukkah finds its origin.) This is exactly the kind of revolution the authorities sought to prevent. But, we should notice by now, this is not quite the kind of revolution the apostles sought to start. Should We Be Like Peter?Is the boldness and disobedience of Peter an example for all Christians—an example for us today? Answering this question could take an entire Bible study session, but perhaps we can discern some general principles from Luke's writing.In Luke 20, Jesus is asked about paying taxes to the Romans (Caesar in particular). Jesus responds,“Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They said, “Caesar's.” So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” Luke 20-24-25We must keep in mind that the context of Luke 20 is people attempting to deceive Jesus into saying something treacherous and worthy of arrest and death. So we should expect his answer to be less than straightforward. However, it is still clear from his answer that government has a proper sphere in which it deserves obedience.At the same time, we must keep in mind Peter's attitude in chapter 4. “Is it “right before God to obey the [authorities] rather than God”? Peter answer, in word and deed, is no.Put broadly, Luke's writings seem to suggest that we should obey the government unless doing so is directly contrary to obeying God. In practice, however, this principle can be hard to apply.

Scripture Reading: Acts 3 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time for prayer, at three o'clock in the afternoon. 2 And a man lame from birth was being carried up, who was placed at the temple gate called “the Beautiful Gate” every day so he could beg for money from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple courts, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked directly at him (as did John) and said, “Look at us!” 5 So the lame man paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, stand up and walk!” 7 Then Peter took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up, and at once the man's feet and ankles were made strong. 8 He jumped up, stood and began walking around, and he entered the temple courts with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 All the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 and they recognized him as the man who used to sit and ask for donations at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and they were filled with astonishment and amazement at what had happened to him.11 While the man was hanging on to Peter and John, all the people, completely astounded, ran together to them in the covered walkway called Solomon's Portico. 12 When Peter saw this, he declared to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this? Why do you stare at us as if we had made this man walk by our own power or piety? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him. 14 But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a man who was a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the Originator of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this fact we are witnesses! 16 And on the basis of faith in Jesus' name, his very name has made this man—whom you see and know—strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all. 17 And now, brothers, I know you acted in ignorance, as your rulers did too. 18 But the things God foretold long ago through all the prophets—that his Christ would suffer—he has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out, 20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. 21 This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you. 23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.' 24 And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed him, have spoken about and announced these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.' 26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”Main ThemesThe MiracleThe SettingWe learn in chapter 2 that believers pray daily in the temple. (This means they prayed in the temple courts, not literally inside the temple.) So, chapter 3 opens with a predictable scene—Peter and John find themselves going to the temple to pray (3:1). We can safely assume they were going to participate in a corporate prayer meeting (as opposed to a time of personal prayer).We are aware that at some point synagogues established three prayer times during the day. We have evidence from early Christian writers that Christians continued this practice for a while. Even in Acts we read of three times of prayer: 9:00 AM (Acts 2:15), noon (Acts 10:9), and 3:00 PM (Acts 3:1). There is some doubt that the synagogue tradition was firmly in place at the time of Acts chapter 3, but most agree that was the case.We might ask ourselves: What did these times of corporate prayer look like? It may have included corporate singing of Psalms and other worship, a person leading everyone in prayer, and everyone praying differently but simultaneously.We might also ask ourselves: How long did the miracle and Peter's preaching (which we are about to discuss) take? We learn at the beginning of chapter 4 that Peter and John are arrested towards evening, and recall that Peter and John head towards the temple around 3 PM. So, the miracle and subsequent preaching probably lasted about 3 hours. Although this may be obvious to the reader already, we should note that the speeches we read in Acts are obviously summaries. Luke records the main points made by Peter.The Lame Man and the GateAs the believers head to the temple to pray, they run across a lame man who was placed at the temple gate daily. As a quick historical note, we are not certain at which gate he was placed. Ancient sources do not specify which gate was popularly called “the Beautiful Gate.” We are able to ascertain that it referred to either the Nicanor Gate (which led from the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of Women) or the Shushan Gate at the eastern wall. Since the fifth century, the tradition has been that “the Beautiful Gate” referred to the Shushan Gate, but that tradition may not be reliable.Of more relevance than which gate is being described is the fact that the lame man was at a gate. Because of his defect, he may not have been allowed to go any further into the temple. Also, temple gates were useful for begging since they were frequented by many people. Moreover, one may assume that people at the temple were a more charitable audience than elsewhere. Finally, we must keep in mind the lame man's dismal situation. Begging (considered highly shameful) would have been his only way to provide for himself. There was no other social safety net. As a scholar points out, the poor in ancient cities were “ill-fed, housed in slums or not at all, ravaged by sickness,” and with little hope of social betterment.The ExchangeThe lame man begins the exchange with the apostles on the basis of his need—he requests money. Truly, he requested alms—money given to the poor as an act of charity—but our translation uses money because the term alms is unfamiliar to current readers. Giving alms was viewed as honorable by Judaism.The lame man's request opens the door for a dramatic demonstration of the gospel. The Old Testament strongly emphasized the charitable treatment of the disabled. Consider, for example:You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. You must fear your God; I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:14“Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person on the road.” Then all the people will say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 27:18Like I have pointed out many times before, the gospels are replete with commands to help the poor.Most importantly, according to the Old Testament, healing of the sick would be a sign of the messianic era. Consider Isaiah:Tell those who panic, “Be strong! Do not fear! Look, your God comes to avenge; with divine retribution he comes to deliver you.” Then blind eyes will open, deaf ears will hear. Then the lame will leap like a deer, the mute tongue will shout for joy; for water will burst forth in the wilderness, streams in the arid rift valley. Isaiah 35:4-6)In the Old Testament, the lame also work as a type for the mistreated people of God:Look, at that time I will deal with those who mistreated you. I will rescue the lame sheep and gather together the scattered sheep. I will take away their humiliation and make the whole earth admire and respect them. Zephaniah 3:19So, Peter healing a lame man works on a literal level—it is an astonishing miracle that validates his credentials as one sent by God—and on a narrative level—the story of redemption has reached the messianic era in which the people of God will be gathered.The Disclaimer—No MoneyUpon the lame man's request, Peter and John clarify that they do not have any money. (The phrase “silver and gold” simply means money, “minted coins.”) Although this is nothing but a footnote in the story, we should notice that as the believers shared all their possessions with one another (see chapter 2), the apostles do not seem to have been enriched. Also, this distinguishes Peter and John from magicians of that time, who took payment for their services.The MiracleJesus' NamePeter begins the miracle by giving credit to Jesus Christ. Jesus's name is a key element that recurs throughout this section. It is repeated many times in chapter 3, and its mention continues into chapter 4. This leaves no doubt that the apostles are acting only as agents for the one who sent them—Jesus.We should notice that Peter specifies that he speaks of Jesus “the Nazarene.” This shows a reference to a real, historical figure, and it operates as defiance to popular expectations of greatness. Being from Nazareth was certainly nothing to brag about.How should we understand the use of Jesus' name? For example, in the context of prayer, calling God's name generally means one is addressing God. For example:Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” 2 So he said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. . . .” Luke 11:1-2But in prayer, one is also calling on the Lord himself to act. Consider how the Lord's prayer continues:Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation. Luke 11:3-4Invocations of God's name could be directed at people or at least with people as the intended audience to prove who is acting. Consider Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal:“Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” 1 Kings 18Consider also David's blessing of the people of God in the name of the Lord. This probably means he was calling on the Lord to the bless them.When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord's name. 1 Chronicles 16:2So, when Peter asks the lame man to walk “in the name of Jesus Christ,” he may be pointing to who is doing the miracle.We could also understand calling on the Lord's name slightly differently. Both in Jewish and Gentile tradition, we can find brokers (i.e., representatives or messengers) using the name of their patron to denote on whose authority they speak or act. So, to say “in the name of Jesus Christ” is to say, “as a representative of Jesus Christ.” We find this (or a very similar) use of the expression in the Gospel of John when praying in Jesus' name (John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23-24). In John, praying “in one's name” evokes praying “on the merits of,” or because of, another's status before the one entreated (much like Israel seeking favor before God on account of their ancestors' favor).Notice that under either interpretation of using the Lord's name, it is Jesus or through the power of Jesus that the miracle happens. The difference is whether the apostle works as an announcer of what Jesus is doing or as the agent through whom Jesus acts.We should also notice that Peter does not use a particular ritual. For pagans, God's favor could be sought by using very specific rituals that needed perfect execution. Jewish ritual was less particular, but correctly implementing the ritual remained important, leading to conflicts between, for example, Pharisees and Sadducees. Peter also does not employ techniques or ingredients that would lend themselves to be interpreted as magic. The only ingredient, so to speak, is the power and authority of Jesus.The HealingPeter clasps the lame man's right hand—typically a sign of agreement or covenant in the ancient world. Given the man's low social status, this denotes acceptance and kindness on Peter's part. Peter helps him up.The miracle is emphatically evident. The man jumps up and immediately walks. Then we are told repeatedly that he “walks around,” walks and leaps,” and all saw him “walking.” The miracle works as a sign that draws attention to the message about to be preached.Why is the miracle so effective? Those at the temple recognized this man as the one “who used to sit and ask for donations.” Since he had been lame from birth, we can conclude he had been placed there daily for a very long time.Moreover, if we are correct in concluding that the lame man could venture no further into the temple due to his disability, the fact that the man enters the temple courts to praise God is significant. His barrier to experience God has been removed by the power and grace of Jesus.The SpeechThe SettingPetter delivers his speech at Solomon's Portico. It was a long outdoor hallway supported by pillars on the east of a pre-Herodian structure, which overlooked the steep Kidron Valley. Apparently Solomon's Portico was a traditional place for Christians to meet and preach; we read about it in Acts (Acts 3:11; 5:12) and in John 10:23.The MessageWhodunit?Peter begins his sermon by correcting an apparent misunderstanding by the crowd. He makes clear that the cause of the healing is Jesus, not himself.Wonder-workers were common at the time, and they were often understood as sorcerers. Clarifying that Jesus was the source of the miracle, along with other passages in Acts (e.g., Acts 8:7-13, 18-24; 19:11-20) work as an antimagical apologetics. These are miracles done by God, Peter is pointing out, not magical works done by Peter's power or cunning. Moreover, Peter is separating himself from certain Jewish traditions that held holy men had power to make certain things happen. (Pagans had a similar notion, believing that piety could lead to spiritual power. For example, Romans believed that their sacrifices could expiate the gods and that their continued worship could even make the gods embarrassed to continue in anger against Rome.)Unlike a sorcerer or a man acting by his own piety-fueled power, Peter points to Jesus and immediately says the following::The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him.In other words, the main proposition of the speech is that the God of Israel who acted to resurrect Jesus is continuing to act.The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was a familiar Jewish expression, derived from the biblical revelation to Moses recorded in the book of Exodus. It appears multiple times in Exodus and the Old Testament, but probably the most memorable mention is in the scene of the burning bush.Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within a bush. He looked, and the bush was ablaze with fire, but it was not being consumed! So Moses thought, “I will turn aside to see this amazing sight. Why does the bush not burn up?” When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him from within the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” God said, “Do not approach any closer! Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” He added, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:1-6This title for God was common in Jesus' time, appearing in Jewish prayers and benedictions, making it one of the most familiar titles for God. Someone who had read both of Luke's works would remember that Jesus had used this title before—once before. Jesus defended the resurrection of the dead with this very title and the very scene of the burning bush, concluding:But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” Then some of the experts in the law answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well!” For they did not dare any longer to ask him anything. Luke 20:37-40There seems to be no coincidence that Peter uses that same title for God to preach about restoration as Jesus did to preach about resurrection. The God who demonstrated his faithfulness to the patriarchs in the exodus would be faithful to his promise to raise them from the dead; God demonstrated that faithfulness in raising Jesus from the dead; so, one can expect God to deliver on his promises of restoration as well.The Servant, the Holy and Righteous One, the Originator of LifeBecause I have discussed some of these Old Testament allusions in many occasions, I will provide only a brief summary of what the titles used for Jesus are meant to evoke in the listeners' minds.The term servant along with the theme of glorification almost inarguably points to Isaiah' servant.Look, my servant will succeed! He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted—(just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; his form was so marred he no longer looked human—so now he will startle many nations. Kings will be shocked by his exaltation, for they will witness something unannounced to them, and they will understand something they had not heard about. Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord's power revealed through him? He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him. He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. Isaiah 52:13 – 53-5“The Holy One” was especially a title for God himself in both the Old Testament and in early Judaism. In a context that draws heavily on Isaiah, the “holy one” title could imply deity (“Holy One” appears thirty times in Isaiah, including for God as Israel's savior and “redeemer” in the servant contexts). The title could also function as an acceptable title for one of God's servants when conjoined with “of God.” In the case of Acts 3, that seems like a difficult interpretation to hold.“Righteous one” is not a common expression for Christ later in the New Testament. (Although we see some uses, such as in 1 John 1-2. It says, “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One, and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.”) So why is this title for Jesus used in Acts?In Acts, the title of righteous one is used exclusively when preaching to Jerusalem audiences, which is perhaps a clue as to its intended meaning. Calling Jesus the “righteous one” heightens both the contrast with Barabbas the “murderer” and the guilt of those who denied Jesus. It also fits one of Luke's central themes: Jesus was innocent. Moreover, the term “righteous servant” appears in the servant song of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:11), solidifying the connection between the term “servant” and Isaiah's servant.“Prince of life,” “Founder of life,” or as our translation puts it, “Originator of life” is antonomasia—a title that substitutes the name of a person. Examples in other contexts would be referring to Shakespeare as the Bard or to Lebron James as the GOAT.In Peter's speech, we see a recurring contrast between life and death, including between he who raised to life and those who kill. Calling Jesus the Originator of life is a great rhetorical device to emphasize that contrast. Also, a biblically literate listener would probably recall Deuteronomy 30:“Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. What I am commanding you today is to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to obey his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances. Then you will live and become numerous and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are about to possess. However, if you turn aside and do not obey, but are lured away to worship and serve other gods, I declare to you this very day that you will certainly perish! You will not extend your time in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess. Today I invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set life and death, blessing and curse, before you. Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live! I also call on you to love the Lord your God, to obey him and be loyal to him, for he gives you life and enables you to live continually in the land the Lord promised to give to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 30:15-20There is much debate about exactly to interpret the word translated as prince, founder, or originator (ἀρχηγός). The term appears frequently in the Septuagint to refer to heads of clans—hence the translations prince and founder. The term could apply to authors or originators of something, or the “initiator” of something. However, for readers steeped more in biblical Greek than in Greek tradition, the image of leadership would be dominant. Jesus is thus the hero leading the way to the historic goal of achieving eternal life, and as such fulfills the promises and inaugurates the opportunity for the eschatological era of blessing. In the words of other New Testament passages, he is the “firstborn” from the dead, who thereby guarantees life to the rest of his people. Perhaps a great translation of ἀρχηγός is “pioneer,” but modern scholars find “pioneer” to be on the list of icky words (for reasons I am sure you could guess).Believe, Repent, and Then . . . The Messiah's ReturnVerses 15 through 21 sounds quite similar to the speech in chapter 2, so I will not discuss them in detail except for the conspicuous differences. By differences, I do not mean inconsistencies. I mean the two speeches are not identical and we learn some distinct information.As in the prior chapter, Peter tells the Jewish audience that they killed Jesus, their divine king sent by God, yet God raised him from the dead, a fact to which the apostles are witnesses. In chapter 2 Peter points to the audience as witnesses of God's miracles (as opposed to the apostles). But in chapter 3 Peter quickly points out that the audience has now witnessed a miracle. The crowd was familiar with the lame man who was healed, making this charge effective. All in all, the setup of the message in chapter 3 is similar to that of chapter 2.The first distinction, albeit in tone and not theology, is in how Peter addresses the crowd's culpability. In chapter 2, Peter emphasizes the guilt of the crowd. In chapter 3, Peter minimizes (although does not remove) their guilt by highlighting their ignorance.Then just like in chapter 2, Peter then clarifies that Jesus' death was according to scripture. Finally, Peter calls the crowd to repentance.The real difference between the two speeches begins in verse 20. What are the fruits of repentance in chapter 2? “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:38). Peter also tells them to “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” (Acts 2:40). In short, the result of repentance is forgiveness of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit, and salvation (which in the context of chapter 2 means avoiding judgment).What are the fruits of repentance in chapter 3? “[S]o that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:20b-21). Repentance will be followed by “times of refreshing” or what may also be called restoration; and, once sufficient restoration has occurred (“the time all things are restored”) then Jesus will return.This idea of restoration is found throughout the Old Testament prophets. Perhaps the best known passage is in Ezekiel:“‘I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries; then I will bring you to your land. I will sprinkle you with pure water, and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative, and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations. Then you will live in the land I gave to your fathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and multiply it; I will not bring a famine on you. I will multiply the fruit of the trees and the produce of the fields, so that you will never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil behavior and your deeds that were not good; you will loathe yourselves on account of your sins and your abominable deeds. Ezekiel 36:24-31Jews during Jesus' day and thereafter linked the idea of turning to God with the restoration of Israel. Many Jewish sources show an expectation that Israel would return to God's law in the last days. Often Jewish teachers, particularly in later rabbinic texts, predicated the end's arrival and Israel's restoration as chronologically contingent on Israel's repentance.Summary and ConclusionsWhat does this tell us about the current age? The opportunity to turn to God is now. The good news is going out to all the nations (see verse 25) that the Lord has already raised the firstborn from the dead. Anyone who trusts the “Pioneer of life” shall reach the same destination. And, one day, when all the people of God have turned to Him, Jesus will return to judge, to heal, to restore, and to reign a world that will be filled with love, peace, and joy.The concept of restoration and Jesus' return also prompts a few questions. Peter's speech claiming that heaven would receive Jesus until the period of restoration echoes Psalm 110:1, which Peter quoted in chapter 2. The psalm says:Here is the Lord's proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.” O Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger. He executes judgment against the nations. He fills the valleys with corpses; he shatters their heads over the vast battlefield. From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head. Psalm 110:1b-7So, will all enemies of Christ be defeated and then Jesus will return? Should we expect the church to advance and (peacefully) conquer all the world, every institution, and every person? Will nearly everyone become a follower of Christ? Some believe this. Other passages in scripture have led most Christian throughout history to temper those expectations, with some taking an opposite, extremely negative view of history's arch. But regardless of how we harmonize scripture, the theme of an advancing church (whether ultimately victorious or not) seems inarguable. Many will come to Christ. The enemies of the church will not prevail against the plan of salvation.The second question we might ask is whether Acts 3 (and other texts, such as Romans 11) means that it is the conversion of Jews (not Gentiles) that will trigger the end—the return of Jesus. Many Christians in the United States hold this view today. Often times, although not always, this view includes the belief that national Israel will be restored and blessed before the final judgment. In other words, that Acts 3 is talking specifically about the ethnic nation of Israel. This partially explains why many conservatives in the United States are committed to supporting the nation of Israel. One may also take a passage like Acts 3 and argue that, for example, Peter seems to intentionally omit the more Israel-centric portions of the Old Testament text he cites, and that at the end of chapter 3 Peter again highlights that the promise of salvation is for all nations. Therefore, restoration involves all the people of God—the Church—and not specifically Jews. (Of course, the arguments for the different theological positions look for evidence all over the Bible. I give examples only from the texts we have recently read so as not to derail our conversation.)So far I have avoided these eschatological topics because people feel very strongly about them. Discussion can easily get heated. My intention behind these brief comments is simply to introduce some of the options available.

Scripture Reading: Acts 2:37 - 2:47 37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.Main ThemesTHE RESPONSERepentanceThe crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus' name in a baptism involving such repentance. God's promise to them is the Holy Spirit. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Similarly, in Acts 2 individuals need to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.The crowd is described as having a deep emotional response to Peter's message (“struck to the heart”), producing a favorable behavioral response. We need not assume exaggeration on Luke's part. He provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54). I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one's previous religious experience.Because God's “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.BaptismJust as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing repentance, so now does Peter. Jewish people traditionally applied immersion baptism only to Gentiles (more on this later). Peter here demands a conversion no less radical than that of a Gentile converting to Judaism, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel's God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus. After reading this passage in acts, we might ask: Is forgiveness tied to baptism or repentance? Are both required? “Forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus' final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is hardly dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus' followers used baptism as the initiation rite is actually quite unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Christian baptism seems a bit different, though. John's baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many. The closest Jewish parallel to John the Baptist's and early Christian baptism was proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Proselyte baptism provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte's Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.In Jesus NamePeter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus' name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord's name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus's name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert's new allegiance.We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus's name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer's calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke's writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms. The Promise of the SpiritLuke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.” By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus's name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah's language, Luke also reiterates the promise of the Spirit for the Gentile mission. By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.It will so happen thateveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,just as the Lord has promised;the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.SUMMARY AND EXHORTATIONVerse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke's narrative moves quickly to the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech's central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord's name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God's eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ. For Peter's hearers to save themselves from the generation's wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.Peter's term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter's point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.3,000We discussed baptism earlier, so I will not discuss the religious significance of 3,000 people being baptized. Nevertheless, we should briefly consider the mechanics of this. Could so many people even be baptized in a day? (The text could easily be understood to mean that 3,000 came to believe in Jesus, regardless of whether the actual baptisms would have taken several days to perform. But let's assume the harder, albeit simpler reading of the text.) To accommodate the thousands of worshipers the temple hosted daily, the Temple Mount had plenty of baptismal pools. Even the Roman historian Tacitus was familiar with the claim that the temple held many pools.“Baptizing” in this period involved mainly supervision while the people coming for purification immersed themselves. Like John the Baptist, the disciples could have supervised mass baptisms, without having to physically lay hands on each person. Once verbal instructions were issued, mass immersions in response to Peter's command could have occurred.One more question: is 3,000 converts in one day a believable number? At feast times such as Pentecost, Jerusalem could host as many as half a million people, with an estimated thirty thousand from the Diaspora. The Temple Mount was large enough to hold tens of thousands at one time, perhaps up to four hundred thousand (according to some of the larger estimates). Even if some of these estimates are too high (although they might be correct), thousands of hearers and a rapid mass movement of three thousand conversions are not at all implausible.Another reason to believe Luke's account of converts is that Luke seems quite honest about audiences' reactions to hearing the gospel. After each sermon in Acts, Luke reports people's acceptance or rejection (2:41; 4:4; 5:33; 7:54; 8:6, 36;10:44; 13:44, 48-50; 17:32; 22:22; 28:24, 29). Reporting rejections does not seem to fit a false narrative of ineffable success.The First ChurchVerse 42 begins a summary section describing the Jerusalem community of disciples, or what I may refer to as the first church. Before we discuss whether this first church is meant as a model for the rest of us, let's just focus on the text. What is the community engaged in? Prayer, learning from the apostles, signs, eating together, and sharing of possessions. Let's discuss these in further detail.SummariesAs a quick side note, what do I mean by a summary section? Speaking of situations in broad terms (i.e., summarizing) is typical of ancient historiographical works that were based on research and the use of sources. In other words, here Luke condenses a wider collection of information than he can afford space to narrate.The Ideal CommunityIn the ancient world, just like today, tales and dreams of ideal communities that shared all possessions were not unusual. The language employed by Luke is reminiscent of Hellenistic language for the ideal community. However, Luke and his audience are probably not thinking of Gentile sources. Instead, there is a nearly unmistakable connection between this first church and the Old and New Testament emphases on caring for the poor. For example, recall a passage like Deuteronomy 15:7-11:If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart or be insensitive to his impoverished condition. Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs. Be careful lest you entertain the wicked thought that the seventh year, the year of cancellation of debts, has almost arrived, and your attitude be wrong toward your impoverished fellow Israelite and you do not lend him anything; he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be regarded as having sinned. You must by all means lend to him and not be upset by doing it, for because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you attempt. There will never cease to be some poor people in the land; therefore, I am commanding you to make sure you open your hand to your fellow Israelites who are needy and poor in your land. Deuteronomy 15:7-11Consider also the following verses in Deuteronomy:One must not take either lower or upper millstones as security on a loan, for that is like taking a life itself as security. Deuteronomy 24:6When you make any kind of loan to your neighbor, you may not go into his house to claim what he is offering as security. You must stand outside and the person to whom you are making the loan will bring out to you what he is offering as security. If the person is poor you may not use what he gives you as security for a covering. You must by all means return to him at sunset the item he gave you as security so that he may sleep in his outer garment and bless you for it; it will be considered a just deed by the Lord your God.You must not oppress a lowly and poor servant, whether one from among your fellow Israelites or from the resident foreigners who are living in your land and villages. You must pay his wage that very day before the sun sets, for he is poor and his life depends on it. Otherwise he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin. Deuteronomy 24:10-15There are countless verses about helping the poor in the Psalms. Broadly speaking, the psalmists express the idea that the one who helps the poor will be blessed (e.g., Psalm 41:1-2). Jesus spoke repeatedly about helping the poor and about their blessings to come.So, this first church is surprising and unsurprising. Surprisingly, it describes a nearly unbelievable setting filled with love and generosity. Unsurprisingly, this has been the goal Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus spoke about. One could hardly expect otherwise.If one believes that Pentecost was a sort of reversal of the curse at Babel, then the church's unity in these verses builds upon that reversal. TeachingThe apostles' teaching provides a crucially important link to Jesus' ministry. The early church devoted itself to the apostles' teachings, which is to say they devoted themselves to Jesus' teachings passed on by the apostles. Luke is emphasizing the continuity between the mission of Jesus and his church.What might this teaching have looked like? Moral teaching was not unusual in the ancient world. For example, we could picture the lectures in a philosophic schools. However, considering the Jewish background of the apostles and other (approximately 120) Jesus' followers that received the Spirit during the Pentecost miracle, the teaching probably looked like the Midrashic exposition familiar in the synagogues. Or, put even more simply, it would have looked like Peter's speech: lessons and admonitions expanding on scriptures.Fellowship (Koinōnia)The first church engaged in “fellowship,” the Greek word being koinōnia (κοινωνία). I mention this bit of Greek trivia because the Greek word often appears in churches and Christian college campuses to describe events and meeting places. It has become part of the modern Christian lingo. The word means exactly that, a partnership, community, or “sharing in” something. The term can refer to the sort of harmony created by shared purpose and working together. In a commercial context, the word could mean sharing profits.In light of early Christian teaching, much like sharing possessions, fellowship is not a surprising fruit of Pentecost. Remember what we read in the Gospel of John when Jesus prays for the believers:“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one—I in them and you in me—that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me. John 17:20-23In verse 46, we read the believers met by common consent. The term translated as such is rare (appearing nowhere else in the New Testament or Septuagint). Although I do not want to read too much into it, I think it does show a strong form of unity.Breaking BreadIn the text, breaking bread and fellowship are side by side, giving the impression that fellowship included sharing meals. We may surmise that these common meals were at the expense of those who were sharing their possessions—those who could afford the food. More importantly, what do we mean by breaking bread? Certainly our modern experiences with the Eucharist or Lord's Supper (the wording will change depending on the Christian tradition) affects how we read this passage. We should, however, keep in mind that, as the most basic staple, “bread” could easily stand for food in general. The passage is probably conveying the idea of eating together, not exclusively the breaking of literal bread. Recall the original Lord's Supper (Luke 22), in which bread and wine were shared, but just like they were shared at other meals. They were notable components in a meal involving many other components. If anything, the bread and wine were special in the fact that they were not—they were the most basic and always-present elements of Jewish meals.One could read the text to say that the early Christians were simply taking bread together, like the sacrament with which we are so familiar. That is not the most likely reading. (I am not trying to make a broader point about the sacraments. I am simply trying to clarify what the text means.)As we read this text, we should remember that a host who shared a meal with guests was thought to have formed a bond of relationship that was not taken lightly. Providing food and partaking of what was provided were important social obligations. To eat with someone was, at least to some extent, to befriend them. Considering that this early church was made up of people from all over the known world, and rich and poor, this sharing of meals was nothing short of revolutionary.Prayer and WorshipPrayer was the prelude to Pentecost, but it did not stop there. At the end of chapter 2, we see that prayer is a continuing part of the Christian community life.On a related note, we find that they praise God together. The word Luke uses for praise is found many times in the Septuagint. It is almost always associated with praise carried out in the temple. Consider, for example:They brought the ark of God and put it in the middle of the tent David had pitched for it. Then they offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings before God. When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord's name. He then handed out to each Israelite man and woman a loaf of bread, a date cake, and a raisin cake. He appointed some of the Levites to serve before the ark of the Lord, to offer prayers, songs of thanks, and hymns to the Lord God of Israel. 1 Chronicles 16:1-4What did that early worship look like? Again, considering the background of most of the people involved, it probably looked like (not necessarily the same as) the Jewish liturgy and reading of the Psalms. Nevertheless, early Christians would have rejected the idea that the Jewish liturgy in the temple was the required or even best way to pray and worship.SignsIn verse 43, we have one of many miracle summaries in Acts (e.g., 5:12; 8:7; 19:11-12; 28:9). We are also told how people reacted. “Reverential awe came over everyone . . . .” In the Greek, the imperfect tense is used. Awe (or fear) was coming over everyone. This suggests a continued phenomenon rather than a one time event.What is this “awe” or, literally, “fear” that they felt? The text suggests a newfound attitude of paying attention to God, his work, his commandments, and his very person (i.e., who he is).Meeting at the TempleUndeniably, homes became the dominant meeting places for Christians. Yet, notice that in this first church, they meet both in the temple and in homes. Some suggest that Christians used public meeting places to evangelize, but houses to disciple the converts. That very well could be the case, but in the case of Acts 2, worshipping at the Temple does not seem like a tactic. Instead, at this point, the temple serves a positive function—it right and proper to worship at the temple. The revival of spiritual temple worship here would evoke for Luke's biblically informed audience grand precedents. In the Old Testament, renewal of temple or tabernacle worship accompanied revivals in Israel's history. The early Christians thus had good reason to expect (and experience) a renewal of temple worship, whether or not the authorities saw fit to cooperate with their agenda. (Many Jewish people expected a new or renewed temple in this period.)Lessons for TodayI am going to do something a little unusual for this Bible study. Generally, I try to stay close to the text—focusing on the cultural and linguistic issues. My goal is to explain what the text really says—what it meant to the author and original audience. The implications of the text, particularly for our lives, I touch on lightly and briefly. As some have let me know (and there is nothing wrong with that), this has the effect of hiding the forest for the trees. I spend much of the time discussing details like grammar, and I never get to the “good stuff.”Well, today, I do want to pause for a brief moment and consider some questions. In particular, I have three in mind. First, does charity matter? Second, should we preach like “Acts 2 Peter”? Third, should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?Does Charity Matter?I do not wish to repeat myself, but the Old Testament and Jesus' ministry have a heavy emphasis on charity. Helping the poor is part of the Jewish law. The Psalms say that helping the poor will result in blessings. Jesus says that helping the poor will result in exaltation.Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. He said to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.' Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, don't invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors so you can be invited by them in return and get repaid. But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. Then you will be blessed because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:7-14It is this Bible-wide emphasis on caring for the poor that climaxes in the depiction of the first church. And, I think the undeniable truth is that this emphasis on the poor has been crucial for the vitality and expansion of the church. Listen how Craig Keener describes how early thinkers, Christian and pagan alike, noticed the early church's attitude towards the poor:Justin claims that former pagans, converted to Christianity, continue to share their resources in common and with the needy (Justin 1 Apol. 14). In the late second century, Tertullian remarks wittily that Christians readily share everything in common except their wives—the one thing, he complains, pagans were most willing to share (Tert. Apol. 39.11– 12). In antithetical contrast to the apologists' idealized portraits, Lucian ridicules worshipers of “the crucified sophist” as despising “all things indiscriminately” and reckoning everything as “common property,” hence easily cheated. Celsus critiqued Christians for their effective appeal to “the socially objectionable classes” as well as to “the unhappy and sinful.” Other sources also attest to Christians' continuing commitment to share their resources in the second century and beyond.In short, I think charity is both a means of blessing in this life (I mean for the giver, not the recipient) and one of the primary means by which we show the kingdom of God in this world. Regarding blessings, allow me to make a wildly inflammatory statement: the answer to many of our personal problems is a lack of charity. Are you experiencing depression? Go help the poor. Are you having trouble with your wife? Go help the poor. Are you dissatisfied with your job? Go help the poor. No, I am not saying that helping the poor will make your problems go away, but I am saying that helping the poor will provide you with a certain perspective and patience that will help solve them. Charity is simply that crucial and life-changing. And, do we want our churches to be lively and vibrant? We must help and welcome the poor. What are the limits to charity? Yes, a line must be drawn. My suggestion is we discuss that once we think we are getting close to the line.Should We Preach Like Acts 2 Peter?In Acts 2, Peter makes a perfect presentation of what we generally call “the gospel.” Peter stood up and told them (paraphrased), “Listen! The scriptures spoke of a day when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all people. As you can see and hear (because of the Pentecost miracle), that day is today. That also means that the end is near, call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Who is the Lord? Jesus. How do we know? He did miracles among you. Also, you killed him using dirty tactics but God raised him from the dead. The scriptures spoke of one who would not see decay—that's Jesus! The scriptures also spoke of a king who would reign forever, who would be exalted. That's Jesus! He has been taken up to heaven as King and Savior. He will not lose. Save yourselves! Repent!”Obviously, I do not disagree with Peter one bit. My question is not whether Peter is right. I believe he speaks of true things. My question is whether we should present that truth the same way, and whether his argument would be compelling today.If you are thinking I am about to start a discussion about how sensitive people are today, and how offended they would be by Peter's speech, do not worry. I am not convinced people have ever been different (e.g., more or less sensitive), but be that as it may, I am more interested in the argument itself.Peter's argument depends partly on the audience's personal experience with Jesus. It depends much more, though, on scripture that the audience believes to be true. Peter does not even need to argue that scripture is truthful.Would we find a similar audience today? In my opinion, yes and no. In the United States, we live in a time of great apostasy (or at least of many people leaving the churches). People are leaving the Christian faith by the hundreds of thousands. In 2007, religious “nones” were only about 16%. Now that number has nearly doubled (29%). Perhaps many of these people still believe the Bible to be true, much like Peter's audience, and we can call them back to God based on that. But about a third of Americans (coincidentally, also 29%) believe that the Bible is simply fables. What then?I have two suggestions. First, like we will read of Paul preaching in Athens, we must meet them where they (the audience) are. We must explain why the gospel is true and good. Second, and this will lead into my question of the early church, we must help them experience Jesus. How? The church is the body of Christ. I think that unbelievers should truly encounter Jesus in the community of his followers.Should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?Why do I ask this question? Partly because many churches claim to be Acts 2 churches. This is particularly common with nondenominational churches (this is not an attack, simply a statement of fact), but even some more traditional, denominational churches advocate for this.We must begin by asking what do we mean by an Acts 2 church. Here are some answers I found to get us started:Their Four KeysThe church in Acts 2 has four priorities: studying good teaching, hanging out, sharing meals, and praying (verse 42). That's a great start, but many churches today don't even do that, not really.Their MiraclesAmazing supernatural things occur. People are amazed (verse 43). Today, most churches don't encounter miracles or anything supernatural. They forgot how or never learned. And for many who do walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, their focus is on the experience, not on people's reaction. Their emphasis is backwards. The purpose of “signs and wonders” isn't to gratify themselves. It's to show God's power, pointing outsiders to him, not delighting insiders.Their FinancesThe kicker is that they pool their resources; they even sell their possessions to give to everyone in need. The church takes care of their own (verses 44 and 45). Too many churches today do not even care for the needs of their members; they expect government or some other organization to. And I've never encountered a church that shares all their material possessions. That's just un-American!Their PatternThey continue to hang out—every day—and share food. They are delighted (verse 46). I don't know of any church family that meets every day, but the Acts 2 church did.Their ResultsBecause of all this, others esteem them and they grow (verse 47). Too often today's churches don't have the respect of society but quite the opposite. Too many churches aren't growing; they're not even maintaining; they're dying. However, none of the things the church did in Acts 2 are commands for us to follow. The passage is descriptive; it shows what the church did and the outcome they enjoyed. It may be a viable model for us to follow.Unfortunately, many churches today don't even practice these four key actions; supernatural results are rare; and sharing everything is virtually nonexistent. Is it any wonder why churches aren't respected by society or growing? Perhaps they're doing church wrong and not more closely following the Acts 2 model.—Peter DehaanBeing an Acts 2 Church in the 21st CenturySome churches are known for their music programs, others for their children or youth ministries, while yet others for some sort of “niche” that appeals to a large audience. While all such ministries can be good and helpful for both reaching your community and encouraging the church, it's interesting to look back at what the first church devoted themselves to. In Acts 2, after Peter's Jewish audience heard the gospel proclaimed, they responded with repentance and faith, were incorporated into the church through baptism, and they devoted themselves to a common faith and a common life.It's no accident that the first devotion mentioned was to the apostles' teaching. We too should be devoted to the apostles' teaching. But what is their teaching? In Acts 2:22-26, Peter preaches the good news concerning Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and exaltation as Lord and King. In Acts 4, Peter and John annoy the Jewish leaders because they were “teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (v.2). Then the Jewish leaders charged them not “to teach at all in the name of Jesus” (v.18). Then in Acts 5, the apostles' teaching is referred to as “the words of life” (v.20-21). But again, the Jewish leaders “strictly charged them not to teach in this name” (v.28). Nevertheless, after they were released, Luke says of the apostles:And every day in the temple and from house to house they did not cease teaching and preaching that Jesus is the Christ. (v.42)I trust you get the idea of what the apostles' teaching entails.Still, there is a little more going on in Acts 2:42 then first meets the eye. You see, faithful Jews were to be devoted to Moses' teaching. By devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, the early church understood that they were under a new authority—King Jesus, the new and better prophet than Moses. The apostles' teaching is nothing other than all of Scripture, now interpreted through the lens of Jesus. This is, after all, how Jesus himself viewed all of Scripture (Luke 24:44-49). All Scripture is inspired by God and points to Jesus.For this reason, we should want what we do together as a church to be Word-saturated (all of Scripture) and gospel-centered (interpreted through the lens of Jesus). In light of this gospel commitment, here are four areas in which we should encourage our church to be devoted to the apostles' teaching.Personal DevotionsIf our churches are to be devoted to the apostles' teaching, then our members need to be personally devoted to the apostles' teaching. . . .Sunday SchoolYour church may or may not have Sunday school. At High Pointe, we call it Life Classes, and we offer topic specific classes. . . .Small GroupsPerhaps your church has small groups that meet throughout the week. These groups should also be Word-saturated and gospel-centered. . . .Worship GatheringsIt is a great joy when God's people gather to declare our joint allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . .—LifewayChurch As It Was Meant To BeIn many respects, the contemporary church in America looks more like a large corporation than like anything described in the New Testament. Even church leaders sometimes bear a closer resemblance to CEOs and corporate executives than to humble, tender shepherds. Sadly, the good news — that a sinner can find forgiveness for sins before a holy God by placing his trust in and committing his whole life to Jesus Christ—is often eclipsed by “success”-oriented programs and an interest in the bottom line. As a result, many churches have become nothing more than entertainment centers, employing tactics that effectively draw people into the church, but are incapable of truly ministering to them once they come. …So, what's the blueprint? A logical place to start is at the beginning with the first church—the church at Jerusalem. It began on the Day of Pentecost . . . . Back to the Blueprint: Bible Study, Fellowship, and PrayerActs 2:42 gives the blueprint they followed: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Those are the vital elements that make up the actual function and life of the church— and all of that in just one verse! Here's an obvious starting point: A church built to the Master's plan will begin with the right raw material—a saved congregation. Verse 41 identifies the church as being made up of “those who had received [Peter's] word,” and “were continually devoting themselves.” The church at Jerusalem was filled with true Christians — those who continually adhered to apostolic teaching.…While the early church didn't have a New Testament, they had God's Word in the form of the “apostles' teaching.” The church at Jerusalem was committed to receiving that Word. Doctrine is the basis of the church—you can't live out what you don't know or understand. . . . Don't ever allow anyone to stand in the pulpit who isn't committed to leading the congregation through a deep, penetrating study of God's Word. The central focus of the early church's fellowship was the breaking of bread — the Lord's Table. It was the most fitting symbol of their fellowship since it reminded them of the basis for their unity—salvation in Christ and adherence to apostolic doctrine. . . .We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ's self-sacrificing love that took Him to the cross. In your fellowship, make it your habit to practice the same kind of love Christ demonstrated toward you. Practically speaking, you can always give your life to those God brings across your path. Do you habitually pray for fellow believers? Are you encouraging them, edifying them, meeting their physical needs? Do you love them enough to confront them when they are sinning? Those are the marks of true Christian fellowship. It is church as it was meant to be. Acts 2:42 says the believers continually devoted themselves to prayer. Sadly, the same devotion to prayer is often neglected today. Churches can pack pews by offering entertainment, but when a prayer meeting is held, only a faithful few trickle in. . . .Built to Scale: Wonder, Love, and JoyWhat happens when true believers remain under biblical teaching, in a spiritual fellowship, and in devotion to prayer? Acts 2:43 says, “Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe.” “Awe,” the Greek word for fear, speaks of a sense of reverence. It is reserved for special times when people are struck with wonder because of something divine or powerful that defies human explanation. Your church ought to be able to instill awe in your community. . . .—Grace to YouI think we can pick up on a couple of things. First, everyone picks and chooses. Some emphasize signs, some leave them out. (Of course, there are theological reasons for this.) In the second example I quoted, we see a nearly exclusive emphasis on learning—on words. Is that what we see in Acts 2?The community of believers in Acts 2 is the culmination of the salvation story, at least in this life. It has learning but it has has doing; it has giving and receiving; it has love and generosity. Whatever we decide we should carry forward to today's church, I think we cannot forget that the first church was like family.

Scripture Reading: Acts 2:14-47 14 But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them: “You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. 15 In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o'clock in the morning. 16 But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel:17 ‘And in the last days it will be,' God says,‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,and your young men will see visions,and your old men will dream dreams.18 Even on my servants, both men and women,I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.19 And I will perform wonders in the sky aboveand miraculous signs on the earth below,blood and fire and clouds of smoke.20 The sun will be changed to darknessand the moon to bloodbefore the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.21 And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know— 23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles. 24 But God raised him up, having released him from the pains of death because it was not possible for him to be held in its power. 25 For David says about him,‘I saw the Lord always in front of me,for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;my body also will live in hope,27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.28 You have made known to me the paths of life;you will make me full of joy with your presence.'29 “Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,‘The Lord said to my lord,“Sit at my right hand35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”'36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.”37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.Main ThemesSettingAramaic or Greek It is unlikely that Peter originally preached the sermon in Aramaic. Some of Peter's hearers (like the Mesopotamians) would have known Aramaic, but many would not have been able to understand it. So, Peter probably preached in Greek. The Septuagint quotes support this inference. Public SpeakingMuch like today, in ancient times one would rise to speak. This was helpful visually and acoustically. The text tells us that Peter “raised his voice,” a frequent idiom in the Septuagint, making Peter seem like an Old Testament prophet. The phrase also appears in Greek writings with a literal meaning. One would expect Peter to project his voice loudly to address more than three thousand people. There is no reason to doubt that someone could address thousands of people without a modern sound system. For example, the famous preacher Charles Spurgeon (1834 - 1892) once preached to over 23,000 without amplification. George Whitefield (1714-1770), another well-known pastor, had similar fame for preaching to thousands at certain events. Curiously enough, Benjamin Franklin was skeptical of these reports. Nevertheless, Franklin investigated and determined that as many as thirty thousand people could hear Whitefield at a time. However, raising one's voice will not reach many people if there is much noise. The scene implies that the crowd went silent. This makes sense after the miracle of Pentecost, which puzzled those present.The SpeechI. IntroductionDeflectingRemember where we left off last week. Jesus' followers are preaching the good news in the different languages of people from all over the known world. The crowd, amazed and confused at the ability of these Galileans (i.e., country bumpkins, explains the phenomenon by accusing the disciples of being drunk. Our reading today starts with Peter's deflection. You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o'clock in the morning. Acts 2:14b-15This is a witty aside to the audience. Imagine Peter delivering the line with a bit of irony. These interactions between speakers and their audience, sometimes making points at each others' expense, was common in antiquity. However, notice that Peter deflects the mockery with a potentially humorous response that does not shame the hecklers. Peter seems determined to win over the entire audience—not to antagonize them.9 A.M.Peter remarks that men are not drunk in the third hour, which our translation appropriately calls nine in the morning. Just like today, drunkenness was a night activity. The few people who were said to start drinking in the morning and continue through the day were considered exceptional and viewed quite negatively. The mention of the third hours gives some more insight into the scene. At that time of day, the temple courts would have been very busy. This partly explains and grants credibility to the account of a large crowd. The AddressPeter addresses the men, but such a manner of speaking would not have excluded the women—it merely presupposes an androcentric society. Peter invites the audience to hear him carefully because “know this,” or as other translations may put it, “let it be known.” This was daring speech, often used in Jewish and Greek rhetoric. In the Old Testament, this phrase was often used to confront Israel.II. The Argument Quoting Joel, KindaPreview: Peter explains that the power to speak in other tongues was the outward sign of the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy that God would pour out his Holy Spirit on all his people. In Joel this promise was associated with the Day of the Lord; Peter asserts that this event has now occurred in history. It results from the fact that God had exalted the crucified Jesus, had enthroned him at his right hand, thus inaugurating his messianic reign; and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his people was nothing less than the blessing of the messianic age.Peter begins his main argument by quoting Joel 2:28-32. But, something we often miss is that Peter does not provide an exact quotation. He adds or modifies Joel's text at different points to bring out its implications. This is neither deception nor error. Imagine if I was sharing the gospel with someone, and I quoted John 3:16 as follows: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, Jesus, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.The word “Jesus” is not in the original verse. It is my attempt to quickly explain the text. Peter is doing something similar. Moreover, this was a common rhetorical device used by Torah teachers at the time. These teacher peppered their expositions with numerous biblical allusions while making deliberate changes.So, what did Peter modify? The two most relevant changes are: (1) Peter changes “after these things” to “in the last days, says God.” Thus, Peter reinforces the eschatological nature of the gift of the Spirit. Obviously, Peter's argument is that the disciples' inspired praise in other languages represents the gift of the Spirit, also showing that the “last days” have come.(2) Peter omits “because in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem will be survivors (those saved), just as the Lord said.” His omission of the specifically Israel-centered part of the quotation seems significant to universalize the promise of the Spirit to all peoples. This reinforces the universality of the text quoted. The quotation speaks of men and women, young and old, seeing visions and prophesying—that is, the promise of the Spirit is for everyone. Last Days I have discussed the realized eschatology of Acts quite extensively, so I will make the current discussion of the last days brief. The phrase “in the last days” and other similar expressions, such as “last times” are found all over the Old Testament. Generally, they relate to the period of Israel's restoration. However, if we pay more attention, we find that the phrase has at least two meanings. On one hand, it has that meaning of restoration (Isa 2:2; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Dan 2:28).Here is the message about Judah and Jerusalem that was revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz. In future days the mountain of the Lord's temple will endure as the most important of mountains and will be the most prominent of hills. All the nations will stream to it . . . . Isaiah 2:1-2On the other hand, this eschatological title also applied to a period of great suffering just before that restoration (Jer 23:20; 30:24; Ezek 38:16; Dan 10:14). But just watch! The wrath of the Lord will come like a storm! Like a raging storm it will rage down on the heads of those who are wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has fully carried out his intended purposes. In future days you people will come to understand this clearly. Jeremiah 23:19-20“Therefore, prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day when my people Israel are living securely, you will take notice and come from your place, from the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a vast army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud covering the earth. In future days I will bring you against my land so that the nations may acknowledge me, when before their eyes I magnify myself through you, O Gog. Ezekiel 38:14-16The New Testament continues this dual description, speaking of an advancing kingdom with eventual glory but also a period of great suffering and apostasy. We find this “already/not yet” tension in the writings of Paul and in the words of Jesus.Peter's “last days” fits the expectation that the disciples had entered an interim era between the first and the second comings of the Messiah, called to testify to the nations by the eschatological gift of the Spirit. The very affirmation that the Christ had come constituted the basis for a realized eschatology alongside a future one. All Flesh (“On All People”)In Acts 2:17, the phrase translated as “on all people” would more literally translate to “all flesh.” The translation, however, accurately captures the intended meaning of the phrase—particularly how Peter intends it. Clearly Acts teaches that Joel's prophecy of the Spirit is not only for the apostles, but for all of Christ's followers. Luke undoubtedly interprets “all flesh” as referring not simply to the men and women, young and old, and servants stated in Joel 2:28-29 but to people from all nations. Calling on the Lord's NameThe Joel quotation ends with everyone “calling on the name of the Lord.” The expression “call on the Lord's name” was familiar in Jewish texts, generally referring to praying to him or praising him. The term carried additional punch at the time, since it is also the expression that would have been used to make a formal appeal to Caesar.Peter will expand on this phrase, making clear that this Lord upon which people must call is Jesus, they must do so particularly during baptism. In Greek, the term for Lord was kurios or (kyrios). In the Old Testament, this title generally referred to God. It is partly because the word kurios is not specific that the early church is able to apply it to Jesus and also make an equivalence with God Almighty. Notice how early this high christological understanding appears in the narrative. Jesus is not understood as God progressively throughout the history of the early church. For Luke, God the Father is “Lord” (Acts 2:20, 39; 3:19-20, 22; 4:25-26, 29), but Christ also receives this title by exaltation (1:21; 2:36; 4: 33; 5:14; 9:1); Jesus receives faith (Acts 3:16) and prayer (7:59) and is the world's judge (10:42; 17:31). Contrary to what some scholars would expect, most of the uses of “Lord” for Jesus in Acts appear in the first half of the book and hence are attributed to the Jerusalem church. In fact, this view of Jesus as God is found early in the gospels. For example, we encounter it in the story of John the Baptist declaring that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit—clearly a role of God and God alone. We may still wonder how Peter came to this high christology when he does not seem to “get it” in the gospels. Luke probably expects his audience to infer Peter's further learning during the forty days of resurrection appearances in Acts 1:3. Jesus and His Powerful Signs and WondersIn verse 22, Peter again invites the audience to listen—to pay attention. In typical rhetorical style, this frames the exhortation to come.Peter opens this new section of the speech with a mention of Jesus and then with a sort of proof—the signs and wonders. We must remember that in the gospels, signs are central to demonstrating Jesus' identity and his relationship with the father. Notice also that Peter is connecting the signs and miracles attested in the gospels to those prophesied in Joel (verse 19), bolstering the point that the end times have come.The pairing of signs and wonders appears elsewhere in the New Testament, probably always evoking the Old Testament story of Moses. (This pairing appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, but the most recognizable and iconic story would be that of Moses.) The narrative of Moses is found in Exodus, but below I quote the summary provided in Deuteronomy.No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses, who knew the Lord face to face. He did all the signs and wonders the Lord had sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, all his servants, and the whole land, and he displayed great power and awesome might in view of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-11Notice that one would not expect Diaspora Jewish visitors to be as familiar with Jesus's signs as Galileans or some Jerusalemites, but Luke seems to imply that the word had spread far and wide. Jesus' Death and God's PlanPeter clarifies that Jesus did not die by surprise. This is a point we discussed extensively during out study of John, so I will keep it brief. Particularly in verse 23, Peter highlights the fulfillment-of-prophecy theme and summarizes the Gospel's plot as a part of God's larger plan in salvation history. God's sovereignty stands even behind the very political powers and treacherous actions that brought about Jesus's death. Luke is sometimes accused of minimizing the cross and focusing almost exclusively on the resurrection. This misunderstands Luke. Notice that Peter's speech begins with cross—it was a key part of God's salvific plan. There is simply no need to explain the cross. His audience was well aware of the brutal, shameful execution by Roman crucifixion. Moreover, the resurrection is what proves the significance of the cross, so highlighting the resurrection makes sense in a context of speeches and arguments. Peter charges the “men of Israel” with Jesus's death. Presumably, he does so because of the participation of the crowds and the leaders. Sometimes, Christians and non-Christians alike accuse Luke (and Peter and John) of antisemitism. Forgive my strong language, but such a charge is ridiculous. First, Biblical prophets often denounced Israel as a whole. And Jewish people understood well the notion of corporate responsibility and its demands for atonement or restitution. Second, speaking in collective terms, particularly in relation to nations, does not imply an inherently negative view of individual people. For example, in modern day we speak of Russia invading Ukraine. Or more poignantly, we may say “Russians” invaded Ukraine. This by no means entails that individual Russians are somehow predisposed (e.g., genetically) to be invaders. Notice that Peter gives the “men of Israel” no breaks. Not only does he fault them directly for the death of Jesus but claims that they have killed Jesus by the hands of the Gentiles—literally “lawless men.” The lawless were Romans and other Gentiles who did not acknowledge God's law. In other words, Peter is accusing audience, which presumably prided itself of its obedience to the Torah, of getting in bed with those who rejected the Torah. Peter held no punches, using deeply offensive rhetoric. (Peter's use of the phrase “by the hand” of another to commit the crime is also reminiscent of Old Testament passages were someone sought to kill another but avoid personal guilt.) In this Bible study, I try not to make overly broad prescriptive conclusions from the text, so I will not claim that we ought to take homiletic lessons from Peter's speech. But I think we can safely say that one is not necessarily wrong to be offensive for the sake of the gospel. Released from Death and Psalm 16Summary. In Acts 2:25-36, Peter makes an argument from Scripture that the risen one is the Lord (2: 25– 31, 34– 35), an argument from the testimony of eyewitnesses and the Spirit's present confirmation that Jesus has risen (2: 32– 33), with the resulting conclusion that Jesus is the Lord (2: 36). Although Jesus's death is pivotal, Peter's speech focuses on the resurrection. Resurrection is a theme in the speeches in Acts, even more so than in the gospels. Peter begins this new section of his speech pointing out that Jesus was delivered from the pains or “pangs” of death. (The term translated pains is frequently used to describe pains associated with giving birth, which is why the translation “pangs” is appropriate.) Deliverance from the “pangs of death” alludes to Psalm 16, “inviting” it as part of the argument. Peter will then explain psalm 16 by connecting it to anoher—Psalm 110. (Peter does this using gezerah shevah on the premise that similar language among the psalms might convey related ideas or at least evoke related feelings.) The quoted section of Psalm 16 is:‘I saw the Lord always in front of me,for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;my body also will live in hope,because you will not leave my soul in Hades,nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.You have made known to me the paths of life;you will make me full of joy with your presence.'The way that New Testament writers understood the original meaning of certain Old Testament passages can be perplexing. For example, one is not certain whether Peter believed that the psalm referred simply to David's restoration of health but its basic principle could be subject to a greater fulfillment, or if Peter believed that the psalm was always about the resurrection of the Messiah, which encouraged David that death would not separate him from God. One may argue that the first interpretation (that the psalm refers to David's restoration of health) is the obvious, plain reading of the text. However, not only Peter and the early church, but later rabbis interpreted the passage eschatologically.One scholar argues that even though the psalmist had no prediction of a messiah's resurrection in mind, the New Testament teaching of the resurrection from the dead and the thoughts which here occupy the mind of the psalmist are based on the same fundamental conviction, namely, an unshakable belief in the life-giving power of God.Lord at the Right HandLuke and other New Testament authors affirm that Christ is at the Father's right hand. The idea was pervasive in early Christianity, making it into the Apostle's Creed. Presumably, the idea is based on Psalms 16 and 110. The language of the right hand is often used metaphorically. Most ancients associated the left hand with dishonor (although being at a king's left hand was still a position of honor). A temporary seat at a ruler's right hand was a position of honor, but this was still more the case if the seat was permanent. The position at the right hand of the throne invested its holder with delegated authority to act for the ruler.JoyThe theme of joy in Acts 2:28) is probably deliberate. After all, Luke could have skipped this part of the quotation. Rejoicing characterizes the early church following Pentecost. The theme of joy appears in momentous events such as miracle working, suffering in hope of divine vindication, celebrating eternal life, celebrating others' conversions, and celebrating other good news. Joy was sometimes empowered by the Holy Spirit.Notice that, as explained above, Peter hits the crowd hard. However, he does not do so to leave them in disgrace or despair but to invite them into joy. Hades and DecayA key part of Peter's argument (which Luke repeats later in Acts) is the idea that the Holy One was not left in Hades, and he did not see decay. That Jesus was no longer in “Hades” (emphasized again in 2:31) simply means that he was no longer dead. (The mention of Hades is both rhetorically colorful and it provides a contrast with heaven.) If the soul was in Hades, then the body would decay. Hence, Hades and decay are both pointing towards death. However, notice that (as some Christians suggest) even if Hades were a metaphor for nonexistence (not its typical usage in ancient texts), the experience of death for the body here, though parallel and related, does not appear identical to that for the soul. As evidenced by the psalm, early Judaism often accepted this differentiation between the soul and the body.Conclusion—Jesus Is the One Who Lives, Jesus is the Exalted KingFinally, Peter argues that David, having died and been buried yet not having ascended, cannot be the true fulfillment of Psalm 16. Rather, both the apostles as eyewitnesses and the outpoured Spirit attest that Jesus has risen and ascended to God's right hand. Therefore Jesus is the Lord of Psalm 16—the “Christ,” the ultimate Davidic king. Peter's line of argumentation was typical at the time. A teacher who wanted to argue that a psalm (or any other text) applied in a way other than what it seemed to claim literally could begin by showing that the apparent literal meaning was not fulfilled. That David (in contrast to, e.g., Moses or Ezra) died, was not disputed. Peter can point out the obvious: the tomb is in plain view among them, and David has not vacated it. We must also keep in mind that to use David as a sort of title for the messiah was not unusual. The Old Testament is full of such uses.Nevertheless, Peter makes his argument respectfully. His use of the phrase, “I can speak confidently” (sometimes translated as “I may say boldly”), can mean something like “Do not be offended if I point out.”Peter emphasizes that David spoke not of himself but in his role as a prophet. Probably many Jewish teachers would have shared the assumption that prophets spoke especially of the messianic era.Peter completes his argument by mentioning God's promises to David, including the promise of his kingship (2 Sam 3:9) and his continuing seed (Ps 132:11). Christ's Exaltation and Psalm 110Summary. If Jesus is in God's presence (Acts 2:25, 29), Peter can infer for his hearers that Jesus is in heaven. Peter bolsters his argument with Psalm 110. If Jesus is already enthroned at the Father's right hand, then he has begun his messianic reign, and hence the messianic age has begun and the messianic blessings have been given.Jesus and the SpiritOn the theological level, the Spirit's outpouring stems from Christ's exaltation (Acts 2:33). Notice that in verse 33 Jesus “pours out” the Spirit. This is a clear allusion to God's pouring out the Spirit in 2:17-18 (the only other passage in Luke-Acts using that expression). Jewish texts also speak of God's pouring out wisdom as his gift. Wisdom would also sit by God's throne. Again, notice the high Christology. If Jesus is the Spirit-baptizer, he takes on a divine role in light of the Old Testament, where only God can pour out God's Spirit (e.g., Isaiah 44:3). Acts 2:33 is among the most important for understanding Luke's Christology and pneumatology and their relationship with each other. According to Acts, Jesus is enthroned as Messiah and now reigns in his church by the Spirit. Instead of an absentee Christology, by relating the Spirit to Jesus in the way Jewish people had understood the Spirit's relationship to God, Luke takes the reader beyond anything Judaism conceived of the messiah. The Exalted LordPeter shows that David, being dead and buried, could not fulfill the promise of resurrection or incorruption in Psalm 16. Then Peter produces another key text that David could not fulfill—Psalm 110. Peter claims that it is self-evident that Psalm 110, with which Peter links Psalm 16, cannot apply to David both because David did not ascend and because he speaks of his Lord. As Psalm 110 shows, the exaltation of Jesus involves sitting at the right hand of God. Jesus's position here is familiar in terms of a viceroy or vizier. Sometimes this position could apply to a son installed or functioning as coregent. For example, Titus dictated letters and edicts in his father's name and publicly read his speeches.“Lord”As a title for the Messiah, “Lord” predates Luke's writings. For example, the pre-Christian work called the Psalms of Solomon speaks of the “Lord Messiah.” That is, the basic line of interpretation was established even before Jesus. Christian sources differ from this pre-Christian tradition only in associating this title with Jesus's deity.The church's use of the title “Lord” for Jesus was certainly dominant well before Luke wrote (and before the later speeches in Acts would have occurred). It is Paul's primary title for Jesus and appears in every part of early Christianity In Psalm 110, if one assumes Davidic authorship for the psalm, as most first-century hearers would have done, “my Lord” becomes someone greater than David (the greatest king). A midrashic connection to Ps 16:2 also suggests the deity of “my lord,” as it is addressed directly to God. This fits the exposition here, where this “Lord” bears the specific divine name on which hearers must call to be saved. His FootstoolsThe remainder of the quotation in Acts 2:35 is hardly simple decoration. Although Peter's primary point in quoting Psalm 110 is Christology, it also support his eschatology. In this eschatology, Jesus's present reign is an interim period until its consummation. First-century readers would still understand the metaphor of enemies being made a footstool. Prisoners had long been symbolically “trampled underfoot,” as lavishly illustrated, for example, by Egyptian royal sandals with bound prisoners portrayed on the soles. Conclusion: Lord and ChristSpeakers commonly provided a final summation of their argument. That's the case in Acts 2:36. The proclamatory “Let all the house of Israel know” fits such a climax. Jesus is the “Lord” of in Joel's passage (Acts 2:21) by way of Psalm 110 (Acts 2:34-35). By way of Psalm 16, he is “Christ” (Acts 2: 31)—that is, the king from David's line. That Jesus is Messiah (i.e., Israel's king) and that he is Lord at God's right hand are truth claims that demand universal allegiance; that is, they demand the response of all humanity. Notice that this response could costly. “King” was a dangerous title in the Roman world. (“Lord” could be construed in less political, purely religious terms.)The closing reference to Peter's hearers crucifying their own king invites a response. The plural pronoun “you” is emphatic in 2:36. The ResponseThe crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus's name in a baptism involving such repentance. God's promise to them is the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:38 and 3:19, Peter preaches repentance like the Old Testament prophets calling Israel to return. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Individuals needed to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle, not merely indulge in guilty feelings. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.Although the very deep emotional response described here (“struck to the heart”) produces a favorable behavioral response, Luke provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54). I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one's previous religious experience.Because God's “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.BaptismJust as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing or effecting repentance, so now does Peter. One Jewish use of baptism in antiquity was as an act of conversion (as part of the process of conversion), although Jewish people traditionally applied this function of immersion only to Gentiles. Peter here demands a conversion no less radical, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel's God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus. The “forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus' final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is probably not dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus' followers used baptism as the initiation rite is unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Although such Jewish lustrations and their broader cultural background provide a context for John's and early Christian baptism, they cannot define them. John's baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many. The closest Jewish parallel to John's and early Christian baptism, namely, proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Major differences naturally distinguish John's baptism from proselyte baptism, including the former's public and eschatological orientation and particularly its summoning of Jews as well as Gentiles to turn to Israel's God. However, the conversion ritual provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte's Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.In Jesus NamePeter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus' name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord's name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus's name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert's new allegiance.We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus's name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer's calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke's writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms. The Promise of the SpiritLuke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.”. By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus's name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah's language, Luke also reiterates the prominence of the Spirit for the Gentile mission. By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.It will so happen thateveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,just as the Lord has promised;the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.Summary and ExhortationVerse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke's narrative moves quickly the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech's central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel's prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord's name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God's eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ. For Peter's hearers to save themselves from the generation's wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.Peter's term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter's point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.

Scripture Reading: Acts 1:12 - 2:13 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called the Mount of Olives (which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away). 13 When they had entered Jerusalem, they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. Peter and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James were there. 14 All these continued together in prayer with one mind, together with the women, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. 15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a gathering of about 120 people) and said, 16 “Brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit foretold through David concerning Judas—who became the guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 for he was counted as one of us and received a share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his house become deserted, and let there be no one to live in it,' and ‘Let another take his position of responsibility.' 21 Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, 22 beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us.” 23 So they proposed two candidates: Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 Then they cast lots for them, and the one chosen was Matthias; so he was counted with the eleven apostles.1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem. 6 When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Completely baffled, they said, “Aren't all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” 12 All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others jeered at the speakers, saying, “They are drunk on new wine!”Main ThemesWAITING ON THE PROMISE AND SELECTING A NEW APOSTLEThe fulfillment of Acts 1: 8 is interrupted by a problem left over from the gospel. One of the twelve witnesses must be replaced. Yet there is also a sense in which 1:12-26 is not simply a “problem” but part of the preparation for Pentecost. The disciples pray together (which is often linked with the Spirit's descent) and the leadership structure for the righteous remnant of Israel is restored.The Physical Setting—The Upper RoomOne might suppose that the entire group was staying in one upper room, but surely Luke means only that they habitually met there. No upper room would accommodate 120 people, and certainly the women would not have stayed with the men. One may also ask: which upper room? The definite article might suggest that this was a well-known upper room. The reader of Luke-Acts will infer that it is probably the same upper room that hosted the Last Supper (Luke 22:11-12).The Theological Setting—The RemnantWhat do I mean by a righteous remnant? Throughout the rocky history of the nation of Israel, full of disobedience to God, a small contingent always remained faithful. This was the remnant—quite literally, what remained and rebuilt after each of God's judgments. One can hardly avoid connecting this idea of a righteous remnant to the apostles, particularly given their number (12, just like the tribes of Israel). Thus, selecting a twelfth apostle was important to restore the symbolic value of the first leaders of the church. Israel's remnant fits well into the context of the Spirit and Israel's restoration and role in salvation. In fact, this is the fulfillment of God's first covenant with his people. All the way back in Genesis, God promised Abraham:Now the Lord said to Abram,“Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father's householdto the land that I will show you.Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you,and I will make your name great,so that you will exemplify divine blessing.I will bless those who bless you,but the one who treats you lightly I must curse,so that all the families of the earth may receive blessing through you.” Genesis 12:1-3The continuity between Genesis and Acts is incredible.12 out of (Approximately) 120 and the Language of CallingThe connection between the apostles and the remnant is reinforced when we notice the number of apostles and how Peter spoke of their calling. Peter notes that Judas the traitor had received the same privileges of calling that the other eleven had. Judas is described as being “numbered.” Peter describes the apostolic calling here as a “service” in which Judas once shared. Peter also describes this calling in terms of a “portion” or “lot” in the service. This description reinforces the fact that possessors of the office of apostle were chosen by divine purpose, including the betrayer. There is a beautiful connection between Peter's language and the Old Testament. In Numbers, for example, God chooses the Levites to serve as his priests:5 The Lord spoke to Moses: 6 “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may serve him. 7 They are responsible for his needs and the needs of the whole community before the tent of meeting, by attending to the service of the tabernacle. 8 And they are responsible for all the furnishings of the tent of meeting, and for the needs of the Israelites, as they serve in the tabernacle. 9 You are to assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they will be assigned exclusively to him out of all the Israelites. 10 So you are to appoint Aaron and his sons, and they will be responsible for their priesthood, but the unauthorized person who comes near must be put to death.”11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses: 12 “Look, I myself have taken the Levites from among the Israelites instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the Israelites. So the Levites belong to me, 13 because all the firstborn are mine. When I destroyed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I set apart for myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They belong to me. I am the Lord.” Number 3:5-13Furthermore, notice the numbers involved. Twelve are chosen out of approximately 120. A tenth. Like the tithe.Any tithe of the land, from the grain of the land or from the fruit of the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. Leviticus 27:30Or exactly like in Nehemiah (during the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile).So the leaders of the people settled in Jerusalem, while the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of every ten to settle in Jerusalem, the holy city, while the other nine remained in other cities. The people gave their blessing on all the men who volunteered to settle in Jerusalem. Nehemiah 11:1-2Sometimes I think we miss the point that Acts is the restoration of Israel through the remnant of the people of God. Put simply, the Spirit comes, the sick are healed, the remnant rebuilds. Acts is the coming of the kingdom.CHOOSING A SUCCESSORMany church assemblies in Acts addressed controversial issues (Acts 6:1; 11:2-3; 15:1-7; 21:21-22); the matter of choosing Judas's successor, however, seems not so much controversial as necessary to prepare a united witness for the time when the Spirit would come.The Problem—Judas the BetrayerIn Acts, Peter speaks of Judas as a guide to those who arrested Jesus. However, Luke's audience would surely think of the fuller account of this betrayal in Luke. Treachery or betrayal was considered one of the most heinous offenses in antiquity, a breach of sacred trust. Notice that just like in the Gospel John, this treachery is not treated as a surprise. Instead, it was foretold. Jesus knew what would happen if he remained with Judas. Jesus went intentionally to his grave.How Did Judas Die?In the Bible, we have multiple accounts of Judas's death. Yet Matthew's version of Judas's demise seems to differ at key points from Luke's. Is it possible to reconcile these accounts?Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the 30 silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself. The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not lawful to put this into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” After consulting together they bought the Potter's Field with it, as a burial place for foreigners. For this reason that field has been called the “Field of Blood” to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the 30 silver coins, the price of the one whose price had been set by the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.” Matthew 27:3-10The major differences are (1) whether Judas obtained the field himself (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:7) and (2) how he met his end (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:5). Regarding the first problem, perhaps Luke's narrative stems from his (or his sources') abbreviation of a longer account that could have included the high priests or that the priests, counting the money as legally belonging to Judas, could have bought the field in Judas's name. Regarding the second problem, plausibly, if Judas hanged himself from a tall tree or building in the sort of rocky field natural in Judean hill country, his innards might well spatter (assuming that the tree was tall) when someone cut or (less likely) untied the rope (or it eventually broke). (This assumes that the body was cut down before it decomposed or before it was picked apart by scavengers; in view of Judean piety, this assumption is likely, again assuming that the corpse was found, as it probably would have been if near Jerusalem.) Others have suggested the possibility of the body's being torn down and opened by wild dogs, fitting both versions. Luke or his source would then report the gorier fate of Judas's corpse rather than his actual mode of death.Qualifications for ApostleshipPeter lists the qualifications (1:20) for Judas's replacement. This gives us great insight into the requirements to be an apostle, so we should spend a minute or two making note of them.Antiquity was no stranger to lists of qualifications, particularly for reliable witnesses. Peter could have safely assumed that Judas' replacement had to be of good moral character and male. (Male testimony was nearly always accepted most highly. There could also be theological reasons to select a male.) But, what were the special qualifications to be not simply a witness but an apostle?Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us. Acts 1:21-22This looks like one requirement but, in a sense, it is two. First, an apostle had to be a firsthand eyewitness of all of Jesus' ministry—from his baptism to his resurrection. Choosing those who had spent the most time with Jesus was important so that they could guarantee and interpret the message about him. Moreover, in antiquity just like now, eyewitness sources were considered the best, and those further removed from the witnesses were considered weaker.Second, and this is implied but it is no less important, an apostle had to be one of those who persevered. At the cross, all disciples deserted Jesus. So that desertion could be ignored (or all persons would be disqualified from discipleship). Nevertheless, throughout Jesus' ministry many of his followers left him. Recall, for example, the crowd's reaction after Jesus fed the five thousand and taught them that he was the bread of life:I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.…Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, “This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?” When Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining about this, he said to them, “Does this cause you to be offended? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)…After this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You don't want to go away too, do you?” John 6:41b-53, 60-64, 66-67Two Are Proposed, Lots Are CastTwo candidates are proposed by the community: Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and Matthias. (“Joseph” was a very common name, hence requiring some further description. Historians often provided additional names for historical figures with common names.)How did the apostles choose between the two men? First, they prayed in recognition of two facts: (1) God knows the hearts of all men, and (2) God selects the apostles.Then they prayed, “Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” Acts 1:24-25I discussed God's election of his apostles above. The idea that God knows men's hearts is also not new. We read statements to that effect in John, and it appears throughout the Old Testament. For example:But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don't be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way people do. People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7So, the assembly's prayer indicates that they are depending on God to provide the right replacement for Judas. The Lord's “choosing” Matthias provides continuity with his “choosing” other apostles. The question we often have is whether casting lots was the proper way to let God choose or communicate his decision.(By the way, what are lots? The lots may have been stones or pottery fragments shaken in a container, with Matthias's being the first to emerge.)Lot oracles (usually answering yes/no questions or other binary choices) were common in antiquity. Many cities had dice oracles for their citizens to consult in city centers. More relevant here is the use of lots for choosing public officials. Various classical Athenian officials were chosen by lot. Democracies in particular, but also other Greek cities, used lots to distribute, with a minimum of conflict, public offices among those who were equally eligible. The use of lots is also well documented in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. In the Roman Republic, Romans could evade partisan politics by drawing lots. Romans did not use lots for selecting normal magistrates but did use them for selecting judges and other offices. Lots could be used to decide who would lead in battle, which general would go to war, which positions the legions would take in battle, which members of a disgraced cohort would be beaten to death, who might be sacrificed, and whose property would have to be sold.The point is that the apostles did not use some weird or irresponsible system to decide between Joseph and Matthias. They used a fairly standard procedure to elect officials when the candidates were equally qualified. Perhaps this is why casting lots seemed unobjectionable to the apostles and the rest of the believers. At the same time, we should notice that casting lots is not used again by the apostles. So, we should not consider its use prescriptive for the church.PentecostAll Together in One Place—Where?The Pentecost miracle happened when all the disciples were together in one place (Acts 2:1). To be honest, I always assumed that was the upper room mentioned in chapter 1. Maybe that's right, but maybe it isn't. If one inspects the text closely, the place is not specified. There are two choices for this unspecified location: the temple or a private home (presumably the one with the upper room).Before we consider the evidence, why would think the temple was their gathering place? The narrative that follows verse 2:1 implies that either they were in or at some point they enter the temple courts. Nowhere else in Jerusalem could they have drawn a crowd sufficient to produce three thousand converts, whereas the Temple Mount could fit about seventy-five thousand people. So, the disciples were either in or near the temple. Let's consider some of the evidence.The apostles frequently met in the temple (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 5:12) but also “from house to house” (Acts 2:46), so both options are plausible. But maybe we can figure it out from verse two, which refers to the “entire house” being filled. Is the term “house" dispositive of the issue? Not decisively. The temple or tabernacle is called a house in Luke 6:4 and 19:46 (quoting Isaiah 56) and Acts 7:46-47; but the term also appears in contrast to the temple (Luke 1:23; Acts 2:46; 5:42), and Luke's emphasis on house meetings makes that sense more likely (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 20:20).If we favor preceding context over following context (i.e., chapter 1 over chapter 3), as someone reading the book in sequence for the first time would do and consider the allusion to the disciples' unity, we might be pointed back to the upper room of 1:13. If this is the case, we might conclude that the disciples rushed from there into the temple, still praising God. A transition from upper room to temple is plausible. Any home large enough to host huge numbers in an upper room would have to have been in the Upper City near the Temple Mount.When? During the Festival of PentecostPentecost, another name for the Feast of Weeks, was one of the great Jewish pilgrimage festivals, and as such, it would have been heavily attended by Jews from all over the world (as they knew it) and perhaps some Gentile tourists. Its history dates to the Old Testament. As a scholar explains:The Passover feast was celebrated at twilight in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month (Lev 23:5). It was followed on the fifteenth day by the beginning of the closely related seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6). On the next day, the sixteenth, the first fruits of the (barley) harvest had to be brought to the Lord (Lev 23:11, cf. vv. 6-7). Seven weeks and one day later, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was celebrated, during which, among other things, offerings from the grain (wheat) harvest and two loaves of bread had to be brought to God (Exod 34:22; Lev 23:1517). (The fact that this festival was on the fiftieth day later gave rise to the name Pentecost, from the Greek word for “fiftieth.”)Although many ancient estimates of festival attendance may be exaggerations (e.g., later rabbinic estimates), massive attendance (in the thousands or tens of thousands) is not disputed. Such well-attended festivals were not unusual in the Mediterranean. Both pious believers and tourists would attend. Well-to-do Greeks and Romans apparently visited sanctuaries as tourists, and it is reasonable to guess that the Jerusalem temple's grandeur may have drawn a few Gentile tourists. Nevertheless, pilgrims would constitute the vast majority of visitors for Pentecost.Although Scripture demanded the attendance of all Israelite males at these festivals (Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16), first-century Jews seem to have applied the requirement only within the Holy Land itself due to practical realities. Some sources suggest that more Diaspora Jews attended Pentecost than Passover because of the difficulties of traveling earlier in the season.Although Pentecost was originally a harvest festival, eventually a tradition developed that associated the occassion with the giving of Law at Sinai. Whether this tradition was known by Luke and his audience or relevant to them is disputed. Luke certainly does not acknowledge the connection. Luke mentions Pentecost for two clear reasons: he shows that, as Jesus had promised, the disciples did not have long to wait for the gift of the Spirit (1:5), and he explains why so many Diaspora Jews were present to recognize the languages spoken (2:5-12).The MiracleWind and FireOn Pentecost, God provided objective, external phenomena to confirm the internal empowerment taking place when he filled the church with the Spirit. Yet, we should notice that Luke is reserved in his description. He speaks of it “like” wind and “like” fire, just as he spoke of the Spirit coming on Jesus as “like” a dove. This might be intentional on his part, to prevent the reader from understanding the Spirit as a substance—as the Greeks would have done. Instead, Luke presents a more Jewish and biblical theology, in which the Spirit is only compared to substances.Why wind and fire? Broadly speaking, this imagery would have connected with anyone in the ancient world. Theophanic storm images of wind and fire were common signs of divine presence. But, is there a more specific connection we should make?WindWind often indicates the powerful presence of God in the Old Testament. In particular, the scene in Acts evokes Ezekiel 37 (more on that in a minute).In Acts 2:2, Luke uses a rare term for “wind.” The term πνοῆς appears elsewhere in the New Testament only at Acts 17:25, where it refers to human “breath” as a gift of God (and alludes directly to Gen 2:7). It appears 24 times in the Septuagint, referring especially to the breath of life. Whereas the more common term for “wind” and “breath” in Greek provides more obvious associations with God's “Spirit,” the term used by Luke points us to Genesis and life-giving. Moreover, Jewish tradition connected the divine breath of Gen 2:7 with the eschatological wind of the Spirit in Ezekiel 37. Jewish people expected an eschatological “wind” of the Spirit to bring the breath of life into the slain of Israel. A redacted version of Ezekiel 37 is presented below:The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and placed me in the midst of the valley, and it was full of bones. 2 He made me walk all around among them. I realized there were a great many bones in the valley, and they were very dry. 3 He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” I said to him, “Sovereign Lord, you know.” 4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and tell them: ‘Dry bones, listen to the Lord's message. 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: Look, I am about to infuse breath into you and you will live. 6 I will put tendons on you and muscles over you and will cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will live. Then you will know that I am the Lord.'”7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. There was a sound when I prophesied— I heard a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 As I watched, I saw tendons on them, then muscles appeared, and skin covered over them from above, but there was no breath in them.9 He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath—prophesy, son of man—and say to the breath: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these corpses so that they may live.'” 10 So I prophesied as I was commanded, and the breath came into them; they lived and stood on their feet, an extremely great army.11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are all the house of Israel. Look, they are saying, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope has perished; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy, and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look, I am about to open your graves and will raise you from your graves, my people. I will bring you to the land of Israel. 13 Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and raise you from your graves, my people. 14 I will place my breath in you and you will live; I will give you rest in your own land. Then you will know that I am the Lord—I have spoken and I will act, declares the Lord.'”…24 “‘My servant David will be king over them; there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow my regulations and carefully observe my statutes. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your fathers lived; they will live in it—they and their children and their grandchildren forever. David my servant will be prince over them forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be a perpetual covenant with them. I will establish them, increase their numbers, and place my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then, when my sanctuary is among them forever, the nations will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel.'” Ezekiel 37If you remember from our study of John, Jesus continually promised life, abundant and eternal. We need to look no further than the famous verse, John 3:16For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.Notice, therefore, that if the Spirit gives life, and we receive the Spirit now, then Acts is presenting a realized eschatology. Eternal life begins now.FireFire was also commonly associated with the presence of God in the Old Testament. Perhaps the best-known example is the burning bush:Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within a bush. He looked, and the bush was ablaze with fire, but it was not being consumed! Exodus 3:1-3The other major example (although many more could be provided) is the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites through the desert.They journeyed from Sukkoth and camped in Etham, on the edge of the desert. Now the Lord was going before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them in the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel day or night. He did not remove the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night from before the people. Exodus 13:20-22Fire was also an image associated with judgments, including end-time judgments, and purification. More importantly, Luke's informed audience would quickly connect the fire with Luke 3:16-17 (which, incidentally, contains both motifs).John answered them all, “I baptize you with water, but one more powerful than I am is coming—I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clean out his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire.” Luke 3:16-17Though less common than simply “flames,” the expression “tongues of fire” is common in Jewish texts, perhaps because fire is often said to devour (sometimes translated as consumes). For example, the expression appears in the Qumran scrolls. Of course, Luke may have also selected that comparison to make a connection with the Spirit empowering the disciples to speak in tongues.EmpoweredIn Scripture, the phrase “filled with the Spirit” applied to the Spirit's gifting for skills, whether in sacred craftsmanship (Exodus 31:3; 35:31), for leadership (Deuteronomy 34:9), or for prophecy (Micah 3:8). Luke employs the biblical phrase “filled with the Spirit” frequently, especially for an experience enabling prophets and prophetic inspiration (Luke 1:15, 41, 67) and for power for Christian proclamation, both for apostles (Acts 4: 8; 9:17; 13:9) and others (4:31; 13:52).Speaking in TonguesIn Greek, the term for tongues, as in tongues of fire or speaking in tongues, is glōssais. Just like in English, the term can refer to a physical, literal tongue (e.g., “I burned my tongue”) or a language. The activity of speaking in tongues is glossolalia, which just means speaking (although it was often used to refer to prophetic speech).The idea of the Spirit of God enabling Christ followers to speak in tongues is rather novel. There is scant precedent. In one document from Qumran, different angels apparently lead the heavenly worship on successive Sabbaths in different languages. There is also a Jewish source speaking of divine sashes that allowed some women to speak in Angelic languages—but this source may be later than Acts (and the languages spoken by the women are described as intelligible, so perhaps they are no angelic after all). So, Spirit-inspired use of other languages seems unprecedented in the Judaic background of Acts.However, Jewish tradition certainly affirmed Spirit-filled prophecy. For example, consider 1 Samuel:Afterward you will go to Gibeah of God, where there are Philistine officials. When you enter the town, you will meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place. They will have harps, tambourines, flutes, and lyres, and they will be prophesying. 6 Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them. You will be changed into a different person. When these signs have taken place, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God will be with you. 1 Samuel 10:5-7Could this speaking in tongues have been borrowed from non-Jewish cultures? As Craig Keener points out:Many scholars think that the early Christian experience of tongues originated in such magical syllables or in unintelligible ecstatic speech, attested in both Egypt and Greece. The extant early Christian understandings of the experience, however (in Luke and Paul), do not reflect this background, and the experience probably (as Luke suggests) initially predates the expansion of Christianity into a Diaspora setting where such a background could make sense.In short, God-empowered speaking in tongues, even if interpreted liberally, was unusual in the ancient world. However, it is central to Acts and the early church. This kind of speaking in tongues is even attested to by church fathers. For example, Irenaeus (c. 130 – 202 AD) wrote:In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God . . . . Her. 5.6.1A Reversal of BabelMany people (including scholars and commentators, current and ancient) understand Acts 2 as a reversal of the Babel story and believe that Luke patterned his narrative after it. The allusion is not immediately clear but there are some indications. The table of nations in Genesis 10 (shortly preceding the Babel narrative) seems to inform the list of nations in Acts 2. Acts 2 speaks of spreading tongues and confusion, using terms that sound similar to the confusion of tongues in the Babel narrative. More importantly, whether the author makes a textual allusion or not, the theological inference seems justified. Let's read the Babel story.The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary. . . . Then they said, “Come, let's build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.”But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building. And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. Come, let's go down and confuse their language so they won't be able to understand each other.”So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why its name was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.In Babel, God scattered nations for trying to deify themselves, paralleling Adam's revolt and his expulsion from the garden. By contrast, the disciples at Pentecost were waiting in obedience to a divine command; instead of trying to reach heaven, they were waiting for their Lord, who had ascended to heaven, to send them the Spirit. In Gen 11:7, God descended to confound the transgressors, but at Pentecost God descends to clarify the mystery of the gospel to all people. In Genesis, God descended and scattered tongues to prevent unity; in Acts, the Spirit descends and scatters tongues to create unity across cultures and nations.I said last time, but I will say it again. The coming of the Spirit, the story of Acts, is the beginning of the end of the world. The curse on sinful mankind is being reversed. The kingdom of God is both here and growing. The message of salvation spreads from Israel to all nations.

Scripture Reading: Acts 1:1-11 [Edited: Changed 26 to 11.] I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God. 4 While he was with them, he declared, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me. 5 For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 As they were still staring into the sky while he was going, suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.”[Edited: Moved verses 12-26 to next week.]Main ThemesLiterary PrefaceThe literary preface of Acts is its first two verses, although its introduction could be considered to extend through verses 11, 14, or even the end of the second chapter (verse 2:47) when the book adds its first summary statement.As we discussed last time, the book is addressed to Theophilus, possibly a patron of Luke or a person of high standing who Luke hoped to honor. In ancient times, an author's hope in dedicating a book to such a high-ranking person was that the book be read to audiences during parties or other events.Transition of LeadershipAlmost immediately, with its second verse, the book of Acts tells us of a key event: a transition of leadership in the early church. We are reminded that Jesus has been “taken up,” almost surely referring to the Lord's ascension, and who was left with his instructions? The apostles. This might seem obvious to us, but it isn't. One could at least imagine an egalitarian early church in which every believer had equal voice and insight. That is certainly not what Acts describes. A very select group—the apostles—are left to guide the flock. In fact, just a few verses down (15-26), this leadership group is clearly defined. (My commentary here is not addressing potential corollaries to this transition of leadership, such as apostolic succession or the magisterium.)Later in the book of Acts, we will encounter another transition of leadership, namely, to Paul. He will lead the mission to the gentiles. We will discuss that in future sessions, however.Notice that the acts of the apostles are described as following what “Jesus began to do and teach.” The word began in verse 1 is debated. Some argue that it is simply a Semitic pleonasm, that is, a distinctly Jewish way of speaking. This Semitic construction appears mutliple times in the Septuagint, with which Luke and his audience would have been familiar. If this is the case, the expression does not imply a continued action. Conversely, some have suggested that it means that Acts addresses what Jesus continued to do and teach (presumably by his name and the Spirit) through the disciples. This would make Jesus the paradigm of the church and the church an extension of Jesus. Although the first explanation is more likely, the latter certainly fits the theology in Luke.Luke's RecapitulationChapter 1 of Acts quickly catches up the listener to the end of “volume 1,” the Gospel of Luke. Here is a brief Acts 1 to Luke 24 correspondence. (The format is a bit strange, but I did not want to add an unwieldy table. I added verse quotations when helpful.)1. Acts 1: Jesus teaches the disciples through the Spirit (1:2). Luke 24: Jesus teaches the disciples after the resurrection, including explicit times (24:25-27, 32, 44-48).They said to each other, “Didn't our hearts burn within us while he was speaking with us on the road, while he was explaining the scriptures to us?” Luke 24:32Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. Luke 24:44-482. Acts 1: Jesus offers many proofs of his risen state (1:3a). Luke 24: Jesus demonstrates his risen state (24:13-32, 34, 36-40).Now that very day two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking to each other about all the things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and debating these things, Jesus himself approached and began to accompany them . . . . Luke 24:13-15While they were saying these things, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 But they were startled and terrified, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 Then he said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; it's me! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see I have.” Luke 24:36-393. Acts 1: Jesus appears for forty days (1:3b). Luke 24: Technically missing (i.e., 40 days are not specified). However, some period of time is assumed to accommodate the appearances of Jesus.4. Acts 1: Jesus speaks of the kingdom (1:3b). Luke 24: As with the 40 days, the kingdom lessons are not explicit in Luke 24, but they can be inferred given Jesus' repeated mentions of the kingdom in the earlier chapters of Luke.[Jesus] said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Luke 24:46-47See below for a discussion of the kingdom.5. Acts 1: Jesus orders them not to leave Jerusalem (1:4b). Luke 24: Jesus orders them to stay in Jerusalem (24:49b).And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:496. Acts 1: Jesus instructs them to wait for the Father's promise (1:4b). Luke 24: They must stay in the city until they receive the Father's promise (24: 49). (See the verse under number 5 above.)7. Acts 1: Disciples expect the kingdom's restoration to Israel (1:6). Luke24: A similar notion expressed by other disciples, who expected Jesus to redeem Israel (24:21).But we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. Not only this, but it is now the third day since these things happened. Luke 24:218. Acts 1: Jesus promises the Spirit and that they will be witnesses (1:8). Luke 24: They are witnesses and will receive promised power (24:48-49).You are witnesses of these things. 49 And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:48-499. Acts 1: They will receive power (1:8). Luke 24: They will be clothed with power (24:49). (See the verse under number 5 above.)10. Acts 1: Jesus ascends (1:9-11). Luke 24: Jesus ascends (24: 51).Now during the blessing he departed and was taken up into heaven. Luke 24:5111. Acts 1: The disciples leave Mount Olivet for Jerusalem (1: 12). Luke 24: They leave Bethany (24:50; this is near the Mount of Olives, 19:29) and return to Jerusalem (24:52).12. They pray in the upper room (1:13-14). Luke 24: In the gospel, they worship in the temple (24:53). Luke probably expects us to suppose that they met both in homes (here, the upper room) and in the temple.The KingdomActs Assumes We are Familiar with the Gospel of LukeAs suggested above, Jesus spoke much about the “kingdom” in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus preached about the kingdom (Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:11), promising it to the poor (6:20), little ones (18:16-17; cf. 12:32), and the radically obedient (9:62; 16:16); by contrast, it would be difficult for the rich to enter it (6:24-25; 18:24-25). Jesus also sent his disciples to preach the kingdom (9:2, 60; 10:9, 11).In Acts, we will see a continued proclamation of the kingdom (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, in Acts Luke seems to presuppose that the reader is familiar with Jesus' words about the kingdom found in the Gospel of Luke. So, we need to take a minute and go back.Already in the gospel we see something curious about the kingdom. People should yearn for the kingdom (Luke 11:2; 12:31; 23:51), although the kingdom was already present in a hidden way (13:18-21), currently available for those willing to receive it (8:10). Jesus's followers could enter the kingdom and find there a role greater than that of John the Baptist (7:28; 16:16). Then Acts opens with what seems like a realized eschatology—that is, the kingdom, whatever that is, is here! Craig Keener explains this present but future mystery as follows:The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek terms here translated “kingdom” usually signify the concept “reign” or “authority” or “rule.” Like the OT (e.g., Isa 6: 5), Jewish teachers could speak of God's present rule (especially among the people who obeyed his law). But Jewish people also looked for the kingdom as God's future rule, when God would reign unchallenged, as attested in regular Jewish prayers. Because “heaven” was a common Jewish periphrasis for “God,” some other Jewish texts use “kingdom of heaven” as a periphrasis for “kingdom of God” (e.g., Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; y. Qidd. 1: 2, §24; Matthew, passim). Sometimes they also seem to use “kingdom” as a periphrasis for the divine name.…If one examines the entire evidence available in the Gospels, the kingdom appears to be both present and future, as is widely recognized today. It was only natural for Jesus and his first followers, once they recognized that Jesus would need to come again to establish his kingdom fully, to recognize that the anticipated kingdom would arrive in two stages corresponding to Jesus's first and second coming. If one does not arbitrarily exclude either set of evidence by posing a contradiction that the first generations of disciples would not have recognized, both sets of evidence fit together adequately. If Jesus implied his messiahship and spoke of a future Son of Man, we may thus assume that when he announced the kingdom, he undoubtedly announced God's imminent rule in the final sense (rather than simply God's providential rule over creation or over Israel through the law). But his claim also suggests that he expected to play a role in the kingdom, already active in a hidden way in the present (Luke 13: 18– 30).Kingdom Talk in the Gospel of LukeBecause the kingdom of God is such a recurrent theme in Acts, and that theme is built upon the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, I think we must read the Luke verses before we move on. I will offer brief commentary on these. My purpose is to create some narrative tension that perhaps can be resolved as we study the rest of Acts.The next morning Jesus departed and went to a deserted place. Yet the crowds were seeking him, and they came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them. But Jesus said to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns too, for that is what I was sent to do.” Luke 4:42-43Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you. 21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. 22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man! 23 Rejoice in that day, and jump for joy because your reward is great in heaven. For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets. 24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already. 25 Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. 26 Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets. 27 “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Luke 6:20-27I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is. Luke 7:28Sometime afterward [Jesus] went on through towns and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. . . . While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from one town after another, he spoke to them in a parable: “A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell along the path and was trampled on, and the wild birds devoured it. Other seed fell on rock, and when it came up, it withered because it had no moisture. Other seed fell among the thorns, and they grew up with it and choked it. But other seed fell on good soil and grew, and it produced a hundred times as much grain.” As he said this, he called out, “The one who has ears to hear had better listen!” Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that although they see they may not see, and although they hear they may not understand. “Now the parable means this: The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in a time of testing fall away. As for the seed that fell among thorns, these are the ones who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the worries and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. But as for the seed that landed on good soil, these are the ones who, after hearing the word, cling to it with an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with steadfast endurance. Luke 8:1, 4-15After Jesus called the twelve together, he gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. . . . When the apostles returned, they told Jesus everything they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew privately to a town called Bethsaida. But when the crowds found out, they followed him. He welcomed them, spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing. Luke 9:1-2, 10-11As they were walking along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus said to him, “Foxes have dens and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Jesus said to another, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say goodbye to my family.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:57-62Whenever you enter a town and the people welcome you, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick in that town and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come upon you!' But whenever you enter a town and the people do not welcome you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this: The kingdom of God has come.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town! Luke 10:8-12Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” So he said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation.'” Luke 11:1-4And which of you by worrying can add an hour to his life? So if you cannot do such a very little thing as this, why do you worry about the rest? Consider how the flowers grow; they do not work or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these! And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, how much more will he clothe you, you people of little faith! So do not be overly concerned about what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not worry about such things. For all the nations of the world pursue these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, pursue his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out—a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Luke 12:25-34Thus Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? To what should I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the wild birds nested in its branches.” Again he said, “To what should I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.” Luke 13:18-21The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void. Luke 16:16-17Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!' or ‘There!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Luke 17:20-21Now people were even bringing their babies to him for him to touch. But when the disciples saw it, they began to scold those who brought them. But Jesus called for the children, saying, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” Now a certain leader asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'” The man replied, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when the man heard this, he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy. When Jesus noticed this, he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard this said, “Then who can be saved?” He replied, “What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God.” And Peter said, “Look, we have left everything we own to follow you! Then Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, there is no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of God's kingdom who will not receive many times more in this age—and in the age to come, eternal life.” Luke 18:15-30Now there was a man named Joseph who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man. (He had not consented to their plan and action.) He was from the Judean town of Arimathea, and was looking forward to the kingdom of God. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Luke 23:50-52The Spirit and the KingdomI think we need one last bit of background before we move on—and that is the connection between the pouring of the Spirit of God and the coming of the kingdom. Certainly Jesus taught about and proclaimed the coming of both, the Spirit and the kingdom. What we often miss though is that given the Old Testament (the Jewish scriptures), the disciples would have had every reason to understand these two themes as inseparably linked. The prophets had regularly linked God's pouring out his Spirit with the time of Israel's restoration. Take the end of Isaiah 43 and the beginning of 44, for example:[The Lord Rebukes His People] 22 “But you did not call for me, O Jacob; you did not long for me, O Israel. 23 You did not bring me lambs for your burnt offerings; you did not honor me with your sacrifices. I did not burden you with offerings; I did not make you weary by demanding incense. 24 You did not buy me aromatic reeds; you did not present to me the fat of your sacrifices. Yet you burdened me with your sins; you made me weary with your evil deeds. 25 I, I am the one who blots out your rebellious deeds for my sake; your sins I do not remember. 26 Remind me of what happened. Let's debate! You, prove to me that you are right! 27 The father of your nation sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me. 28 So I defiled your holy princes, and handed Jacob over to destruction, and subjected Israel to humiliating abuse.[The Lord Will Renew Israel] 44 “Now, listen, Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!” 2 This is what the Lord, the one who made you, says—the one who formed you in the womb and helps you: “Don't be afraid, my servant Jacob, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. 3 For I will pour water on the parched ground and cause streams to flow on the dry land. I will pour my Spirit on your offspring and my blessing on your children. 4 They will sprout up like a tree in the grass, like poplars beside channels of water. 5 One will say, ‘I belong to the Lord,' and another will use the name ‘Jacob.' One will write on his hand, ‘The Lord's,' and use the name ‘Israel.'”Notice, then, that the disciples are not off base when they ask: When will Jesus restore the kingdom to Israel? Some view their question as shortsighted, but this context specifies that the problem with the question, if any, is with timing (Acts 1:7), not with content.The Promise of the Holy SpiritIn the Gospels and immediately in the opening of Acts we read about the promise of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the foretaste of the kingdom and the empowerment to prepare a people for it. The Spirit thus enables the witnesses (e.g., the apostles) to carry on Jesus' mission after his ascension.We are so used to the stories in the Bible, that sometimes we are unsurprised by details that should otherwise give us some pause. Notice that after Jesus is gone the disciples could not generate the Spirit or spiritual experience on their own. They must “wait” for the “promise” of God, requiring faithful dependence on God. In Acts, this dependence is another key theme. God both assigns tasks and provides the power to accomplish them. Luke's pneumatology emphasizes especially the Spirit's empowering the church for mission.Luke expects his audience to be able to fill in details surrounding the promise by remembering what they have already learned in Luke 24:49. There Jesus promises the believers “power” for their mission, which probably includes signs and wonders that would confirm their powerful message.For Luke, the “promise” here is not only a matter of historical interest concerning Jesus's first witnesses; it is paradigmatic, at least in some sense, for all Christians. This is clear from the fact that the promise is later reiterated for all who will repent (Acts 2:38), including the “far off” Gentiles (2:39).Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” Acts 2:38-39The promise here also evokes the prophecies of John the Baptist.Now this was John's testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed—he did not deny but confessed—“I am not the Christ!” So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No!” Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”John said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said.” 24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) So they asked John, “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal!” These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing.On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.' I did not recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.”Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining—this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.”John 1:19-34From Jerusalem to the Ends of the EarthThe Spirit and the kingdom come together in the central thesis of Acts expressed in Acts 1:8.But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth. Acts 1:8Two points can be made. Salvation begins in Jerusalem. Salvation will come to all the earth. Chapter 2 of Acts will quote Isaiah and give us more details about this mission. Nevertheless, the allusions to Isaiah are already present in verse1:8. The language of “my witnesses” is reminiscent of Isaiah. The same can be said for the geographic range of the testimony of God's salvation (Isa 41:5, 9; 42:10; 43:6; 45:22; 48:20; 49:6; 52:10; 62:11). That Luke depends on Isaiah's language here is clear: although mention of the ends of the earth is common in ancient literature, Luke's complete and exact phrase “to the end of the earth” appears four or five times in the Septuagint (Isa 8:9; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11; also Pss. Sol. 1:4) and only twice in the NT (Acts 13:47 and here); it also appears in Christian writings dependent on Isaiah or Acts but “nowhere else in the immense range” of literature in the Thesaurus linguae graecae.[Edited: All text from this point forward was moved to next week.]

Scripture Reading: Acts 1:1-2 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.End of Genesis DiscussionLast week I attempted to wrap up our brief discussion of Genesis. Because I ran out of time, I would like to use the first few minutes of our current session to tie up loose ends. I think it is important that as we study Acts, we have a general understanding of the Christian worldview—the key reason behind my Genesis detour.I attempted to take a “minimum facts” approach to the first three chapters of Genesis. By that I mean that I focused on the core or basic lessons taught by the text. These are by no means all the lessons we could learn from it but, instead, those central tenets with which nearly every Christian would agree. Here's a brief summary of the points we discussed:(1) One God. The text of Genesis contains no theogony (i.e., genealogy of gods), theomachy (i.e., conflict between gods), or deicide (i.e., death of a god). None of that. Genesis has God—the one and only. This monotheism was radically different than any other belief in the region. (A question was asked last time regarding whether Genesis was the first religious story to introduce monotheism. I still cannot confirm an answer, but I can say that all the major monotheistic religions trace back to the Genesis account.)(2) God Is Not Like Nature. Whereas in other ancient Near Eastern myths, the line between nature and gods is blurred, that line is an unbreachable chasm in Genesis. Other stories have the gods turning into nature, such as the earth being made out of Tiamat's corpse, or being one with a natural phenomenon, like the night being a god of the night. In Genesis, God simply speaks creation into being. Nature is not divine in any sense. And God is not “natural” in any sense. If we are willing to go beyond the Genesis story and take into account the whole counsel of scripture along with a bit of theology, I think we can confidently say that God is an uncreated, necessary being, in whose unchanging character goodness itself is rooted.(3) Nature Is Not Spiritual. Is there a spirit of the water, and a spirit of the wind, and spirit of the day, and a spirit of the night? According to many, if not all, ancients myths: yes. According to Genesis: no. This is the very foundation of science. The natural world is not personal, so it behaves according to impersonal principles that can be relied upon to act consistently. Moreover, this natural world has been made by a mind not completely unlike ours, so we can expect the natural world to be intelligible. This is another foundational principle of science. In our modern world, we are so used to assuming these concepts, we forget how original and revolutionary they truly are.(4) Man in the Image of God. Other ancient Near Eastern myths tell us that man was created to do the drudging work of which the gods had grown weary. Genesis tells an entirely different story. Man was created in the image of God, to be fruitful and multiply, and rule the earth. Regarding the image of God, often called the imago Dei, I went into a little bit of philosophy to explain what that could possibly mean. I suggested that the mainstream Christian view is that of ontological personalism—although many people get it wrong and think that it is empirical functionalism. This latter view says that personhood is being able to perform certain functions—such as rational thinking. Well, that means fetuses, people in a state of coma, and even people who are asleep are not persons! Ontological personalism says that we are a rational soul. So, the imago Dei is part of our substance, so we can't lose it.There is a fifth point I wanted to make but that I did not have time to discuss, and it is a crucial point to the Christian story.THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS GOOD BUT THEN…THE FALLAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God's original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rested. On the seventh day creation is as it should be, so God could stop to rule over all of it. God and creation were in peace. With that in mind, Richter concludes:In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God's first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God's design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh's sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God's great gift under God's ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.Then Richter makes the connection between Genesis 1 and the repeating theme of the book of Genesis: covenant.You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord's authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)This was Adam and Eve's perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God's perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God's perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God's perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.God's perfect plan (and humanity's perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco's old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.”16 God's original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Introduction to ActsWe are finally done with our brief exploration of Genesis, and we are ready to start discussing Acts. We should introduce the book first and consider its genre, date, author, and historical context. Next week we will finally fall into our trusted pattern of reading scripture and discussing its main points. Believe me, I am as ready as you are to start doing that.GenreAs we begin the study of Acts, just like with Genesis, we need to ask the question of genre. Except in this case, there is hardly a question. Virtually everyone agrees that Acts is narrating history. The only (rather nuanced) debate is whether Acts is historiography or biography. (I am using the term historiography to refer to a genre of literature. Using the term “history” can be confusing because one is not certain whether the claim is that the text intends to convey historical facts or whether those historical facts are true.)Historiography vs BiographyWhat's the difference between historiography and biography? Roughly speaking, biography focuses on one person, his life, his accomplishments, and his character. Historiography focuses on something other than a person (although it may discuss notable individuals at length), such as an event, a nation, or a movement. Is Acts about the life of Paul? Or, is Acts about the early church?I bet your question is a different one: why does it matter? The truth is it does not matter much, but it could change our interpretation of certain passages. When we ask question like, “Why would the author include this material?” or “Why would he omit that information?”, our choice of genre matters.Anyways, I will keep the discussion of this topic brief.Biography ProposalBiography is the most common genre proposal after historiography. This proposal retains for Acts the same genre usually assigned to the Gospel of Luke. To many scholars, extending the Gospel's genre to the second volume seems a logical step. Acts, as a continuation of Luke's Gospel, provides parallels of Peter and Paul with Jesus, as one might expect in the ancient genre of parallel lives or in ancient double biographies. Moreover, Acts falls in the correct length range for ancient biographies.Despite many biographic elements, however, Acts self-evidently does not constitute a biography of a single figure. In fact, it seems less interested in sketching vivid portraits of past heroes than in tracing the spectacular development of “the way.” Certainly Acts focuses on major characters, but Acts does not focus on a single character. Even Paul, its dominant and climactic example, functions as an agent of the work's driving theme, the gospel's expansion. Acts closes not with his death but with his proclamation in Rome. Despite its biographic emphases, Acts thus functions as historiography carried out partly in a biographic manner.Historiography ProposalThe genre proposal most supported by scholars is that of historiography—to be more precise, that of a historical monograph (i.e., a one-volume historiographical text). As a historical monograph, it is a work covering a specific historical topic. In contrast to listing events by year in annalistic fashion (a common type of text in the ancient world), some ancient historians would write monographs that arranged their accounts around a main theme. Various factors support the thesis that Luke conceives of his project as primarily a history of some sort. Unlike in a novel, Luke uses sources abundantly in his first volume (i.e., the Gospel of Luke) and presumably in his second volume as well, although we cannot distinguish them clearly in Acts. Luke's claim to investigate or have close acquaintance with his information (Luke 1: 3) fits historical works, and his occasional use of the first-person plural emphasizes the involvement considered ideal for a good Hellenistic historian. Speeches, the preface, the employment of world history as a context, and other features support this understanding of the work's genre. Luke's extensive use of public monologues in Acts plainly fits the conventions of ancient histories but not of biographies or novels. Luke-Acts also includes what appear very much like the prefaces found in histories. When possible, Luke sets his events in the context of world history, just as historians (and almost exclusively historians) did in their histories (Luke 2: 1– 2; 3: 1– 2; Acts 18: 12).Although it should go without saying, we must be careful to distinguish ancient historiography from modern historiography. We should not demand ancient historians to conform precisely to modern historiography. Ancient historians sometimes fleshed out scenes and speeches to produce a coherent narrative in a way that their contemporaries expected but that modern academic historians would not consider acceptable when writing for their own peers. This contrast reflects the different interests of ancient and modern historiography: ancients emphasized a cohesive narrative more than simple recitation of facts; moderns value exactness in details much more than the rhetorical flow of the narrative for their audience.DateViews on the date of Acts range widely. No particular proposed date between 64 A.D. and 90 A.D. is absolutely compelling. The centrist position (70s– 80s), has by far the most adherents; probably the early date (60s) is second in number of adherents; a date in the 90s ranks third; and the second century boasts the fewest adherents. I will only discuss the two most widely held views.Pre-70Usually, scholars arguing for a pre-70 date contend that Acts ends where it does because the events had unfolded only this far at the time of Luke's writing, that is, about 62 A.D. I will discuss the reasons for this view and their potential responses by scholars who hold to the “centrist view.”Both ancient and modern interpreters have asked and argued: Why else would Luke devote a quarter of Acts to Paul's trial and appeal yet not record the outcome? Scholars respond that these abrupt endings were not entirely uncommon. Examples would include the Gospel of Mark and Thucydides text on the Peloponnesian War. Granted, they might add, if Luke recorded Paul's Roman hearings in Jerusalem and Caesarea for use at a trial before Caesar, this material was clearly compiled before Paul's death. One can, however, still affirm a later publication of the material. Moreover, Luke could have suppressed explicit mention of Paul's death because it did not suit his larger narrative purpose (e.g., martyrdom). Luke is under no obligation to narrate Paul's execution, the centrist would claim, because his climax is the gospel reaching the heart of the empire. Finally, the number of Greek words in Acts is nearly the same as for the Gospel of Luke, which may have been the fullest length for Luke's normal scrolls. In other words, Luke may have run out of room when writing Acts.Scholars supporting a pre-70 date have also advanced other arguments favoring this position, drawn especially from the setting the book seems to address. One argument is based on Luke's failure to describe the temple's destruction as past. Other arguments to date Acts before 70 AD include:- Acts portrays Jews as being both a spiritual and political power who had influence with Roman courts, an unlikely situation after 70.- Expectation of Roman justice would be unlikely after the Neronian persecution of 64–65.- Acts betrays almost no knowledge of Paul's letters.Post-70The argument for a date after Paul's death follows from the usual premise that Mark wrote before Luke. Papias reports that Mark wrote what he had heard from Peter; if this language suggests that their relation is past, it probably points to a date after Peter's death. If Luke wrote after using Mark, he presumably would be writing after Peter's death as well and presumably after Mark's Gospel had begun circulating among churches in urban centers.Most scholars believe that Luke 21 (e.g., Luke 21: 20; cf. 23: 29– 31) reflects the accomplished fall of Jerusalem and argue that Luke wrote Acts after completing his Gospel. However, one could counter that most of the discrete elements in Luke 21 could date from before the war of 66–70; various Jewish figures predicted judgment on Jerusalem and its temple before its demise, and the language recycles Septuagintal descriptions of Jerusalem's earlier sufferings. Certainly, Jerusalem's judgment was in view before 70 A.D. (Luke 11: 50– 51; Matt 23: 35– 36).Most scholars today suggest dates between 70 and 85, with some as late as 90. This range of dates is before Josephus's publications. (Scholars who suggest a later date for Acts often also suggest that it is based or influenced by the works of Josephus.)Author of Luke-ActsToday almost all scholars acknowledge that Luke and Acts share the same author. Beyond this general agreement, a majority of scholars agree that Luke was a Gentile, writing for a largely Gentile (or, perhaps more accurately, mixed Gentile and Jewish) Diaspora audience. A much smaller number, though probably still the majority, argue that the author was at least a short-term companion of Paul. Of possible candidates in Pauline literature who fit this description, Luke the physician (Col 4:14) is the likeliest candidate historically and also the one supported (despite his relative obscurity) by subsequent Christian writers who claimed access to earlier sources no longer available to us. Let's explore that last claim a little further.Luke the PhysicianIf we treat Acts the way we treat analogous historical works from its era we should accept the work's eyewitness claims as authentic indications of the author's presence. Internal evidence points strongly to a Christian who accompanied Paul on a small number of his travels and should have become well acquainted with him especially on the journey to Jerusalem and Rome. Although the external evidence is less important, it strongly points to Luke “the physician” (Col 4: 14) as the author, a claim that tradition is not likely to have invented (given Luke's relative obscurity). The external and the internal evidence are compatible, making Luke the likeliest author.The primary reason for many scholars treating “we” in Acts differently than they would in most other ancient historical works is the argument that a genuine traveling companion of Paul cannot have so misunderstood him. (As we study Acts we can examine this assertion further. Is Acts really at odds with the letters of Paul?)What is some of the external evidence that supports Luke the physician as the author of Acts? Irenaeus (ca. 180 A.D.) attributes Acts to Luke. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Moreover, a very early manuscript (175–225 A.D.) calls the gospel the “Gospel according to Luke.” Simply put, our earliest external evidence unanimously supports Luke's authorship. Given his relative obscurity, this is probably not coincidence.Finally, and admittedly of less importance, the language is consistent with that of a physician.Gentile or JewWhether we believe the author of Luke and Acts to be Luke, can we determine whether the author is Gentile or Jew? From his geographical competence and his interpretation of Judaism, it is certain that he was not a Palestinian Jew. He may have been a Diaspora Jew with interests in the Gentile mission, but given his relationship to Judaism and perspectives, many scholars prefer the idea that he was a Gentile. Scholars who, on other grounds, identify the author with the Luke mentioned in Col 4: 14 will likely also conclude that he was a Gentile. If Luke was a Gentile, he was nevertheless one with considerable experience of Judaism. Although he could have acquired much of this knowledge as a Christian, it is reasonable to suggest, as some scholars have, that he may have been a God-fearer with a long-standing knowledge of the Diaspora synagogue. His immersion in the Septuagint, however, is considerable; if he did not grow up with it, he must have acquired it long before and thoroughly, for he knows how to write Greek with a “biblical” or “Jewish accent,” so to speak.AudienceScholars often suggest that Luke's audience was wealthier and more highly educated, on average, than that of the other Gospels. Luke dedicates his work to a “most excellent” Theophilus (Luke 1: 3), a title suggesting that Theophilus was probably a person of prestige and rank in society. Although Theophilus is an explicit “narratee,” no ancient audience would assume that the dedicatee was necessarily socially representative of Luke's ideal audience. One might dedicate a work to a patron who would be of higher rank than the clients who heard the work read, for example, at one of the banquets sponsored by the patron. Nevertheless, by addressing Theophilus as at least a part of his audience, Luke appeals to a person with some status in the larger society. Luke further emphasizes many people of status following the Way (e.g., Luke 8:3; 23:50–51; Acts 13:12; 17:4; 28:7); likewise, he portrays Paul's status as relatively high, a point of interest to any ancient hearer but perhaps especially to another person of status. Although his Gospel contains the most sweeping condemnations of the accumulation of wealth (e.g., Luke 3:11; 12:13–21, 33; 14:33), his very emphasis on this issue might suggest an audience that can afford to be challenged in the area of generosity. Finally, an educated audience would best appreciate the elements of classical rhetoric alongside the appropriate stylistic variations for different settings.What we can possibly conclude from this is that Luke's target audience is relatively stable (and hence not hostile to the culture). Luke is positive toward the culture without needing to sound polemical about the need to separate from it.Luke's ideal audience appears to be urban, Greek, and perhaps in officially Romanized cities such as Corinth and Philippi and would be familiar with some measure of education and with public orations, Jewish religion, and some philosophic ideas.The question as to whether Luke's audience is largely Jewish or Gentile may be, in one sense, a forced dilemma. By this period the Greek churches included a sizable number of Gentiles; Philippi had never had a large Jewish population to begin with. At the same time, most of these churches grew from synagogues or at least Jewish prayer groups and would include a sizable number of Jewish people. Finally, we are ready to start reading Acts!

Scripture Reading: Genesis 1:1-3:24 (we won't read it again, but we will discuss it) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27 God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.'” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”14 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all the cattleand all the living creatures of the field!On your belly you will crawland dust you will eat all the days of your life.15 And I will put hostility between you and the womanand between your offspring and her offspring;he will strike your head,and you will strike his heel.”16 To the woman he said,“I will greatly increase your labor pains;with pain you will give birth to children.You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you.”17 But to Adam he said,“Because you obeyed your wifeand ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,'the ground is cursed because of you;in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,but you will eat the grain of the field.19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat fooduntil you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.Main ThemesInitial RemarksLet's Come Together (Finally!)If the last two weeks of the Bible study have been divisive, I hope that this week brings us all back together. During those two sessions, I suggested the possibility that the early chapters of Genesis are figurative. Nevertheless, I asserted repeatedly that they are true. Today, I want to focus on those truths embedded in the narrative. What is Genesis teaching us? And here's the surprising part: even if you adamantly disagree with me and believe the text is meant to be taken completely literally, or if you land somewhere in between, I think we will agree on the main lessons taught by the text. They stand mostly independently of the figurative versus literal debate.A Minimum Facts PresentationBefore we jump into the substantive portion of our discussion, I want to make one important clarification. The purpose of my dive into Genesis is to establish a Christian worldview. We are not engaging in an exhaustive exploration of every textual and theological issue. So, the discussion today will be a sort of “minimum facts” presentation. That is, I want to highlight the most basic lessons in the text with which virtually every Christian agrees. I will not delve into every possible conclusion that can be drawn from the text, although that would be very interesting. And, as always, participants are free to discuss anything I did not include in my presentation. So, again, the list below is not an exhaustive list of the points made by the first three chapters of Genesis, much less by the entire book. It is more of a “top four.”Genesis v/s Enuma ElishI think that a good way to explore the worldview presented by Genesis is to compare the biblical text to the Enuma Elish, the ancient Babylonian creation myth. (You can find it here.) The Enuma Elish is fairly representative of many Ancient Near East myths, so it provides a great backdrop against which Genesis shows its distinctive outline. (I am not necessarily embracing or rejecting the view that Genesis is a polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern myths. I simply find the comparison to be helpful.)One God—No Theomachy, No Theogony, No Deicide Listen the words of the Enuma Elish:1 When the heavens above did not exist,2 And earth beneath had not come into being —3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,4 And demiurge Tia-mat, who gave birth to them all;5 They had mingled their waters together6 Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to be found —7 When not one of the gods had been formed8 Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,9 The gods were created within them:10 Lah(mu and Lah(amu were formed and came into being.11 While they grew and increased in stature12 Anšar and Kišar, who excelled them, were created.13 They prolonged their days, they multiplied their years.14 Anu, their son, could rival his fathers.15 Anu, the son, equalled Anšar,16 And Anu begat Nudimmud, his own equal.17 Nudimmud was the champion among his fathers:18 Profoundly discerning, wise, of robust strength;19 Very much stronger than his father's begetter, Anšar20 He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.21 The divine brothers came together,22 Their clamour got loud, throwing Tia-mat into a turmoil.23 They jarred the nerves of Tia-mat,24 And by their dancing they spread alarm in Anduruna.25 Apsû did not diminish their clamour,26 And Tia-mat was silent when confronted with them.27 Their conduct was displeasing to her,28 Yet though their behaviour was not good, she wished to spare them.29 Thereupon Apsû, the begetter of the great gods,30 Called Mummu, his vizier, and addressed him,31 "Vizier Mummu, who gratifies my pleasure,32 Come, let us go to Tia-mat!"33 They went and sat, facing Tia-mat,34 As they conferred about the gods, their sons.35 Apsû opened his mouth36 And addressed Tia-mat37 "Their behaviour has become displeasing to me38 And I cannot rest in the day-time or sleep at night.39 I will destroy and break up their way of life40 That silence may reign and we may sleep."41 When Tia-mat heard this42 She raged and cried out to her spouse,43 She cried in distress, fuming within herself,44 She grieved over the (plotted) evil,45 "How can we destroy what we have given birth to?46 Though their behaviour causes distress, let us tighten discipline graciously."47 Mummu spoke up with counsel for Apsû—48 (As from) a rebellious vizier was the counsel of his Mummu—49 "Destroy, my father, that lawless way of life,50 That you may rest in the day-time and sleep by night!"51 Apsû was pleased with him, his face beamed52 Because he had plotted evil against the gods, his sons.53 Mummu put his arms around Apsû's neck,54 He sat on his knees kissing him.55 What they plotted in their gathering56 Was reported to the gods, their sons.57 The gods heard it and were frantic.58 They were overcome with silence and sat quietly.59 Ea, who excels in knowledge, the skilled and learned,60 Ea, who knows everything, perceived their tricks.61 He fashioned it and made it to be all-embracing,62 He executed it skilfully as supreme—his pure incantation.63 He recited it and set it on the waters,64 He poured sleep upon him as he was slumbering deeply.65 He put Apsû to slumber as he poured out sleep,66 And Mummu, the counsellor, was breathless with agitation.67 He split (Apsû's) sinews, ripped off his crown,68 Carried away his aura and put it on himself.69 He bound Apsû and killed him;Notice how this ancient myth sounds nothing like Genesis. It immediately greets us with multiple gods (Apsû, the first in order, and the demiurge Tia-mat). Other gods are subsequently created. A genealogy of gods is called a theogony, and it was common to ancient myths. Genesis, however, has no genealogy. At most, in Genesis, when God speaks he uses a plural form—like maybe he is addressing a crowd. This has led some scholars to posit a heavenly council. But there is no god other than God—Yahweh.The Enuma Elish tells the story not only of multiple gods but of their animosity. A conflict between the gods arises. A war between the gods is called theomachy. This is also common to ancient myths. Finally, the gods' quarrel ends in the death of a god—deicide. If we continue reading, we would learn that creation itself is the result of this rivalry between the gods and their death.What do we find in Genesis? None of that!In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1In the beginning there is no two anything. There are no two gods opposing one another. There is not even an impersonal dualism like a ying and yang. There is no good and evil. There is only good. And this good is not some mystical goodness, like a force or energy or “waters,” but a good God—a personal being.This is one of the most shocking and powerful lessons from Genesis—monotheism! And, if we are willing to take more of scripture into account, we could go as far as to say that it is “perfect being monotheism.” This means that there's not only one God, but that God is perfect. He is all powerful and morally perfect. I think that this “perfect being theology” is key to a robust conception of “good.” A theology that includes multiple gods will generally fail the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it's good?” A theology with no gods (atheism or some form of dualism) makes goodness accidental—it is a robust fact that could be different—and cannot account for moral duties. It is only when goodness is grounded in a necessary being that what is good could never be otherwise and goodness becomes personal such that it can give moral duties to others.God is Not Like NatureAgain, hear the words of the Enuma Elish:49 [Marduk] gathered [Tia-mat's foam] together and made it into clouds.50 The raging of the winds, violent rainstorms,51 The billowing of mist—the accumulation of her spittle—52 He appointed for himself and took them in his hand.53 He put her head in position and poured out . . [ . . ] .54 He opened the abyss and it was sated with water.55 From her two eyes he let the Euphrates and Tigris flow,57 He heaped up the distant [mountains] on her breasts,58 He bored wells to channel the springs.59 He twisted her tail and wove it into the Durmah,61 [He set up] her crotch—it wedged up the heavens—62 [(Thus) the half of her] he stretched out and made it firm as the earth.In the Babylonian story, the clouds, the wind, the rainstorms, the rivers, the mountains, and much of creation is a part of or physically connected with Tiamat's body. Notice the connection between the gods and creation—they might not be entirely the same but they are not entirely distinct either.What do we find in Genesis?God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” Genesis 1:6God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” Genesis 1:9God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:11God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years . . . .” Genesis 1:14I could quote more verses, but I think the point is clear. God is not like creation. Creation is not made of God. It is made by God. God simply speaks creation into being. God transcends it. The creator who makes things good exists even if nothing else exists and would exists if all stopped existing. He is the beginning and the end.Nature is Not SpiritualAlthough the Enuma Elish story does not contain as many spirits of nature as other Ancient Near Eastern myths, we still have a clear example. Listen to this:11 He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,12 He created Nannar, entrusting to him the night.13 He appointed him as the jewel of the night to fix the days,14 And month by month without ceasing he elevated him with a crown,15 (Saying,) "Shine over the land at the beginning of the month,16 Resplendent with horns to fix six days.17 On the seventh day the crown will be half size,18 On the fifteenth day, halfway through each month, stand in opposition.19 When Šamaš [sees] you on the horizon,20 Diminish in the proper stages and shine backwards.In the Enuma Elish, night is a personal god. Night does not behave according to some natural principle. Night only comes and stays for as long as it does because the god of night is following orders. Presumably, the god of night could be enticed to disobey. Is all of nature like this? (For purposes of this discussion I am not including animals or humans in the definition of nature.) Is there a spirit of the waters? Is there a spirit of the sky? Are the flowers sprites and the trees dryads? Does everything around us behave as it does because a personal being—a spirit—is choosing to behave a certain way? The implications of these questions are staggering.Perhaps we scoff at the idea that nature is personal and spiritual, but we shouldn't. Not because I think that it is true but because it is the worldview that was held by nearly everyone in the ancient world and many (perhaps most) people still hold it today. If anything, the idea that nature is “non-spiritual” is not the rule but the exception. If to the belief in a non-spiritual natural world you you add the belief that nature was created by a mind—a mind not entirely unlike ours—then you have an entirely peculiar worldview. That is the worldview of Genesis.The Christian, non-spiritual, intelligible understanding of creation is distinctive and has shaped the modern world. For example, it is foundational and necessary for science. This is the reason that many historians (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree that science is an outgrowth of Christian theology. Here's how an article explains the connection between Genesis and science, which, if overly simplistic, gets the point across:1. Laws Up AboveThe ancient Chinese had incredible technology, but not science as we know it. Why? Because while they were intelligent, they did not believe in a Higher Intelligence—not in the Bible's sense. They didn't think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology, but they didn't seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.That's because they didn't have Genesis 1. They didn't believe that “In the beginning, God.” They didn't believe that through his Word an ordered cosmos was created that shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities—seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the sky, all going round and round, evening and morning, evening and morning. . . .2. World Out ThereThe ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is a footnote to Plato, as they say. Philosophy, mathematics, art, and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much, because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that's open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold, hard facts. But Greeks didn't believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. For them, study entailed a journey within the mind, not a venture out into the field. So, no science.3. Minds In HereIf human minds are the product of mindless operations that only honored survival, not intelligence (the two aren't at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there? If we're the product of the cosmos and part of the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes, why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?If you really want confidence in the scientific endeavor, turn to Genesis 1, where humanity is specially created in relationship with the Orderer above and the world out there. . . .Another website summarizes the same principles as follows:Nearly all scientists today, regardless of their religious beliefs, believe a certain set of foundational principles which make it possible for them to do science. Some of these common basic beliefs include:(1) Human beings can understand the natural world at least in part.(2) Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect so things that we learn in the lab here today will also hold true half way around the world a week from now. (3) It's not enough to sit and theorize how the world ought to work, we actually have to test our theories; science is a worthwhile pursuit.These beliefs seem obvious today, but for most of human history, many people did not hold all those beliefs. For example, animists who believe that gods or spirits inhabit many aspect of the physical world might doubt that nature operates on regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect; instead they would believe that nature is controlled by gods and spirits who need to be appeased or manipulated by ritual. Or for a very different example, some of the most brilliant philosophers of the ancient world did not see the need to do experiments because they thought it was possible to derive from logic and first principles how the world ought to behave.Allow me to explain the last statement in the quotation above. The Greeks, for example, believed that the universe had to be modeled by elegant abstract principles, such as geometry, which were discoverable only through thought. So, they assumed that the orbits of planets had to be circular. The Christian worldview recognizes that the universe was made by a mind—a mind that could have created the world this way or that way. Because the creator had options, much like an artist does, we can not simply assume that the world is a certain way. We must discover what that mind decided.Man in the Image of GodThe Enuma Elish is one of the least outrageous Ancient Near Eastern myths when it comes to the creation of mankind, but it repeats a common theme:1 When Marduk heard the gods' speech2 He conceived a desire to accomplish clever things.3 He opened his mouth addressing Ea,4 He counsels that which he had pondered in his heart,5 "I will bring together blood to form bone,6 I will bring into being Lullû, whose name shall be 'man'.7 I will create Lullû—man8 On whom the toil of the gods will be laid that they may rest.In the Babylonian creation myth, why is man created? So that the “toil of the gods will be laid” on him. You might remember that last week I mentioned an Egyptian myth that answers the question similarly. Here is how scholar John Walton discusses that Egyptian myth within the broader context of Mesopotamian myths:[I]n Mesopotamian traditions people are created to serve the gods by doing the work that the gods are tired of doing. Turning again to KAR 4, "the corvée of the gods will be their corvée: They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all, and take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods." The labor that had been required for the gods to meet their own needs was drudgery, so people were expected to fill that gap and work to meet those needs.In Genesis, why is man created?Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! (Genesis 1:26-28a)This is shocking and remarkable! Man is created to be like God (at least in some sense), to rule the earth, and to be fruitful and multiply. I will discuss each of these points in reverse order.Be Fruitful and MultiplyAccording to Genesis, to marry and have children is integral to being human. Marriage is the very reason that God has made us male and female.So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)To be clear, there are several New Testament verses that make clear that marriage is not a moral duty—one has not sinned for remaining single. However, sadly, this caveat has started acting like the exception that swallows the rule. The Apostle Paul, the one who spoke of marriage and singleness this way, did not suggest singleness as a mere alternative to marriage. Listen to the following verses from 1 Corinthians:I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire. (1 Corinthians 7:6-9) And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)He who is single can focus exclusively on ministry. This is a gift. This does not override the fact, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18)! I know that much more can be said about this topic and forgive me if I am painting with too broad a stroke, but the fact that marriage and childbearing is part of God's plan for us is unmistakable in the Genesis narrative.Rule the EarthOur modern, egalitarian, environmentalist sensibilities are sure to be offended by the idea that we are to rule and subdue the earth. However, this idea is not as ominous as it sounds. As a website explains:God's command to subdue the earth and the animal life in it is a command to have the mastery over all of it. A true mastery (of anything) cannot be accomplished without an understanding of the thing mastered. In order for a musician to master the violin, he or she must truly understand the instrument. In order for mankind to attain mastery over the animal kingdom, we must understand the animals.With the authority to rule comes the responsibility to rule well. There is an inherent accountability in the command to subdue the earth. Man has a duty to exercise his dominion under the authority of the One who delegated it. All authority is of God (Romans 13:1-5), and He delegates it to whomever He will (Daniel 4:17). The word subdue doesn't have to imply violence or mistreatment. It can mean “to bring under cultivation.”Man is to be the steward of the earth; he is to bring the material world and all of its varied elements into the service of God and the good of mankind. The command to subdue the earth is actually part of God's blessing on mankind. Created in the image of God, Adam and Eve were to use the earth's vast resources in the service of both God and themselves. It would only make sense for God to decree this, since only humans were created in God's image.The Imago DeiWe are made in the “image of God”—which in theology is often referred to by the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does that mean? I could spend an entire session of our study answering this question. Different theologians give different answers. But, because this is a primer in Genesis, I think that presenting the mainstream position is sufficient. Besides, and rather ironically, it is the mainstream position that is often most misunderstood. Fair warning though, I will go a little beyond the text in Genesis to discuss this topic.What makes a person a person? Even Christians will answer with something like the ability to reason. That is not entirely wrong, but I am sure you can immediately think of examples that work as counterarguments. What about a human being that is in a comma? What about a fetus? What about someone who is asleep? Neither of these three humans can reason, so they are not persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, killing a human in their sleep is not murder. No person was killed.So, what gives? Can we give a better explanation of the imago Dei? I think so. To be a person is to be a rational soul. To explain this further, I will quote extensively from a 2003 paper by Dennis Sullivan (emphases are my own):Empirical functionalism is the view that human personhood may be defined by a set of functions or abilities. Such abilities must be present in actual, not potential form. The classical expression of this view is that of Joseph Fletcher who in 1972 outlined twenty criteria for human personhood. These included such hallmarks as minimum intelligence, self-awareness, a sense of time, and the capacity to relate to others (Fletcher, 1972). In response, Michael Tooley weighed in with the idea of self-awareness (1972), and McCormick with the concept of “relational potential,” based on the ability to interact socially with others (1974). Fletcher then decided, based on feedback from these and other writers, that the sine qua non for human personhood was neocortical functioning (Fletcher, 1974). Neocortical functions are those “higher brain” processes of the cerebral cortex necessary for active consciousness and volition. This should be contrasted with whole-brain functioning, which includes activities of the brainstem as well as the cortex.…Functionalists would extend the above argument to deny personhood to the unborn child, since she lacks rationality or self-awareness. However, by this criterion, one could argue that adults also lack self-awareness when asleep or under anesthesia, yet no one questions their personhood during such moments. One way to circumvent this objection is to use Tooley's idea that only “continuing selves” have personhood, which includes both self-awareness and a sense of the future (Tooley, 1983). This would nonetheless deny personhood to the unborn and justify abortion on that basis.Michael Tooley, and more recently, the Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, have both advocated the next logical step: infanticide (Veith, 1998). If the fetus has no right to personhood because it is not yet self-aware, then neither does the newborn: “Infanticide before the onset of self-awareness . . . cannot threaten anyone who is in a position to worry about it” (Singer, 1985, p. 138).…Ontological personalism states that all human beings are human persons. On this view, the intrinsic quality of personhood begins at conception and is present throughout life (O'Mathuna, 1996). Such individuals are not potential persons or “becoming” persons; they are persons by their very nature. There is no such thing as a potential person or a human non-person.In order to understand this it will be helpful to reflect on the worldview assumptions that underlie both personhood views. Since the Enlightenment, society in general has been dominated by a high regard for science and the secular tradition of naturalism. Naturalism is the concept that only observable data has reality. A scientist who adheres to this view is free to have any metaphysical or philosophical opinion he would like, as long as it does not influence his practice. In other words, he need not hold to naturalism as a philosophy, but he must adhere to it in his methodology (Plantinga, 1997). However, the Christian scientific community should not be bound by the constraints of methodological naturalism. Herein lies the tension between the two ideas of personhood. The influence of naturalism has led secular science away from a reverence for life, replacing it with a reductionism that claims the human organism is no more than the sum of its chemical parts. The empirical functionalism idea of personhood is compatible with this view, which makes man simply a collection of parts and functions, or a property-thing. Put together enough chemical molecules in the right way, and you have a human being; put another set of parts together, and you have a 1957 Chrysler. Philosophically, it makes no difference.Ontological personalism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that a human being is a substance. A substance is a distinct unity of essence that exists ontologically prior to any of its parts. This traditional concept dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. This view has been well summarized by the Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland (1995), and is discussed in great detail in the book Body and Soul (Moreland & Rae, 2000). For this review, I will focus on two implications of the idea of substance: the parts v. whole distinction, and continuity.To expand on my earlier illustration of a classic automobile, consider a nicely restored 1957 Chrysler. Many of the original parts have rusted away and have been replaced, so that this vintage car is a collection of old and new. Although many will refer to it as the same car as when it was new, intuition tells us that this is not the case. In fact, as stated earlier, remove the wheels, the motor, the seats, and the body, and the result is no longer a 1957 Chrysler; it is not even a car. To go still further, imagine adding other parts to the original chassis, such that the result(God forbid) is a1972Volkswagen Beetle! There was no continuity of essence between the two vehicles; each is nothing more than a collection of parts (my apologies to VW lovers).Try to do the same kind of thought experiment on a human being. Remove an arm or a leg from John Doe, and he remains a person, in fact, the same person. You can amputate all of John's extremities and even remove many internal organs; as long as he remains alive, his substance will never change. You can even “add new parts,” by transplanting organs from other persons, yet John Doe will never become James Smith; his substance is not defined by his component parts. He will always remain the same person.…Naturalism has its greatest difficulty here. To hold to a property-thing view of persons is to deny the commonsense understanding of personal continuity, with a host of attendant problems for law and morality.…I might add that this view is also compatible with biblical teaching on the image of God. It allows us to explore the way human beings resemble the Divine (rationality, volition, social nature, etc.), while helping us to avoid the dangers of a strictly functional definition. On this view, the image of God is intrinsic to the nature of persons. Thus, Scripture teaches the value of man from the womb, whereas intuition and philosophy help us to affirm that such valuation begins at conception.The philosophical idea of a human being as substance arises out of a broader philosophical principle, that of substance dualism. Substance dualism holds that there is an entity called a soul, and that the mind is a faculty of the soul. Body and soul (mind) are functionally holistic, which means that the two entities are deeply integrated and functionally interdependent. Yet they are ontologically separate, which means that the soul can exist independently of the body. This allows for a personal existence after death (Moreland & Rae, 2000). Another implication of this idea is that if personhood begins at conception, then that is when the soul originates as well.The Original Plan Was Good but then…the FallAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God's original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rests. Creation is as intended so God may stop to rule overall. With that in mind, Richter concludes:In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God's first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God's design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh's sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God's great gift under God's ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.Then Richter makes the connection to the repeating theme of the entire book of Genesis: covenant.You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord's authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)This was Adam and Eve's perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God's perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God's perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God's perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.God's perfect plan (and humanity's perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco's old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.”16 God's original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Conclusion—A Personal NoteWhen I read Genesis, I am astounded. I am not attempting to be overly dramatic or sentimental, but Genesis is so true I can hardly believe it. It paints a picture I cannot deny: Nature is just that. Yet it is curiously intelligible. But it is not divine. The divine things, like goodness, seem to transcend nature but not be less real than it. If nothing else, goodness seems more real. Whereas nature could not exist, goodness seems necessary. Man seems to be like nature but also somewhat divine. Something about man is not like the animals or anything else. Man and nature seem beautiful, yet both seem broken. Is this not truly our experience?

Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24Last week I attempted to make three simple points:(1) Simply assuming that a text should be read literally is not a “safer” approach than being open to figurative understandings—that is, that assumption runs the “risk” of forcing a wrong interpretation of the text.(2) Texts that are meant to be understood non-literally can convey information—they are not so open to interpretation that they can mean anything at all. Even in cases when the message lacks specificity or clarity, the message still has a limited semantic range. Put simply, non-literal text can have meaning, be interpreted correctly, and be interpreted incorrectly.(3) Finally, the early chapters of Genesis have been interpreted non-literally since the dawn of the church (and before). The accusation that only modern Christians, yielding to the pressure of modern science, have conveniently interpreted the text figuratively is simply false. To interpret the text non-literally is not a departure from established church (or Jewish) tradition.All three points can be summarized as follows: genre is key to reading a text. Reading poetry like historiography or historiography as poetry is dangerous. Neither approach is likely to reach truth.I am well aware that, so far, I have not offered a shred of evidence that the early chapters of Genesis should be read literally or otherwise. That has been intentional. All I have attempted to show is that considering a non-literal interpretation is not offensive in itself and foreclosing that interpretation a priori may force a reader to reach the wrong conclusions.So, with all that in mind, the time has come to read the text. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27 God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.'” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”14 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all the cattleand all the living creatures of the field!On your belly you will crawland dust you will eat all the days of your life.15 And I will put hostility between you and the womanand between your offspring and her offspring;he will strike your head,and you will strike his heel.”16 To the woman he said,“I will greatly increase your labor pains;with pain you will give birth to children.You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you.”17 But to Adam he said,“Because you obeyed your wifeand ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,'the ground is cursed because of you;in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,but you will eat the grain of the field.19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat fooduntil you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.Does Genesis Belong to the Literary Genre of Myth?We must face the million-dollar question: are there clues in the text of Genesis that would lead the reader to believe that it is not to be taken literally? Notice that the question focuses and begins with the text itself. The endeavor is to read the text the way it “wants” to be read. This interpretive exercise is not starting out with modern beliefs and reading the text the way a modern reader may want to read it.However, before we start this conversation, I want to address why we are having this conversation at all. Spoiler alert—the ending of the story is this: when we focus on the potential concordance between science and Genesis we are asking the wrong questions. Not only will this result in wrong answers, it will keep us from asking the right questions! Ultimately, that is what I want. I want to take Genesis seriously—dead seriously. I believe in Genesis. I believe it is scripture. I believe it is true. My view of everything is shaped by it. So I am eager to discuss the truths that Genesis truly means to convey. An yes, I believe Genesis is historical just not historiography. It conveys real world truths in figurative language.Ok, back to the myth discussion. (Most of the discussion in this week's blog comes from William Lane Craig's In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Sometimes the discussion is a summary of his work, sometimes it is a straight copy. I would certainly fail for plagiarism if this blog were a paper.)Before You Stone Me—A Definition of MythThe word myth is nowadays used to refer to a false fact, statement, or story. If I told you that chewing bread while chopping an onion will prevent teary eyes, you might respond, “That's just a myth.” If I were calling Genesis a myth in that sense—well, go ahead and stone me. It would be well deserved.When I use the term myth in this discussion, I mean something else entirely. I am using the term as another element in the set containing poetry, epic, biography, and historiography. I am not using myth as a synonym for lie, fiction, wives' tale, or falsity. Explained differently, I am using myth the way a folklorist would.In the field of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form. Let's break down this brief definition. First, a myth is a linguistic composition, either oral or literary. Second, it is a narrative; that is to say, it is a story, which involves characters and a plotline. Third, it is a sacred narrative—it has religious significance in the culture in which it is embraced. This implies that it will have something to do with a deity as one of its principal figures. Fourth, (and this is implied) it is a traditional narrative, one that is handed down over the generations, not a recent, free composition.Myths are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are to be believed and may be cited as authoritative. They are the embodiment of dogma and are often associated with theology and ritual. Their main characters are not usually human beings but deities, heroes, or animals, whose activities are set in an earlier age, when the earth was different than it is today, or in another realm such as the sky or underworld. Compare this to, for example, legends. Legends are similar to myths, but they take place in the current era, not in the remote past, and are not considered sacred. Compare myths also to folktales. Folktales are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are regarded as fiction. The events they relate may or may not have happened. They are not to be taken seriously as dogma or history.Finally, myths are often highly metaphorical rather than literal. Let's focus on Ancient Near Eastern myths to provide evidence of this point. The first example we can examine is the Mesopotamian myth Enuma elish. As a scholar put it, “[n]o one but a lunatic . . . could ever arrive at the theory that [the earth and sky] were originally formed by splitting the body of a dragon in half.” We can be confident that no ancient Babylonian looking to the sky expected to see the desiccated flesh and bones of Tiamat overhead, nor did he expect to find the Tigris and Euphrates flowing out of Tiamat's eye sockets. These are figurative images. The same could be said for Egyptians and their myths. In Egyptian mythology, for example, the sky could be depicted as the goddess Nut arched over the earth with hands and feet touching the ground. No Egyptian looking at the sky expected to see the body of a naked woman arched above him. Sadly, when we refer to ancient peoples as believing these things literally, it is us who do not understand and impose an overly literalistic interpretation of their myths. So, are the early chapters of Genesis a myth? To determine what is a myth, one can look for certain elements that are shared by most myths (i.e., “family resemblances”). We can summarize these family resemblances as follows:(1) Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.(2) Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.(3) Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.(4) Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.(5) Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.(6) Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.(7) Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.(8) Myths are associated with rituals.(9) Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.(10) Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.By the way, these characteristics of myth come from folklorist, scholars who study myths of many different cultures and religions—not from biblical scholars. In other words, this is not an attempt to draft a definition of myth that will conveniently fit the Genesis account.Application to Genesis 1-11Let us apply the list of elements above to the early chapters of Genesis and see if Genesis might belong to the genre of myth.(1) Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.Not only the individual units of Genesis 1-11 work as narratives, but the first 11 chapters as a whole constitute a narrative as well. These chapters tell the story of primaeval events in roughly chronological succession. For example, the fall of mankind occurred after the creation of mankind, the flood occurred after the fall, and the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel occurred after the flood.(2) Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.Genesis 1-11 is universally recognized as comprising traditional stories. That is to say, the author of Genesis (traditionally held to be Moses), wrote down the traditions passed down to him. Most scholars adopt what is termed the “documentary hypothesis,” which explores the potential sources upon which the Genesis author relied.(3) Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.Again, there is universal agreement that the narratives of Genesis 1-11 are sacred for Israelite society. Not only do these stories tell the acts of the God of creation, but more particularly they tell the acts of Israel's covenantal God, Yahweh. Sabbath observance and animal sacrifice, so central to Israel's cult, are already grounded in the early chapters of Genesis. Moreover, Genesis 1-11 provides the prehistory and foundation for Yahweh's call of Abraham to establish the nation of Israel in order to achieve the blessing of all mankind that was forfeited by Adam and Eve.(4) Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.We see this fact clearly when later passages in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) reaffirm statements in the primaeval narrative. For example, in Exodus 20:8-11 we have a recapitulation of the creation week: “Remember the Sabbath day to set it apart as holy. For six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, . . . . For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.”(5) Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.The stories of Gen 1-11 are set in a primaeval age. The primaeval age in Genesis runs right back to God's creation of the world “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1). Moreover, the Genesis account narrates the creation of humankind as well as of plant and animal life. The origin of civilization and several of its inventions, such as metallurgy and music, are related. The origin of the world's languages is described. The period described is thus truly the primal age of mankind and the world.(6) Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.This element is controversial, but not for the reason you might think. Many folklorist do not consider the Genesis account to be myth because it does not involve many gods. In their view, monotheism is antithetical to myth. This seems to be a mistake, however. There is no reason that a monotheistic society could not use the genre of myth.(7) Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.This is the very heart of myth. In grounding present realities in the primordial past, the narrative functions to establish Israel's worldview. Notice, it does not ground the founding of Israel as a nation, at least not merely that. More fundamentally, the Genesis myth is universal in that it explains the origin of the world, the origin of humanity, and natural phenomena. All three of these ideas will be explored later.(8) Myths are associated with rituals.The narratives of Gen 1-11 do not seem to be associated with rituals, despite the motif of animal sacrifice. But inclusion of this eighth family resemblance probably reflects the influence of the so-called myth and ritual school, which is now widely rejected. While some myths have ritual associations, such a connection is missing from many myths.(9) Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.The primaeval narratives of Genesis likewise do not express correspondences between deities and nature. But the absence of such correspondences from Genesis 1-11 is due to Israel's monotheism, in contrast to the polytheism of its neighbors.(10) Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.Does the Genesis narrative exhibit fantastic elements? Is it untroubled by logical contradiction or incoherence? It seems that on both counts the primaeval narrative shares this family resemblance of myths, even if to several orders of magnitude less in comparison to Ancient Near Eastern polytheistic myths.(a) Anthropomorphisms. Despite God's transcendence so dramatically declared in Genesis 1, God is portrayed in the story of man's creation in Genesis 2 as a humanoid deity worthy of polytheistic myths, as he forms man from the dirt and breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. The same is true of the story of the fall in Genesis 3, where God strolls in the cool of the day and searches for the man and woman hiding among the trees. One must wonder whether the author meant these anthropomorphic descriptions of God to be just part of the storyteller's art or serious theology.(b) Narrative Inconsistencies. The author of Genesis seems untroubled by the apparent inconsistencies that occur in his narratives. It would have been easy for him to bring the account of the creation of man in Genesis 2 into accord with Genesis 1, rather than leave the apparent inconsistencies concerning the order of creation of man, the vegetation, and the animals. In Genesis 1, vegetation is created in the third day (Genesis 1:11-13):God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.Also, in Genesis 1 man is created after vegetation.Man is not made until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:28-30). However, in Genesis 2 we read the following (Genesis 2:5-7):Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.(c) Fantastic Elements. Before we can determine whether Genesis contains fantastic elements, we must explain that term. Miracles and fantastic elements are not the same. I believe in miracles! Fantastic means events that are so extraordinary or odd that, on their face, seem palpably false to the audience. I am not saying these events seem palpably false to us in light of increased knowledge of the world. Fantastic means palpably false to the original audience. Put another way, these are elements that both the original author and original audience understand to be figurative. Allow me to provide modern examples. If I told you I was diagnosed with cancer but after my church prayed for me I received a healthy diagnosis, I have not narrated a “fantastic element.” I have narrated a miracle which, even if you disbelieve it, you and I both understand that I mean for you to believe it. On the other hand, imagine that before you announce your wife's pregnancy I somehow find out, and when you ask me how I learned of it, I respond, “A little birdy told me.” That is much closer to a fantastic element. Both you and I, the speaker and the audience, understand that the statement is too odd to be taken as anything other than a literary device.So, are there fantastic elements in Genesis? I think so. The best example is the snake. The snake may very well represent Satan, but notice the actual description in the text, “Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made.” In the story, the snake is a snake—just a snake. And no one is surprised by the talking snake! And the implication that the snake is shrewder than other animal is that other animals are like the snake (presumably they can also speak), just a little less clever. In fact, an ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent precisely in this literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the orchard (Jubilee 3:28).Other great examples of fantastical elements are the trees of life and of knowledge of good and evil. Notice that in regard to the effect of eating the fruits of these trees there is no hint of miraculous action on God's part. The trees seem to be “magical.” God does not bestow eternal life if one eats from the tree of life. The tree does it. Man could event subvert God's punishment if he could simply get his hands on that fruit. “And the Lord God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever'” (Genesis 3:22).Conclusion and CliffhangerOk, there's my abbreviated argument that the early chapters of Genesis are myth. Now, allow me to return to the definition of myth and the entire reason I am spending time on this topic: Myths are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are to be believed and may be cited as authoritative. Sure, the fact that they are truthful does not mean that they are literal—but they are truthful! So, what are these truths that story conveys? We won't have time to explore this until next week, but let me give you a brief taste of what is to come:Themes and Etiology(1) Origin of the World. Genesis 1 is obviously an etiological account of the origin of the world through God's creative activity. As such it is spectacularly different from the cosmic etiologies of Israel's neighbors. In contrast to Babylonian and Egyptian myths, there is neither theogony nor theomachy in Genesis; rather, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). All of physical reality is brought into being by an unoriginate and transcendent Deity.(2) Origin of Humanity. In Genesis 2 we have an etiological account of the origin of humanity that supplements the brief notice of mankind's creation in 1:26–27. In other myths in the Ancient Near East, humans are often treated as later creations of the gods for the purpose of relieving the minor deities of backbreaking labor. For example, in the Atrahasis Epic the minor deities are said to have labored for thousands of years before finally rebelling against their overseers, necessitating the creation of man to take over their labors.Scholars have often asked why the Pentateuch does not begin with the call of Abraham and the founding of Israel in Genesis 12. Commentators seem widely agreed that the reason the author prefixes the prehistory to the patriarchal narratives is his universalizing interest. He wants to show that God's original plan was to bless all mankind and that this aim still remains ultimately in mind through the election of Israel, which is now God's means of fulfilling his original intent. Moreover, Ancient Near East myths share an etiological interest in telling how mankind in general came to exist. For example, as cited above, in the Atrahasis Epic, in response to protests and rebellion of the lesser gods over their burdensome labors, the mother goddess decides to create man to take over the labor for them. Humans were created basically as slave labor for the gods. Such stories seek to answer the question of human origins in general. When read against this backdrop, Genesis 2 is seen to share a similar etiological interest—but with a very different answer!Finally, etiology comes explicitly to the fore in the closing comment on the story, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:24–25). The man and the woman are now man and wife. Marriage is thus God's plan for man and woman and is grounded in the primordial creation of man and of woman as his helper. The marriage relationship is taken to be the proper sphere for human sexual activity. This etiological note confirms that the author takes his story to be universal in scope, for marriage is not plausibly taken to be merely God's special provision for this specially created couple but his intention for all humanity.(3) Natural Phenomena. Etiological motifs concerning natural phenomena are also evident in Genesis 1-11. Such motifs are especially obvious in the account in Genesis 3 of the primordial couple's disobedience to God as a result of their seduction by the serpent. In the punishments pronounced by God on the serpent, the man, and the woman, etiological motifs abound. For example, the toil of farming is attributed to the fact that the land is cursed because of the man's disobedience. Thus, natural phenomena with which later Israelites would have been all too familiar are explained in terms of our primordial parents' fall into sin.Next week I want to explain these ideas further. I hope you give me the chance.

Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”27 God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them,male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man's side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,“This one at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called ‘woman,'for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.'” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”14 The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,cursed are you above all the cattleand all the living creatures of the field!On your belly you will crawland dust you will eat all the days of your life.15 And I will put hostility between you and the womanand between your offspring and her offspring;he will strike your head,and you will strike his heel.”16 To the woman he said,“I will greatly increase your labor pains;with pain you will give birth to children.You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you.”17 But to Adam he said,“Because you obeyed your wifeand ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,'the ground is cursed because of you;in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,but you will eat the grain of the field.19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat fooduntil you return to the ground,for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.Introduction to the Bible StudyWelcomeWelcome to “season 2” of the Bible study. The fact that we got through an entire book of the Bible, went on break, and are now starting a new book certainly has that “season” feel to it. I'll use that terminology of seasons, but please know that I do so only tongue-in-cheek. This study is not a show or even a podcast—it is meant to be a group of people getting together to study the Bible in an interactive forum. Sure, “episodes” are published as a podcast for anyone who would like to listen afterward, but my main interest is the community. There is enough Christian content being produced for general audience consumption (which is great!); that is not my goal here. So, if you are a new participant, I am glad you are here. If you are a returning participant, I am glad you are here.I would like to begin this second season with some introductory remarks. Inevitably, some of these comments will sound redundant to returning Bible study veterans, but I hope they will bear with me for just a minute. I think that clarifying the scope of an engagement goes a long way in setting the right expectations, avoiding misunderstandings, and ultimately preventing disappointment and conflict. So, with that in mind:(1) Who I Am. I'm just a guy. I'm a fan of Matt and Blonde's show, and I feel extremely privileged to get to lead this Bible study. Professionally, I am an accountant and an attorney. I also have a degree in math. More importantly, I have been a Christian for a couple of decades. I went from outspoken atheist to committed Christian. Ever since, I have spent much of my time studying the Bible, theology, church history, and so forth. My hope is to think just as rigorously and precisely about my faith and the Bible as I do about matters in my profession.(2) What I Hope to Do. Here are the characteristics and goals of this study:a. Scholarship Based. I honestly attempt to base what I teach in solid scholarship. I read scholarly sources and check their citations. I try to say only what I know to be supported by scholarship and no more. I am sure I will fail at times, but luckily there are many brilliant participants who can set the record straight when I make a mistake.b. Nondenominational. I try to remain “nondenominational.” When different Christian traditions offer different interpretations of a passage, I try to present those options and let the participants decide. I worry that the longer we do this study, the more my theological leanings will become obvious. To the extent that outcome is unavoidable, I will try to remain respectful of other theological bents.c. Christian. I believe the Bible is inspired by God and is reliable. I take the facts presented in it to be true facts. If you are a skeptic, you are still very much welcome in this study. You are also more than welcome to add the word “allegedly” before any claim made in the Bible. Feel free to push back on anything I say. All that notwithstanding, I will present the text of the Bible as true.(3) What I Hope We Do. I teach for about the first 45 minutes of each session, and then it is open to questions and comments. Feel free to say whatever you think is appropriate. I only ask that you wait your turn and respect everyone's time.(4) A Quick Note on Bible Translations. For this study, I will use the NET (New English Translation). It was originally published in 2005; it was composed by a committee of 25 scholars; and, it was meant to be a free online English translation of the Bible. As far as I know, this translation does not have a theological bias (i.e., reformed, Catholic, modern, etc.). I particularly enjoy it because of the thousands of translators' notes that are provided along with the English text. However, feel free to use whichever translation you prefer. If you want my advice on Bible translations, I discussed translations at length during an early episode of season 1. Long story short, ideally do not use a paraphrase like The Message, a “modified” Bible like The Passion (the quote-on-quote translator claimed to receive additional divine revelation that impacted his rendering of the English text), and choose a Bible that you can understand. Different translations use different levels of language (i.e., 8th grade level, college level, etc.). There is no shame in reading at your level. In fact, the NIV uses 8th grade English level, and I really like it. I guess my low I.Q. is showing.Season 2: Three Weeks(ish) in Genesis then ActsWhen we finished the first season, we asked the participants which book they wanted to study next. Nearly every response was in favor of studying Exodus or Acts. Since the votes were about equally split, the choice came down to me. I selected Acts for a couple of reasons. Chronologically, it comes right after John. So, studying Acts will feel like a continuation of our last study. Also, Acts was written in Greek, and it takes place in the more familiar Greco-Roman world. Exodus was written in Hebrew, and its action takes place in the much more foreign Ancient Near-East. For most people, myself included, studying Acts is a bit simpler. (However, I am not opposed to studying Exodus in the future. I do hope we have that opportunity.)Then why are we taking a few weeks to talk about Genesis? I have two main reasons:(1) One of the Biggest Objections. Think of the objections that skeptics level against Christianity. Nearly at the top of the list, if not truly chief among them, is the claim that believing in Christianity requires a rejection of modern science. At its worst, the accusation says that to be Christian entails believing that the universe is 6,000 years old, and one must disregard evolution, astrophysics, geology, linguistics, and history. I want to address this objection head on, and that inevitably involves a discussion of Genesis.(2) A Christian Worldview. The first few chapters of Genesis, regardless of whether they are taken literally or figuratively, establish key beliefs of the Christian worldview. Before we get deeper into studying the expansion of the church and nuanced doctrinal issues (i.e., Acts), I think we should stop and discuss those more fundamental points first.(Important clarification: From here on out, when I write about Genesis, I am referring to the first few chapters of it—particularly the first eleven often just to the first three. I did not want to type “the early chapters of Genesis” every time. Everyone agrees that after chapter 11, Genesis is intended as history, so the following discussion would clearly not apply to the entire book or those later chapters.)So, what will our study of Genesis look like? Well, it won't really be a study. It will be more of a primer that hopefully presents some exciting possibilities. That's the key: possibilities. I am not interested in convincing everyone to believe exactly like me. However, I want to give a good-faith, well intentioned “spoiler alert.” Many Christians are deeply committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I intend to present a competing alternative, and I know that will be controversial and perhaps even offensive. I respect that. If you do not wish to hear it, that is no problem at all. Simply skip the first few weeks of this study and come back when we are discussing Acts. You can also stay and disagree with me the whole time—totally fine.Ok, ok, let's be practical. Here's the plan to tackle the two goals described above:Genesis: Literal or Not and Its Interaction with Modern Science(1) Read chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.(2) Discuss some important literary concepts, particularly (a) what it means to read a text “literally” and whether it is more “conservative” to do so, (b) the importance of literary genre, and (c) how these concepts apply to Genesis (and any other text).(3) Discuss whether a non-literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis is plausible based on the text itself (not on modern science).(4) Discuss the interaction between Christianity and science given the different interpretations of Genesis.Genesis: What It Says About God, Us, and the World(1) Recall chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.(2) Discuss features of God.(3) Discuss features of creation.(4) Discuss features of man.(5) Discuss the effect of sin and the Fall.I hope we can get through all that material in the next two weeks, but it might take an additional week. After that, we will start covering Acts verse by verse. I intend to delve heavily into the cultural and historical context of the text. For that purpose, I have been reading Craig Keener's obscenely lengthy, four-volume commentary on Acts.Questions? Comments?Since this is the introductory session to season 2 of the Bible study, I want to stop for questions and comments before we proceed. If questions and comments run out with time remaining, I have prepared additional material. If Time Allows… Otherwise I Will Move this Content to the Next SessionSince I want to present a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis, I will begin the discussion by addressing some of the concerns that are sure to come up. My hope is that by addressing these concerns at the start, I will bring the “temperature down.” The debate on Genesis can get quite fiery, after all.The More Conservative Way to Read a TextConservative: Minimizing RiskIs reading a text literally generally (or always) the most conservative approach to interpreting that text? First, I need to define my terms. What do I mean by conservative? Conservative can mean different things in different contexts. In politics, it generally means the position held by those right of political center. In scholarly disciplines, conservative can take at least two meanings. It can mean the traditional (i.e., the historical) position or the one held by the most scholars.As I using the term conservative in this discussion, I am not referring to any of the denotations above. There is another possible meaning for conservative, which we use in daily life and in disciplines such as accounting and law. Conservative refers to the attitude, interpretation, or action that minimizes risk. Imagine that you are planning a backpacking trip in a dry area. You need to pack your drinking water. You think that you will need 4 gallons of water. However, you may choose to be conservative and pack an additional gallon. Or, imagine that you are preparing your tax return. You are wondering whether you should deduct a certain travel expense. Since you are not sure whether the deduction would hold up in case of an audit, you choose to be conservative and not deduct it.With that definition of conservative in mind, is reading a text literally rather figuratively a more conservative approach? That is, does reading a text literally minimize the risk of misinterpreting a text? My contention is that the answer is no.Consider the well-known expression: “I love you to the moon and back.” (Apparently this expression originated with Tom Topor's 1979 play Nuts. It grew in popularity in the 90s and 2000s.)Let us interpret this expression literally and consider the outcome. Literally, there are two ways to interpret it. The first would be that I will love you only throughout the duration of a trip to the moon and return to earth. Although not logically entailed in the statement, if I am specifying that I will love you specifically during the voyage, one could infer that I will not love you before or after.The other literal interpretation is that love can be measured similarly to distance. At first glance, this would mean that I love you extensively since the distance from Earth to the moon (and back) is extensive. But notice that the distance from Earth to the moon is infinitesimal compared to other distances within our solar system, not to mention our galaxy or the whole universe. Really what I am saying is that I love you a nearly incomprehensibly small amount in comparison to the vastness of true love.Of course, we know that the two literal interpretations are wrong. Moreover, those interpretations reach nearly antithetical conclusions to what the expression “love you to the moon and back” is attempting to convey, which is the vastness of the affection felt by one person towards another. What this example is meant to show is that assuming a text should be read literally is not conservative—it does not minimize or eliminate the risk of misinterpretation. Proper interpretation of a text requires that one considers the genre of the text.If It's Not Literal then It Doesn't Mean AnythingI think a concern that Christians often have regarding the possibility of reading Genesis non-literally is that doing so neuters the text—it renders the text meaningless. Perhaps the argument is that the text would no longer have any meaning because non-literal texts are subject to so many different interpretations that one can no longer be certain of any one of them.Again, I think we can dispel this concern with some examples. Notice that the expression “I love you to the moon and back,” although non-literal, clearly means something different to, “My love for you is like a flame that has gone out.” Even if both expression have semantic ranges, those ranges do not overlap. They convey distinctly different ideas—and they both do so non-literally.Let's use a more sophisticated example. One of the most popular English poems is Robert Frost's “The Road Not Taken,” written in 1915. Ironically, this is also one of the most misinterpreted English poems.Before we read it, try to recall what the poem is about. I bet you thought the poem was called something like “The Path Less Traveled,” and the point of it is that taking a harder, lonelier path leads to better, more fulfilling outcomes in life.Now consider the actual text of the poem.The Road Not Taken by Robert FrostTwo roads diverged in a yellow wood,And sorry I could not travel bothAnd be one traveler, long I stoodAnd looked down one as far as I couldTo where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair,And having perhaps the better claim,Because it was grassy and wanted wear;Though as for that the passing thereHad worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally layIn leaves no step had trodden black.Oh, I kept the first for another day!Yet knowing how way leads on to way,I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sighSomewhere ages and ages hence:Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference. What is the poem saying? First, let's begin with the title (one of the most important contextual clues when interpreting poetry). The poem is about “the road not taken.” Notice, it is not about the road actually taken—the one less traveled. It is about the other road.The first stanza tells us that the traveler runs into an intersection, and he was sorry he could not travel both paths. The second stanza tells us that as far as the traveler could see, both paths seemed about the same. (One of the paths does not seem more adventurous than the other!)Then, in the third stanza, the author copes with his choice of selecting one path by lying to himself. He tells himself that one day he will return and traverse the road not taken, but he knows that is not true. He will probably never come back.The last stanza, the one everyone remembers, tells us how that lie will grow in time. The traveler will deal with the pain of never knowing what the “the road not taken” was like by telling himself and others that surely he chose the boldest path and it made all the difference—something he could not possibly know since both paths looked nearly identical (“worn . . . about the same”), and his whole regret is not knowing the outcome of taking the other path.What's the point of this exercise? Notice that poetry is a genre of literature that is not meant to be interpreted literally, unlike historiography or technical writings, yet it has a discernible meaning. And people can get that meaning wrong! Robert Frost's poem is not about the positive outcomes from following the “path less traveled” but about the regret of not being able to take all paths in life.Similarly, if we interpret Genesis figuratively, we are not rendering the text meaningless. It can still have a correct interpretation and, by extension, incorrect interpretations. A nonliteral interpretation means that the way the text coveys its message is not direct, not that it has no message.Conservative in Other Ways?There is one last roadblock I wish to remove before we get into the text. Oftentimes Christians will claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the conservative interpretation in the sense that it is the historical interpretation of the text. The claim may also add that the only reason we (modern Christians) are attempting to re-interpret the text is because of our desire to accommodate modern science. We are straying from Christianity's historical beliefs, and we are compromising our view of scripture—is the accusation.So, is a literal interpretation of Genesis a more conservative interpretation given that meaning of the word conservative? Put another way, is it true that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the traditional interpretation of the church? Has the church held to a literal interpretation as a crucial matter of faith? Surprisingly, the answer is no. To make my point I will give one example, although many could be provided.Short of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, no one person has had a bigger impact in the western church than Augustine of Hippo. He lived in the late 300s and early 400s—centuries before the advent of modern science. Did he—literally the patron saint of theologians (according to some traditions)—take Genesis literally? No. Augustine wrote extensively on the book of Genesis (five commentaries!) and after thinking long and hard about the early chapters, he admitted that understanding what the writer of Genesis meant by days is a hard thing. This is already instructive. An early church father, reading nothing but the text without pressure from modern science, could already see that the text does not seem straightforward.Augustine concluded that God created all that exists in an instant. Therefore, the days in Genesis are not (and cannot be) literal. The days are an accommodation to human understanding. They are like a metaphor. They put creation in terms of a human work week so people can understand it.Why would Augustine conclude such a thing? For many reasons, but chiefly among those are three peculiarities in the text. First, light appears in day one but the luminaries (e.g., the sun, moon, and stars) are not created until day four. Second, the dischronology between chapter 1 and chapter 2:4-6. In chapter 1, vegetation is created early on. In chapter 2, there is still no vegetation. Finally, the idea of God literally resting. Augustine argued that God cannot grow weary (there are verses in the Bible that explicitly state this) so the idea that God would literally rest, if taken literally, is nonsensical. The language must be figurative, he concluded.Other church fathers, such as Clement (c. 35-99), Origen (c. 185-254), Didymus (c. 313-398) and Athanasius (c. 296-373), also understood the Genesis creation story as non-literal to different extents.The point I am making is simple: to claim that to interpret the early of chapters of Genesis non-literally is an unprecedent deviation from the church's historical interpretation of those chapters is simply not true. Of course, this says nothing of which interpretation is correct. The point is merely that non-literal interpretations of Genesis are not heterodox per se.There is a related conclusion that one can draw from Augustine and the other church fathers. They were not influenced by modern science. They came to their conclusions by simple observation of the world and from the text itself. So, the accusation that modern Christians are reinterpreting Genesis merely because of their concordist desires (between modern science and the Bible) loses much of its bite.

Scripture Reading: John 21:9-25 9 When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, 153, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” 19 (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.”20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. (This was the disciple who had leaned back against Jesus' chest at the meal and asked, “Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?”) 21 So when Peter saw him, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!” 23 So the saying circulated among the brothers and sisters that this disciple was not going to die. But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?”24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.Main ThemesJesus at the ShoreJesus Already Has Fire, Fish, and BreadWhen Peter finally arrives to meet Jesus, Jesus has a fire ready, fish is cooking, and there is bread to go with it. It paints a picture of a self-sufficient Jesus. Jesus does not need anything from the disciples. Instead, Jesus makes an invitation: “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught”—the fish Jesus effectively gave to them—and “come, have breakfast.”As a quick historical sidenote, the apostles were probably very much looking forward to having breakfast (aristēsate, the morning meal). Wealthy Romans would eat three meals a day. Most everyone else ate two meals a day. Some ate the morning meal at dawn and some closer to midday. After a long night of work, the apostles were surely ready to eat and rest.The Abundant Catch, the Stronger NetWhen Jesus invites Peter to bring some of the catch, we are given two important details. The net was full (including some large fish), yet the net was not torn. There is a double image of abundance. The fish are many. If the fish symbolize people, then multitudes will come to Jesus. But even more beautifully, not a single fish is one too many. The net can hold all of them without problem. The Kingdom of God is sufficiently vast—it can handle the abundance of all who will come.Now this is the will of the one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. (John 6:39)153The number of fish caught amounted to 153. As you are probably familiar, there are few things that will cause more wild speculation than numbers in the Bible. This is no exception. Many people have applied the hermeneutical technique known as gematria to assign meaning to this number. Gematria is “the practice of assigning a numerical value to a name, word or phrase according to an alphanumerical cipher.” (Forgive me, this is one of the few times I have quoted Wikipedia.) For example, some suggest that the numerical value of the Hebrew expression for “children of God” is 153. Others use gematria to assign the numerical value to the fishing villages in Ezekiel 47:10. Others suggest even more remote possibilities like “Nathaniel gamma” or “alpha Mary.”Would John expect his readers to decipher the secret code behind the number 153? Obviously not. There is probably no secret code to be deciphered. It is the number of fish—a very large number that stresses the abundance of the fish and the historicity of the account. It also emphasizes the nearly miraculous fact that the net did not tear.Peter the ServantNotice that Peter was eager to reach and serve Jesus. As we discussed last time, he jumps from the boat and swims to shore, getting his clothes soaking wet. Then, when Jesus tells Peter to bring some of the catch, Peter immediately runs back to the boat and “pull[s] the net to shore.” (Not that this is the point of the passage, but Peter's ability to pull a full net to land suggests considerable physical strength.)The Third AppearanceJohn tells us this was the third appearance of Jesus to the disciples. One cannot be confident regarding exactly how John is counting, since Jesus appears to different disciples (particularly if the women are counted) more than three times. The context of chapter 20 suggests that John may be accounting for the appearance to the apostles when Thomas was not present, the appearance to the apostles when Thomas was present, and then this one.Jesus Feeds Them Bread and FishJesus gives the disciples bread and fish. This is reminiscent of Jesus' most public miracle, the feeding of the 5,000.Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” (Now there was a lot of grass in that place.) So the men sat down, about 5,000 in number. Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed the bread to those who were seated. He then did the same with the fish, as much as they wanted. When they were all satisfied, Jesus said to his disciples, “Gather up the broken pieces that are left over, so that nothing is wasted.” So they gathered them up and filled 12 baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves left over by the people who had eaten. (John 6:10-13)Notice that the miracle in chapter 6 has the same motif of abundance discussed above. In chapter 21, the net does not break despite the large number of fish. In chapter 6, the food does not run out despite the large number of people fed. There's even ample leftovers. There is no competition in the message of the gospel. One man getting in does not push another one out. There is plenty for all.No One DaredIn my opinion, the most curios part of this scene is the apostles' fear to ask, “Who are you?” The text explains they were hesitant to ask “because they knew it was the Lord.”An online commentary has a potential explanation:The disciples lack of questions about Jesus' identity can be taken in several ways. One possibility is John emphasizing the lack of doubt, as if saying, "there's no need to ask, since it's clear."The other option is that the men believe this is Jesus, but they're tempted to ask, just to be sure. This would be like someone asking a close friend, "is it really you?" Or, as when seeing someone wearing new clothes with a new hair style, Jesus' resurrected form might have been subtly different (Luke 24:13–16, 31; John 20:14). This would cast John's remark as reassurance: even though Jesus' appearance was not exactly as it had been, there was no valid reason to think it was someone else.I lean towards the second explanation. Recall the first appearance to the apostles:Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (John 20:19b-20, emphasis added)Jesus had to prove his identity during their first encounter. Then recall the second appearance to the apostles:Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe.” Thomas replied to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:26b-28, emphasis added)Jesus had to prove his identity during their second encounter as well.Should Jesus have to prove his identity a third time? Perhaps the apostles thought that to ask for identity verification a third time would be tantamount to denial.The CallDo You Love Me More Than “These” Do?Peter receives a special call (i.e., vocation) from Jesus. The conversation begins with a pointed question, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” Before we move on to Peter's answer, we must ask: who are “these”? The text does not provide an antecedent for the pronoun, so we must use context to understand to whom or what it refers. As translator's note 30 in the NET explains (emphasis added):To whom (or what) does “these” (τούτων, toutōn) refer? Three possibilities are suggested: (1) τούτων should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter's statement in 21:3, “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter's statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of τούτων would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. E. Brown has observed (John [AB], 2:1103) by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the Lord, see v. 12). (2) τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: Could the author, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12, seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus? This leaves option (3), that τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37, “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” The addition of the auxiliary verb “do” in the translation is used to suggest to the English reader the third interpretation, which is the preferred one.I favor the emphasized, third interpretation. As the translator's note explains, Peter had promised to die for Jesus, and that he loved Jesus more than all the other disciples.Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” Peter said to him, “Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” (John 13:36-37)Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” (Matthew 26:33-34)But Peter denied and deserted Jesus just like all the others. Now that Jesus has died and resurrected, what will Peter do? Will Peter look at his failures and lose all self-confidence? Maybe a downtrodden Peter is unwilling to try again, unwilling to commit to a lofty cause. Or will a foolish Peter learn nothing from his mistakes and arrogantly make the same promises again? If “these” refers to the other disciples, Jesus is putting Peter to the test and asking, (I paraphrase) “Do you stand by your prior statements?”Slightly paraphrased, Peter responds saying, “You know the answer. I love you.” Peter is speaking earnestly, since he is counting on Jesus' divine ability to see into Peter's heart and mind. But Peter also seems to have learned some humility. The answer is not, “Yes, I love you more that them.” It is simply, “Yes, I love you.” Maybe Peter realizes he is neither as good as he thought nor are the other disciples as bad as he thought. This newfound humility, however, does not change the fact that Peter is hurt by Jesus' repeated questions, which begin to sound accusatory. The word translated as “distressed” is the same word used to describe the sorrow the disciples felt for the death of Jesus (John 16:20).Agape vs PhileoA detail that we must discuss is the different Greek words translated as “love” in Jesus' three questions and Peter's three responses. Jesus' first question uses agapas, and Peter's first response uses philo. The second question again uses agapas, and Peter once again responds with philo. The third time, however, Jesus uses the word phileis, and Peter again responds with philo.In the Greek language, both agape and phileo mean love. Nevertheless, their semantic ranges are different. Agape is normally associated with a “higher” love that involves wishing well, taking pleasure in, esteem, and in the Christian context, self-sacrifice. Phileo often means to be friends (of a person or object), such as what brothers or close friends may feel for one another.Because of these different semantic ranges and the fact that English only has one word for love, Christians often use the Greek terms to explain and distinguish the kinds of love God has for us and that we should have for God and one another. Broadly speaking, Christians say that agape love is the higher type of love that God has for us and that we should have for him. Christians may even say we need to strive to have this agape love towards one another. Although that may very well be true, we must be careful to understand the Greek words and how they are used in the Bible. Sometimes agape is being used intentionally and distinctly from other words for love such as phileo—precisely to emphasize its higher, self-sacrificial nature. But not always. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably.In the Gospel of John, and particularly during this closing scene between Jesus and Peter, agape and phileo are clearly used interchangeably. The story makes little sense if we ready it like this:Jesus: Peter, do you have high love for me? Peter: Yes, I have low love for you. Jesus: Peter, do you have high love for me? Peter: Yes, I have low love for you. Jesus: Peter, do you have low love for me? Peter: Yes, I have low love for you. Jesus: Great! Take care of my people.The moral of the story is, let's use linguistics wisely.The TaskTo each affirmation of Peter's love, Jesus gives a response and a task. First, “Feed my lambs.” Second, “Shepherd my sheep.” Finally, “Feed my sheep.” Then Jesus makes a somber prophecy:I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go. (John 21:18)Jesus concludes his instructions to Peter with the simplest command, “Follow me.”Although the setting of the conversation includes fishing, fishermen, and fish, already an analogy for the ministry, the apostles, and believers, Jesus uses different imagery to deliver his message—shepherding. Jesus says “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep.” These are effectively identical statements with lambs acting as a synonym for sheep. Jesus also says, “shepherd my sheep,” which in a literal sense includes all the duties of the shepherd, not only feeding. The three successive statements are a command to Peter—be like a shepherd to my people.Then, Jesus' prophecy clarifies the extent of the call. Shall Peter abandon the sheep if trouble comes? No. Notice Jesus does not command, “care for my sheep with your life,” he goes much further and predicts that outcome. Peter will die caring for believers. Jesus' foretelling is sobering. When Peter is old he will “stretch out [his] hands” that someone may bind them—which usually preceded execution. Early Christian tradition is that Peter died by crucifixion, probably upside down. So, early Christian texts interpreted the phrase “stretch out your hands” to mean crucifixion.The prediction of Peter's death for the sheep is incredibly powerful in light of an earlier use of the shepherd analogy. Recall the following passage:“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not a shepherd and does not own sheep, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and runs away. So the wolf attacks the sheep and scatters them. Because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep, he runs away. (John 10:11-13)Jesus calls Peter to be like the good shepherd, not like the hireling. But that call only makes sense if Peter is in fact not a hireling anymore. The whole point of the analogy in chapter 10 is that the hireling is not part of the household. The sheep belong to someone else, so he has no incentive to die for them. The call to Peter in chapter 21 implies that Peter is now part of the household. As I have been saying throughout this study, it means Peter is now a son of God—one with inheritance rights. At least in either the filial or fraternal sense, the sheep are now his.What About Him?Peter must have understood Jesus' prophecy—that he was to be executed—because when Peter noticed John (“the disciple whom Jesus loved”), he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus responds harshly, “What concern is that of yours?” (Some translations put it more bluntly, “What is that to you?”) Jesus makes clear that even if he chose to have John “live until [Jesus] comes back” that is no business of Peter.Two important points must be noted. First, such is the call of God—completely up to him. I can hardly express this point better than the Wesley Covenant Prayer:I am no longer my own, but yours. Put me to what you will, place me with whom you will. Put me to doing, put me to suffering. Let me be put to work for you or set aside for you, Praised for you or criticized for you. Let me be full, let me be empty. Let me have all things, let me have nothing. I freely and fully surrender all things to your glory and service. And now, O wonderful and holy God, Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, you are mine, and I am yours. So be it. And the covenant which I have made on earth, Let it also be made in heaven. Amen. (This version uses modern language. The original prayer can be found here.)Our duty is to heed the call, not to decide what the call is. This is the true Christian egalitarianism. Some may be called to rule nations, some to intense and unappreciated physical labor. Some may be called to preach, some to sing, some to write, some to remain silent. Some may be called to be great adventurers and some to be homebound. But what is that to you and me? Nothing at all. Your call is yours and mine is mine, and in that sense we are the same.The second point to be made is that even Jesus' early disciples misinterpreted him! Notice that Jesus uses hyperbole to respond to Peter, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?” Jesus will come back in the eschaton—at the end times. We could paraphrase Jesus' response as, “If I want John to live forever, what is that to you?” The point is that Peter's comparison with John is inappropriate. Yet, as the text tells us, early Christians misunderstood Jesus' hyperbole and believed John “was not going to die.” Notice that as John writes the gospel late in his life, he attempts to set the record straight, “But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, ‘If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?'” We should be careful to interpret Jesus properly as well.The ClosingJohn closes his gospel with two statements. First, in verse 24, he emphasizes that his gospel is his testimony. The implication is he saw and lived the things he wrote down, and therefore the gospel is reliable. This statement is also in keeping with ancient Mediterranean documents, which typically listed witnesses at the end of the document.Finally, verse 25 is a throwback to verse 20:30, “Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book.” Like we discussed last time, ancient biographies sometimes ended with this kind of summary praise. But as we also discussed, whereas other documents may have meant it solely as hyperbolic praise, we have good reason to believe John meant it more literally.My SuggestionWe have come to the end of John. Believe it or not, we covered almost the entire commentary on John by Craig Keener—a two-volume, 1200-page text! My blog alone is approximately 130,000 words! That's roughly the length of Tolkien's The Return of the King. The point I am trying to make is that regardless of what you think of me, we learned. I dare say there is not a seminary course out there that covers John in as much detail as we have.But if Christianity is true, then there is more to it than propositional knowledge. There is more than just learning. So I end the Gospel of John with a simple suggestion: experience it. Go meet with believers and see for yourself. I say this with trepidation. I fear you may allow a bad Christian (or a group of bad Christians) to disprove the gospel. Although that would not be proper logic, I must concede that if the gospel is true, then it must have an effect. There must be some group somewhere that is different because of it. It is in that spirit that I encourage you: try it out. Go to church.But what if the church you visit or have already been attending is a bad one? How would you even know that it is a bad one? Here are some further suggestions. Consider the following:(1) Does the church believe the Bible? An easy way to figure this out is by observing the church's response to the controversial topics, such as homosexuality. I am not saying that homosexuality is some primary theme of scripture. It is a sin as many others. Nevertheless, it is one of those behaviors that is clearly considered sinful in the Old Testament and the New Testament, several times over. When a church condones homosexual behavior, you might consider a different church not because of their take on homosexuality per se, but because that church does not believe that the Bible is authoritative. That's the real problem.(2) Does the church believe the core Christian doctrines? I will make it simple. Could they honestly recite the Apostles' Creed?I believe in God, the Father almighty,creator of heaven and earth.I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died, and was buried;he descended to the dead.On the third day he rose again;he ascended into heaven,he is seated at the right hand of the Father,and he will come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and the life everlasting. Amen. (3) Does the church practice fellowship? You don't go to church just to learn. You can do that through an odd Saturday-night bible study taught by some stranger. You go to church to be a part of a family. Again, I will put it simply: are you treated like a new friend? I mean a real friend. If not, you might reconsider your church choice.(4) Can you bear with all the other details? This last suggestion may seem surprising, but it is eminently practical. If the style of worship is so modern you feel silly and embarrassed to participate, I doubt you will go back. If the style is too old and stuffy, you might be looking at your watch more than you focus on worship. Do you have nothing in common with the people there? Is the drive to church too far? Is the service too early? To be honest, I would drive a long way, to a service that is too early, to sing songs I don't like, with people with which I have nothing in common, if the people at the church were godly and the message was true. But it's not always an either/or matter. If you can find a church in which you fit better (after taking into account the first three considerations above), do it.If you have a hard time finding a church, or if you are wondering whether some church has sound doctrine, email me. I will be glad to help you research that church. It can be difficult sometimes. A common trend for modern churches is to have vague names that sound inviting, but those names are hardly helpful in determining what they believe or to what denomination they belong. If you want to know what you are stepping into, visit the church's website for a statement of beliefs or watch some of their sermons available on YouTube, if any. Of course, if you know their denomination, you already know their “official” beliefs. I put “official” in quotation marks because individual congregations often depart from what the larger denomination believes. There are “good” and “bad” churches of most denominations. Again, if you are struggling, send me an email. I will be happy to help.May God bless you forever and ever.