Interesting tidbit - 24

Q:  In the Book of Acts, Paul goes to the Jews first in every city he visits. Why did he do that if he was the apostle to the Gentiles (1 Tim 2:5-7)?


A:  From the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry until God grants Cornelius repentance unto life in Acts 10 (about 7 or 8 years after Pentecost in Acts 2), God's order is "to the Jews only." Beginning with Paul's ministry out of Antioch in Acts 11 until Acts 28:25-28, God's order is "to the Jews first, also to the Gentiles." After Paul's statement in Act 28:28, "this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles," God's order is "to the Gentiles, also to the Jews" (Eph 2:17).

The Book of Acts records this transitional period of the setting aside of Israel. Throughout the entire book, God's order is either "to the Jews only" (Acts 1-9) or "to the Jews first, also to the Gentiles" (Acts 10-28).  When Paul comes on the scene, God's order changes from "to the Jew only" to "to the Jews first, also to the Gentile."  Paul also became as one under the law to those who were under the law in order to win unbelieving Jews for Christ (Acts 16:3; Acts 18:18; Acts 20:16; Acts 21:18-28; Acts 23:5-6).

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some (1 Cor 9:20-22).  

As an aside: According to 1 Corinthians 1:22, "Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom." So throughout the Book of Acts (when Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans) the sign-gifts continued (1 Cor 12:8-11).  After Acts 28:25-28 — when God's order is no longer "to the Jews first" — credential signs, signs-gifts, and tongues ceased (1 Cor 13:8; cf., Phil 2:27; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Tim 4:20).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - Conclusion

The Book of Acts ends rather abruptly, doesn't it?  From its close alone, it's evident that the Book of Acts is not primarily a history of "the birth and growth of the Church," nor even a complete record of "the acts of the apostles."* Wouldn't we like to know what happened to the twelve apostles after the raising up of Paul?  And wouldn't we like to know how Paul fared during the "two whole years at his own expense" (Acts 28:30) and after? What reading an inspired record of his last days and his trial and execution would have made! But God didn't cause Luke to write the Book of Acts in order to satisfy our curiosity. Rather, the book is intended to be the story of Israel's fall and of how salvation was sent to the Gentiles. This having been accomplished, and Israel having rejected Christ at Rome as she had done at Jerusalem and all the way between, the book ends.

*Interestingly, the title "Acts of the Apostles" (Greek Πράξεις ἀποστόλων Praxeis Apostolon) was not part of the original text. It was first used by Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 9

Beginning with the preaching of John the Baptist (whose message was for Israel - Lk 1:16; 80; Acts 13:24), and during the several years of Christ's earthly ministry with His twelve apostles (which was for Israel - Matt 10:5-7; 15:24; Rom 15:8), and for seven or eight years after Pentecost, the gospel was not sent to Gentiles.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested by God with mighty works and wonders and signs in the midst of Israel (Acts 2:22). Jesus responded to the appeals of two Gentiles of "great faith" only, by healing their loved ones (Matt 8:1-12; 15:20-28; Lk 7:1-10; Mk 7:27-37).

In the Book of Acts the Lord is carrying out His program declared in Mark 7:27 and Matthew 8:12. Notice that to the Greek woman our Savior said: "Let the children be fed first..." (Mk 7:27). To the Roman man He said, "...the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness" (Matt 8:12). During Acts, "the children" were being "fed first." In Acts 3:26 Peter said to Israel, "to you first." In Acts 13:46 Paul said to Israel "it was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you." In fulfillment of our Lord's words in Matthew 8:12, the judgment of "the outer darkness" is announced by Paul in Acts 28:25-28 (about 62 A.D.) and Romans 11:6-25, and came about with the destruction of Jerusalem (about 70 A.D.).

Why was it necessary that the word should be sent to Israel first?  The answer is, the Israelites were His people, and salvation was to go to all the world through them (Lk 23:3-4; Jn 4:22; Acts 1:8; 3:16-18).  (Remember, people had to become Jews — proselytes — in order to approach God at that time.)  BUT NOW, because of their unbelief, salvation is temporarily going to all the world apart from them (Isa 49; Zech 8:13,22,23; Rom 11:25-28).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 8

After the rulers rejected Him in Matthew 16:20-21, Jesus specifically instructed His apostles not to testify that He was Messiah. If Jesus did not rescind this order, then His apostles willfully disobeyed Him. But Jesus Christ did rescind it in His prayer on the cross — "And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do...” (Lk 23:34). God began anew with Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36; 3:14-26).

From Acts 2:36 through Acts 7, the twelve disciples and their associates testified to Israel that Jesus was Christ (Messiah). Paul and his associates continued in the synagogues of Israel to testify that Jesus was Christ (Messiah) (Acts 9:16-28; 17:3; 18:5; 28:19-28).

There are four classes of Jews mentioned in the first eleven chapters of Acts: "Hebrew Jews," "Grecians (Greek Jews)," "Strangers or visiting Jews from Rome" (Acts 2:10), and "Proselytes." The Grecians of Acts 6:1, Acts 9:29, and Acts 11:20 should not be confused with the Greeks (Gentiles) of Acts 2:28, Acts 14:1, Acts 16:1-3, Acts 17:4, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:17, Acts 19:10, Acts 19:17, and Acts 20:21. There is also a difference between many of the religious Greeks and the idolatrous Gentiles. Many of the Greeks were interested in the Jews' religion (Acts 13:43; 13:48;14:1; 17:4).

The "far off" people of Acts 2:39 were Israelites, not Gentiles (Acts 10:28; Dan 9:7). In the early chapters of Acts, not one word was spoken to Gentiles. Peter and his associates were sent by Christ to Israel only, with a kingdom message and kingdom signs (Matt 10:5-7).  To them the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given (Matt 16:19).  No one today has right to proclaim the messages, religious programs, and divine orders of those chapters to the Church today — except preaching Christ.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 7

According to Acts 2:29-33, Peter declared that David prophesied that Christ would be raised from the dead to take David's throne.  All the prophets, beginning with Moses and Samuel, foretold Israel's kingdom days (Acts 3:21-24).  In Acts 3:19-21, Peter declared that God would send Christ from heaven to establish these kingdom days if Israel would repent.  What a contrast between these messages and the fact concerning Christ and the members of His Body seated in the heavenlies (Eph 1:19-22; 2:5).  Christ, on David's throne, as Israel's King, foretold by the prophets, is quite a different relationship and ministry than Christ far above in the heavenlies, Head of the Church, which is His Body.  It is one thing for a believer to be raised up where Christ is in the heavenlies (Eph 2:6).  It is quite a different thing for God to send Christ back from heaven to the believers on earth.

During the Book of Acts, Israel was committing the unpardonable sin; sinning against the Holy Spirit, or blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31-32).  Christ said to Israel, "...every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Israel sinned against the Son of man.  They put Him to death.  But on the cross He cried, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34). God was willing (Acts 3:14-18).  He sent the Holy Spirit to witness that He had raised Christ from the dead, exalted Him to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance and remission of sins to Israel (Acts 5:29-32).  Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit and saw the Son of man standing in heaven.  He accused them of killing the Son of man and of resisting the Holy Spirit.  They committed the unpardonable sin.  Paul went to Israel's synagogues to testify that Jesus was the Messiah.  He was a watchman for the house of Israel (Ezk 3:16-20).  Israel blasphemed (Acts 13:45; 18:6).  They committed the unpardonable sin.  Paul turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:45; 18:6; 28:28).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 6

During the first half of Acts, Peter, the minister to the circumcision, is mentioned 67 times.  In the last half, Peter is never mentioned after Acts 15:13 and Paul (as Paul) is mentioned 132 time, beginning with Acts 13:9.  In all the messages of Paul, from Acts 9:14 to 2 Timothy 4:22, he uses the first person pronoun in speaking of himself more than 1200 times.  Acts closes in the middle of Paul's Epistles.  Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and 2 Timothy were all written after Acts closes.

There is not a single word in the first nine chapters of Acts that "Peter and the eleven" preached justification by faith alone, the gospel of the grace of God, the ministry of reconciliation; or that they urged the Jews, to whom they preached, to forsake Moses, give up circumcision, or to abandon their hope of the Messianic kingdom.  Of course there was the element of grace in their messages of repentance and restitution, but they preached to Israel only the gospel of the earthly kingdom and of circumcision (Gal 2:7-9).  They preached to Cornelius the word that God sent to Israel (Acts 10:34-43).  Paul, on the other hand, preached to Gentiles the gospel for the uncircumcision.  This was not preached to Israel.  God preached the gospel (good news) to Abram in uncircumcision, when he was 75 years old.  Abram was circumcised when he was 99 years old (Gen 17:3-20).  From that day until when Cornelius was saved, all blessings were on the grounds of circumcision.

All of this is further evidence that the Book of Acts is principally the record of the fall of Israel, not "the story of early-day Christianity."

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 5

So many seeming Scriptural paradoxes can be solved by simply observing progressive revelation.  Not doing so is the most frequent error I see. 

For example, many people seem to forget that when Jesus Christ walked the earth, people were still under the Law.  Because of this, they try to apply such verses as "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt 6:14-15) directly to themselves.  How do they reconcile this with Ephesians 2:8-9?  Progressive revelation must be taken into account, not only in the Gospels but in the Book of Acts as well.

The Law, of course, was given to show us what sin is, that we are sinful and can't keep from sinning, and that we therefore need a Savior (Rom 3:19-20; 7:7, 12; Gal 3:24; 1 Tim 1:9).  In a word, the Law condemns us (Rom 4:15; 5:13; 7:14; Gal 3:10; Jas 2:10).

Galatians 4:4, Matthew 23:1-3 and 28:20 tell us that our Lord Himself was born under the law of Moses and taught His disciples complete subjection to it.  Therefore, in obedience to His instructions, the twelve taught their hearers subjection to Moses' law and set the example themselves.

In the early chapters of Acts we see that the believers practically lived in the temple.  In Acts 2:46 we find them "attending the temple together."  See also Acts 3:1, 3, 8, 11; 5:20-21, 25, 42.  In the last of these verse we read that "every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus."

As pointed out before, at the council at Jerusalem it was agreed only that the Gentile believers were not to be subjected to the law of Moses.  The status of the Jews was not even discussed.  They had, until that very time, remained under the law, and they assumed that they were to continue to do so.  God had not yet given the twelve any revelation delivering believing Jews from the law (Acts 15:1, 19, 21; Gal 2:3, 7, 9).

In Acts 21:20-25, we are specifically informed that the Jews which believed remained "zealous for the law."

We are also told in Acts 22:12 that Ananias, the person who baptized Paul, was "a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there."

Not until the Apostle Paul comes on the scene do we hear any such declaration as, "BUT NOW the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law" (Rom 3:21), or "through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:38-39).

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 4

Aside for the statement "Peter, standing with the eleven" in Acts 2:14, only three of the apostles are mentioned by name from the day of Pentecost through the end of the Book of Acts (except ten words concerning the death of James, the brother of John, in Acts 12:2).  The three apostles mentioned are Peter, John and James.  In Galatians 2:7-9 these three are referred to as "pillars."  After the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-19), there is only one short reference made to one of these men — James — when Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:18-28).

If we study the ministry of Peter, James and John in Acts in light of Galatians 2:7-9, we will see that they agreed to go to the circumcision and Paul to the uncircumcision.  Why?  These verses seem pretty clear.

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:7-9).

All of the apostles mentioned in Acts proclaimed that "the Christ is Jesus" and that He had died and risen again, but the earthly kingdom was also being offered to Israel during this time — commonly called the "transitional period" (Acts 3:17-21).  And remember, too, at the council at Jerusalem it was agreed only that the Gentile believers were not to be subjected to the law of Moses. The status of the Jews was not even discussed.  It is evident that they had remained under the law up to that point, and it seems that they assumed they were to continue to do so.  God had not yet given the twelve apostles any revelation delivering believing Jews from the law.  See also later in Acts 21:20 that the Jews which believed remained "zealous of the law."

The ministry of the twelve apostles in Acts was, in fact, a ministry of confirmation, witnessed by signs and miracles (Heb 2:2-4). The messages they proclaimed were concerning events foretold by Israel's prophets (Acts 1:16-20; 2:16, 25, 30-31; 3:22-24; 4:11, 25-26; 7:1-50; 8:32-33; 10:43; 15:13-18). I believe that all of this should be studied in light of Colossians 1:24-28 and Ephesians 3:6-9 where Paul plainly says that "the mystery hidden for ages and generations" which he preached — the strange blessing of Gentiles in the Body of Christ — was unknown to Israel's prophets.  (See also Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8 regarding "my gospel.") 

One last note:  Wouldn't it make sense to use Acts 15:19-20, and Acts 21:18-25, and Galatians 2:3, 7-9 as the key to understanding James' Epistle "to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" as well?

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 3

One thousand years before Christ came to earth, the Holy Spirit prophesied that a successor would be chosen to take the place of Judas, who would lose his apostleship (Acts 1:16-30, cf. Ps 69:25; 109:6-8). That successor had to be a fellow-companion of the eleven apostles and Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 1:21-22).  These requirements made Saul of Tarsus ineligible to succeed Judas, which disproves the claim of some that Paul succeeded Judas as one of the twelve.

Although the resurrected Christ gave his commission to the eleven, He required twelve men for the ministry and message to all the "men of Israel," on the day of Pentecost (Matt 19:28; 28:19-20; Mk 16:14; Lk 22:30; Acts 1:8; 2:22).  To me, the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them immediately afterwards, is proof of God's approval of the selection of Matthias.

Notice also that at Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit was poured out, the people obeyed the Sermon on the Mount as well as other commands referred to in Matthew 19:20-28 (cf. Mk 10:21; Lk 12:33; 18:22; Ezk 36:27).  They sold their assets and turned the proceeds over for the common good.

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45).

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4:32-35). 

The twelve apostles also obeyed Matthew 10:9-10, carrying "no silver and gold" (Acts 3:6, cf. Matt 19:27-28).  Certainly this was a foretaste of the earthly kingdom of Christ (Heb 6:5), the "times of refreshing" referred to in Acts 3:19-21.  This is not, however, the order for the Church — the Body of Christ — today.*


*See "Sell Everything" posted September 25, 2011.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 2

The last words of Luke's Gospel concerning the twelve apostles are:  "And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God" (Lk 24:52-53).  In Acts 5:42 it is recorded concerning them that "every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus."  Acts 8:1 tells us that when a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem and many were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, the apostles remained in Jerusalem.

It is also interesting to note that Jerusalem is mentioned 60 times in Acts from Acts 1:4 to Acts 28:17, and that the temple is mentioned 24 times in Acts.  Jerusalem continued to be the headquarters for the twelve apostles throughout the Book of Acts, and so far as the Acts record is concerned, not one of them preached the gospel outside of Israel's land.

Despite the judgment of Christ, pronounced against the temple and Jerusalem (Matt 23:31-39), Israel never received greater favor from Rome than they did during the period covered by the Book of Acts.  During this time the temple continued to stand and both believing and unbelieving Jews had access to it.

Making sense of the Book of Acts - 1

Our small group Bible study has been going through the Book of Acts.  We're nearing the end now, and there are several observations I would like to make.  It seems to me that if there was a better understanding of this book, there wouldn't be so much confusion in the Church today.


The Book of Acts was written by Luke, the beloved physician.*  He must have joined Paul when he received the call to Macedonia because Luke uses "we" for the first time in Acts 16:10.  Luke was sailing to Rome with Paul when the ship broke apart and the passengers and crew reached land on pieces of broken vessel (Acts 27:39-44 through Acts 28:1-2).  Among the last written words of Paul are these: "Luke alone is with me" (2 Tim 4:11).  This gives us some idea of the unwavering faith and fortitude of this beloved companion of Paul.


*"Luke, the 'beloved physican' (Col 4:14), close friend and companion of Paul, was probably the only Gentile author of any part of the New Testament. We know nothing about his early life or conversion except that he was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus Christ (Lk 1:2).  Though a physician by profession, he was primarily an evangelist, writing his gospel and the book of Acts and accompanying Paul in missionary work.  He was with Paul at the time of the apostle's martyrdom (2 Tim 4:11), but of his later life we have no certain facts." (Ryrie)

Making sense of the Book of Acts - introduction

"I doubt whether the peculiar importance of this Book of the Acts of the Apostles has ever been exhibited or felt as fully as it might have been...A careful consideration leads us to think of the Acts of the Apostles as the key-stone of the arch of the New Testament..." (Howson)

"Our present generation of Bible students would do well to heed these words [of Howson above] and engage in a serious and prayerful re-study of the Book of Acts, for a correct interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles is essential to a clear understanding of God's eternal purpose and of His message and program for the present dispensation, and it is certainly a pre-requisite to an appreciation of the exalted truths of the Pauline epistles." (Stam)

"Nearly all writers on Acts have assumed, without the slightest foundation, that it is the record of the birth and growth of the Church...that in Acts we find the doctrine and practice of the Church in its earliest and purest form; that it is a spiritual story book containing inspiring examples of what we might do if we but possessed the faith of the first century believers...Nevertheless, in the light of the written Word of God this view of Acts is erroneous — not merely in certain details, but fundamentally and essentially so — and accounts largely for the confusion that has gripped the Church in our day." (Stam)

"In a word, if 'To the Jew first' is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, 'To the Jew only' is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the 'Hebraic section' of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony." (Anderson)

"Perhaps the best way to see at a glance the value and significance of this book of the New Testament, would be to image the New Testament without the Acts of the Apostles. What a gulf would then be opened between the Gospels and the Epistles!...What discrepancies, what oppositions would be found between the earlier books and the later!" (Howson)

"Suppose again the Epistles were there, but the Acts of the Apostles left out, how startling would appear the heading 'To the Romans,' which would confront us on turning from the study of the Evangelists! How could we account for the transition involved? How could we explain the great thesis of the Epistles, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ...? The earlier Scriptures will be searched in vain for teaching such as this. Not the Old Testament merely but even the Gospels themselves are seemingly separated from the Epistles by a gulf. To bridge over the that gulf is the Divine purpose for which the Acts of the Apostles has been given to the Church. The earlier portion of the book is the completion of and sequel to the Gospels; its concluding narrative is introductory to the great revelation of Christianity." (Anderson)

See also: http://tis-justme.blogspot.com/2011/01/acts-rough-overview.html

We interrupt this program to bring you a special news bulletin...

At Pentecost, when Peter stood up to explain the gift of tongues, he said that the last days had come (Acts 2:16-17), and that this would be further evidence by two events: (1) the pouring out of the Spirit on God's people and, (2) the pouring out of judgment upon His enemies, all prophesied by Joel regarding "the great and awesome day of the Lord" (Acts 2:14-21 cf. Joel 2:28-32).

We know that the Spirit was poured out.  But, the judgments that were to bring in the day of the Lord were not.  There were no "wonders in heaven" or "blood" or "fire" or "columns of smoke."  The sun was not "turned to darkness," nor the moon "to blood."

Instead, when Israel rejected Peter's offer of the return of Jesus Christ and "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19-21) — when the stage was all set for the judgment to fall — God did a wondeful thing.  Our rejected Lord saved Saul of Tarsus and made him the apostle of grace.  It was to this apostle that God gave the glorious message and program which is ours today, that God is now reconciling believing Jews and Gentiles to Himself by grace through faith, apart from the law or works.  All those who accept this offer of "reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:19) become members of the "one body" (1 Cor 12:12-25) and are given "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" in Christ (Eph 1:3-4).  The most general term for this good news is "the gospel of the grace of God," which the Apostle Paul declared in Acts 20:24 was specifically given to him (see also Eph 3:1-6).

The prophetic Scriptures contained no hint of this.  It was a mystery "hidden for ages in God," "hidden for ages and generations," and "kept secret for long ages" (Eph 3:9; Col 1:26; Rom 16:25).  This is why Paul again and again calls this great body of truth "the mystery" and tells us to "follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me" (2 Tim 1:8-14).

Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin?

Why do you suppose Peter told the people they had to "Repent and be baptized" for the forgiveness of their sin in Acts 2:37-41?  Does this mean we must be baptized to be saved?  I placed my faith in Christ when I was 6 years old but wasn't baptized until I was 11.  Was I saved at age 6 or 11?  What about those who are never baptized; are they saved?  Isn't all this faith plus works?   

Well yes it is.  And people do all sorts of things to make these verses fit with what Paul tells us later on (Rom 3:21-28, etc.).  Things like, "Repentance is turning from sin and baptism is turning toward the church, meaning that you're publicly identifying with the church when you're baptized."  It is further explained that "conversion is not a feeling" and that "it isn't faith alone plus whatever you feel like doing.  You must act like you've been converted, and this includes being publicly identified with the church."

I guess I can't really blame them since Peter is preaching faith plus works.  I do blame them, however, for not noting to whom he was speaking (Jews!) or the progression of Scripture.  For example, look at the following passages:

In the Gospels we read that John proclaimed "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" so that Jesus Christ might be revealed to Israel.  And don't forget, Israel was still under the law at this time (Matt 5:18-20; 7:12; 8:4; 19:17; 23:2-3; Mk 1:44; Lk 2:22; 5:14; Gal 4:4), which explains the faith plus works he preached.**

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4).

And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.  Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God’” (Lk 3:2-6).

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel” (Jn 1:29-31).

Before his coming, John had proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel (Acts 13:24).

Peter continued to preach to Israel the kingdom at hand and a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:36-41; 3:19-21).

“...Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:36-41).

In order to correctly interpret the book of Acts, we must remember that it is a transitional book, starting with "to the Jews only" in the beginning chapters and closing with "to the Gentiles and the Jews."  As one author well said, "During the years covered by the first nine chapters of Acts, God's order was 'to the Jews first not to the Gentiles.' Beginning with Acts 13:46 God's order was 'to the Jews first and also to the Gentiles,' until the close of Acts.' Since the judgment of God, recorded in Acts 28:25-28, God's order has been 'to the Gentiles and also to the Jews.'"  Also concerning the Book of Acts, Sir Robert Anderson says this in his book Silence of God: “My contention is that the Acts, as a whole is the record of a temporary and transitional dispensation in which blessing was again offered to the Jew and again rejected.” “The right understanding of the Acts of the Apostles . . . a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favoured nation.”

Keeping this in mind, let's look again at Acts 2:38.  Scripture tells us that John proclaimed "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" to Israel.  The only difference between Peter's proposition to Israel in Acts 2:38 and John's is one of historical development; the Holy Spirit had come so Peter could add, "and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The first part of Acts, then, doesn't present Christianity at all.  It presents Judaism!  No revelation had yet been given that salvation was to be by grace through faith alone.**  In fact, we will not clearly see the "gospel of the grace of God" until Paul comes on the scene (Rom 3:21-28; Eph 2:11-22).

This is why there is such a huge difference between Peter at Pentecost, demanding repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and Paul later proclaiming Christ's righteousness for the remission of sins (Rom 3:21-28).


**"Faith will most assuredly approach God in God’s way at any time, and to seek to gain acceptance with Him in any other way would, of course, be unbelief and self-will. Thus, while works never did or could save as such, they did once save as expressions of faith…..Does this mean that works will be efficacious in themselves? No! They will avail only as the expression and evidence of faith..."

Pentecostalism - part 3

I know I'm stepping on many toes by saying this but ...

... just because there are many anecdotal stories from developing countries of visions being seen and miracles taking place, doesn't mean they're true — the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

For example, someone who claims to have had an encounter with an alien may tell a vivid story, but this doesn't mean the encounter actually happened. Vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes just seem more plausible, so they are given greater weight. This can also happen to large groups of people through what is called subjective validation.

Can't we trust our own senses, then?  Shouldn't we make them our final source of truth? Of course we shouldn't! We must test everything we hear or see against what Scripture says, just as the noble Bereans did in Acts 17:9-11. But sadly, many people make Scripture say what they want it to say — by pulling verses and passages from here and there or spiritualizing things meant to be taken literally — so that they can directly apply things to us today that shouldn't be. All these errors can be rectified by simply observing progressive revelation literally — Scripture says what it means and means what it says.

The "signs and wonders" under our Lord's earthly ministry and at Pentecost* were signs — of the Messiahship of Christ to Israel (Is 35:4-6; Matt 11:2-5; Joel 2:28-32). When, despite these signs, the nation rejected Him, they ceased.

Some, however, have wrongly concluded that toward the close of this present age we are to expect a revival of these manifestations, but this isn't true.

Paul didn't say in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge would be done away UNTIL the closing days of this age.  He simply said that they were to be done away (i.e., in this age), and that "faith, hope and love" would "abide."  In fact, Scripture doesn't give even a hint of the manifestation of the sign gifts after the close of the Book of Acts period. Nor is there any indication at all in the Pauline epistles that the Pentecostal signs are to be restored at the close of this age.

Paul does say, however, that AFTER the close of this age of grace, the "lawless one is by the activity of Satan" will appear "with all power and false signs and wonders" (2 Thes 2:9).  Paul confirms what our Lord says in Matthew 24:24 about the same period of time:

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

During the tribulation period, then, AFTER the members of the Body of Christ have been "caught up" to be with the Lord (1 Thes 4:16-18), the ministers of Satan, from Antichrist down, will come "with all power and false signs and wonders," to deceive, if possible, "even the elect."

Then in the very same passage about Antichrist and his "power and false signs and wonders," Paul warns that "...the mystery of lawlessness is already at work..." (2 Thes 2:1-17).

So what does this say about all the miraculous manifestations we hear so much about these days: tongues, healings, prophecies, visions, witchcraft, spiritism, etc., not to mention false doctrine?  It sure seems to me that these things are not of God, but of Satan.

And yet to some, wondrous manifestations are the end of any argument.  So-and-so must be of God or he/she couldn't work these miracles, right?  But Scripture tell us differently.  A careful study of the latest of Paul's epistles give us the normal course of the Church during this age.  It is Satan's aim is to deceive men and draw them away from the truth of God's glorious purpose and grace.

Paul gives a stern warning regarding this very thing in 1 Timothy 4:1:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.

This is why he tells us to:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm (Eph 6:10-13).

Let me ask you then, is it the Spirit of God or Satan, who attempts to revive the sign gifts that were divinely retired after having fulfilled their purposes?  Satan is not a creepy-looking creature with horns, hooves, a tail and a pitchfork.  Paul warns us that he will operate through "...false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."  He goes on further to say:

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds (2 Cor 11:13-15).

So don't fall for it!  The amazing stories we keep hearing only beguile us to take our eyes off Him, and cause us to walk by sight, rather than by faith.  Instead ...

... let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith ... (Heb 12:1-3)


*Note, too, that Pentecost was only a partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:16-21; Joel 2:28-32). There was no blood, nor fire, nor columns of smoke; the sun didn't turn into darkness, nor did the moon turn to blood. Interestingly, the dreams and visions were also lacking.  But all these things will be fulfilled in the future — when Israel's last days resume (Rom 11).

Pentecostalism - part 2

One of the biggest errors Pentecostals make is the way they view the Book of Acts.  Traditionally, they see it as the record of the birth and growth of the Church, the body of Christ, that in it is found the doctrine and practice of the Church in its earliest and purest form, and that it is a spiritual storybook containing inspiring examples of what the Church might do if it but possessed the faith of the first century believers.  For example, here's what one author says:

"The book of Acts is the story of early-day Christianity ... God has given us in the book of Acts a pattern of Christian testimony, missionary effort, world evangelism and building of Christian churches — a pattern which we would do well to follow.  Certainly we can be assured of this: the closer we come to ordering all things according to this holy pattern, the greater blessing will attend our efforts."

There is a big problem with this, though.  The Book of Acts presents a changing program, so how can the Church follow a pattern that keeps changing?  Clearly progressive revelation must be taken into account!

Acts has appropriately been called "the book between", and regarding the structure of Scripture itself, fits perfectly between the four records of our Lord's earthly ministry and Paul's epistles.  Far from being "the story of early-day Christianity," it is from beginning to end the account of the fall of the nation Israel.  Acts explains, step by step, how and why the chosen nation had to be set aside and salvation sent to the Gentiles apart from them. For this reason, it is a record of successive crises: Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen, the conversion of Paul, the council at Jerusalem, etc...

I think Dean Howson explains this rather well:

"Perhaps the best way to see at a glance the value and significance of this book of the New Testament, would be to imagine the New Testament without the Acts of the Apostles. What a gulf would then be opened between the Gospels and the Epistles! ... What discrepancies, what oppositions would be found between the earlier books and the later!"

Or, to quote Sir Robert Anderson:

"Suppose again the Epistles were there, but the Acts of the Apostles left out, how startling would appear the heading 'To the Romans,' which would confront us on turning from the study of the Evangelists! How could we account for the transition involved? How could we explain the great thesis of the Epistles, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ...? The earlier Scriptures will be searched in vain for teaching such as this. Not the Old Testament merely but even the Gospels themselves are seemingly separated from the Epistles by a gulf. To bridge over the that gulf is the Divine purpose for which the Acts of the Apostles has been given to the Church. The earlier portion of the book is the completion of and sequel to the Gospels; its concluding narrative is introductory to the great revelation of Christianity."

The first large portion of Acts doesn't present Christianity at all. It presents Judaism. Too often it is forgotten that only Jews are dealt with in the first nine chapters of the book. The only difference between the apostles' position in the four Gospels and in early Acts was that that which was prophesied had been brought about. In fact, the kingdom which these apostles had proclaimed "at hand" during our Lord's earthly ministry, was then offered (Acts 3:19-21).

I believe Sir Robert Anderson was correct when he called the Book of Acts "a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favored nation" and that "the popular belief that the Jerusalem Church was Christian" is "fallacious," adding: "In fact it was thoroughly and altogether Jewish." Summing it all up, he says:

"In a word, if "To the Jew first" is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, "To the Jew only" is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the 'Hebraic section' of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony."

Therefore, if there is anything the Book of Acts makes perfectly clear, it's the fact that a big change has taken place since Pentecost.  And rather than presenting a pattern for us to follow, explains why the program at that time has passed away and confirms what Paul says in his epistles — that the fulfillment of prophecy has, for the time being anyway, given way to the unfolding of the mystery of "His own purpose and grace" (Acts 28:17-31; Rom 11:1-36; 2 Tim 1:8-11).

Pentecostalism

Several years ago a friend of mine decided to move to Argentina.  She had grown up in Mar del Plata, but she and her husband had settled in the United States.  When her husband died unexpectedly, she decided to move back home and raise her daughter there.  She used to write to me quite often when she first moved back, frequently bemoaning the lack of evangelical churches.  "The only churches near me," she would say, "are Pentecostal."  Things had changed quite a bit since she'd left. 

Another friend of mine grew up in Russia.  She and her husband, an OT professor at Moody Bible Institute, and their two children live here in the Chicagoland area.  Because of her background, she has managed to pick up free-lance Russian/English translation and interpretation work to help support their family.  She too laments that so many of the Russian churches and organizations she deals with are Pentecostal.

But Pentecostalism is alive and well in the States, too.  Several years ago I wrote a post and quoted Harriet A. Harris in Fundamentalism and Evangelicals to point out the influence Pentecostalism is increasingly having on Evangelicalism here:

“Charismatics challenge traditional fundamentalist thinking about God’s supernatural activity. Traditionally fundamentalists confine miracles to the Bible and regard them as violent divine interventions (Barr 1984: 86). In John Wimber’s words: ‘Christians unconsciously consign the supernatural to an impenetrable upper tier (except for the resurrection, early church miracles, and transcendent moral standards), excluding God’s power from their theology and practice’ (1985: 88). However, increasingly in fundamentalist circles God is regarded as ever-present and active, providing such mundane services as finding parking spaces in the centre of town on a Saturday morning. As Nancy Ammerman (1987: 48-9) found, having spent a year studying a fundamentalist church in New England,

‘Almost anything good or bad can be explained as God’s doing. God keeps the dishes from breaking, locates things that are lost. He supplies friends and offspring. He makes sure cars get fixed at affordable prices. He arranges convenient overtime work schedules and makes hiring and firing more pleasant. He provides clothes and food when they are needed, as well as less essential items like tickets for a rodeo or a pet dog for the children.’”

I bring up these three examples to show that "the winds they are a changin."  In fact, according to World Christian Encyclopedia there are now an estimated 500 million followers of Pentecostalism. As recently as 1970, Pentecostals and Charismatics represented only 6% of the world’s so-called Christian population. By 1997 the figure jumped to 27%, or 497 million people, which is more than Protestants and Anglicans combined.  Because Pentecostalism has only been around since the early 1900's, this runaway growth is especially phenomenal. Some even wonder if Pentecostalism is Christianity's next reformation. 

The Pentecostal movement is not simply a new denomination, though.  According to Margaret M. Poloma of the department of sociology of the University of Akron, “The rise of Pentecostalism is more analogous to the rise of Protestantism in Christianity than the birth of a new denomination. It’s an example of the restructuring of Christianity.”  Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life concurs: “Pentecostal beliefs and practices are literally reshaping the face of Christianity throughout the developing world.”

A good example of this growth is the Assemblies of God (AG), the largest Pentecostal denomination, which has 2.5 million adherents in the U.S. and 35 million worldwide. From 1987 to 1999, the number of AG churches in the United States increased about 16%; however, much of that growth came from immigrants, particularly Hispanics. Worldwide, the number of AG churches almost doubled within the same time period to more than 212,000.

Indeed, most of Pentecostalism’s growth is occurring in developing countries.  One reason for this is its extensive missionary efforts.  Because Pentecostals link the outpouring of gifts of the Holy Spirit to the “end times,” there is a real sense of urgency to their missionary activity.  One might question why the people in these "foreign lands" are so receptive to the Pentecostal message.  One reason may be that since mysticism has long been a way of life in third world countries, Pentecostalism isn't a big leap to them.  Add to this what The Pew Forum found in 2006 when they conducted a survey of Pentecostals in 10 countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas.  Not only did majorities of Pentecostals in nine of the countries agree that God would grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith, but most Pentecostals in all 10 countries said that God would grant good health and relief from sickness to believers who have enough faith.  Who wouldn't want that?

So what's the big deal?!  There isn't that much difference between what the average Evangelical and Pentecostal believes, is there? 

Well, yes and no.   Evangelicals believe the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. That would be things like the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, the deity and virgin birth of Jesus Christ along with His death, burial and resurrection, ascension to heaven, and His return. They believe in salvation by faith, eternal security, the resurrection of the body, and the reality of Satan, angels, heaven and hell.

What about Pentecostals, then? They believe the same things that I mentioned above, except that most Pentecostals believe in conditional security instead of eternal security.  (This is huge in my book because either Christ's death and resurrection was sufficient or it wasn't!)  Pentecostals also place a large emphasis and focus on some things that most Evangelicals would either reject, or downplay. This includes speaking in tongues, seeing visions, miracle healings, prophesying, and things like this. Sometimes pentecostal refers to a specific denomination or church with the word pentecostal in the name. Other times it is an umbrella term that refers to all that hold to the distinctives I mentioned.

There is also an umbrella term called Charismatic. These people may or may not be evangelical. The term generally refers to a movement within the more mainline churches – and even the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize the “gifts of the Spirit” that Pentecostals do, but many may or may not believe the essential beliefs of the Christian faith.  The terms Pentecostal and Charismatic are often used interchangeably.

Sell everything!

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys" (Lk 12:32-33).

"So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions" (Lk 14:33).

What are we to make of these verses?  Should we interpret them literally?  I think we should, keeping in mind that although all Scripture is for us, not all is written directly to us or is directly about us.

To me, it seems clear from the context of these verses that Christ's teaching about "discipleship" in general and about "selling your possessions" in particular all have to do with "the kingdom of God". Many times the prophets of the Old Testament told of a future day when a descendant of David would set up a great kingdom of righteousness and peace on earth in which God's chosen people, Israel, would be specially blessed in their land and be a channel of blessing to all other nations (Isa 11:1-10; Jer 23:1-6; Ezek 37:1-28; Joel 2:12-27; Micah 4:1-8; Zech 8:1-23).* Centuries later John the Baptist, Christ, and the twelve apostles in their respective ministries to the Jews, all proclaimed the good news that this kingdom promised by the prophets was finally "at hand" or very close to being established (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) because Jesus, the promised King, was present on the earth to get everything prepared for it. (In fact, this is the answer to a previous post I wrote here.)  Even after His resurrection Christ taught the apostles for 40 days about this kingdom, and the apostles were eagerly anticipating its "restoration" (Acts 1:1-8).

In order to be one of Christ's disciples and enter the kingdom, the Jews at that time had to turn back to God in repentance (Matt 3:2; 4:17; Mk 6:7-12) and make some challenging commitments. Jesus Christ called on them to obey the Mosaic Law, even "the least" of the commandments, so that their righteousness would "exceed" that of the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:17-20; 19:16-19; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:25-28; 18:18-22).  See especially Matthew 23:2-3 and 23-27:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice" ... "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."

They were also to give up all their possessions (Lk 12:32-33; 14:33; see also Matt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22).

But isn't all this faith plus works?  Well yes.  And most Christians would probably agree that these teachings of Christ apply to us today and need to be obeyed. Yet they also see the obvious difficulty of obeying them literally.  So they say that Jesus must have meant that we need to be only willing to sell our possessions and, especially, to not value them more than Him. The only problem is that this is not what Jesus said. There is no hint in these verses that mere willingness was all that was necessary.

Some find it easier to avoid and skip over such difficult words (passages, books...) altogether.  I remember listening to a sermon from Acts 2 several years ago — the whole chapter, save the last few verses, that is. The preacher was stirring us up, telling us we needed to return to these early days of the church in order to bring about a revival. I thought it rather odd that he stopped short of the end of the chapter, until I read what he left out:

And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved (Acts 2:43-47).

Either way, it seems clear to me that Christ expected His listeners to do exactly what He said. This is why the first disciples in Jerusalem really did leave everything to follow Christ (Matt 6:31-33;19:27-29; Lk 12:29-31; 19:1-10). They couldn't let anything hinder them from entering the kingdom, which, at that time, was so near. We see this in the gospels, but even more so when the Holy Spirit is given after Christ's death and resurrection:

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need (Acts 2:44-45).

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.  Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:32-37).

Jesus' death and resurrection had to take place before the kingdom could come (Lk 24:25-26; 1 Pet 1:11).  It was after this that the twelve apostles were given the authority to offer the kingdom to Israel. They promised that, if the Jews would repent, Jesus would return to earth from heaven and bring in "the times of refreshing" and the "period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time" (Acts 3:17-21). In other words, if Israel as a nation would turn back to God and choose to follow their resurrected Messiah and King, they would finally receive their promised kingdom with its glorious blessings.

We know from the Book of Acts that the Jews as a whole continually rejected this message.  Consequently, Christ did not return to earth, and the promised kingdom did not come.  Instead of blessing His chosen nation, God chose to once again turn away from them in judgment and sent the apostle Paul to inform them that He was "turning to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:44-49; 18:5-6; 28:23-28).**

Now God is doing a new work with a new group of people—the Church, the body of Christ — in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28). Because of this change from Israel to the "Church which is His body", some of the things Christ taught while He was on earth do not directly apply to us today. One of these has to do with the Mosaic Law.  Though faith demonstrated by works used to be necessary for salvation (it was meant to show man that it is impossible to earn salvation - Rom 7:13), Paul explains that God is now offering salvation "apart from the Law" (Rom 3:19-4:5; 7:4-6; Gal 2:21; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-7).  On the basis of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection alone (Gal 3:1-3), God is now willing to accept as righteous all those who do nothing more than believe in Jesus Christ.

God's instructions regarding our possessions have also changed.  Far from telling us to "sell our [your] possessions and give to charity," He exhorts us to provide for our families and widowed parents and grandparents so that the church is not "burdened" (1Tim 3:4-5; 5:3-4, 8,16).  This clearly requires us not to give all we have to charity.

Does this mean that today we have it easy compared to the faithful Jewish disciples in the first century? Are we now free to live however we please? No way! Of course God wants us to be wholly devoted to Him just as He wanted the Jews 2000 years ago to be wholly devoted to Him (Phil 3:17-21; 4:10-13; Col 3:1-4; 1 Tim 6:6-10). But our situation is entirely different now. God is not working to fulfill His promises regarding the earthly kingdom like He was then. It is not surprising, therefore, that God wants us to show our devotion to Him in a different way.

So I was just kidding with the title of this post.  Don't really sell everything.  Instead, provide for your family. For not doing so would be to "deny the faith" and be "worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8).


*Some say that this is only what the disciples thought would happen, that these prophesies were actually fulfilled symbolically, not literally.  But what does one do with the fact that every prophesy in the OT regarding Christ's first coming was fulfilled literally?  I think Sir Robert Anderson said it well: "There is not a single prophecy, of which the fulfillment is recorded in Scripture, that was not realized with absolute accuracy, and in every detail; and it is wholly unjustifiable to assume that a new system of fulfilment was inaugurated after the sacred canon closed. . . . Literalness of fulfilment may therefore be accepted as an axiom to guide us in the study of prophecy."

**It is interesting to note that after the stoning of Stephen "a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria" (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19). Later we see Paul bringing relief to this church (Rom 15:25-26).  No longer could it be said that "there was not a needy person among them" (Acts 4:34). It seems the stoning of Stephen was the last straw, so to speak, for Jews in Jerusalem, the seat of Israel’s government, to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah. It was not long after that that the Spirit came upon the Gentiles (Acts 10).

The Acts 2 Church today? The miracles.

Most agree that miracles, similar in nature, variety, and number to those recorded in the Book of Acts, are no longer happening among God's people today, and that such supernatural works did not persist beyond the apostolic period.  There is also general agreement among Christian historians that up until about 70 AD the record is clear but that the rest of the first century is obscure; so that when the Church appears in the second century, the situation regarding miracles is so changed we seem to be in another world altogether.  As one such historian puts it,

"The thirty years which followed...the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth the most obscure in the history of the Church.  When we emerge in the second century we are, to a great extent, in a changed world.  Apostolic authority lives no longer in the Christian community; apostolic miracles have passed; the Church has fairly begun her pilgrimage through "the waste of Time."  As Dr. Arnold has finely said: "We stop at the last Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy with something of the same interest with which one pauses at the last hamlet of the cultivated valley, when there is nothing but moor beyond.  It is the end, or all but the end, of our real knowledge of primitive Christianity; there we take our last distinct look around; further the mist hangs thick, and few and distorted are the objects which we can discern in the midst of it."  We cannot doubt that there was a Divine purpose in thus marking off the age of inspiration and of miracles, by so broad and definite a boundary, from succeeding times."

Acts and the Epistles show evidence that a gradual change took place during the approximately forty years between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem.  For example, in Acts 5 all of the sick who were brought from various cities to Jerusalem were healed by the apostles (v 16).  But twenty-five years later we find Paul himself is denied healing (2 Cor 12:7-9).  And near the end, we see him advising Timothy to take a little wine for his frequent ailments (1 Tim 5:23).  Still later we learn that Paul has left another worker sick at Miletum (2 Tim 4:20).  In the early chapters of Acts no one who is preaching Christ dies, but as Israel's opposition increases, Stephen is killed (Acts 7:54-59).  And a little later James dies by the sword of Herod (Acts 12:1-2).  So although in the early chapters of Acts Jerusalem, the seat of Israel's government, is filled with miracles, after the stoning of Stephen there is never again any record of a public miracle in that city called the city of the great King (Matt 5:34-35).

Of course not everybody agrees that there has been a change.  Some argue that such miracles are still happening today; but are they merely seeing what they wish to see?  Others admit there are no miracles as seen during the apostolic era, but they say that this is because we are less spiritual today and that a revival of faith would bring them back.  But the fact is, there have been great spiritual revivals as well as great spiritual leaders in the history of the Church, with no matching revivals of great public miracles.  Still others argue that the purpose of miracles in the apostolic era was to authenticate the truth of Christianity; that once this had been done and the canon completed, there was no further purpose for them and therefore they ceased.  But to say they were necessary only at the very beginning of the Church raises another question:  If useful then, why not now?  Moreover, that reasoning seems rather limiting.  It is true that miracles of the bible authenticated divine revelation, but they also relieved human problems and needs and these needs haven't stopped.  In fact, we live in a world filled with all kinds of complex sicknesses and problems, so our need for supernatural help certainly hasn't decreased.

So what happened? What was the reason for this sharp change?

In Scripture great public displays of miracles are consistently connected with the earthly kingdom of God.  They are seen when that kingdom was established at Sinai and did not completely stop until it ended with the departure of the Shekinah-Glory.  Miracles are also recorded in the OT predictions of a future re-establishment of the kingdom under the reign of the Messiah as well as when the kingdom was announced as being imminent in the Gospels.  In Acts, too, they are the signs of the kingdom, given primarily as a testimony to the nation Israel (1 Cor 1:22), because its imminent establishment depended on Israel's repentance.  Of course we know she did not repent nor believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, so that kingdom was not established — but it will be (Rom 11:25-27).

The Epistle to the Hebrews, written especially to Christian Jews, specifically mentions the miracles of the period of Acts, indicating their purpose and meaning. Hebrews 2 refers to the testimony that was "at the first spoken through the Lord"; and then says that the same message "was confirmed to us by those who heard [Him]" (v 3), a clear reference to the apostolic preaching in the Book of Acts. Continuing on, the very next verse (v 4) says, "God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles." The three Greek words here are generally used in the NT to describe miracles. Dunamis points to the source of the miracle; it is an act or display of divine "power." Teras describes the immediate effect it is intended to produce; it is a prodigy or "wonder." Semeion indicates the purpose of the miracle; it is a "sign" pointing to something beyond it.

Later in Hebrews 6:5 the miracles of the Acts period are referred to once again, this time using the Greek term dunamis and reminding the Jewish readers of that generation that they had "tasted...the powers of the age to come." These miracles and manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, although "tasted" by that generation, are clearly said to be in the future.  Now this "age" cannot be the Church age, because that had already begun and was even then running its course. Nor can it be heaven or the eternal state, for there will be no need for miracles then.  It seems clear to me that the true meaning of "the age to come" is the Millennial Kingdom, which was offered by Peter to the nation in Acts 2-3 but, because it was rejected, will now follow the Church age and be ushered in at the second coming of Christ.  It will be during this time that the Pentecostal signs and wonders will return in a higher and glorified sense, as we can see in Isaiah 35.

The great miracles of Acts, then, are powers which belong to the Millennial Kingdom. This suggests that their occasional and partial enjoyment by the generation living during the time of Acts, as also in the period of the Gospels, was intended to authenticate an offer of the kingdom to Israel, a genuine offer although conditioned on the repentance of the nation. It also explains why, following Israel's rejection in Acts 28 and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, the age of great public miracles came to an end.

For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom (1 Cor 1:22).


**It is interesting to note that Geerhardus Vos seems to agree that there was some connection between the miracles during the Acts period and the eschatological expectations of that time: "The subsequent receding of this acute eschatological state has something to do with the gradual disappearance of the miraculous phenomena of the apostolic age" (Eschatology of the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 980).  He does not attempt to explain what the connection is, however. 

(to be continued)

James and Paul

I have recently come across two interesting quotes in my reading.  The first, based on Galatians 4:17 and 6:12-13, the author explains rather well the motives of the Judaizers in the Book of Galatians — they were using the Galatians for the purposes of 1) avoiding the persecution of devout Jews who sought to wipe out the Church, and 2) to earn points for themselves.  In a word, if the Judaizers showed zeal for following the law, they wouldn’t be persecuted as Christians.

"What was the motive at work in the minds of the party of the circumcision? It was certainly not concern for the spiritual welfare and the eternal safety of the believers. On the contrary, the motive the apostle discerned behind their zeal was that they themselves might escape the consequences inseparable from the preaching of the Cross, which pronounces accursed not only man the sinner, the lawbreaker, but man the religious law keeper as well. The Cross is thus an offense to Jew and Gentile alike. The addition of something as a means to, or as a condition of, salvation (such as circumcision in apostolic days, or the sacraments in later times) to the free unmerited grace of God mediated by faith in Christ alone, has proved the most effective way of avoiding that offense. But to preach a gospel without the Cross is to preach what is no gospel at all."

The second quote is from a different author who brings up an interesting fact about the Church in Jerusalem:
 
"And it is a striking fact that at the very time Paul was nearly torn to pieces by the Jews at Jerusalem, there was in that city a Christian church with James and its elders, all apparently enjoying immunity from Jewish persecution (Acts 21:17-19, 31)."

After reading these quotes, a question sprang into my mind: "Why was James and the Church in Jerusalem enjoying immunity?"

You may recall that some 7-8 years earlier the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was held, which concluded that Gentile believers needn't become Jews before they became Christians nor keep the Mosaic law after they became Christians; nothing, however, was said about whether or not Jewish believers had to continue to keep it.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 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. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:19-21 - NIV).

It was shortly after this that "certain men [came] from James" (Gal 2:12), inciting the Jewish believers there to "withdraw and hold [themselves] aloof" from the Gentile believers.  I think this author explains that situation rather well:

"It is clear that these men were sent by James, men of importance as is shown by the deference with which Peter treated them, and the obsequiousness with which he bowed to their requests. They were not from the ranks of the Judaizers, for James would not send men of that stamp, but Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who like James were still most scrupulous in their obedience to the Mosaic law. James, even after the decision of the council at Jerusalem regarding the relation of the law to Gentile converts to Christianity, still held to the view that the Jewish converts were under the law...Here he was the occasion of Peter's lapse when he [James] sent this mission to Antioch with the purpose of enforcing the Mosaic law so far as the Jewish Christians were concerned."

Jumping forward again to Acts 21, we are told in verse 20 that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were (still!) "jealous for the law."  It would, therefore, stand to reason they wouldn't be a big target for the unbelieving Jews to persecute them.  But was James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, encouraging this kind of thinking? And if so, why?  Was he trying to avoid persecution? Or was he trying to reach the Jews where they were?  Was he trying to gain favor with the unbelieving Jews?  Or did he believe the Jewish believers were still under the law?  I guess my main question is, "Was James right or wrong?" 

James goes on in verses 21-26 and proposes that Paul, not only go along with but, pay for a purification ritual for himself and four other men.  Again, what was James thinking?  And, whyever did Paul go along with it?  Was Paul wrong to do so?

After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Manson of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to lodge. After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law (v 20); and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them (Acts 21:15-26).

Okay, so here some possibilities.  I'm sure there could be more, but I'll stick with these for now:

1) James was right, he was trying to reach the Jews where they were; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (1 Cor 9:20-21).
2) James was right, he was trying to maintain unity within the Church; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal to avoid being a stumbling block (Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3).
3) James was wrong; Paul was wrong to go along with James's proposal (Gal 3:1-3).
4) James was right, Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside and was therefore still observing the law; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (Acts 21-28).

I've presented all four of these possibilities below, with supporting arguments from different theologians.

1) James was right, he was trying to reach the Jews where they were; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (1 Cor 9:20-21).

"The Jewish opposition during this final period becomes massive and more intolerant.  Its primary object is the Apostle Paul, whose ministry to the Gentiles and alleged neglect of the Mosaic ritual is made the basis of their complaint.  Related to this was his progressive revelation of the nature of the ekklesia...But at bottom the cause celebre' was Paul's proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel."

"Upon his [Paul's] arrival at Jerusalem, by advice of the leaders of the church there, Paul made a last attempt to placate his Jewish enemies by conforming to a certain rite of purification in the temple (vss. 20-26).  But the attempt only made matters worse.  When he was seen in the temple, "all the city was moved, "and he was dragged out and would have been beaten to death by the mob had it not been for the Roman captain whose soldiers rescued him with some difficulty because of the "violence of the people" (vss. 27-36)."

This theologian doesn't address verse 20; and regarding Paul, is it okay to go along with something you don't believe in in order to placate your enemies?

2)  James was right, he was trying to maintain unity within the Church; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal to avoid being a stumbling block (Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3).

"When a person becomes a Christian, what becomes of his or her religious past? Must all previous pious practice be left behind? Or may some be made fit patterns for the new life in Christ? A patient thinking through of Luke's teaching on the Christian, the Old Testament law and religious tradition, as modeled in Paul's conduct, will give us guidelines by which we can make judgments about our own religious past.

At the home of Mnason, Paul receives a "warm welcome" from fellow Christians. Since Luke does not specify that only like-minded Hellenistic Jewish Christians so greet Paul and his party, we should probably think of a delegation representative of the whole Jerusalem church. From them news of his coming would filter back to all segments of the church (v. 22)..."

"In full spiritual unity, the elders point out to Paul that massive numbers of Jews, . . . all of them . . . zealous for the law, have become believers. These may be the converted Pharisees of Acts 15:5. Literally "zealots for the law," they lived out their loyalty to God by combining ardent nationalism with strict observance of the whole Mosaic code. Phinehas, Elijah and the Maccabees were their worthy predecessors (Num 25:10-13; 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.271)..."

"These converts have been particularly troubled by reports that Paul has been teaching Diaspora Jews to turn away from Moses. This phrase translates apostasia, which refers to either political or spiritual rebellion (2 Chron 29:19; 1 Macc 2:15; Acts 5:31, 39; 2 Thess 2:3). Specifically, Paul is alleged to have instructed these Jewish believers to stop having their children circumcised and "to stop walking according to the customs" (so the prohibitions should be understood).

While it is easy to see how such implications might be drawn from Paul's teaching of a law-free gospel, there is no evidence that Paul ever instructed Jewish Christians this way (Rom 2:25-30; Gal 5:6; 6:15). In fact, Paul was most scrupulous not to offend the conscience of the "weaker brother," the Jewish Christian who maintained ancestral customs, and even went so far as to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3; Rom 14:1--15:13).

Our religious past can make distortions of the truth attractive to us, especially those that reinforce our pride in loyalty to our traditions. What can be done to overcome such falsehood, which always threatens to bring disunity to the church?

The church leaders counsel Paul to combat words with action. Four pious but indigent men in the congregation have taken on themselves a Nazirite vow of limited duration (Num 6). By abstaining from products of the vine, not cutting their hair and avoiding ritual impurity, they have been showing thankfulness for past blessings, earnestness in petition or strong devotion to God. The multianimal sacrifice and cleansing ceremony at the end of the vow period, when the hair is cut and offered to God, is financially prohibitive (6:13-20). Paul is asked to bear the expenses of the four. This was a commonly recognized act of piety (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 19.294). To do so he must go through a seven-day ritual cleansing himself, because he has recently returned from Gentile lands (m. Oholot 2:3; 17:5; 18:6; Num 19:12). The intended result is that the rumors about Paul will be shown to be baseless and he will be seen living in obedience to the law. Lest Paul's action be misunderstood in another direction, as making Jewish custom normative for Gentile Christians, the elders hasten to add that the Jerusalem Council decree is still in place (see discussion above at Acts 15:20, 29). It is repeated here in essential detail..."

"What does the elders' counsel to Paul say about Luke's view of Christians and their religious past? Before we can draw general principles, we must deal with unique and theologically significant factors concerning the Jewish law. At its core was divine revelation in three aspects: moral, civil and ceremonial. Surrounding that were oral tradition and rabbinic exposition. Luke's use of terminology often prevents us from easily distinguishing which aspects of the law he is referring to. Still, Luke's use of the term customs does seem to show he is aware of the difference between divine revelation and human tradition (15:1; 21:21; 26:3; 28:17). And there may be a distinction in Luke's thinking between the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects which will enable us to make decisions about normativeness based on content (Lk 10:25-28).

If we focus on the divine revelation component of a Jewish Christian's religious past, the Old Testament law, we can see Luke says it has no relevance for salvation (Acts 13:38-39; 15:10-11). While the moral aspect is universally normative (Lk 10:25-28; 18:18-23), Luke also sees a positive use for the ceremonial laws, to aid Jewish Christians in the expression of their piety. He does not make these laws binding on Gentiles, however. Only when Gentiles are in the company of Jewish Christians with scruples should they keep ceremonial ritual purity, and then not beyond what God mandated in the Old Testament for aliens living in Israel."

This theologian has addressed verse 20 and has concluded that those "jealous for the law" were weaker brothers in Christ and that James and Paul didn't want to be stumbling blocks to them.  But why didn't Paul tell the them what he told the Galatians (Gal 3:1-3)?  He didn't seem worried about being a stumbling block about this issue then.  It's true the Gentiles hadn't come out of Judaism, but previously Gentiles had been required to convert to Judaism (proselytes).  So why did Paul correct one and not the other?  Perhaps there's something more going on here?

3)  James was wrong; Paul was wrong to go along with James's proposal (Gal 3:1-3).

"...But the council at Jerusalem, while it had closed the mouths of the Judaizers as far as public opposition to Paul's message of grace was concerned, had by no means won them to the attitude which Peter had displayed in his noble declaration of Acts 15:8-11.  Instead they had dogged Paul's footsteps wherever he had gone, seeking to undermine his ministry among the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Gentile believers in general.  Indeed, Peter himself, along with other Jewish believers, including even Barnabas, had nearly caused serious division in the church at Antioch under the influence of "certain [that had come] from James" (Gal. 2:12,13).

And now do James and the elders make their proposal to Paul to help him, or because they are embarrassed by his presence in Jerusalem at this time?  If their desire is truly to help, they are in the position to do so now, but this does not appear to be the case, for, without offering to endorse his ministry or to stand by him in any way, they urge him to go through a Jewish ritual to appease those who have been informed (partly in truth) that he is leaving Judaism."

"...Thus the apostle [Paul] was urged to endorse the action of four Jewish zealots in taking a Nazarite vow, by financing, not one, but five bloody sacrifices for each.  And he was urged to do this to prove that he was a faithful observer of the law.  Would it be right or wrong of him to yield?  As we examine all the Scriptures involved we can come to but one conclusion:  It would be wrong."

"...This passage [1 Cor 9:20-21] is thought by some to contain the full justification of Paul's involvement in Judaism at this time.  They suppose that it means that he alternately placed himself in subjection to the law and at liberty from it as he labored, now with Jews and then with Gentiles.  Those who interpret this passage in this way to defend Paul's action at Jerusalem should take care that they do not charge him with worse than a lapse in faithfulness.  We can understand how the apostle, like all other men of God, should stumble and fall, but the above interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:20 would make Paul guilty of habitual duplicity.

...We believe that the passage in 1 Cor. 9 simply means that, sympathetically, he placed himself mentally in the position of those with whom he dealt.  He did not go back into Judaism while among Jews, but, recognizing their prejudices, he refrained from doing what might offend them — so that he might gradually teach them the same truths he had taught the Jews at Pisidian Antioch: justification from all things by faith in Christ, apart from the law (Acts 13:38,39)."

"...It is strange to see Paul yielding to James and going back again to what he had only recently called "weak and beggarly elements."  What all his own reasons were for doing so we do not know.  It cannot be said that, being at Jerusalem, he submitted to the authority of the circumcision apostles, for there is no evidence that any of them were there — indeed, the evidence rather indicates that they were not present at the meeting."

This theologian has addressed verse 20 as well as the rest of the passage and has concluded that both James and Paul were wrong.  Now I know we all have feet of clay, but I have to admit I have a hard time believing this one.

4) James was right, Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside and was therefore still observing the law; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (Acts 21-28).

"Many think that the apostle [Paul] erred in persisting to visit Jerusalem, and they support their conviction by pointing out that at this juncture the record of his evangelistic labours ceases.  They find it also difficult to understand how the author of the epistle to the Galatians could take the vow of the Nazarite and offer the sacrifices (vs. 25-27) of Numbers vi. I3-20.

But both this difficulty and this conviction disappear when the Book of the Acts is intelligently interpreted, and its relation to Messiah's earthly kingdom recognised, and when the approbation of xxiii II is remembered.

Paul was a chosen vessel (ix. I5) to offer that kingdom to Israel, as well as to proclaim it among the Gentiles.  The final and official offer to the Twelve Tribes at Jerusalem, and at Rome, by the greatest of the apostles, and its rejection, is the subject of chapters xxi.-xxviii.  This final offer was a Divine necessity; and, therefore, the apostle is bound to go up to Jerusalem and afterwards to Rome."

"...He [Paul] was a child of the promises made to the Fathers, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee, and as a godly Israelite he offered the sacrifices of Numbers vi. in commemoration of the Great Sacrifice which, prior to it, they fore-shadowed.  They were a Divine institution, and they pointed forward and backward to Christ with equal significance.  It is true that personally he was quite willing to surrender all his privileges as a Hebrew in favour of the greater glories of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. iii.); but that desire did not release him from his appointment as a prophet to Israel (ix. I5)."

"...At Jerusalem Paul recognised the authority of the Twelve (vs. I9-26), and did so intelligently."

"...Each one had to offer a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, a peace-offering, a meal-offering, a drink-offering, and unleavened bread as commanded by God in Num. vi...so it was a somewhat costly matter, and among the Jews it was esteemed a very great proof of fidelity to the law to pay for such sacrifices.  A Nazarite bound himself for a period or for life.  Paul and his companions had taken this vow for a given period of time; and as commanded by the law they hastened to offer the prescribed sacrifices appointed for the termination of the vow.  These sacrifices struck at self-righteousness, for the Nazarites in offering them declared themselves to be lost and guilty sinners, notwithstanding their religious resolution and conduct.  They publicly confessed that sin attached even to their holy things, and that they themselves needed cleansing and forgiveness."

This theologian believes the Jewish believers were still observing the law because Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside.  While this explains verse 20, wouldn't that still mean Paul was guilty of "habitual duplicity" like the previous theologian suggested?  Perhaps this could be explained by the transitional period, where Judaism was decreasing at the same time the Church (both Jew and Gentile) was increasing?

So what do you think?  In light of the whole of Scripture, which explanation makes the most sense to you?