Sermon Video - Jesus celebrates God's provision with his friends, Luke 22:14-15

What did Jesus seek out on the evening when his Passion was only hours away?   The company of his friends and devoted followers.  More specifically, their company while they celebrated together God's provision for his people in the past through the Passover, a reminder that God's power and purpose will not be thwarted.

Sermon Video: Jesus weeps over Jerusalem - Luke 19:41-44

On the very day of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with his own Passion less than a week away, Jesus pauses on the road to weep over the coming fate of Jerusalem.  The irony of Jesus' tears is that it didn't have to be this way, the path of peace was available to God's covenant people, if only they had recognized him as their Messiah and heeded his message.  This then offers a lesson for the Church today, reminding us of our need to hear God's voice and humbly accept correction (as needed).

Sermon Video: The cause of Peter's bitter tears, Luke 22:54-62

Peter's denial of Jesus is famous, in part because all 4 Gospel accounts cover this low-point of the Apostle's life. But what caused Peter to shed bitter tears? How did he get to that point, what were the steps along the way? Importantly, what can we learn from Peter's experience?

The boldly heretical anti-trinitarianism of Daniel Lancaster (One of the key leaders of the FFOZ and Torah Clubs) in his own words

Here is the link to the original PDF on the website of Beth Immanuel where Daniel Lancaster serves as the pastor: The Only Begotten Son - By D. Thomas Lancaster

This was published in 2019 and remains an active link on their website.

Beth Immanuel Messianic Synagogue

May 8, 2019 / Iyyar 3, 5779

A Messianic Jewish Introduction to Discipleship, Part Four: The Only Begotten Son

© 2019 D. Thomas Lancaster www.bethimmanuel.org

 

{All commentary below from Pastor Powell will be in brackets, bold and italics to avoid any confusion as to Lancaster’s original words.  The bold section titles are original.}

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON

Before being immersed, a person should be instructed in “knowledge about the unbegotten God”

and “understanding about the only begotten son.” Under this subject, we touch on some of the

ideas in Christology—the study of Messiah. This is among the deepest and most mysterious

subjects in the Bible, so this lesson will only introduce a few of the topics pertaining to the

sonship of Yeshua. The material dives into some deep waters, so don’t feel distressed if it goes

over your head at time. It’s enough to get a rough idea of the concepts.

{The opening paragraph reveals this to be a pre-baptism primer for those joining Beth Immanuel, as such we would expect that the beliefs expressed here have not been arrived at in a flippant manner, which adds weight to their deviancy from orthodoxy.}

The Son of God

Yeshua regularly referred to himself as “the Son” and to God as “the Father.” It wasn’t

uncommon for Jews in his day to describe God as their loving Father. Even to this day, Jewish

prayers still address God warmly as “our Father,” and “Father in Heaven.” But there was

something unique about the way Yeshua talked. When he addressed God, he called him “Abba,”

a term of special endearment. When he talked about himself, he referred to himself as “the Son”

that was sent by the Father. After his death and resurrection, his followers began to refer to him

as “the Son of God,” and the “only begotten son.”

God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, so that whoever

believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life. (John 3:16)

What do we mean when we say that Yeshua is the Son of God and why is he called “the only

begotten Son?” It’s not just because he was born of a virgin. It’s blasphemous to even think that

the Almighty fathered him through his mother Miriam. 

{This is the Hebraic version of the familiar Mary} 

In Greek mythology, the gods routinely impregnate human women who subsequently give birth to demi-gods, but those mythological and idolatrous ideas have nothing to do with the story of Yeshua’s miraculous conception or why he is called the Son of God. So why is he called the Son of God?

{There isn’t much of note in the preceding paragraph, it all could be a part of a perfectly orthodox explanation of the Incarnation, if it wasn’t connected to what comes later…}

Today I have Begotten You

Let’s start with the idea of Messiah. The word “messiah” means “The Anointed One.” It’s

directly related to the Hebrew word Mashiach and the Greek word Christos. That’s where we get

the English word “Christ.” In the days of the kings of Israel, a new king was anointed with oil to

symbolize that God had chosen him and put his Spirit upon him to lead the people. Every king of

Israel was called an anointed one.

God promised that, in the future, the descendants of king David would beget a son who would be

anointed by God’s spirit to restore the kingdom of Israel and conquer the whole world. The

LORD promised King David, “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me” (2 Samuel

7:14). We call that promised king “the Anointed One,” i.e. the Messiah.

Son of God is a title for the Messiah. The LORD says to the Messiah in Psalm 2, “You are my

son, today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). The word “beget” means “to give birth to” or “to

bring forth.” In Psalm 2, God says that the Davidic Messiah is called his “son” because he has

begotten him.

When Yeshua was immersed in the Jordan River, the voice of God declared him to be the

fulfillment of the promise made to David. He said, “You are my son.” With these words, the

voice at the Jordan identified Yeshua as the Messiah.

Yeshua asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the

Messiah, the Son of living God!” (Matthew 16:16). The two titles were connected in Peter’s

mind. Not long after that, Yeshua took three disciples with him up onto a high mountain. They

heard the voice of God say, “This is my son! Listen to him.” That revelation dispelled any

lingering doubts.

All of these instances point to the connection between Yeshua’s identity as the Messiah and the

promise made to King David, “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me” (2 Samuel

7:14). By saying to Yeshua, “You are my son,” the voice at the Jordan River declared, “You are

the Messiah.” By saying to the disciples, “This is my son,” the voice on the high mountain

declared, “This is the Messiah.”

{Up until the next paragraph, there isn’t anything of concern here, and that’s the pattern with FFOZ and their Torah Clubs.  They project an “ordinary Bible study” vibe right up until they include unorthodox teaching that often slips by Torah Club members, or leaves them thinking they can “strain out” the heretical bits and keep the rest.  Hold onto your hats for what is coming next.}

The Logos Becomes Flesh

But what about the idea that the Messiah is God?  How is that supposed to work?

Sometimes people say that Yeshua is fully God and fully man: 100% God and 100% human.

Mathematically, that doesn’t work very well. That would make him a 200% being which, by

definition, would be two different things, not a single person.

{And with this flippant math analogy, Lancaster has rejected the Council of Nicaea.  Given that Jesus is the one and only Incarnation of God, the only example that there ever was or will be of the divine and human combined in one person, why is he so sure that Jesus can’t be fully God AND fully man at the same time?  Whatever comes next, whatever lesser explanation of the humanity and divinity of Jesus that he is about to offer, orthodoxy has already been abandoned by Lancaster.}

But Yeshua is not a math equation,

nor is he a recipe calling for equal parts God and equal parts man, stirred together and baked in

an oven. The spiritual world doesn’t work according to those rules or simple ideas.

{More mockery of the orthodox understanding of Jesus’ full humanity and divinity that the Early Church affirmed at Nicaea.  If Jesus isn’t equal parts God and man, either his divinity or his humanity must be lesser, as we will soon see.  That last sentence jumps out at me, our understanding of the spiritual realm comes from divine revelation, our knowledge of how it works is up to God.  Thus we do not define the Incarnation, and we certainly don’t declare what it can/can’t be based on our preferences.  What we must do, what we only can do, is accept what God has said about himself, and the Word of God tells us that Jesus of Nazareth is both fully human and fully divine.}

Let’s take a look at how the apostles solved the problem.

{Ok, let’s do that…Wait, when does he start quoting the Apostles?  The only two quotes to follow, from John and Colossians, actually speak firmly against this notion that Jesus can’t be fully God and fully man.}

In the previous chapter, we learned that God is the first-cause and that he created the whole universe through the agency of his Word.  The “Word” of God functions as his avatar, so to speak, expressing his being within the confines of the created order.

{The warning signs should be shouting by now, “Danger! Danger!”  Why is “Word” in quotation marks?  It shouldn’t be given that it is how the prologue of the Gospel of John describes the eternal 2^nd person of the Trinity, but it is to Lancaster because the Word that he’s describing is NOT a person at all.  We’re heading toward a form of unitarian monotheism, something that would be acceptable to modern Judaism (and Islam) but something that has been entirely rejected by the Church since the very beginning…An avatar?  Why are we using a term that has less than full personhood associated with it?  The term Lancaster refuses to use is “person.”  The Word is not described as a person (and neither is the Holy Spirit), and honestly neither is the Father, these are simply avatars (manifestations) of the One, not persons.}

Through his Word he spoke and the world came into being. His Word hovered over the waters of creation and said, “Let there be light.” In the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God’s Word appeared in the form of the Angel of the LORD, and in the days of Moses, his Word spoke from inside a burning bush. From on top of Mount Sinai, the Word spoke the ten commandments, declaring, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” The same Word of God came to dwell in the Tabernacle and spoke to Moses from between the wings of Cherubim over the ark of the covenant.

{Sloppy and careless use of scripture is a hallmark here.  The Spirit of God hovered over the waters in Genesis 1:2, nor is the Word described by Moses as the one who spoke Creation into existence in Genesis 1:3.  So why attribute these things, contrary to the text, to the Word? There is a purpose to Lancaster making these attributions, and saying that the voice of God in the Burning Bush was an Avatar of the Word along with the appearances of the Angel of the LORD, it muddies the waters and sets the stage for what he is about to say…}

When the time came for God to fulfill his promises to the house of David by bringing forth the

Messiah, the Word of God divested itself of glory and clothed itself in a human body. Much as

the Word dwelt in the Tabernacle, the Word came to dwell within the human being named

Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth.

{Heresy.  Full stop.  The Word did NOT simply “dwell within” a human being, He was and is a human being because Jesus retains his humanity in his resurrected body.  At the Incarnation God became a human being when the Son was born of the virgin and took upon himself humanity in addition to his eternal deity.  It was not being “clothed” with a human body, but having one, being one of us.  When he switches gears to the Atonement below, this lesser version of Jesus will have dire implications that leave Lancaster (and FFOZ) with a diet version of the Gospel, one devoid of power…According to how Lancaster explains this, Yeshua (Jesus) the man already independently existed, and the Word simply came to dwell within him.  What we have here is full blown Monarchianism, also known as Modalism, a heresy that was known in the Early Church and entirely rejected by it even before the Council of Nicaea (as early as Tertullian, 160-220 AD).  Lancaster is not inventing a new heresy, he is simply recycling an old previously rejected one.}

The Gospel of John says, “The Word became flesh (a human body), and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory: the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Make no mistake, this is about as close as the apostles ever get to saying, “God became a human

being.” Of course, they don’t say it in those words, but the apostle Paul says essentially the same

thing in slightly different language. He says, “In him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily

form” (Colossians 2:9). 

{Yes! Amen!  The Apostle Paul does indeed say that God became a human being, and not just in Colossians 2:9 (Also see John’s prologue), so why are you denying it?  I know that FFOZ wants to make the Gospel more palatable to the “Jewish perspective” as they define it, but abandoning the fully deity and humanity of Jesus to do it?  Never.}

A Real Human Being

Why didn’t the apostles just come right out and say, “Yeshua is God”? Why beat around the

bush? They refer to him as the “Son of God, the “glory of God,” the “representation” and “image

of God,” the “exact imprint” of God, and so forth? Why do they always seem to take one step

back from just saying, “Yeshua is God”? 

{Those statements are a “step back”?  Only if you want to proclaim Jesus as less than fully God and fully man combined in one person.  Nobody and nothing has the fullness of God’s glory except God.  One cannot miss that John’s Gospel proclaims Jesus as God, equal with the Father, unless what the text is actually saying is secondary to your agenda.  For example: “before Abraham was born, I am.” In John 8:58. Did Jesus’ audience know he was claiming to be God?  Absolutely, they immediately picked up stones to kill him.}

Well for one thing, that’s not a Jewish way of speaking about God. They did not want to imply

that God was two different beings, nor did they want to give people the idea that they were

teaching polytheism. Besides, that wasn’t what they meant. The human body of Yeshua is not

God nor is it the Word of God. When God dwelt inside the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle did not

become God. 

{He said it himself.  Lancaster has made a distinction between the human Yeshua and the divine Word of God; they’re not the same to him, he wants them to be distinct and makes sure to say so.  The Tabernacle analogy is ridiculous.  Of course a tent didn’t become God, what does that have to do with Jesus?  Don’t miss the line, “that wasn’t what they meant.”  It points back to the early question about why the Apostles didn’t simply say that, “Yeshua is God.”  Lancaster’s answer: They didn’t say it because they didn’t believe it.  A laughable conclusion based on the text of the NT, even the apostate Bart Ehrman accepts that the NT text proclaims Jesus to be God (Ehrman erroneously teaches that the Church edited the text centuries after the Apostles to add this idea).}

One might say that Yeshua is God in the flesh, so long as we remember that his flesh is not God.

{“One might say that Yeshua is God in the flesh”??  Oh really, we are allowed to say that the Incarnation is God in the flesh and thus accept what Holy Scripture says and the Church has believed from the beginning!  But Lancaster needs to add a caveat, a distinction that undermines any hope that he will accept this fundamental truth of orthodox Christology.}

The human body of Yeshua is a real human body. Unlike God, it began at a fixed point in time,

conceived and born of a woman. Perhaps this is one reason why he also referred to himself as

“the Son of Man.” The term “Son of Man” is an obscure title for the Messiah, but it is also a

Hebrew idiom that simply means “human being.” Yeshua was the human being who took up

Adam’s job of being the image of God. 

{So, at least we don’t also have the heresy that the Divine Jesus only looked human (Docetism).  Lancaster is willing to concede that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human being.  The “unlike God” segway serves as a reminder that Jesus the man and the Word of God are not one and the same in this heretical view endorsed by one of the primary leaders of FFOZ and creator of Torah Club materials.}

Yeshua was not a fake person that only looked human but was actually a deity in disguise.

In Greek mythology, the gods occasionally masqueraded as men to fool people, but that’s not what

is happening in the gospels. Yeshua was a real person who hungered, thirsted, tired, experienced

a full range of human emotions, felt both physical and emotional pain, and suffered temptation.

But the living God in the form of the Word

{“in the form of the Word” is the Modalist way of not having a true Trinity with three equal persons, the Word and the Spirit are simply “forms” of God, “avatars” God wears for specific purposes.}

dwelt within him and permeated his whole being.

{Nope.  The Word didn’t “dwell within” Jesus, Jesus is the Word.}

The glory of God shone through him.

When it says that the Word “dwelt among us,” the Gospel alludes to how God’s presence dwelt

in the Tabernacle and the Temple so that he could “dwell” in the midst of his people. It’s similar

with Yeshua of Nazareth. Much as God can be said to dwell in his sanctuary in a unique way, he

chose to dwell within a single human being in a unique way. But unlike the Tabernacle or the

Temple, Yeshua is a person with his own will, his own inclinations, and his own consciousness. 

{Once you’ve gone off the rails, there’s no telling where you’ll end up. Now we’re about to hear Lancaster explain how the Word and Jesus have competing wills.  So, Jesus the man has a separate will/inclination/consciousness that is NOT the same as the Word?  Jesus is some sort of multiple personality sufferer in Lancaster’s eyes?}

For example, when praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he distinguished between his own will

and God’s will. He prayed, “Not my will, but let your will be done” (Luke 22:42). Come to think

of it, just by praying to God he was making it clear that he made a distinction between himself

and God. Otherwise he would have been praying to himself.

{Good grief, as he often enough does, Lancaster demonstrates no real understanding of the orthodoxy he’s rejecting.  There’s a reason why we can talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as their own person, it’s a mystery called the Trinity.  One God, three persons.  As Athanasius put it, “one ousia in three hypostaseis”, that is, one substance/essence with three persons.  Lancaster doesn’t understand this ancient doctrine, so he thinks that Jesus praying to the Father would be Jesus praying to himself, which is nonsense.  There was communication and fellowship within the Trinity before Creation.  That this continues when Jesus walked the Earth in the form of prayer is to be expected.}

The Apostle Paul explains that Yeshua did not “consider equality with God a thing to be seized” (Philippians 2:6). 

{And here we’re abusing Paul to advocate for heresy.  Philippians 2:6 is not saying that Jesus wasn’t equal with God, the Kenosis (“emptying”) passage tells of Jesus’ humility in that he didn’t cling to the prerogatives of deity but was instead willing to set them aside.  By the way, Philippians 2:9-11 reveals the coming glory of Jesus when his divinity is acknowledged by all of creation.  As is common with FFOZ, the passage of scripture they’re citing means the opposite of what they’re trying to use it for.}

Divestment

How does that work? How can the Word dwell in Yeshua, yet make room enough for him to

keep a distinct will and consciousness of his own? 

{It can’t, and it doesn’t need to unless you’ve embraced heresy, as Lancaster here, and need to somehow try to justify it.}

God’s Word dwelt within him much the way your spirit dwells within you. Human beings are

not merely physical creatures of flesh and blood and bone. We are more than just mudballs, and

more than just monkeys. There is a spiritual spark hidden inside of us that existed before we

were conceived, and it will continue to live on after we die. The body is like a suit of clothing

that the spirit within us wears. 

{Now Lancaster is dabbling in Docetism by making the spirit the real essence of us and the body merely a covering.  Our body is not at all “clothing” that our spirit wears.  Afterall, the coming resurrection of the dead is a bodily resurrection.  Given how wrong he is about the nature of humanity, his attempt to use this as analogy to the unique Incarnation of the God/Man is useless.  With each attempt to explain his heresy, Lancaster further cements the truth that critics of FFOZ, like myself, are not “making this up.”  This is what he chose to publish, what he is teaching at Beth Immanuel, and what, God help us, others are accepting because of his so-called “expertise.”}

When the spirit enters the human body at conception and birth, it conceals itself in the person.

You wouldn’t even know its there. It functions within you on an unconscious level, beneath the

surface of your awareness. But it’s very much the real you, deep down inside. In order to become

you, your spirit first divests itself of its heavenly identity and any memories it had. That’s why

you don’t remember being a spirit before you were born. 

{There’s no telling how far down the rabbit hole we will go.  Now Lancaster is claiming pre-existence in heaven of the human soul, with an identity and memories that we “lose” when we’re born.  The Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) condemned this belief as heresy.}

It’s not exactly the same, but the Word that became flesh in the person of Yeshua did something

similar by divesting its identity to indwell a man and live a real human life through Yeshua of

Nazareth: 

{And now we see the fruit of the poisoned heretical vine.  God isn’t really living a human life, Jesus of Nazareth is, God is just indwelling him through an avatar.  When you abandon orthodoxy, the consequences are legion and grotesque.}

Although he existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God a thing to

be seized. Instead, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the

likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by

becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:6-8)

Of what did the Word divest itself? He stripped himself of glory, divesting himself of

omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in order to inhabit a human life. 

{You were almost there, if you replace “inhabit” with “live” you have orthodoxy.  But that’s a bridge too far for Lancaster, his Jesus isn’t a part of any Trinity.}

This explains why Yeshua would have appeared to anyone who knew him as a normal human being. He did not glow, and he did not have a halo floating over his head. This also explains why he didn’t know everything all the time, and how he could have been tempted, and why he achieved merit for his obedience. After all, it wouldn’t have been any great accomplishment for the omnipotent and omniscient God to pass temptations and trials, but Yeshua earned merit and God’s favor by doing so. 

{And now we see what happens with a lesser Christology, we must also have a lesser Atonement (which actually is no real atonement at all, as we will see below.  FYI, orthodoxy acknowledges that Jesus’ suffering and temptations were real, he was a real human being who had laid aside the fullness of divinity’s power during his time on earth.  These “explanations” from Lancaster are as unnecessary as they are heretical…So, for Lancaster Jesus of Nazareth also needs to be a separate man who is only indwelt by the Word (itself only an avatar of God, not a person) in order to make his trials and temptations “real”?}

He himself was tempted in everything he suffered, so he is able to help those who are

tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

He has been tempted in all things as we are, yet he was without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And

having been made perfect, he became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal

salvation. (Hebrews 5:8-9)

{Nice to see Hebrews quoted, none of these are being used in a way that the author would have recognized or accepted because he most certainly believed that Jesus was fully God and fully man together as one, not this weird amalgam of a human being serving as the clothing for an avatar of God.}

The Suffering of Messiah

Disciples of Yeshua believe that his death on the cross obtained the forgiveness of sins for us.

How is that supposed to work? Doesn’t it seem strange to believe that the death of one Jewish

man, 2000 years ago, could bring us the forgiveness of sins today? Why would the death of

anyone bring forgiveness of sins to someone else?

{It isn’t a strange notion if you accept the teachings of the Apostle Paul.  One Jewish man’s death couldn’t do anything for us, the death of the God/Man, the only Son of God, is what actually matters, but Lancaster has already undermined who the Church has always believed Jesus to be, which is who Jesus actually is, so…}

God’s Favor

To begin with, Yeshua found favor in God’s eyes. He lived a life of complete righteousness in

perfect submission to God’s will, but he suffered unjustly. Th apostles teach, “This finds favor

with God, if for the sake of his convictions toward God a person bears up under sorrows when

suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19).

{Over and over again.  Peter isn’t talking about the Atonement, he’s not talking about merit that can be applied to others, this quotation is irrelevant, because it isn’t at all about what Jesus did for us.}

That’s the same way that Yeshua earned God’s favor. Now he is able to share that favor with all of his disciples. When we pray to God or ask him for forgiveness for sins, we do so not according to our own merit or righteousness, but in the merit and favor that Yeshua earned with God. We know that we don’t deserve God’s mercy, but Yeshua does, so we associate ourselves with him. It’s as if we say, “I know that I don’t deserve your favor or your forgiveness, but please remember your son Yeshua and include me along with him.” 

{So, we’re missing something here.  What about the punishment for sin?  What about the darkness as Jesus hung on the Cross or the symbolism of the Lamb of God at Passover?  What about the deep focus in Hebrews on Jesus as a better Priest and a better sacrifice?  The explanation that the man Jesus (remember, Lancaster already declared that the Word and Yeshua are separate) is able to share some extra merit with you and me is far from a sufficient explanation.  This is not what the NT writers have to say about Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection.}

The Law of Sin and Death

The Bible also speaks about a principle called “the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

According to this principle, human suffering and death come into the world only as a

consequence for sin. If there was no sin in the world, there would be no human suffering or

death. We would live in paradise. But this theory raises a serious problem. How do you explain it

when innocent people suffer and die? What about when a very righteous person suffers and dies

as a martyr? Obviously innocent people, like small children, cannot be said to have suffered and

died to pay for their sins. They didn’t have any sins. Neither can it be said that the righteous

suffer and die for their sins. Surely there are plenty of worse sinners who go unpunished. Where

is the fairness? 

{Lancaster is attempting to delve into Theodicy, also known as “the problem of evil.”  We do indeed live in a world where sin is far from sufficiently punished and righteousness often goes unrewarded.  What is lacking in this discussion is any connection to Paul’s theology in Romans. The universality of human sin, and the inheritance of the sin nature in each generation is not present.  Also, where is the truth that all have individually sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (Romans 3:23) When you leave that fundamental truth out of your explanation of God’s response to humanity’s plight, things go awry, as the next sentence will show.}

Judaism explains that when righteous people suffer and die, it comes not as a consequence for

their own sins, but for the sins of others. God even uses the suffering and death of the righteous

as a way to atone for others who otherwise would not deserve his mercy. According to this idea,

an extremely righteous person might suffer for the sins of his whole generation. 

{“Judaism explains” is weak sauce.  Where does this come from, which rabbis taught this?  Is this an idea that predates the life of Jesus, or a modern one?  Lancaster offers no explanation.  In the end, where it comes from doesn’t really matter because it isn’t a biblical idea.  God is a just God.  There are no “righteous people” who don’t need a savior (Romans 2-3), everyone dies for their own sins, everyone needs Jesus.  How then could the acts of righteousness done by sinners (for that is what we all are) produce extra merit before God that could be applied to others?  This notion cannot be squared with Paul’s meticulous explanation of the Gospel in Romans, and fails utterly to connect with Ephesians 2:8-9.  If “Judaism” (Or at least Lancaster’s view of it) believes that a human being could “suffer for the sins of his whole generation” it is flat-out wrong.  No person could ever obtain enough merit for him/herself, let alone for others.}

The apostles applied this same reasoning to explain Yeshua’s suffering.

{No evidence that the Apostles believed anything of the sort is offered, none exists, because they most certainly did not.}

Since he was tempted in all things but without sin, he accrued merit with God. When he suffered and died, it tipped the scales of justice far out of balance. To bring the scales of justice back into balance, his suffering must have been on behalf of the sins of others. This is what the prophet Isaiah predicted the Messiah would do:

{The scales of justice?  God has to balance the cosmic scales?  The thing is, the injustice of Jesus’ death was infinite.  He had no sin, zero. This isn’t a cosmic math problem, Jesus’ death paid for the sins of tens of billions of people (and counting as the years lengthen) because he was fully God and fully man with zero sin, which left death with no claim upon him.}

He bore our griefs, and he carried our sorrows. But we considered him to be plagued,

struck by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through for our transgressions; he was

crushed for our iniquities. Upon him fell the discipline to bring us peace, and by his welts

(from scourging) we are healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5)

{Yes!  Isaiah 53:4-5 is very relevant.  Isaiah is talking about Substitutionary Atonement, Lancaster isn’t.}

Higher than the Angels

In the Bible, angels are also called “sons of God,” but the Messiah occupies a station higher than

the angels. He is the Son of God on a higher level than they can claim.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten

you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?” (Hebrews 1:5)

The Messiah is called God’s firstborn and only begotten son. But how does that square with the

idea that he existed since the beginning of creation? Physically, we know he was begotten

through Miriam the wife of Joseph and born in the town of Bethlehem, but spiritually, he was

with God in the beginning. He is called “firstborn” because he is God’s agent

{Again, the Word is an “agent” in Lancaster’s view, not a person.}

through which all things came into being, that is, the Word. If God is the first-cause, the Word is the action that initiates the first effect. This is why Yeshua is called “the beginning of God’s creation”

(Revelation 3:14) and “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians

1:15). In the days of the Bible, a firstborn son took a double portion of his father’s inheritance. By

calling the Messiah the “firstborn,” this implies that the Messiah was “begotten” before the

angels were created. Because he is the firstborn over God’s household, the angels must pay

homage to him as their superior: When he brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6)

{As far as I can tell, this whole section is justifying why Hebrews claims that Jesus (who is a man inhabited by God’s avatar the Word in Lancaster’s view) is above the angels when he was born after they were created.  If Lancaster believed that Jesus was the 2^nd person of the Trinity, God from God, true God from true God, light from light, etc. he could just agree with the author of Hebrews without all of the odd talk about inheritance law.}

The Resurrection of Yeshua

Disciples of Yeshua believe some enormous claims about him. How do we know that these

things are true? He claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah. He claimed to submit to

God’s will completely. The apostles claimed that he lived a sinless life, and they claimed that,

thanks to the merit and favor he earned with God,

{Merit and favor are all we have here, nothing about sin being paid for.)

his disciples can obtain the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, i.e. the resurrection of the dead and a share in the World to Come. They also claimed that he will come again and bring the Messianic Era to earth.  We believe all of these things on the basis of his resurrection from the dead. If Yeshua was a deceiver, a false prophet, a liar, or even a self-deluded madman, God would not have endorsed his claims by resurrecting him from the dead. The resurrection of Yeshua and the empty tomb that he left behind testify that everything he said is true and valid, and everything his disciples

believed and taught about him are also true.

{Somehow, some way, we’re found the truth again.  The Resurrection is indeed foundational to our belief in Jesus.}

The resurrection of Yeshua endorses all of his Messianic claims and his teachings about the

coming kingdom. His resurrection also provides evidence for hope in a future resurrection of the

righteous and a share in the world to come. Finally, the resurrection of Yeshua proves that he is

the Son of God. In fact, it declares him to be God’s son:

He was physically descended from David, but he was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1:3-

4)

In summary, Yeshua is regard as the “only begotten son” of God on the basis of three

indisputable things. He is the Messiah the son of David, and therefore the heir to the Davidic title

“son of God” as it says in Psalm 2, “Your are my son, today I have begotten you.”

He is the Son of God on the basis of the divine Word made flesh. The Word was begotten of the

first-cause from the before the beginning as the firstborn “son” over creation, and the Word

inhabits and fills him.

{The distinction between Yeshua the man, and the Word continues, the Word didn’t become man in the Incarnation, it merely “inhabits and fills” a man.  This is not at all sufficient, and was rejected soundly by the Early Church as heresy.}

Finally, he is declared the “Son of God … by his resurrection from the dead.” The evidence of

the resurrection confirms his claims. Yeshua invites his followers to join the family as sons and daughters of God too. When we become his disciples, we join his family. He becomes the elder brother, and we become children of his Father. We enter into the family and enjoy the same intimate relationship that the Father and Son share together:

For in the Messiah Yeshua you are all sons (and daughters) of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:26)

And because you are sons (and daughters), God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our

hearts, praying, “Abba! Father!” Since you are no longer a slave, but a son, now, as a son

(or daughter), you are an heir through God. (Galatians 4:6-7)

 

 

Pastor Powell’s Conclusions: As someone who has taken on the role of teacher, and who is actively sharing his views with a global audience, the beliefs of Daniel Lancaster are profoundly important for they permeate what he teaches (i.e. the published materials of FFOZ and Torah Clubs).  Contrary to what his (and FFOZ’s) defenders claim, these teachings are deeply and profoundly unorthodox and literally heretical given that they were specifically rejected by the Early Church and declared to be heresy by its Councils.

1. This teaching is Modalism, it is anti-Trinitarian, a rejection of the Council of Nicaea, and wholly unacceptable, it has more in common with the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses about Jesus than it does with anything in historic Christianity.

2. A lesser view of Jesus taints the purpose and meaning of the Cross.  Instead of Substitutionary Atonement (or any variation of atonement thereof), we have here in its place the notion of the balancing of the scales of justice, instead of sins that have been paid for, we have sins that God chooses to ignore because of Jesus’ extra merit.  This too falls short of what the Gospel proclaims and the New Testament teaches.

3. Teachings like this eviscerate any “about us” statements that are put forth by Beth Immanuel or FFOZ (see below).  While it may be convenient or strategic to allow people to assume that they haven’t rejected the Trinity, this is the direction in which they are leading people, and it is neither a part of historic Christianity nor Messianic Judaism, but instead a cult that like the JW’s and LDS before them, have chosen to follow “prophets” into the wilderness.

Also from Pastor Powell -

For comparison: Below is the Statement of Faith created by FFOZ (FFOZ Statement of Faith)

Note that at first glance this statement does not appear to be anti-Trinitarian.  However, when read in light of Daniel Lancaster’s stated beliefs above, phrases like “he reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are recognizable as a form of Modalism.  Likewise, the opening phrase, “There is one God” is seen more clearly as not simply the assertion of traditional Christian monotheism, but rather of a Unitarian Monotheism more akin to the “Jewish perspective” (as FFOZ defines it).

With respect to Jesus, their statement of faith doesn’t mention that the Word is only an avatar, or that the man Jesus (Yeshua) had a separate will and consciousness from that of the Word (as claimed by D. Lancaster in the text above), but if the Word is only a manifestation of God, and not a true person, this sort of lesser Christology is inevitable.  Jesus cannot be fully God and fully Man (as Christian orthodoxy proclaims) if the deity indwelling him is only a power and not a person.

With respect to the Holy Spirit, once again we’re looking at what is missing.  In FFOZ’s statement of faith we only find mention of what the Spirit does, nothing that speaks to who the Spirit is.

As such, this statement of faith from FFOZ follows the pattern that I have highlighted over and over again: publicly acceptable softer and ambiguous versions of their beliefs combined with deeply unorthodox teachings mixed in and/or revealed to insiders (see for example the Malchut 2022 videos in parts 2 & 3 of my seminar).  This is the answer to the objection that has been raised over and over by true believers as to why their local Torah Club isn’t the same as what my research into FFOZ has revealed: The truly disturbing beliefs are mostly shielded from public scrutiny.  This pattern follows other cult-like tendencies that have been documented (like the severing of family/church ties), and is yet another cause for concern about this organization and this movement.

God

There is one God: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). “He is God; there is no other besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35), the unbegotten God, first cause, and single source. He discloses Himself in the testimony of creation and through the Scriptures of the Jewish people, and he reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, interacting with His creation as the Father working through the Son and in the power of the Spirit. (Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:4–6)

Yeshua

Yeshua is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Eternal One in whom all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form, and who is the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, and whose glory we beheld, the glory of the uniquely begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth (John 1:1–14; Colossians 2:9).

The Holy Spirit

The Spirit of God comforts, teaches, leads, indwells, and empowers all whom God regenerates (Acts 9:31; 1 John 2:27; John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:7).

Sermon Video: The anguished prayer of Jesus before his Passion - Luke 22:39-46

In the hours before his Passion began, with less than a day before his agonizing death on the Cross, Jesus spent intentional time alone in prayer.  That he made this choice is a powerful example to us, as is what he prayed for: deliverance.  It wasn't going to come, it couldn't, for only Jesus could complete the plan of Redemption as the God/Man, but Jesus asked anyway.  Why?  Not because he was anything less than fully God, he asked because he was also fully human.  The wondrous mystery of the Incarnation here reminds us that Jesus felt the anxiety of the road ahead, as any person would, and yet his divinity ensured that this moment would also include an iron commitment to what was needed to save humanity.

What does the New Testament say about the relationship of Jesus’ followers to 2nd Temple Judaism?

Downloadable Word version of this post: 2nd Temple Judaism and Jesus' Followers in Acts

Time Frame: between Jesus’ death in AD 33 and the revolt against Rome that began in AD 66

Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles – by Luke

An organization named The First Fruits of Zion (part of the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) claims that in accordance with their understanding of the plans and purpose of Jesus and his Apostles, both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus during this period were solely a reform movement within Judaism, worshiping exclusively in Synagogues on the Sabbath, with all of them fully following the Torah (with the notable exception that circumcision wasn’t required of Gentile believers).  They contend these followers of Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion or creating the Church, they only wanted to be a part of Judaism.  This thesis is the basis for subsequent unorthodox (and heretical) teachings from FFOZ that all believers of Jesus remain beholden to all aspects of the Law of Moses.  Their claim that Jesus’ followers were limited to being a part of Judaism is the supposed historical basis for their new “gospel.”  As a close examination of the text of Acts will show, it is a false thesis, and that falsehood matters.

Why are we limited to what the Bible has to say about the Early Church?  Why not just look at what historical sources can tell us?

The following from D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies (1996, 2^nd Edition, p. 131-132, emphasis mine) illustrates the folly of not putting the text of the New Testament at the center of our understanding of the Early Church:

1. Uncontrolled historical reconstruction

The fallacy is in thinking that speculative reconstruction of first-century Jewish and Christian history should be given much weight in the exegesis of the New Testament documents.  A substantial block of New Testament scholars have traced a network of theological trajectories to explain how the church changed its thinking from decade to decade and from place to place.  The church was once “enthusiastic” and charismatic, then settled into “early catholicism” with its structures, hierarchies, formulas, and creeds.  It looked forward at one time to the impending return of Christ, only to be forced by his continued absence to construct a theory of a delayed Parousia and settle down for the long haul.  It began in a Jewish context by calling Jesus the Messiah and ended in a Gentile context by calling him Lord and ascribing deity to him.

              Now there is just enough truth in this reconstruction that it cannot simply be written off.  The book of Acts itself demonstrates how the church came to wrestle with the place of Gentiles in the fledgling messianic community, faced the problem of the relation between the Mosaic covenant of law and the gospel of grace in Christ Jesus, and learned to adapt its presentation of the good news to new contexts.  Nevertheless, the reconstruction of church history that is held by many biblical scholars goes much further, and concludes, for instance, that the references to elders in Acts and the Pastorals prove those documents are late, because elders belong to the “early catholic” period of the church.  Again and again the New Testament documents are squeezed into this reconstructed history and assessed accordingly.

              The problem is that we have almost no access to the history of the early church during its first five or six decades apart from the New Testament documents.  A little speculative reconstruction of the flow of history is surely allowable if we are attempting to fill in some of the lacunae left by insufficient evidence; but it is methodologically indefensible to use those speculations to undermine large parts of the only evidence we have.

 

 

Thus, according to one of the world’s foremost scholars of the New Testament, it is sheer folly (“indefensible”) to use a theory of Early Church history, especially during the first generation or two, to override and reinterpret what the actual text of New Testament scripture says, because that very scripture is the primary source of evidence, therefore it must remain central to its own interpretation.

What then does the New Testament say about how Jesus’ followers conducted themselves and what they were attempting to do during this period when the Temple in Jerusalem still stood?  The primary focus of this study will be the following key areas:

1. The relationship to Judaism: Did Jews who didn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah accept as equals those who did, AND with them the Gentiles who believed in Jesus, into their synagogues as co-religionists?

2. Keeping the Law of Moses: Did the followers of Jesus obey the Sabbath and only worship on it, did they keep kosher, did they make sacrifices at the Temple, did they consider themselves to be obligated to Torah in every way?  If there is evidence that Jewish Christians did, or were instructed to do, any of these things, is there evidence that Gentile Christians did, or were instructed to do, these things as well?

3. Founding/building/creating their own organization (i.e. the Church): Did the first generation of Jesus’ followers speak or act like people trying to hold onto a place within 2^nd Temple Judaism, or a people busy building something that was built upon, but distinct from, it?  In other words, did they act as an independent entity?

* Note * None of the NT writings make mention of the destruction of the Temple or the revolt against Rome that began in 66 AD.  The affect, then, that this massive development had on 2^nd Temple Judaism, and on the Early Church, is outside of the scope of a study of the NT text itself.

Because Acts is a narrative that covers events that begin mere days after Jesus’ resurrection in AD 33, and continues from there until Paul’s imprisonment in Rome in AD 63, the possibility of development during this crucial time period of the relationship between 2^nd Temple Judaism and Christianity, and/or between the Jewish people and their leaders with the Jewish Christians and then the Gentile Christians, is to be expected.  It took the Early Church’s leaders time, {See for example: The Council of Jerusalem which does not take place until chapter 15}, to wrestle with all of the implications of Jesus’ resurrection and the work of the Spirit, especially when that work exploded with rapid growth among the Gentiles.  Therefore, both continuities, when they occur, from chapter 1 to chapter 28, and the expected changes over time, will be highlighted.

·       {Each cited text will be categorized to help create data for analysis according to the following criteria: (1) Explicitly states inclusion within 2^nd Temple Judaism and/or the Jewish community, (2) hints at some level of inclusion within 2^nd Temple Judaism and/or the Jewish community, (3) is ambiguous with respect to inclusion or exclusion, (4) hints at some level of exclusion from 2^nd Temple Judaism and/or the Jewish community, (5) explicitly states exclusion from 2^nd Temple Judaism and/or the Jewish community}

*Note* This resulting data is far from scientific, nor is this analysis meant to be a rigorous statistical model.  The selection of relevant texts, the placing of them into the categories I created, and ultimately the evaluation of them and assigning of a score is, and must be, a subjective process.  What then is its value?  If it allows us to step back from the text and evaluate the issue at hand with greater clarity, I will consider this endeavor a success.

*Note* The book of Acts contains numerous examples of hatred and violence between 2^nd Temple Judaism / individual Jewish people, and the followers of Jesus (both Jewish and Gentile).  This does not, at all, justify any subsequent hatred or violence.  Antisemitism in all of its forms is abhorrent to God and to true Christianity.  The Church’s most glaring sin in its 2,000 year history is its treatment of Abraham’s descendants.  Thus, while the text and commentary below reflect the situation as it occurred between AD 33 and AD 66, and not minimizing that volatility is necessary to respect both history and Luke’s account of it, there is zero tolerance on my part for any hint of antisemitism.

The Raw Data:

·       182 passages from the book of Acts were categorized and evaluated.  The passages range from half a sentence to several paragraphs in length.

·       The 182 passages were placed in 10 categories:

A.      49: Action - How Christians viewed 2^nd Temple Judaism (the Jewish people, or their leaders)

B.      41: Reaction - How 2^nd Temple Judaism (the Jewish people or their leaders) viewed Christians

C.      18: How Jesus’ followers reacted to turning points and momentous decisions

D.     3: How 2^nd Temple Judaism (the Jewish people or their leaders) reacted to the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian movement

E.      19: How Christians responded to the inclusion of Gentiles into their movement

F.       10: How Jesus’ followers chose to pray, worship, or fellowship

G.     17: Jesus’ followers building their own structures, procedures

H.     6: How Christians describe themselves

I.        13: How Gentile non-believers describe Christians

J.        6: Miscellaneous

·       Ratings totals: 

A.      0 – Instances of explicit statements of inclusion within 2^nd Temple Judaism

B.      21 – Hints at some level of inclusion within 2^nd Temple Judaism

C.      52 – Ambiguous statements with respect to inclusion/exclusion

D.     97 – Hints at some level of exclusion from 2^nd Temple Judaism

E.      12 – Explicit statements of exclusion from 2^nd Temple Judaism

 

·       Ratings totals by category (from left to right, 1 to 5, this is: inclusive to exclusionary):

A.      0, 12, 21, 14, 2

B.      0, 6, 6, 29, 0

C.      0, 0, 3, 9, 6

D.     0, 0, 0, 3, 0

E.      0, 3, 1, 11, 4

F.       0, 0, 3, 7, 0

G.     0, 0, 1, 16, 0

H.     0, 0, 1, 5, 0

I.        0, 0, 11, 2, 0

J.        0, 0, 5, 1, 0

Conclusions suggested by the data:

        i.            182 passages are a significant number.  Others would divide the various passages into either more or less slices, but the end result would still be large.

a.      This topic was important to Luke’s purpose in writing Acts, thus it was also important to the Early Church, and because we believe that Luke’s word are the product of Inspiration, the Holy Spirit

 

       ii.            The first-generation followers of Jesus had a lot to say about 2^nd Temple Judaism (50), and 2^nd Temple Judaism had a lot to say about Jesus’ followers (40)

a.      Jesus’ followers had a more hopeful view of 2^nd Temple Judaism (0, 12, 21, 15, 2) than 2^nd Temple Judaism had of Jesus’ followers (0, 6, 6, 28, 0)

b.      NOTE: Instances of rage that led to violence, even murder or attempted murder, were categorized in section B as a 4 not a 5 because they were not accompanied by an explicit statement (although actions speak loudly too) of exclusion.

                                                              i.      Question: Does labeling someone or a group of people as heretics and seeking their death without trial itself constitute an exclusionary decision?  If so, the evidence of 2^nd Temple Judaism (category B) rejecting Jesus’ followers would be significantly higher (Most of the 4’s would be 5’s).

 

     iii.            Some of the Jewish Christians in Acts held an inclusionary view of their movement within 2^nd Temple Judaism, as evidenced by their insistence that Gentile Christians be circumcised, for example, but EVERY such example of this attitude is countered in the narrative by strong pushback from Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James, among others.

a.      From the editorial view of how Luke organized the narrative, it is clear that he wanted to ensure that the Church’s eventual consensus, as evidenced by the Jerusalem Council, that Gentiles required no preconditions to join the movement, was the loudest voice in the narrative.

b.      Where there voices in the Early Church that wanted their movement to be a part of 2^nd Temple Judaism?  Yes.  Were these voices reflective of the leadership of the Early Church, or more importantly, the will of God, according to Luke’s account?  No, no they were not.

 

     iv.            The strongest statements of exclusion from 2^nd Temple Judaism to come from Jesus’ followers occur in the narrative when responding to momentous events surrounding the inclusion of Gentiles, particularly Peter’s response to Cornelius and the Jerusalem Council’s response to the Jewish Christians who insisted upon Gentile circumcision.

a.      In each of these cases, the Christians are following God’s lead, in other words, they are acting in response to that which God has already done, not taking their own initiative.

b.      The key texts that speak strongly of exclusion are:

                                                              i.      13:38-39 (section A)

                                                             ii.      28:25-28 (section A)

                                                           iii.      10:9-20 (section C)

                                                           iv.      10:24-29 (section C)

                                                             v.      15:10-11 (section C)

                                                           vi.      15:19 (section C)

                                                         vii.      15:20 (section C)

                                                       viii.      15:28-29 (section C)

                                                           ix.      10:34-35 (section E)

                                                             x.      10:44-48 (section E)

                                                           xi.      11:15-18 (section E)

                                                         xii.      21:25 (section E)

 

       v.         There are zero statements in Acts either from the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism, or from the leaders in the Early Church, of explicit inclusion within 2^nd Temple Judaism.

 

a.      Every instance of ongoing Torah observance in Acts is performed by a Jewish Christian who was observant before their faith in Jesus that took place while the Temple still stood.

                                                              i.      Note: It is not the wisdom/propriety/requirement of Jewish Christian’s Torah observance that is at issue with the Hebrew Roots Movement (First Fruits of Zion), but that of Gentile Christians.

                                                             ii.      Thus what Peter, James, or Paul may have done as Jewish Christians raised under Torah observance, and why they made these choices, is of far less relevance than the teaching materials of HRM/FFOZ that are aiming to yolk Gentile Christians with the Law will claim them to be.

 

b.      Luke records many highlighted and momentous instances of gentile inclusion within the Christian community without any preconditions.

                                                              i.      In many of these examples the acceptance, often by way of baptism, follows immediately after a declaration of faith is made.

 

c.       Luke records no instance of Gentile Torah observance.

                                                              i.      But does push back hard on the notion of Gentile circumcision.

 

d.      Luke records no instance of prayer or worship that affirmed Jesus as Lord taking place within a synagogue or any existing 2^nd Temple system.

                                                              i.      Paul constantly preaches the Gospel in synagogues, but is almost universally opposed when he makes the Gospel fully known.

Conclusions suggested by the tenor and tone of the text:

1. Acts is a story of confrontational, often violent, beginnings. 

    a.      Those pushing a theory of inclusive cooperation are swimming against the current. 

2.  Acts demonstrates a deep and abiding love from the 1^st generation of Jesus’ followers toward the Jewish people, one that persisted in the face of violent persecution.

3.   Acts demonstrates a deep and abiding disdain/hatred from the followers of 2^nd Temple Judaism toward Jesus’ followers, one that was centered in Jerusalem, but evident as well in the Diaspora.

4.  While there is clear evidence of continuing development of the ideas involved in the relationship between Judaism and Jesus’ followers (i.e. the Church) as the narrative of Acts unfolds, there is not a dramatic shift or break, rather the text shows consistent attitudes held by both the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism and the leaders of the Church.

Conclusion of this study:

A fair reading of the book of Acts reveals a growing divide between 2^nd Temple Judaism and Jesus’ Followers (The Way, Christians, the Church), one that is marked by outreach with the Gospel toward their brethren on the part of Jewish Christians, and opposition, hatred, and violence in return.

Acts contains not even a hint of Gentile Christian Torah observance, no example of this, or suggestion that it might have been expected or desired is to be found in Luke’s narrative.

Thus, those seeking to establish Gentile Christian Torah observance in the Church today, with the Hebrew Roots Movement and the Frist Fruits of Zion being the prime examples of this effort, will be doing so against the purpose, arguments, tenor, and tone of the best evidence we have of the first generation of the Church, which is the book of Acts.  That Acts is also the Word of God, authoritative for those who follow Jesus, powerfully adds to the weight against this attempt, and is ample reason for pastoral and lay leaders in the Church to oppose this unorthodox teaching.

The relevant texts from Acts:

A. Initiative: What were the attitudes demonstrated and actions taken by Jesus’ followers toward Judaism (i.e the Mosaic Law and Torah), the Jewish people, and/or their leaders?

^3:24 “Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. ²⁵ And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ ²⁶ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

{4, Two noteworthy things in Peter’s presentation: (1) He hearkens back to the promise of God to Abraham in Genesis 12, not to the Mosaic Law that underpins 2^nd Temple Judaism, (2) and he tells the crowd that their current manner of relating to God is far from pleasing to him, in fact it amounts to, “wicked ways.”}

^4:11 Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
    which has become the cornerstone.’

¹² Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

{4, Brought before the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism, Peter proclaims to them that they were in error, quoting Psalm 118:22, and points to Jesus, personally, as the only path of salvation.  Note: Nowhere in this defense does Peter call them to renewed/purified Torah observance, nor does he offer them any prophetic guidance in an effort to reform the system which they control.  For Peter, Jesus is the answer, and him alone.}

^4:19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! ²⁰ As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

{4, Peter defies the authority of the Sanhedrin, at the very least making him and his fellow followers of Jesus rebels against this generation’s expression of 2^nd Temple Judaism, proclaiming fealty to Jesus to be of greater concern than fealty to 2^nd Temple Judaism’s leadership.}

²¹ At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

{3, The disciples return to the Temple courts to teach the people, at the direction of the Angel of the Lord who had just released them from jail.  At this point, it is clear that the disciples have no intention of giving up with respect to Gospel witness to their own people, even risking imprisonment to continue with it.  What this doesn’t show, and we can’t know because Luke doesn’t share it with us, is whether or not they retained any hope for the religious leadership and structure of 2^nd Temple Judaism (They do hold out hope of the Jewish people accepting Jesus to the very end of Acts.)  At some point they realized repentance from 2^nd Temple Judaism’s leadership was a forlorn hope, that the door was closed, but it is difficult to determine from the text of Acts if this was a gradual process or if it had a decisive moment (i.e. the persecution outlined in 8:1).}

^5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! ³⁰ The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. ³¹ God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. ³² We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

{4, Peter defies the Sanhedrin, proclaiming them to be in opposition to God, and claiming the Holy Spirit is with them in the need to proclaim the Gospel…Note: The bringing of Israel to repentance envisioned here does not take place in the narrative of Acts, it remains a future hope from Luke’s narrative ends.}

^5:41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. ⁴² Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.

{4, Being flogged by the Sanhedrin doesn’t stop them in the least, it appears to have, if anything, empowered their commitment to the cause.  The defiance of the leadership of 2^nd Temple Judaism continues, both in the temple courts and throughout the city.  Note: Jesus remains centric to this endeavor, it is for “the Name” that we are told they are willing to suffer, not the Torah or the Law.}

⁵¹ “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! ⁵² Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— ⁵³ you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

{3, The conclusion of Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin, it is very antagonistic, but could be viewed as both being in the same tradition of the prophets of old who scathingly called on their people to repent, or as a proclamation by a member of a new movement that sees no hope left in the system its member had left.}

^9:13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. ¹⁴ And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

{4, The community of Jesus’ followers in Damascus was well aware of the hostility toward them from men like Saul, at the least, whatever connection they may have retained to the larger Jewish community in Damascus was under threat.}

9:19b Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. ²⁰ At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

{3, As will be his pattern throughout Acts, Saul (Paul) begins his Gospel evangelism effort in the local synagogue wherever he happens to be.}

^11:19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.

{2, The initial response of the Jewish Christians to being forced to flee from Judea for their lives was to only share the Good News of Jesus among fellow Jews.  Luke doesn’t tell us what their reasoning or rationale was on this matter, we can assume that they did not yet fully understand how the work of Jesus affected the age-old Jewish/Gentile barrier.}

^13:5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

{3, Barnabas and Saul have embraced God’s direction that the Gospel must also now go to the Gentile, but they still continue the previously established strategy of beginning evangelistic efforts in each town by going to the local synagogue first.}

^13:14 From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. ¹⁵ After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

{3, As was the custom, the synagogue is the first step in evangelism.  It seems that this community had not heard anything from Jerusalem to put them on their guard against the followers of Jesus as they were willing to follow the standard practice of letting any visiting teachers speak (something Jesus himself did over and over again as he traveled).}

^13:38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. ³⁹ Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. 

{5, Concluding his presentation in the synagogue, Paul (now no longer called Saul in Acts) claims that everyone can be saved by Jesus, and declares that this mercy from God was not obtainable under the Law of Moses.  Later the author of Hebrews will spell this truth out in great detail, for now Paul is publicly teaching that what Jesus has accomplished is beyond the previously known capacity of the Law.}

 13:⁵¹ So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium. ⁵² And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

{4, Reminiscent of Jesus’ command when he sent his followers into the villages of Judea, Paul and Barnabas distance themselves from the Jewish community in Pisidian Antioch because of its opposition to their work.  They took this action while in a state of deep fellowship with the Holy Spirit.}

14:1 At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed.

{3, The practice of starting at the synagogue in new towns continues, this time with considerable initial success.}

^14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.

{2, Opposition at Iconium, vs. 2, wasn’t enough to deter Paul and Barnabas from pressing on.}

^14:21 They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, ²² strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith.

{4, After his attempted murder at Derbe, the Apostle Paul continues on, undeterred by the violent opposition he has faced on this journey from the various synagogue leaders.  In fact, Paul is willing to make the return journey through this same towns, risking life and limb once more.}

16:1 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. ² The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. ³ Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

{3, The case of Timothy is a fairly unique one, he had been raised, evidently without much connection to his ½ Jewish heritage given that he was an uncircumcised adult, but he had also at some point previously believed in Jesus.  The choice of Paul to circumcise him is given a rationale by Luke, and it isn’t a theological one about the role of the Mosaic Law in the New Covenant, rather it is for the sake of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora to which they will be going.  The implication is that an uncircumcised Timothy might have caused an uproar there, limiting the opportunity for these people to hear the Gospel message, making this a variation of Paul’s theme in 1 Corinthians about being, “all things to all people.”}

17:1 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. ² As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, ³ explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. ⁴ Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

{2, The custom of entering synagogues first remains Paul’s habit after the Jerusalem Council, thus the full and free inclusion of the Gentiles by faith alone hasn’t impacted Paul’s desire to see his own people accept Jesus.  The initial reaction of acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is a positive indication, although that goodwill is undone by the actions of the next verse, see section B.}

^17:10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. ¹¹ Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. ¹² As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

{2, A “What if?” scenario.  What would have changed in Church History had the reaction to the Gospel among the Jewish people in Judea and the Diaspora been the same as that of the community at Berea?  Unfortunately, as the next verse attests (see section B), that road wasn’t taken.}

^17:17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

{3, In Athens Paul continues his pattern of beginning with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks.}

^18:4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

⁵ When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.

{3, Paul’s effort at the synagogue continues, although this time without much to show for it in Corinth.}

^18:6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

{4, This could also be listed under Part B to highlight the Jewish reaction to Paul, but his own antagonistic, even angry, response is the more relevant passage as it demonstrates a frustration on the part of Paul that up until this point hasn’t been evident in Acts.}

^18:18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken.

{2, The assumption is that this was a Nazarite vow, an indication that on some level at least the Apostle Paul was still participating in, at least portions, of 2^nd Temple Judaism.  It is not a stronger statement than that because Paul never asks gentile believers to do likewise, nor does Luke make much of the episode.}

^18:19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. ²⁰ When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined. ²¹ But as he left, he promised, “I will come back if it is God’s will.” Then he set sail from Ephesus.

{3, The negative reaction to the abuse he suffered in Corinth didn’t deter Paul from trying once more in the synagogue at Ephesus.  However, this time he wasn’t willing to extend his trip to continue the discussions that developed, no reason is given.}

^19:8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.

{3, On his return to Ephesus (see 18:19) Paul invests a substantial amount of time in trying to win over to the Gospel those connected to the synagogue.}

^20:22 “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. ²³ I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.

{4, There is no turning-point in Paul’s missionary work after which he began to gain acceptance among his own people.  Instead, the Spirit warned Paul that danger lay ahead no matter where he went.}

^21:12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. ¹³ Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” ¹⁴ When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”

{4, At this point the opposition to Paul is steadfast enough that others expect him to be killed in Jerusalem, and he himself is willing to risk death for the sake of the Gospel.}

^21:20b Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

{2, This is a statement from the Church at Jerusalem about those who have recently accepted Jesus as Messiah from among the Jewish population of Judea.  While this is sadly a small minority of the total population, it is a significant number of people, most, if not all, of whom were raised under the Law of Moses.  So, what does their zeal indicate?  They intend to continue living according to the Law following the traditions of their ancestors.  However, what we do not know about this situation is very important: (1) We don’t know if they have reconciled the implications of their new faith in Jesus, our Great High Priest (A central premise of Hebrews, which hadn’t been written yet from their point-of-view), with what it would take for them to fully keep Torah.  In other words, what about the sacrifices for sin?  They are no longer necessary because of Jesus, but did these first-generation Jewish Christians work that out yet? (2) We don’t know how they felt about Paul NOT teaching the Gentiles to be Torah observant.  The two issues at hand are not the same, Paul’s teaching to Jewish Christians about Torah observance and Paul’s teaching to Gentile Christians about Torah observance cannot be conflated.  We have ample repeated passages of scripture telling us about the Early Church’s conclusion that Gentiles had no need of the Law, but comparatively sparse discussion about how that same Law should affect Jewish Christians moving forward.}

^21:21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.  ^24b …Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

{2, The Jewish Christians of Jerusalem considered the rumors about Paul to be scandalous.  Again, we have comparatively little in Acts or Paul’s epistles about his teaching to the Jewish Christians in the Diaspora (The typical violent rejection of Paul’s message being one of the main reasons why), so we lack clear statements of Paul saying to Jewish Christians what they should do about various aspects of the Law moving forward in either direction.  As for Paul himself, we know that “obedience to the law” cannot mean that he fully kept the rabbinic dictates that were common in 2^nd Temple Judaism (as he would have when he was a Pharisee) given the way he joyfully embraced eating with Gentiles and even staying in their homes.  Galatians 2:11-13, where Paul opposes Peter, “to his face” for withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles confirms this attitude from Paul was purposeful, not just expediency.  In the end, the urgency in the text reflects the fear, justified as we will soon see, on the part of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem that even peaceful co-existence alongside 2^nd Temple Judaism could easily be shattered once more as it was in Acts 8:1.}

^21:22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, ²³ so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. ²⁴ Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved.

{2, In a bid to prevent violence, the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem ask Paul to participate as a sponsor in the fulfillment of the Nazarite vows of four of their members.  In Acts 18:18 we already saw that Paul cut his hair in fulfillment of a, presumably, Nazarite vow of his own.  The hope here appears to be that if Paul publicly makes a gesture of support for Jewish customs, i.e. the Law of Moses, it will forestall violence.  This is not a theological argument about the big issue of the role of the Law for Jewish Christians in the Church Age, rather it is first and foremost a quest for peace and a desire to keep the door of evangelism open.  Those in the HRM (like First Fruits of Zion) see this incident as a watershed, as stark proof that Paul fully kept the Law and therefore we must too (which of course wouldn’t follow logically or theologically even if that thesis about Paul were proven to be true).  In doing so, they use this action in Acts as a lever to overturn Paul’s detailed theological arguments in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.  which does a massive disservice to God’s Word.  For vs. 25, see section E.}

^21:26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

{2, Paul follows through with the plan that was suggested by the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem as he participates in the fulfillment of the Nazarite vows of 4 men.  For vs. 27ff see section B}

22 ¹ “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

² When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.

Then Paul said: ³ “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. ⁴ I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, ⁵ as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

{3, To start his defense before the crowd in Jerusalem who moments before were trying to kill him, the Apostle Paul emphasizes his previously impeccable credentials as a zealous follower of 2^nd Temple Judaism.  Paul’s former beliefs and attitudes were ones that this crowd would cheer, they will not, however, be happy when he continues by talking about his Damascus Road experience.}

^22:12 “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there.

{2, As Paul recounts his conversion experience, he mentions Ananias’ devout observance of the Law.  We are not told how Ananias reconciled that previous devotion (and reputation) with his devotion to Jesus.}

^22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

{4, These are the words of Ananias to Saul (Paul).  If the path of zealous Torah observance was supposed to continue moving forward (as HRM and FFOZ claim), why did Saul who was a scrupulous observer of the Law need to be baptized?  This was a turning point in his life, a stark change not simply a course correction.}

23:1 Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”

{3, Whatever Paul’s decisions about what was expected of him were, as a Jewish Christian, with respect to the Law, or what his responsibility to the Gentiles is, according to the mandate he was given by the Spirit to evangelize them, Paul believes that he has keep that trust faithfully thus far.}

^23:3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

⁴ Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!”

⁵ Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”

{4, The possibility that Paul’s response in vs. 5 is sarcasm adds a note of uncertainty to interpreting this scene, but either way it highlights that even Paul, who had gone into synagogues time and time again with the Gospel even after he had been met with severe violence for doing so, has a limit to his patience with his own people.  In this case, it seems that the hypocrisy of ignoring jurisprudence from the Law while accusing Paul of violating it was too much to keep quiet about.}

^23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” ⁷ When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. ⁸ (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)

{3, Learned man that he was, the Apostle Paul seeks to salvage a no-win situation by turning the deep and bitter divides within 2^nd Temple Judaism (Which is why some refer to 2^nd Temple Judaisms, plural) against themselves, thus distracting his critics from their unified dislike of him, at least for the moment.}

^23:9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” ¹⁰ The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.

{3, Nothing distracts from a new worry like a bitter old one.  In the end, the Pharisees side with Paul, at least at this moment, because he is on their “team” with respect to the question of the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels.  This is the equivalent of the, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” observation.}

^24:12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. ¹³ And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me.

{3, Paul’s defense before Felix: This seems to indicate a strategic choice on Paul’s part.  He was more than willing to argue/debate in the synagogues of the Diaspora, but seems to have concluded, accurately based on what happened anyway, that his reputation (deserved or not) was such that such efforts would be counter-productive here.}

^24:14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, ¹⁵ and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. ¹⁶ So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

{2, Paul doesn’t explain if he feels the term “sect” to be appropriate or not, he simply acknowledges that it is the word his critics chose.  He does, however, offer 3 examples of the connection between 2^nd Temple Judaism and Jesus’ followers: (1) Both groups worship the same “God of our ancestors.” (2) Paul affirms everything written in the Hebrew Scriptures (as has the Church historically), and (3) both groups believe in the resurrection of the dead in the age to come.  Connections such as these would fit both a narrative of continuity within Judaism, and a narrative of a new beginning built upon that previous effort of God.}

^24:17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. ¹⁸ I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance.

{3, That Paul ensured that he was ceremonially clean before entering the Temple area would be expected no matter what his understanding of the relationship between Law and Grace is, as it would stem from the same willingness to show respect that was asked of the Gentiles at the Jerusalem Council.  Note: In this case, “my people” refers to the Jewish Christians of Judea, not the Jewish community as a whole, because he is referring to those to whom the gift was given.}

^24:19 But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me. ²⁰ Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin— ²¹ unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.’”

{3, It seems that neither the Jews from the province of Asia, nor the members of the Sanhedrin, made any specific charges (i.e. with witnesses and the like) against Paul before Felix, beyond the general claim that he stirs up trouble.}

^26:2 “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, ³ and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.

{3, Now before Agrippa, Paul feels more comfortable explaining his defense to someone who has an understanding of the issues at hand.}

^26:4 “The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. ⁵ They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee. ⁶ And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our ancestors that I am on trial today. ⁷ This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. King Agrippa, it is because of this hope that these Jews are accusing me. ⁸ Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

{2, Defending himself before Agrippa, Paul contends that his belief in Jesus Christ is not contrary to his former belief as a Pharisee in the hope of the resurrection.  The writer of Hebrews will echo this sentiment in chapter 11 where he shows that every saint of old was justified by faith in God’s promises.  Note: Paul uses the same term, “sect” to refer to the Pharisees as his critics did when they referred to Jesus’ followers as a “sect.”  However, let us not fall into the Word Study Fallacy and assume the word means the same thing in both contexts.  Afterall, the Sanhedrin was not violently opposing the Pharisees, but they were trying to wipe out Jesus’ followers.}

^26:9 “I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. ¹⁰ And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. ¹¹ Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.

{4, We are given greater detail on this matter than earlier in Acts, here it confirms that the animosity toward Jesus’ followers from the beginning was purposeful and organized, and that it extended to the synagogues beyond Jerusalem.}

^26:22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— ²³ that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

{3, In his defense before Agrippa Paul explains that Moses and the prophets predicted both Jesus’ death and his resurrection (A notion familiar to Luke, see Luke 24:13-35 where Jesus explains this very truth to his followers).}

^28:17 Three days later he called together the local Jewish leaders. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. ¹⁸ They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. ¹⁹ The Jews objected, so I was compelled to make an appeal to Caesar. I certainly did not intend to bring any charge against my own people. ²⁰ For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.”

{3, In Rome Paul again reiterates that he has done nothing against his people or their customs.  As before, this statement could be viewed in various ways, it doesn’t bolster either case.  It is noteworthy that Paul here states that one of the reasons why he appealed to Caesar is that he didn’t want to bring any counter-charge against his own people.  The “hope of Israel” refers back to Paul’s belief in the resurrection of the dead.  For the response of the Jewish community in Rome, see section B.}

^28:25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

²⁶ “‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
    you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
²⁷ For this people’s heart has become calloused;
    they hardly hear with their ears,
    and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

²⁸ “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”

{5, Luke ends Acts (with only a short postscript to follow) with a bold statement of Paul quoting Isaiah (Isaiah 6:9-10) that is a capstone to his experience throughout the narrative: Paul was willing, even eager to share the Gospel with his own people, but when they rejected Jesus as their Messiah, he would follow God’s direction and take that same message to the Gentiles whom he was confident would receive it.  Thus, Acts ends, not with hope of reconciliation or cooperation between 2^nd Temple Judaism and the now established and mostly Gentile Church, but with a note of frustration, even of finality, at least in this generation, that the success of the Gospel will be found along a different path.}

B. Reaction: What was the response in attitudes and actions from the Jewish people and/or their leaders to Jesus’ followers?

^2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.

{2, A very early example of a welcome reception by the ordinary people of Jerusalem.}

4:1 The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. ² They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. ³ They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day.

{4, The “greatly disturbed” reaction of the leadership of Judaism to the teaching of the Apostles is an expected consistency, after all it has only been a few weeks since the Sanhedrin declared Jesus to be worthy of death.  Vs. 3 begins a pattern of official persecution of the leaders of the movement, that will crescendo with the persecution of 8:1.}

^4:17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

¹⁸ Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

{4, The leadership of 2^nd Temple Judaism demand that Peter and the Apostles cease from spreading the Gospel among their fellow Jews, they viewed Jesus’ followers not as a rival movement within their religion as with the Pharisees and Sadducees, but as dangerous heretics who must be stopped, with force if necessary.}

^5:13 No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. ¹⁵ As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. ¹⁶ Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed.

{2, Even with the leadership solidly against the disciples, the common people were still drawn to them, at least to receiving healing, but tellingly a significant number of the people are already afraid to be associated with them, perhaps fearing repercussions from the Sanhedrin should they do so.  Hesitant or not, the people could see the power of God at work among Jesus’ followers.}

^5:17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. ¹⁸ They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail.

{4, Official persecution continues, this time with a motivation explained by Luke.  This most likely had a negative impact upon the willingness of the common people to consider the Gospel message.}

^5:25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” ²⁶ At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

{2, Here the contrast is on display between the common people, who acc. to 5:13 were afraid to join the disciples and yet were captivated enough by their teaching and miracles that they might act like a mob if the disciples were harmed, and the leadership who continue in their effort to silence them.}

^5:27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ²⁸ “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

{4, The Sanhedrin continues to ban teaching in the name of Jesus.}

^5:33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death.

{4, The Medieval Church viewed Jan Hus as a rebel, not a reformer, and burned him at the stake.  Likewise, the Sanhedrin view the disciples, not as reformers to be reasoned with, or even argue against, but as heretics worthy of death.}

^5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. ³⁵ Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. ³⁶ Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. ³⁷ After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. ³⁸ Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. ³⁹ But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

⁴⁰ His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

{3, The actions of Gamaliel are fascinating in that he appears to be nearly alone in his humility because he is willing to consider the possibility that God might be with the disciples and not with himself and his cohort.  This might be a sign of potential inclusion within 2^nd Temple Judaism, however the Sanhedrin still orders the disciples to be flogged, a brutal punishment, though their murderous rage is placated for the moment.  Note: Gamaliel does not attempt to persuade them to consider the claims about Jesus, the thrust of the argument is the uselessness of working against God in any instance, not a referendum on whether or not that is the case here.}

^6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

{2, This growth will be offset by later persecution, but the mention of priests accepting Jesus as their Messiah offers a tantalizing, “What if?” type question.  At least two possibilities should be considered: (1) If the people had been more willing to repent on a national scale, a Jesus-devoted movement more connected with both the Jewish people and Judaism could have been possible, (2) and/or if God’s will had been intended to work within the existing system, these priestly conversions could have been the nucleus of that reform.  The first hypothetical is moot, national acceptance of Jesus didn’t happen.  As to the second, orthodox Christianity’s contention has long been that God’s plan wasn’t focused on reforming Judaism (i.e. working with/under the Mosaic Law), whereas groups like the First Fruits of Zion claim that working within 2^nd Temple Judaism was God’s will for Jesus’ followers, which raises the question, “Why did it fail so spectacularly?”}

^6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. ⁹ Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen.

{4, This is the first example in Acts of opposition to the disciples coming from a source other than the leadership in Judea such as the Sanhedrin.  In this case, we see the beginning of opposition by Jews from the Diaspora, the same group that will consistently later oppose Paul in Asia Minor and Greece.}

^6:11 Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”

¹² So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. ¹³ They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. ¹⁴ For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”

7:1 Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?”

{3, The trial of Stephen could be viewed as affirming that he had no intention of advocating for changing the “customs Moses handed down to us.”  Afterall, the witnesses are described by Luke as liars.  However, that turns out to be an argument without Stephen’s confirmation.  We don’t know what he was saying about the continuity or discontinuity for followers of Jesus of the Law of Moses because he doesn’t answer the High Priest’s question directly.  Jesus himself, as vs. 14 indicates used the physical Temple as an analogy when describing his own death and resurrection, something Stephen evidently repeated.  So, what part of their testimony was the slander, how much truth did it contain?  The text itself doesn’t answer that question.  Note: We are still dealing with a movement comprised almost entirely of Jewish Christians.  The trial of Stephen takes place before  the narrative takes a hard turn toward the Gentiles after the scattering of the disciples in 8:1.  Thus we are, at best, dealing with the question of whether or not the Jewish disciples of Jesus still considered themselves obligated to the Law of Moses, fully with no changes, or if they had recognized that the death and resurrection of Jesus, not to mention the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, had changed the dynamic of God’s redemptive program.  The question of how Gentile followers of Jesus might or might not fit within 2^nd Temple Judaism has yet to arise.}

^7:54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. ⁵⁵ But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶ “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

⁵⁷ At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, ⁵⁸ dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul…

8:1 And Saul approved of their killing him.  On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

{4, The Sanhedrin considered the teaching of a resurrected Jesus to be blasphemy, an offense worthy of death, a sentence they rushed to carry out against Stephen.  This murder completed, the leadership then inspired/coordinated violence against the entire community of Jesus’ followers, causing all but the Apostles to flee for their lives.  Whatever the hopes of the Apostles may have been for the growth of their movement among their own kindred in Jerusalem, they have taken a sever hit.}

9:1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest ² and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

{4, The High Priest, i.e. leadership in Jerusalem, was working to prevent any new disciples of Jesus even outside of Judea, as far away as Damascus they were interested in using the cooperation of local synagogues, and expected to receive it, to have Jewish disciples of Jesus arrested.}

^9:23 After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, ²⁴ but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. ²⁵ But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

{4, The first, but not the last, attempt to kill Saul (Paul) because of his proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah/Son of God.  Note that this was not simply an initial emotional reaction, but a coordinated plan to murder him.  As Paul will make clear in Romans, his desire to see his own people saved, and his love for them, will not be diminished by the violence directed toward him.}

^9:28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. ²⁹ He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews, but they tried to kill him. ³⁰ When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

{4, At first this appears to be a point toward co-existence, but the 2^nd attempt on Saul’s life follows it, forcing him to leave the province entirely.}

^13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. ⁴³ When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

⁴⁴ On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.

{2, The initial response in Pisidian Antioch to the Gospel was very positive, with the bulk of the Jewish community there wanting to hear more.}

^13:45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.

{4, The honeymoon in Pisidian Antioch was short-lived, Luke offers a base motive of jealousy for this action, that jealousy obscures what their theological response to the news of Jesus may have been.}

^14:2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

{4, A concerted effort to blunt the success of Paul and Barnabas at Iconium.  Luke offers no explanation as to why they refused to believe.}

^14:4 The people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles. ⁵ There was a plot afoot among both Gentiles and Jews, together with their leaders, to mistreat them and stone them. ⁶ But they found out about it and fled to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and to the surrounding country, ⁷ where they continued to preach the gospel.

{4, Another example of an organized violent reaction among the Jewish community, this time with the help of some of the Gentiles too, to the Apostolic evangelistic efforts.}

^14:19 Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead. ²⁰ But after the disciples had gathered around him, he got up and went back into the city. The next day he and Barnabas left for Derbe.

{4, Two examples of the thesis that the followers of Jesus were not welcome among the synagogues in the Diaspora: (1) They were willing to travel to try to stop Paul outside of their hometown, (2) they were willing to ignore any pretense of justice by trying to murder Paul with no trial.}

^17:5 But other Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. ⁶ But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, ⁷ and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” ⁸ When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil.

{4, In a shocking display of cynicism, those among the Jewish community of Thessalonica who rejected Jesus as the Messiah copy the tactic of the Sanhedrin by portraying belief in him as a subversive act against Rome.  The mob even makes reference to, “trouble all over the world,” indicating that news of the unrest that has occurred in numerous towns among the Jewish community after Paul’s preaching has reached their ears.

^17:13 But when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. ¹⁴ The believers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea.

{4, We see again the willingness of those who reject Jesus to coordinate their effort and chase after Paul to prevent his work elsewhere from finding success.  In this case the warm initial reaction enabled Silas and Timothy to stay while only the public face of the ministry, Paul, had to flee.}

^18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

{3, Normally the acceptance of Christ by a synagogue leader would be a positive statement toward some level of inclusion within the Jewish community, however, the context in Corinth has this hopeful statement immediately after telling us that Paul was forced to leave the synagogue due to the abusive response he received there.  See section F for vs. 7}

^18:12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment.

{4, An example of a coordinated attempt to thwart Paul’s Gospel message, this time by trying to involve the Roman legal authorities.}

^18:13 “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.”

{3, The response from Gallio in vs. 14-15 shows that the “law” in question in vs. 13 is that of Moses.  We are not told in the narrative in what way they considered Paul’s teaching to be a violation of the Law of Moses, nor are we told whether or not those objections were accurate, which makes this accusation an ambiguous one for the purpose of understanding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in this first generation.}

^19:9a But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them.

{4, One of the 5 instances in Acts where the Gospel of Jesus is referred to as, “the Way.”  Here at Ephesus, the Jewish community pushes back against Paul’s Gospel presentation, their use of “the Way” illustrates an understanding of it to be at the very least a recognizable sect, if not an outright new religious expression.  Paul’s response is to walk away.  For 19:9b see section F.}

^20:3 where he stayed three months. Because some Jews had plotted against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia.

{4, We don’t know any more details than what Luke shares here, but it continues the trend of violent opposition toward Paul in the Diaspora, and foreshadows the violent opposition he will soon face in Jerusalem.}

^20:19 I served the Lord with great humility and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents.

{4, Paul’s love for his own people could not be shaken, but they were a source of great frustration as they stood against his Gospel proclamation.}

^21:27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, ²⁸ shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” ²⁹ (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.)  ³⁰ The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. ³¹ While they were trying to kill him,

{4, On one level, the question of what Jesus and the Apostles wanted to do with respect to 2^nd Temple Judaism and the founding of the Church is a moot point.  As Acts demonstrates over and over, 2^nd Temple Judaism didn’t want anything to do with Jesus’ followers, they were seen as dangerous heretics worthy of being killed without even a trial (As required, of course, by the Law, there is irony in this).  Again, the actual content of Paul’s teaching in the Diaspora could have been examined on this issue, but the riotous crowd had no interest in nuance or distinctions, they went straight to accusing Paul of being a full-on apostate.  Finally, the charge that Paul had brought a Greek (i.e Gentile) into the inner precinct of the Temple courts is a powerful reminder that 2^nd Temple Judaism was not welcoming of full inclusion of Gentile converts.  There would always be a divide between Jew and Gentile in 2^nd Temple Judaism, it was a feature not a bug, and would not be changed.  In the New Covenant, however, Paul will insist over and over in his epistles there can be no such distinction among Jesus’ followers, but only one unified Body of Christ.} 

^23:2 At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth.

{4, The High Priest responds to Paul’s proclamation that he has fulfilled his duty to God by ordering violence to be done to him.  Whatever they understood Paul’s position to be with respect to the Law, however accurate that assessment was, they hated him for it.}

^23:12 The next morning some Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. ¹³ More than forty men were involved in this plot. ¹⁴ They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. ¹⁵ Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here.”

{4, Having failed to reach consensus about asking the Romans to let them put Paul to death, his most bitter detractors swear an oath, presumably an oath to God, to murder him, AND they solicit the help of the Sanhedrin’s leadership to assist in the plot.  In addition to shedding light upon the moral corruptions of this generation of 2^nd Temple Judaism, it shows how existential they thought the threat was of Paul’s Gospel to their own belief and practices.  There is not a hint of treating Jesus’ followers like a sect within 2^nd Temple Judaism, let alone a reform movement that might help it, to the Sanhedrin they are a heresy to be stamped out, by any means necessary.}

24:1 Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. ² When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: “We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. ³ Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. ⁴ But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.

{4, The Sanhedrin’s desire to rid themselves of Paul was strong enough that they were willing to press the case against him before the Roman governor, hire a seemingly non-Jewish lawyer (if his name is an indicator) to represent them, and countenance that lawyer’s grossly flattering words before Felix.}

^24:5 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect ⁶ and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him…. ⁹ The other Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.

{4, Multiple things jump out here: (1) Paul was on the receiving end of violent riots, not the instigator of them. (2) The use of the term, “Nazarene sect.”  (haireseos in Greek) This word is transliterated into English in the form of heresy/heretic/heretical, it comes from the root verb “to choose.”  While an interesting way to describe Jesus’ followers, in a legal argument before the Roman governor (keeping in mind this isn’t what the Sanhedrin necessarily thought about them, but what they thought it wise to say about them), it is far from a claim of kinship.  The point is, the Sanhedrin’s legal argument before Felix is drawing a distinction between themselves and those who have “chosen” another path. See section A for Paul’s response}

^24:27 When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison.

{4, Even after two years the animosity toward Paul was strong enough that a politician saw keeping him in prison as a choice that would win favor with the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism.}

25:1 Three days after arriving in the province, Festus went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem, ² where the chief priests and the Jewish leaders appeared before him and presented the charges against Paul. ³ They requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way.

{4, Paul has been detained by the Roman governor for two years after a riotous crowd tried to kill him, now with the new governor perhaps unaware of the history of the situation, a new attempt is made to kill Paul (and presumably the Roman soldiers assigned guard duty).}

^25:7 When Paul came in, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him. They brought many serious charges against him, but they could not prove them.

{4, After Festus decides to hear the charges against Paul at Caesarea, the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism are willing to travel there to bring false charges against him (once again violating the Law of Moses’ clear statues against false testimony, they did this ostensibly in defense of the Law).}

^28:21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 

{3, We don’t know why the Sanhedrin failed to communicate with the synagogue leaders in Rome to warn them that Paul was coming, it is an odd oversight, or perhaps a failure of the communication system of the day which consisted primarily of sending letters with someone already going that way.}

^28:22a But we want to hear what your views are

{2, The Jewish community in Rome is willing to listen to what Paul has to say, even knowing what they do about his movement (See the latter half of the verse below).}

^28:22b…for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”

{4, The Jewish community in Rome hasn’t heard anything about Paul in particular, but “people everywhere” are speaking against the Jesus movement (i.e. the Church).  Here at the end of Acts, after decades of interaction between 2^nd Temple Judaism and Jesus’ followers, the view in the Diaspora is one of consistent and widespread opposition to the movement within the Jewish community.  This state of affairs is what breaks Paul’s heart (See Romans 9-11) but is also a status that Luke communicates repeatedly in Acts.

^28:23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. ²⁴ Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.

{3, A somewhat hopeful response from the Jewish community of Rome as some believed Paul’s testimony.  Note: Paul, as expected, used the Hebrew Scriptures to argue that Jesus is the Messiah.}

 

C. Decisions / Turning Points: What were the conscious decisions made by Jesus’ followers to momentous events as they unfolded?

^8:12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ¹³ Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

¹⁴ When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. ¹⁵ When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, ¹⁶ because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ¹⁷ Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

{4, This is strong evidence of a break with 2^nd Temple Judaism for a reason that doesn’t jump out immediately to the modern reader:  2^nd Temple Judaism wanted nothing to do with Samaritans, they were the equivalent of apostate outcasts (See: Jesus with the Woman at the Well).  If the disciples had intended to work within 2^nd Temple Judaism, the inclusion of Samaritans, readily baptized and accepted into the community, would have been a disastrous move from the PR standpoint alone.  However, the Holy Spirit confirms the inclusion of the Samaritans, and this with the full cooperation of Peter and John.  Thus, whatever Peter, James, John, and the rest of the original disciples may have hoped might happen, by God’s grace, to include both their kindred and their customs into the community of Jesus’ followers, those plans/hopes have taken a dramatic turn away from inclusion within the range of 1^st Century Judaism, for as wide of a spectrum as it was, it had no place for Samaritans to be welcomed as equals.}

^8:25 After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.

{4, Peter and John don’t hesitate to act upon the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans who accepted Jesus.  Note: It didn’t take a Council in Jerusalem, nor consultation with James the Just, for them to make this decision, God’s will in this matter was clear to them.}

^10:9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹ He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹² It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. ¹³ Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

¹⁴ “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

¹⁵ The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

¹⁶ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

¹⁹ While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. ²⁰ So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”

{5, As this direct communication between God and the Apostle Peter unfolds, it at first appears to be a strong piece of evidence in favor of an ongoing connection between Judaism and Jesus’ followers in that we hear from Peter that he continues to follow the dietary laws (kosher), and is horrified at the prospect of eating something unclean.  However, that all changes on a dime when God shows him the same vision 3 times and tells Peter in no uncertain terms that he alone is the one who has the right to call a thing clean or unclean.  The impact of this encounter on Peter’s personal understanding of what his obligation to the Law of Moses should be moving forward is not explored by Luke because a much larger and more pressing matter connected to this vision is about to be placed before him. 

Note: God never tempts anyone to sin.  If it still would have been sinful for Peter to break kosher, and according to the Law it would have been, God would never tell Peter to do so.}

^10:22 The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” ²³ Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.

{3, We are told that Cornelius, although a Gentile and a Roman soldier, is also “God-fearing” and connected to the Jewish community in Caesarea.  That places Cornelius somewhere among the significant number of Gentiles who in the first century found Judaism to be appealing on some level, but who did not choose to convert and be circumcised.  We don’t know the ethnicity of Cornelius’ messengers, if they are Gentiles, it would seem that Peter is already taking the message of the vision to heart by inviting them into his home.}

^10:24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. ²⁵ As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. ²⁶ But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

²⁷ While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. ²⁸ He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. ²⁹ So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

{5, At a minimum, Peter here tells Cornelius that God has told him to reject the various teachings in Oral Torah that the rabbis had through the centuries laid forth to forbid Jews to eat with and associate with Gentiles.  According to the rabbis, to do so would make Peter ceremonially unclean, but this attitude has been rejected by God.  Thus Peter has embarked on a conscious step away from the accepted practices of 2^nd Temple Judaism in the direction of accepting Gentiles into the community on an equal footing.  For the remainder of the episode with Cornelius, see section E.}

^15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ^7a After much discussion,

{3, The inclusion of Gentiles into the community, by faith alone, seems to have raised important theological questions that may have not been previously addressed in the thinking of the Apostles.  As such, they spent a considerable amount of time here at the Jerusalem Council discussing the issues before reaching their decision.  We don’t have the back and forth of that debate, only the winning argument as it will be presented by Peter.}

^15:7b Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

{4, Peter begins by acknowledging that the choice to include the Gentiles came directly from God, and Peter also recognizes how they were accepted, by the same faith in Jesus that had saved the Jewish Christians previously.  How did Peter and the Apostles know that this was God’s verdict?  He gave both groups the Holy Spirit, case closed.  Note: Peter made a point of emphasizing that God didn’t view the two groups differently, purifying the hearts of both by faith.}

^15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

{5, One of the more powerful statements in Acts with respect to the understanding of the followers of Jesus about the relationship between Faith and Law.  The yoke in question is undoubtedly the Law of Moses (years later Paul will make the case in Romans that nobody, ever, except Jesus has been able to fully keep the Law), and even here and now AFTER the resurrection, and AFTER receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter says that he and his fellow Jewish believers in Jesus are not capable of “bearing” that yoke.  Note: If Peter, James, John, and the rest believed that they were now fully keeping the Law (something groups like First Fruits of Zion claim the Holy Spirit had come at Pentecost to make possible), why would he say this?  Also, if the works that the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost to empower (and God prepared in advance for us to do, i.e. Ephesians 2:10) were the keeping of Torah (as claimed by HRM, FFOZ), how is it that Peter proclaims that the Jewish Christian community is unable to bear that yoke?  With respect to both of these questions, the HRM/FFOZ is butchering the Word of God to arrive at their own conclusions.}

^15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

{4, Adding weight to Peter’s bold statement, Barnabas and Paul share news of how readily available the power of God had been to them as they shared the Good News with the Gentiles.}

^15:13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
¹⁸     things known from long ago.

{4, If anyone was going to side with the party of the Pharisees it would be James the Just, the half-brother of Jesus, a man renowned for his piety in the community of 2^nd Temple Judaism.  However, James instead cites the prophet Amos (9:11-12) to indicate that God had always intended to bring the Gentiles into the fold, thus validating the testimony of Barnabas and Paul, as well as Peter’s preamble.}

^15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

{5, What was the original question? Do Gentile believers in Jesus need to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses?  James’ answer is a convincing “No.” James describes the alternative path in which that would have been required as making things more difficult for the Gentile Christians than God intended.  Again, this decision is framed as a response to what God has already been doing because the Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit.}

^15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

{5, Instead of what?  Instead of yoking them with the Law of Moses.  What does James offer as an alternative?  Cultural sensitivity that will not contribute to the violence that has already plagued Gospel witness in the Diaspora.  James did not, in any way, ask the Gentile Christians to “live like Jews,” rather he wanted them to show respect in known areas of conflict between Jewish and Gentile cultures.  Why were these area of conflicts well known, even to previously pagan Gentiles?  Because the Jewish community in the Diaspora had been living by them since they first arrived.  FFOZ makes an opposite interpretation of this passage the foundation of nearly their whole system.  They claim that this is actually James ordering the new Gentile Christians to immerse themselves in the synagogues (the violent ones that nearly called Paul multiple times) and become Torah observant.  However, this interpretation does not at all flow from the narrative structure that Luke has written, nor from the actual words of James.  It is an example of eisegesis at its worst.}

^15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 

{4, The implementation of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem was important enough to the Apostles that they sent two of their own trusted representatives to go along with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.}

^15:23 With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

(4, Context matters.  What had disturbed the Gentile believers in Antioch?  The demand that they be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses to be saved.  How does James describe these actions: unauthorized.  In other words, we didn’t send that message and we don’t endorse it, in fact we recognize that it did you harm.}

^15:25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

{4, Lest there be any doubt, the credentials of Judas and Silas are included to ensure that this letter will put this issue to rest.}

^15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

{5, The Law of Moses is described as a burden (context, remember that Peter has just said this), and one the Council had no interest in placing upon the necks of the Gentile Christians.  The 4 things listed are in no way a shorthand for Torah keeping, nor would they make any sense if Torah keeping was assumed already because they’d already be understood and the Gentiles would already be doing them.  Thus, if James and the Council had assumed that Gentile Christians would be Torah observant thanks to instruction from the synagogues, why the four-fold command?  It would be entirely redundant, a waste of time, and a confusing directive.  Of course, the answer is that James had no expectation of Torah observance by the Gentile Christians, thus the four-fold requirements were a necessary form of cultural tolerance.} 

^15:30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them.

{4, The epilogue of the incident that led to the Council of Jerusalem sees the Gentile Christians in Antioch receiving the decision that had been made, to NOT impose the Law of Moses upon the believers whom God had already justified, with gladness.  It encouraged them that their faith was sufficient, that no additional steps were to be required.  Note: We again see the church gathered together, as a body, to conduct its own business entirely apart from the synagogue system.}

D. How did the Jewish people and/or their leaders respond to the welcoming of Gentiles into the Jesus movement?

^13:49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. ⁵⁰ But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.

{4, Following Paul and Barnabas’ declaration that they would turn their attention to the Gentiles, the response from the local synagogue leaders was to organize opposition to Paul and Barnabas, eventually having them thrown out of town.}

^22:17 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance ¹⁸ and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’…²¹ “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”

²² The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!”

²³ As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air,

{4, The crowd listened to the entirety of Paul’s recounting of his experience of meeting Jesus and his new devotion to him, right up until Paul proclaimed that the Lord himself told him to walk away from his own people and go instead to the Gentiles.  They responded with rage when Paul told them that God would look elsewhere if they weren’t interested in Jesus as the Messiah.}

^26:20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds. ²¹ That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me.

{4, In Paul’s defense before Agrippa, he sees a direct connection between his ministry to the Gentiles and his own people’s desire to kill him.}

E. How did the followers of Jesus respond to the addition of Gentiles to their movement?

^8:26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” ²⁷ So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch…³⁵ Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

³⁶ As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”…³⁸ And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

{4, The Ethiopian eunuch challenges the idea of an ongoing connection to 2^nd Temple Judaism in two ways: (1) He is a Gentile, and thus one key step removed from full inclusion in the nation, (2) He is a eunuch, which acc. to Dt. 23:1 permanently puts him another step further from inclusion in the people of God.  However, Philip is directed by an angel of the Lord to go to him, and he doesn’t hesitate to share the Gospel with this man.  Also, immediately after the eunuch accepts Jesus, Philip answers the hugely important question that he asks, “What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” by baptizing him.  Philip’s answer as demonstrated by his response?  “Nothing.”  This man was accepted by God, as is, by grace through faith.  A key piece of evidence that entrance into the community of Jesus’ followers will be different from entrance into the covenant people under the Law of Moses.}

^10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism ³⁵ but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

{5, This statement of Peter is antithetical to the very structure of 2^nd Temple Judaism where even the physical layout of the Temple itself kept Gentile men from approaching the presence of God as closely as Jewish men (and of course, Jewish women were kept at a further distance than Jewish men, that barrier is also destined to fall among Jesus’ followers).  On one level, God’s attitude hadn’t changed, Melchizedek in Hebrews demonstrates that God’s concern always extended beyond his chosen people, but the Law of Moses did have built-in distinctions in how it treated Jews and non-Jews.  Here in Acts, that distinction is melting away, a topic that the Apostle Paul will devote a significant amount of time to addressing in his letters.}

^10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. ⁴⁵ The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, ⁴⁷ “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” ⁴⁸ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

{5, Peter now rightly understands the full implication of his prior vision: God is willing to accept Gentiles who believe in Jesus with no pre-conditions.  The entire household of Cornelius receives the Spirit, en masse, and subsequently all are baptized to demonstrate their acceptance into the community of Jesus’ followers, again with no pre-conditions.  In this Peter takes his cue from the Holy Spirit, who is he to balk when God has already acted?}

11:1 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. ² So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him ³ and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

{2, This could also be categorized as an indicator of the attitude of Jesus’ followers toward Judaism, although it takes place within the context of their reaction toward the new Gentile believers, so I’ve placed it here.  Luke doesn’t mention who among the Jewish Christians it was that upbraided Peter for his willingness to associate with Gentiles, but at this point before the Council of Jerusalem they were willing to do so.  For some of them, at least, the old rules of isolation from Oral Torah remained important.}

^11:15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ¹⁶ Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ ¹⁷ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

¹⁸ When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

{5, After recounting the story of what happened at Cornelius’ house, Peter concludes with an even stronger statement than 10:47-48.  Peter now understood that Gentile inclusion was “God’s way,” and those Jewish Christians who had moments before been upset with Peter respond to this news with complete acceptance of the new direction that has been given to them by God.}

^11:20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. ²¹ The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

{4, What was it about the Jewish Christian community of Cyprus and Cyrene that they took their own initiative to share the Gospel with Gentiles?  We don’t know the answer, but it points in the direction that some among the Jewish Christian community were seeing that the Gospel message’s impact needed to be felt beyond their own ethnic people.}

^11:22 News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. ²³ When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.

{4, Barnabas was sent to Antioch to assess the reports that Gentiles there were believing in Jesus.  When he saw this for himself, Barnabas embraced what God was doing.}

^13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. ⁴⁷ For this is what the Lord has commanded us:

“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
    that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

⁴⁸ When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

{4, Paul and Barnabas make a public proclamation in Pisidian Antioch that they will turn their attention to the Gentiles because their own people had rejected the Gospel.  This was met with enthusiasm and acceptance by the soon-to-be Gentile Christians.}

^14:27 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

{4, Returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas report to the church the success that they had among the Gentiles, attributing this work to the power of God.}

15:1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

{2, There were those within the Church at Jerusalem who believed that gentile believers needed to fully adopt the Law of Moses, that is, they believed it to be, through a rationale we are not made privy to, still authoritative over all of Jesus’ followers.  However, and this is a big caveat, there position will be opposed, strongly by Paul and Barnabas in the very next verse, how this unfolds reveals that Luke as the author agreed not with the unnamed proponents of imposing the Law on Gentile Christians but with Paul and Barnabas.}

^15:2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

{4, The nature of the arguments between the two groups are not revealed here, but the church at Antioch thought the issue to be important enough that they sent a delegation to the Apostles seeking resolution of it.}

^15:3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.

{4, Even prior to the coming Jerusalem Council, the news that Gentiles were joining the movement through faith in Jesus was received with joy.  Note: Some of these believers were Samaritan Christians, people who were “on the outside looking in” until the Spirit confirmed to the Early Church that they too are included in God’s grace.  It is fitting that they rejoiced to see God’s grace continue to spread beyond them to the Gentiles.}

^15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

{4, Luke continues to frame the addition of Gentile believers into the community as the work of God.}

^15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

{2, That belief in Jesus made inroads among the Pharisees is a bit shocking given his interactions with them in the Gospels, and it isn’t surprising to see that they’re convinced that keeping the Law of Moses is essential to being a disciple of Jesus given their background.  As with the group who came to Antioch with this same message, Luke’s narrative makes clear that he is aligned with Paul and Barnabas (and soon to be Peter and James) in strong opposition to this idea.  For the remainder of the Jerusalem Council, see section C}

^16:13 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. ¹⁴ One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. ¹⁵ When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

{4, Philippi evidently had no synagogue, so Paul sought out an audience for the Gospel outside the city.  While Lydia was someone who worshiped the God of Abraham, she was also (as the text indicates by not simply calling her a Jewish woman) a gentile.  Paul shows no hesitation in either baptizing her or staying in her home.  At this point the full inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian community is a settled issue as far as the narrative of Acts goes, as is the full ability to fellowship with them.}

^16:29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. ³⁰ He then brought them out 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 and to all the others in his house. ³³ At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

{4, The Philippian jailer, a gentile, and his household are saved, and baptized immediately, with no preconditions or rituals necessary.  By grace alone through faith alone being lived out.} 

^20:19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

^20a When they heard this, they praised God.

{4, With Paul’s first missionary journey after the Jerusalem Council now completed, James and the rest of the Apostles praise God for the success that Paul has had in building up the Church among the Gentiles.}

^21:25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

{5, Having just told the Apostle Paul to sponsor the fulfillment of 4 Nazarite vows in an effort to keep a fragile peace between the Jewish Christians and the larger Jewish community, these same members of the Jerusalem Church immediately reiterate that to Paul that their action should NOT be construed as a hedge against the decision of the Jerusalem Council.  It has already been decided that the only guidance that Gentile Christians living outside of Judea need are the 4 stipulations designed to not offend the sensibilities of the Jewish community in the Diaspora, whether they be Christians too or not.  Note: If they had wanted to make any kind of statement about Gentile Torah observance, this incident would have been a perfect place to do so, but no such thought is even hinted at in the text.}

^26:17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them ¹⁸ to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’  ¹⁹ “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.

{3, From Paul’s defense before Agrippa, it repeats Paul’s belief that his mission to the Gentiles was divinely ordained.}

F. Where and when did Jesus’ followers choose to pray, worship, and fellowship?

^2:46a Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.  They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

{3, While their presence in the temple courts could demonstrate a desire to remain connected with the Temple system, it just as plausibly may simply be the best public space available and it was also the prime location from which to share the Gospel.  The second sentence shows fellowship in the homes of various believers, if not an example of the soon-to-be “house church” model, it could be a precursor to that practice.}

3:1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.

{3, This could be viewed as evidence that Peter and John, at least, still participated in regular worship and prayer as ordinary followers of Judaism within the Temple, although Luke does not specify why they went to the Temple at the time of prayer, nor does he specify if this was a common practice for Peter and John, or for other members of the Jesus movement, nor how long this practice may have lasted.}

^5:12 The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.

{3, Another example where the temple precincts are utilized by the disciples as a gathering place, but Luke doesn’t explain the reasoning behind the choice of location.  The switch to the past tense verb, “used to meet” may indicate Luke’s awareness that this practice did not continue for long, at least not past 8:1}

^12:12 When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.

{4, In the midst of an outbreak of persecution, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem gathered together, as a community, in a private home of one of their members, to pray.}

^16:40 After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and sisters and encouraged them. Then they left.

{4, Fellowship in the home of one of the new believers, in this case that of the gentile woman Lydia.}

^18:7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God.

{4, In a bold move, the Apostle Paul sets up shot literally next door to the synagogue in Corinth, almost like a Domino’s opening across the street from a Little Caesars, the implications are noteworthy.}

^19:9b He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. ¹⁰ This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

{4, Having received pushback from the synagogue in Ephesus, Paul sets up shop at a lecture hall, using it as a sort of hub of operations for his work throughout the province of Asia over the next two years.}

^20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

{4, Luke shares this detail in a matter-of-fact manner, as if meeting on the first day of the week as a community (that is, a church) was unremarkable.  In the absence of any reference in Acts to Jesus’ followers gathering together for worship on the Sabbath (that is, Saturday), this text is a high hurdle for Sabbatarians.}

^20:20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house.

{4, The door-to-door style evangelism is a mark of the new Great Commission inspired attitude of Jesus’ followers, this was a significant break from the isolationist attitude of 2^nd Temple Judaism.  God-fearing Gentiles could come and join the synagogues if they chose to do so, but evangelistic work among the nations was not a feature of the system.}

^21:4 We sought out the disciples there and stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.

{4, On the way to Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul relies upon the hospitality of the local followers of Jesus, people whom Luke tells us were guided by the Spirit in their effort to warn Paul of what lay ahead.}

G. Independence: In what ways did Jesus’ followers build their own organizational structures and/or develop their own practices?

^1:20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
    let there be no one to dwell in it,’

and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’

²¹ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, ²² beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

²³ So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. ²⁴ Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen ²⁵ to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” ²⁶ Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

{3, The choosing of a new 12^th Apostle shows a conscious effort to continue the structure put in place by Jesus, to carry on his work.}

^2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

{4, The baptizing of new members demonstrates an awareness that these new believers were joining something, that it was a momentous step for them to take.}

^2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

{4, From the very beginning Jesus’ followers had their own gatherings that were not a part of the services and programs of the synagogues in their area.  They gathered together, on their own, from day one.}

^2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵ They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

{4, While the holding of goods in common did not spread from the disciples in Jerusalem to other locations, it was certainly a practice that set them apart from the Jewish community in Jerusalem.}

5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. ² With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet…

^5:10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹ Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

{4, The tragedy of Ananias and Sapphire evidences not only the coordinated collection and distribution of funds, outside of the Temple system of giving and corresponding charity, it also highlights a significant exercise of authority in that the Spirit strikes the pair of them dead for making a mockery of their commitment to the cause.  To an extent, this mirrors the authority given by the Law of Moses to exercise capital punishment for those who purposefully mock the Sabbath and other provisions of the Law.  There certainly was no official legal procedure with witnesses before the elders, as would have been required had the disciples been consciously operating under the justice system set up by the Mosaic Law.}

6:1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. ² So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. ³ Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them ⁴ and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

⁵ This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. ⁶ They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

{4, Here the followers of Jesus evidence both the ability to recognize a problem, and the flexibility to develop a new leadership role within their movement to address it successfully.  Note: They looked inward for the answer, not to the already existing structures of 2^nd Temple Judaism.}

^11:25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 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 great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

{4, Barnabas takes this action without feeling the need to return to Jerusalem for further direction from Peter, James, John and the Apostles.  What God was doing was evident, so rather than debate about it, he sought out Saul to assist him.  Note: Nowhere does Luke tell us of meetings with synagogue leaders to discuss Gentile inclusion, certainly there is no mention of bringing this matter, one that directly challenges Oral Torah (at the least) with respect to fellowship with Gentiles, to the Sanhedrin for consideration.   Jesus’ followers made their own decisions, based upon their understanding of God’s will, and then acted accordingly.  This demonstration of independence earned the group a new name, one that would stick.}

13:¹ Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. ² While they were worshiping 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 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

{4, The community of Jesus’ followers at Antioch, outside of Judea, has at this point its own prophets and teachers.  They met together to worship, fast, and pray.  When it was clear to them that the Holy Spirit had plans for Barnabus and Saul, they commissioned them for the journey by laying hands upon them.  All of this together paints a powerful picture of a fully functioning community, complete with its own roles, practices, and awareness of God’s leading.}

^14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

{4, The synagogues in these towns already had leadership, Paul and Barnabas not only saw the need to appoint leaders for the churches, but also believed they had the authority to put them in place.  Note: These decisions were accompanied by prayer and fasting indicating how serious the local churches were about having their own leaders.}

^16:4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. ⁵ So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.

{4, The import of the Jerusalem Council’s decision grows as Paul shares news of it with the predominately gentile churches along his route.  Again, this is not in consultation with the local synagogues, these are actions by Jesus’ followers as if they already believed themselves to be a separate entity (i.e. the Church).}

^18:22 When he landed at Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch.

{4, Returning from his 2^nd Missionary Journey, the Apostle Paul “checks-in” with the church at Jerusalem, likely to report on the trip.  This continues the pattern of the church running its own evangelism operation, distinct from any outreach effort that may have existed within 2^nd Temple Judaism, that is, we have no evidence in Acts of any consultation, let alone cooperation on this front, something we would expect to see hints of if Jesus and the Apostles had intended his followers to operate under the umbrella of the synagogue system.}

^18:23 After spending some time in Antioch, Paul set out from there and traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

{4, As a postscript to his 2^nd Missionary Journey, Paul continues working with the newly founded churches.}

^20:17 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.

{4, Paul conducts the business of administering leadership over local churches, as his role as an Apostle includes many of the responsibilities that will soon be found in the developing role of bishop.}

^20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. ²⁹ I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. ³⁰ Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. ³¹ So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

{4, A powerful testimony from Paul that contains several key elements: (1) Paul took steps to ensure that the churches he founded would have faithful leaders after he was gone, (2) he anticipated that these leaders would need to guard the Gospel message against false teachers, (3) and he revealed how deeply committed he was emotionally to this cause.  (4) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for this examination of the text, Paul told the elders/overseers of the church that the Holy Spirit is the one who put them in their place of leadership and responsibility.}

^21:7 We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and sisters and stayed with them for a day. ⁸ Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. ⁹ He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

¹⁰ After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.

{4, Here the roles of the Early Church which Paul will write about in his epistles are already functioning, in particular those of evangelist and prophet.}

^21:17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. ¹⁸ The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 

{4, Returning to Jerusalem, Paul’s first stop is the community of Jesus’ followers, and the next day he reports on what has happened during his missionary journey to James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church.  This is continuing evidence of both the fellowship of the various manifestations of the church with each other, and the authority/oversight exercised by the Jerusalem Church at this time.}

^28:14 There we found some brothers and sisters who invited us to spend a week with them. And so we came to Rome. ¹⁵ The brothers and sisters there had heard that we were coming, and they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. At the sight of these people Paul thanked God and was encouraged. ¹⁶ When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him.

{4, The church at Rome, who knew of Paul’s impending arrival, went out of its way to encourage and care for him.  Note: He is on trial, ultimately, because he defied the Sanhedrin.  If the followers of Jesus in Rome had issue with that, why would they treat Paul with such compassion and respect?  Answer: They had no issue with Paul’s conduct and were instead on his side against the Sanhedrin.}

H. Inside voices: How did Jesus’ followers speak about their own place in God’s will and purpose?

^2:16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

¹⁷ “‘In the last days, God says,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your young men will see visions,
    your old men will dream dreams.

 

{4, At Pentecost Peter is aware that what God is doing in the giving of the Spirit is something new, a sign of the “last days” as prophesied by Joel.}

^4:25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

“‘Why do the nations rage
    and the peoples plot in vain?
²⁶ The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
against the Lord
    and against his anointed one.

²⁷ Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. ²⁸ They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. ²⁹ Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.

 

{4, Quoting Psalm 2:1-2, the entire community of Jesus’ disciples depict the leadership of 2^nd Temple Judaism as people who, “plot in vain” against God.  There is a clear juxtaposition, Jesus’ disciples are on God’s side on this matter, their kindred who have rejected Jesus are on the other side, against God.}

^20:21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

{4, To Paul, the role of the Church in God’s redemptive program is the same whether those hearing the Gospel are Jews or Gentiles, this foreshadows his later writing in Ephesians 2:11-22 that the two groups have been made one in Christ.}

^25:8 Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.”

{3, Paul’s defense before Festus: Paul didn’t view his beliefs or his ministry as an affront to either the Law or the Temple, although the statement is malleable enough to be a positive statement about Torah continuation or at the same time a theological statement about Torah fulfillment {In keeping with Paul’s thesis in Romans that the Law is holy, righteous, and good, but also wholly incapable of saving anyone).}

^25:10 Paul answered: “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. ¹¹ If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”

{4, In a remarkable turn of events, the Apostle Paul refuses to be tried before an ecclesiastical court, that is the Sanhedrin, but fearing that Festus will allow just that to gain favor in his new post as governor, Paul utilizes his right as a Roman citizen to have his case heard in Rome itself.  Note: A first generation believer in Jesus, who was raised with deep allegiance to, and zeal for, the Law of Moses, is so disenchanted by his generation’s leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism, that he refuses to participate in the legal system that the Law created to hear such matters but instead he would rather put his trust in the Roman legal system.  This is powerful evidence against any hope, from Paul’s and Luke’s point-of-view at least, of cooperation between Jesus’ followers and 2^nd Temple Judaism moving forward.}

^28:30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. ³¹ He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!

{4, The final verses of Acts finds Paul undaunted by the opposition from his own people which has led him to confinement in Rome.  Rather than hesitancy about the course ahead, given how difficult the road had been for Paul that would be understandable, Luke informs us that Paul continued to boldly proclaim Jesus in Rome while he awaited the resolution of his legal case.  We are left with the strong impression that the current trajectory of events, as we have seen them unfold, is expected to continue, that is: (1) Opposition to Jesus by his own people, and especially their leaders, and (2) and a Church that is growing rapidly and becoming more Gentile with each passing year.}

I. Outside voices: How did non-believing Gentiles view Jesus’ followers?

12:1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. ² He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. ³ When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

{4, Herod was astute enough of a political animal to ascertain that persecuting followers of Jesus would earn him favor with the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism.  Whatever his initial motives were in murdering James, he intended to continue with Peter because he thought it would help him politically.  Thus, far from a picture of cooperation, or even of tolerance, we have by Acts 12 a hatred of Jesus’ followers that is firmly enough established that outsiders like Herod can see it too.  Note: This persecution happened during one of the appointed Feasts, just as the hatred and lies before the Sanhedrin that had led to the crucifixion of Jesus had desecrated Passover.}

^14:11 When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” ¹² Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

{3, After healing a lame man in Lystra, the pagan Greek crowd doesn’t recognize that Paul and Barnabas represent something outside of their religious worldview.}

^17:18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. ¹⁹ Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?... ³² When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 

{3, Paul’s famous speech in Athens fails to gain much traction when he mentions the resurrection from the dead, an absurd notion according to most of Greek philosophy.  Note: The intellectual leaders of Athens would have been well aware of Judaism, they didn’t simply chalk Paul up as another rabbi, but found his ideas to be new and interesting.}

^18:14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. ¹⁵ But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” ¹⁶ So he drove them off. ¹⁷ Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes the synagogue leader and beat him in front of the proconsul; and Gallio showed no concern whatever.

{3, This is consistent with our understanding of the Roman government’s attitude toward the religion of conquered peoples:  As long as it doesn’t interfere with good order and the collection taxes, we don’t care what you do.  Gallio was in no position to parse the Law of Moses, and he had no interest in trying.}

^19:23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. ²⁴ A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. ²⁵ He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. ²⁶ And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. ²⁷ There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.”

{3, At Ephesus, the followers of Jesus are targeted by a mob, not because of their connection or disconnection to Judaism, but solely on the basis that their success in finding converts among the area’s gentiles had begun to harm the businesses that depended upon visitors to the pagan temple of Artemis.}

^21:37 As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?”

“Do you speak Greek?” he replied. ³⁸ “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?”

³⁹ Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

{3, The Roman commander has no idea what is going on, he saved Paul from being beaten to death by the riotous crowd in Jerusalem, but as is typical of Roman authorities, the religious arguments of conquered peoples are a mystery to him.}

^22:30 The commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews. So the next day he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the members of the Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and had him stand before them.

{3, The Roman commander in Jerusalem wants to know what it is about Paul that angers his countrymen so much, so he goes straight to the top and tells the Sanhedrin to assemble.}

^23:26 Claudius Lysias,

To His Excellency, Governor Felix:

Greetings.

²⁷ This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. ²⁸ I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. ²⁹ I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment. ³⁰ When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.

{3, Claudius, the Roman commander, sent Paul to Felix to avoid the murder plot of the conspirators, having only learned that the dispute, “has to do with questions about their law.”  At this point in Luke’s narrative, the Romans still view the issue between Jesus’ followers and Judaism as an internal matter.  From the outside looking in there are indeed great similarities, but the violence toward Paul demonstrates that the leaders of 2^nd Temple Judaism of this generation strongly disagreed (as they considered them to be outcast/heretics).}

^24:22 Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” ²³ He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.

{3, A tantalizing hint at what Felix already knew about Jesus and his followers, but nothing to indicate how he viewed them.  It doesn’t appear that he actually took the charges of subversion seriously as Rome was not known for treading lightly when it came to disturbers of the peace.}

^24:24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. ²⁵ As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” ²⁶ At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

{3, Felix’s wife may explain why he already knew about The Way, although he balked at the opportunity to repent and believe.  In the end, Felix’s judgment was clouded by greed.}

^25:13 A few days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. ¹⁴ Since they were spending many days there, Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: “There is a man here whom Felix left as a prisoner. ¹⁵ When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned.

¹⁶ “I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. ¹⁷ When they came here with me, I did not delay the case, but convened the court the next day and ordered the man to be brought in. ¹⁸ When his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected. ¹⁹ Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive. ²⁰ I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges. ²¹ But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar.”

{3, Festus shares his frustration over Paul’s case with King Agrippa, in this he admits that their argument about whether or not someone named Jesus is alive befuddles him.}

^25:24 Festus said: “King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. ²⁵ I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome.

{4, From Festus’ viewpoint, the entirety of the Jewish community in Jerusalem wants Paul put to death. For Paul’s defense before Agrippa, see section A}

^26:24 At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

{3, After hearing Paul’s explanation to King Agrippa, Festus interrupts to declare this whole belief in the resurrection of the dead to be insane.}

J. Miscellaneous: Relevant texts that don’t fit the categories above.

^16:20 They brought them before the magistrates and said, “These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar ²¹ by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”

²² The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten with rods.

{3, In Philippi Paul and Silas were unlawfully beaten after unscrupulous men took advantage of the magistrate’s apparent antisemitism.  There was no trail, a point Paul will bring to their attention after the miracle at the jail, and no mention of what practices were supposedly unlawful, leaving this episode rather ambiguous with respect to Judaism and Christianity.}

^18:24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. ²⁵ He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. ²⁶ He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

²⁷ When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. ²⁸ For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.

{3, The difficulty in understanding the deficiency of Apollos’ belief, that is, what it means that he knew the “way of the Lord” but only “the baptism of John,” makes his story unsuitable to bolster either the case for inclusion or exclusion.  Note: It does however, showcase a willingness on the part of Priscilla and Aquila to embrace those who accepted Jesus at this stage without a full understanding of what that meant.  Rather than pushing Apollos away because he didn’t know the whole Gospel, they help him understand where his knowledge fell short.}

19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples ² and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

³ So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

⁴ Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” ⁵ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶ When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. ⁷ There were about twelve men in all.

{3, Another instance of partial entrance into the community of Jesus’ followers that awaited the rest of the Gospel message.  Like Apollos, these 12 men had already repented, they simply hadn’t heard about Jesus’ death and resurrection (presumably).  The text doesn’t tell us if any/all of them are Jewish or Gentiles.}

¹³ Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” ¹⁴ Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. ¹⁵ One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” ¹⁶ Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

¹⁷ When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

{4, This seems to be a fairly powerful example of the disconnect between the Jesus movement and 2^nd Temple Judaism.  Here the sons of a chief priest, intend on doing a righteous deed by delivering someone from demon possession, are severely beaten by that demon because they are not authentically connected to Jesus despite their willingness to use his name to aid their effort.}

^20:16 Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost.

{3, Pentecost now being a day of great significance for the Church, it is unclear what Paul’s full motivation was in seeking to reach Jerusalem by this date.  HRM proponents will point to this as proof that Paul continued to fully keep the Law, and while it is possible (based upon this reference in Acts alone) to read this text to be stating a desire on Paul’s part to celebrate the traditional Jewish Feast of Pentecost, such a desire alone would not prove that Paul was as dedicated to Torah observance now as a follower of Jesus as he was before as a Pharisee, nor of course would it have implications for Gentile Christians.}

^26:25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. ²⁶ The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. ²⁷ King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

²⁸ Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

²⁹ Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

³⁰ The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. ³¹ After they left the room, they began saying to one another, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment.”

{3, The conclusion of Paul’s defense before Agrippa, it demonstrates several truths: (1) Paul believed that one can demonstrate the wisdom of belief in Jesus through an appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures, (2) Paul had hope that even a man like Agrippa, from a heinously corrupt family like Herod’s, could be saved by faith, (3) outsiders like Agrippa and Festus saw nothing criminal in Paul’s actions.